Sign up for our daily briefing

Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on the day's biggest business stories

Subscribe to Axios Closer for insights into the day’s business news and trends and why they matter

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Stay on top of the latest market trends

Subscribe to Axios Markets for the latest market trends and economic insights. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Sports news worthy of your time

Binge on the stats and stories that drive the sports world with Axios Sports. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tech news worthy of your time

Get our smart take on technology from the Valley and D.C. with Axios Login. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Get the inside stories

Get an insider's guide to the new White House with Axios Sneak Peek. Sign up for free.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Want a daily digest of the top Denver news?

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Want a daily digest of the top Des Moines news?

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Want a daily digest of the top Twin Cities news?

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Want a daily digest of the top Tampa Bay news?

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Want a daily digest of the top Charlotte news?

Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Even if Jeff Bezos, Jamie Dimon and Warren Buffett come up with ways to lower their own corporate health care costs, it’s highly unlikely their new health care venture will move the needle on overall health spending or other dimensions of the health cost problem.

The odds: Bezos, Buffett and Dimon are big names — big as they come — but the history of health care is littered with business titans who have declared war on health care costs. Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase may be able to get their own costs down, but that doesn't mean they can do it for anyone else.

The back story: Others have tried to tackle health care costs, including Howard Schultz of Starbucks fame and Walter Wriston when he headed Citicorp and the Business Roundtable. They sprang into action when employer premiums were rising by double digits. Premiums rose by a historically modest 3% in 2017.  What  would success look like now, a 2 percent increase?

The big picture: Health care costs are not one problem but many: national health care spending, federal health care spending, employer premiums, out-of-pocket costs, and the value of the dollars spent. Each has different constituencies who care about them, requiring different solutions presenting different challenges. 

  • Republican leaders like House Speaker Paul Ryan are mostly concerned about reducing federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid.
  • The focus in health care is on “value,” getting better outcomes for the money that's spent. This mostly means weeding out unnecessary tests and procedures.  
  • Reducing national health spending is a different goal. What distinguishes the level of GDP we spend on health from other countries is primarily the prices we pay for everything in health care, not the volume or intensity of services we provide. These companies might make a small dent in the prices they pay, but as big as they are, they will not have the leverage to do much beyond that.
  • The American people (and voters) are concerned about their out of pocket costs and the ripple effects they have on family budgets. They have little interest in “value” and want the country to spend more on health, not less.
  • Employers are focused on their own premium increases. This seems to be what the big three will concentrate on, using their purchasing and information power and new technologies to drive down the rate of increase in their own health care costs.

What to watch: Perhaps other employers will try to emulate them or buy into whatever they do, but they could be successful and still have almost no impact on national health spending, federal spending, or consumer out of pocket costs.

Nor will they be immune from the forces that have hampered previous efforts. Health coverage is a popular benefit and an important part of any employer’s wage structure; they will go only so far to “disrupt” it.

Don't forget: Corporate chieftains are disproportionately Republicans and uncomfortable with solutions that require government action or regulation. Their personal doctors tend to be the leading physicians in their communities, who often oppose strong steps that would rein in health costs. They are also often on the boards of major area health systems, who can find their interests threatened by cost control efforts.

  • The other side: Bezos, Dimon and Buffett are less traditional business leaders than some of the others who have taken on health care costs, and could prove more willing to rattle the health system’s cage. 

The bottom line: In 1945, our namesake and original benefactor created Kaiser Permanente (we have no connection). It’s now a $65 billion organization with 12 million enrollees and about as big a disruption of the health system as any business leader could ever hope to create. Still, it is dwarfed by Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, the VA, and the rest of the health system, and the model has never spread as early advocates envisioned.

As intriguing as the recent announcement is, experience suggests keeping it in perspective.

Go deeper

Updated 6 mins ago - Politics & Policy

Supreme Court agrees to hear major Mississippi abortion case

Photo: Erin Scott/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to a Mississippi law that bans nearly all abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy.

Why it matters: It will be the first abortion case to be argued before the Supreme Court since Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed, handing conservatives a 6-3 majority. The case could potentially provide a pathway to challenging Roe v. Wade and allowing outright bans on abortion.

Dan Primack, author of Pro Rata
23 mins ago - Economy & Business

The winners and losers of AT&T's split with WarnerMedia

Photo: Ronald Martinez/Getty Images

AT&T is unwinding a huge part of its $84 billion acquisition of Time Warner, less than three years after it closed.

Driving the news: AT&T this morning announced that it will merge its WarnerMedia properties with Discovery Inc.'s media assets.

1 hour ago - World

Blinken says he hasn't seen evidence Hamas was in AP building Israel struck

Smoke rises after sraeli forces destroyed building in Gaza City where Al-Jazeera and Associated Press had their offices. Photo: Mustafa Hassona/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Monday he had not personally seen evidence that Hamas was operating in a building that housed offices for Al Jazeera, the AP and other media in the Gaza Strip, as the Israeli government has claimed, AP reports.

The latest: "The Secretary was referring only to what he personally had seen. As he made clear, any such information would be provided to others in the administration, not directly to the secretary of State," a senior State Department official told Axios.