I. Executive Summary: An Industry at an Inflection Point

The Managed Care Organization (MCO) sector stands at a critical inflection point. The tailwinds of government program expansion and pandemic-era utilization suppression that buoyed the industry have given way to a formidable gauntlet of structural and regulatory pressures. The traditional levers of MCO profitability—aggressive utilization management and favorable risk-pool dynamics in government programs—are being systematically challenged by direct regulatory intervention, post-pandemic market normalization, and secular cost trends. This report posits that long-term value creation in the sector will no longer be a function of broad market exposure but will be dictated by an MCO’s ability to achieve defensible scale, execute flawless vertical integration, and leverage proprietary data analytics to navigate an increasingly complex reimbursement and care delivery landscape.

A clear bifurcation is emerging within the sector. On one side are the highly integrated, data-driven platforms, exemplified by UnitedHealth Group, which are building formidable competitive moats by controlling a greater portion of the healthcare dollar. On the other are the more traditional, government-focused plans that, despite their scale, face greater direct margin pressure from state and federal policy shifts. The investment thesis is no longer about which MCO has the most members, but which has the most control over the total cost of care for those members.

Summary of Key Findings

• Financials: The post-pandemic era is defined by significant Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) normalization and volatility. This is a direct consequence of the recoupment of care deferred during the pandemic and, more structurally, a higher-acuity Medicaid population following the unwinding of continuous eligibility requirements. This has created a significant and persistent mismatch with prospectively set capitation rates, placing acute and ongoing pressure on the margins of Medicaid-centric MCOs like Centene and Molina. Medicare Advantage, while still a high-margin business, is also facing headwinds from rising senior utilization and increased volatility in the CMS Star Ratings program, which has become a critical and less predictable driver of revenue.
• Regulation: A new and more interventionist wave of regulation is moving beyond historical financial oversight (e.g., MLR floors) to direct intervention in core MCO operational levers. Federal and state-level reforms targeting prior authorization and the stringent compliance requirements of the No Surprises Act are increasing administrative costs while simultaneously weakening MCOs’ most effective tools for managing medical spend. Concurrently, state budget pressures, exacerbated by potential federal funding cuts, signal a more challenging rate-setting environment for Medicaid programs.
• Market Structure: Vertical integration has transitioned from a strategic option to a competitive necessity. MCOs that own or are aggressively acquiring provider assets (physician groups, ambulatory surgery centers, home health) and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are creating durable competitive advantages. These integrated systems, such as UnitedHealth’s Optum and Elevance’s Carelon, are better positioned to manage the total cost of care, navigate value-based payment models, and defend against both regulatory headwinds and disruptive new market entrants.

Top-Level Recommendations and Risk Assessment

Company	Recommendation	Rationale	Primary Risks
UnitedHealth Group	Outperform	Unmatched vertical integration via Optum provides a durable competitive moat, diversified earnings streams, and superior cost control capabilities.	Regulatory scrutiny of its scale and business practices; execution risk on large-scale provider integration.
Elevance Health	Market Perform	Strong local market presence via Blue Cross brand and a developing services arm (Carelon) offer a balanced profile. Slower integration pace vs. UNH.	Medicaid rate pressure in key states; slower-than-expected margin expansion from Carelon.
CVS Health (Aetna)	Market Perform	Unique retail health strategy offers long-term potential, but near-term execution risk in integrating disparate assets (Aetna, Oak Street, Signify) is high.	Significant Medicare Advantage margin pressure from poor Star Ratings; challenges in realizing synergies across its diverse business lines.
Humana	Underperform	Extreme concentration in Medicare Advantage makes it highly vulnerable to benchmark rate cuts, Star Ratings volatility, and rising senior utilization.	Deterioration in Star Ratings leading to significant loss of bonus payments; adverse changes in MA risk adjustment methodology.
Molina Healthcare	Market Perform	Pure-play government focus and strong execution on acquisitions and state contract wins. High-quality operator in its niche.	High sensitivity to Medicaid rate adequacy and redetermination acuity shifts; lack of vertical integration limits long-term cost control levers.
Centene Corporation	Underperform	Largest Medicaid and Marketplace carrier, but faces significant operational challenges, including persistent margin pressure, poor Star Ratings, and ongoing portfolio restructuring.	Inability to secure adequate Medicaid rate increases to offset acuity shifts; failure to improve Medicare Star Ratings; execution risk on divestitures.

Scenario Analysis Preview

Our quantitative risk modeling underscores the differentiated risk profiles across the sector. Humana exhibits the highest vulnerability to adverse changes in Medicare Advantage policy, with a potential double-digit EPS impact from a significant benchmark rate cut. Molina and Centene are most exposed to a deterioration in Medicaid fundamentals, where a sustained 200-basis-point increase in the MLR could erode a substantial portion of their earnings power. In contrast, UnitedHealth Group’s diversified model demonstrates the most resilience across all tested scenarios, reinforcing its premium valuation and superior investment profile.

II. The Shifting Financial Bedrock of Managed Care

The financial foundation of the managed care industry has been subject to unprecedented volatility in the post-pandemic era. The artificial suppression of utilization in 2020, followed by a sharp rebound and persistent inflationary pressures, has created a challenging environment for MCOs to manage profitability. This section dissects the key financial metrics that define the sector’s health: Medical Loss Ratios, premium rate adequacy, the financial impact of quality ratings, and working capital efficiency.

Profitability Under Pressure: Medical Loss Ratio and Cost Trend Analysis

The Medical Loss Ratio (MLR), which measures the portion of premium revenue spent on clinical services and quality improvement, is the single most critical determinant of an MCO’s underwriting profitability. Its trajectory over the past five years tells a story of pandemic-induced whiplash and a return to a new, more challenging normal.

The Pandemic Whiplash Effect

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 triggered a sharp, temporary drop in MLRs across the industry. As elective procedures were deferred and patients avoided healthcare settings, MCOs’ medical expenses plummeted. In the individual market, for example, the average MLR fell to 72% in 2020.¹ This period of unusually high profitability had a lagging effect; due to the three-year rolling average used for calculating rebates under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), MCOs were required to pay out substantial rebates to consumers in the following years, reaching a record $2.5 billion in 2019 (for the 2018 plan year) and over $2.1 billion in 2021 (for the 2020 plan year).¹

Beginning in 2021 and continuing through 2023, the industry experienced the predictable “recoupment” of this deferred care. As patients returned to their providers, utilization surged, driving MLRs back up. The average individual market MLR, for instance, jumped to 88% in 2021.¹ This normalization was compounded by new inflationary pressures, pushing MLRs for some MCOs above pre-pandemic levels and leading to a notable decrease in profit margins from Q3 2022 to Q4 2022.²

Segment-Level MLR Deep Dive

The pressure on MLRs has not been uniform across business segments. A granular analysis reveals distinct challenges in each of the MCOs’ core markets.

• Medicaid: This segment is experiencing the most acute and structural margin pressure. The primary driver is the unwinding of the Public Health Emergency’s (PHE) continuous enrollment provision. During the PHE, states were prohibited from disenrolling Medicaid members, causing rolls to swell. As states resumed eligibility redeterminations in 2023, millions of members were disenrolled.³ The members who remained, however, represented a population with a higher average acuity—that is, a greater burden of chronic illness and higher healthcare needs.³ MCOs across the board have reported that state capitation rates, which are set prospectively based on historical data, have not kept pace with the higher cost trends of this newly rebased, higher-risk population.³ This structural mismatch has led to a direct and significant squeeze on Medicaid margins. For the first nine months of 2024, Centene’s Medicaid MLR increased from 89.9% to 92.3%, while Molina’s rose from 88.5% to 90.3%.³ For-profit MCOs, which now cover half of the national Medicaid MCO market, are particularly exposed to this dynamic.³
• Medicare Advantage (MA): While historically the most profitable segment, with the highest gross margins per enrollee ($1,982 in 2023, compared to $753 for Medicaid), MA is not immune to rising cost pressures.⁴ Major insurers have consistently reported higher-than-expected utilization among seniors, particularly for outpatient services, since the end of the pandemic.⁴ This trend, combined with recent CMS benchmark rate reductions, has compressed margins in what was once a reliable growth engine. UnitedHealth, for instance, cited these factors as primary drivers for its full-year 2024 medical care ratio increase to 85.5% from 83.2% in 2023.⁶
• Commercial: The commercial group market has been comparatively more stable, but it is directly exposed to the broader trend of medical cost inflation, which in mid-2024 was once again outpacing the general Consumer Price Index (CPI) at 3.3% versus 3.0%.⁸ The primary drivers are persistent price increases from hospital systems, which rose 6.9% year-over-year as of June 2024, and the escalating costs of specialty pharmaceuticals.⁸

The acuity mismatch in the Medicaid segment represents a fundamental, structural headwind for MCOs with significant exposure to this line of business. The sequence of events is clear: the PHE’s continuous enrollment provision led to a larger, and likely healthier on average, Medicaid population. The subsequent unwinding process systematically removed a cohort of members who were healthier, younger, or had secured other coverage, leaving behind a concentrated pool of higher-need individuals. Because state capitation rates are set prospectively based on actuarial analysis of prior years’ data, they inherently lag this rapid shift in population acuity. This creates a structural deficit where MCOs are paid based on the risk profile of a historical population while incurring costs for a sicker current population. This is not a temporary, cyclical issue but a fundamental rebasing of the risk pool that will continue to pressure margins for at least 12 to 24 months, the typical timeframe required for rate recalibration.

MCO	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
UnitedHealth Group	79.1%	82.6%	82.0%	83.2%	85.5%
Elevance Health	84.6%	87.5%	87.4%	87.0%	88.5%
CVS Health (Aetna)	85.5%	85.0%	84.0%	86.2%	92.5%
Humana	83.1%	87.1%	86.3%	87.3%	89.8%
Molina Healthcare	86.5%	88.3%	88.0%	88.1%	90.3% (Medicaid)
Centene Corporation	86.2%	87.8%	87.7%	87.7%	88.3%
Data represents consolidated Medical Care Ratio (MCR) or Health Benefits Ratio (HBR) as reported in annual financial filings. Molina’s 2024 figure is for its Medicaid segment through Q3. Sources: 2

The Pricing Power Paradigm: Premium Adequacy in a Regulated Market

An MCO’s ability to secure premium rates that adequately cover underlying medical cost trends is paramount to its financial success. This pricing power varies significantly between government and commercial markets.

In the Medicaid market, rates are not set by market forces but are determined through a complex administrative process with state agencies. Federal law requires that these capitation rates be “actuarially sound,” meaning they are projected to cover all reasonable and appropriate costs under the contract.³¹ States and their actuaries develop rates for various population subgroups, or “rate cells,” using historical cost and utilization data, which is then trended forward to account for inflation and other factors.³¹ However, this process is subject to intense negotiation and political pressure. MCOs must provide extensive data to justify rate increases, while states, facing their own budget constraints, have an incentive to limit spending.³³ The recent acuity shift post-redetermination has made these negotiations even more critical, as MCOs argue that historical data no longer reflects the true risk of the covered population.³

In the commercial market, pricing power is a function of market share and negotiating leverage with providers. Large MCOs can use their significant enrollment to demand substantial discounts from hospitals and physician groups, which in turn allows them to offer more competitive premiums to employers.³⁵ This dynamic creates a virtuous cycle where greater market share leads to better provider discounts, which drives further enrollment growth.³⁶ However, this pricing power is being challenged by widespread provider consolidation, which gives large hospital systems more leverage to resist deep discounts.³⁷

The Medicare Advantage Quality Imperative: Quantifying the Star Ratings Dividend

For MCOs participating in the Medicare Advantage market, the CMS Star Ratings program has evolved from a simple quality scorecard into a critical driver of revenue and profitability. The financial stakes are immense: plans that achieve a rating of 4.0 stars or higher (out of 5) receive an approximate 5% Quality Bonus Payment (QBP) on their benchmark revenue, while plans falling below this threshold see a corresponding 5% revenue reduction.³⁸ This program directs at least $12.7 billion in annual payments to plans, making it a focal point of corporate strategy.³⁹

Recently, this revenue stream has become a significant source of volatility. CMS has begun to tighten the program’s methodology, removing pandemic-era adjustments that had inflated scores and implementing more rigorous statistical methods like the deletion of Tukey outliers, which has raised the performance bar for achieving high ratings.³⁸ The result has been a “ratings cliff,” with the average star rating for 2024 (which impacts 2025 payments) falling to its lowest level since 2015.⁴¹ This has had a dramatic impact on major players; the share of MA members in 4+ star plans plummeted from 79% to 62% in a single year, with Humana seeing a particularly severe drop in its largest contract, which contains 45% of its total MA membership.⁴¹

This volatility forces MCOs that lose their bonus payments into a difficult strategic choice: they can either reduce benefits and increase premiums to protect margins, risking enrollment losses, or they can absorb the margin hit to remain competitive on price and benefits.³⁸ The Star Ratings system has thus morphed from a quality incentive into a major source of earnings risk. It necessitates substantial, ongoing investments in data analytics, member engagement, and clinical quality programs merely to maintain a stable revenue base, adding to the administrative cost burden of the MA program.

Company	% of MA Members in 4+ Star Plans (2024 Payment Year)	% of MA Members in 4+ Star Plans (2025 Payment Year)	Estimated Total QBP Revenue (2025)
UnitedHealth Group	High (Historically mid-4s)	Below 4.0 (avg. decline of 0.39)	Significant Reduction
Humana	High (Historically mid-4s)	Below 4.0 (avg. decline of 0.74)	Significant Reduction
CVS Health (Aetna)	87% (2022 Stars for 2024 payment)	21% (2023 Stars for 2024 payment)	Significant Reduction
Elevance Health	73% (2023 Payment Year)	Stable	Stable
Centene Corporation	30% (2022 Bonus Year)	>50% (2023 Bonus Year, then expected decrease)	Volatile
Data is synthesized from multiple sources reflecting different reporting periods and methodologies. Figures are indicative of trends. Sources: 25

Liquidity and Efficiency: Decoding Days Claims Payable Trends

Days Claims Payable (DCP), a measure of the average time an MCO takes to pay its medical claims, serves as a key indicator of both operational efficiency and working capital management.⁴⁴ A stable and predictable DCP suggests a well-functioning claims processing system and strong provider relationships. Conversely, significant fluctuations can signal underlying issues.

A comparative analysis of recent DCP trends reveals variations across the sector. For full-year 2024, UnitedHealth Group reported a DCP of 47.0 days, down from 47.9 at year-end 2023, with fluctuations attributed in part to the disruption from the Change Healthcare cyberattack.⁶ In its Q4 2024 results, CVS Health reported a DCP of 44.0 days for its Health Care Benefits segment.¹⁰ Molina Healthcare reported a DCP of 48 days at year-end 2024 ¹², while Elevance Health reported 47.3 days at year-end 2023.⁴⁷

A sudden drop in DCP, as seen with UnitedHealth’s Q1 2025 figure of 45.5 days, can indicate accelerated payments, which may be necessary to support providers but can strain an MCO’s liquidity.⁴⁸ A sharp increase could signal internal processing backlogs or a strategic decision to delay payments to conserve cash, a practice that can severely damage provider relations and lead to disputes.⁴⁹ Monitoring this metric provides a window into an MCO’s operational health and its relationship with its provider network.

III. Navigating the Gauntlet of Regulatory and Policy Headwinds

The MCO industry operates within one of the most intensely regulated sectors of the U.S. economy. A confluence of state budgetary pressures, federal legislative action, and a shifting political sentiment toward the industry is creating a formidable gauntlet of regulatory and policy headwinds. These challenges are moving beyond financial oversight and are now targeting the core operational levers MCOs use to manage costs and conduct business.

The Squeeze on State Budgets: Medicaid Rate-Setting and Rebate Exposure

State Medicaid programs, which account for a significant portion of MCO revenue, are a focal point of regulatory pressure. The annual rate-setting process is becoming increasingly contentious as states grapple with their own budgetary constraints while MCOs face a structurally higher-cost member population.

Rate-Setting Process and Challenges

As outlined previously, states must set actuarially sound capitation rates, a process that relies heavily on historical data to project future costs.³¹ The primary challenge for MCOs is the inherent lag in this process. The rapid shift in Medicaid population acuity following the post-PHE redetermination process means that historical data is no longer a reliable predictor of future costs.³ This forces MCOs into difficult negotiations with state partners, who may be skeptical of requests for significant rate increases, particularly in an environment of fiscal austerity.³⁴ The potential for adverse rate decisions, where states freeze or inadequately increase rates, poses a direct threat to MCO profitability. Federal budget actions, such as the proposed cuts in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA), could further intensify this pressure by reducing the federal matching funds available to states, forcing them to make difficult choices that could include MCO rate reductions.³³

MLR Rebate Requirements and Exposure

The ACA’s MLR provisions, which require insurers to spend at least 80% or 85% of premiums on medical care and quality improvement, create a direct mechanism for regulators to claw back what they deem to be excess profits.¹ While this applies to the commercial market, a similar principle governs Medicaid. Federal rules require states to set capitation rates such that MCOs can “reasonably achieve” an MLR of at least 85%.⁴

Crucially, a growing number of states are going further by requiring MCOs to pay remittances if they fail to meet this minimum MLR threshold. As of 2024, 34 states and DC always require remittance payments.⁵⁶ This exposes MCOs to significant financial risk. If an MCO successfully manages costs and its MLR falls below the state-mandated threshold, it may be forced to return a portion of its revenue to the state. This creates a ceiling on potential profitability in the Medicaid segment. Historical data shows that commercial rebates peaked in the years following the pandemic’s onset due to suppressed utilization, but the ongoing risk has now shifted more pointedly to the Medicaid business, where rate adequacy and acuity are misaligned. Centene, for example, reported paying $162 million in MLR rebates in 2023 and accrued $164 million for future payments.³⁰

Reforming the Gatekeeper: The Financial Impact of Prior Authorization Overhauls

Prior authorization (PA) has long been one of the most effective, albeit controversial, tools used by MCOs to control unnecessary utilization and manage medical costs.⁵⁸ However, this core operational lever is now under intense regulatory assault at both the federal and state levels, with significant financial implications for the industry.

The Regulatory Push for Reform

Responding to widespread complaints from providers and patients about care delays and administrative burden, regulators are moving aggressively to curtail PA practices.⁵⁸ A new CMS final rule, with requirements beginning in 2026, imposes strict new standards on MA, Medicaid, and Marketplace plans. These include shortening decision timeframes to 72 hours for urgent requests and seven calendar days for standard requests, requiring specific reasons for denials, and mandating the implementation of electronic Prior Authorization APIs to streamline the process.⁶¹

Simultaneously, states are enacting their own, often more stringent, reforms. As of 2025, over 110 PA reform bills have been tracked in 40 states.⁶³ These laws often include provisions for “gold carding,” which exempts providers with high approval rates from PA requirements, mandate that denial appeals be reviewed by a physician of the same specialty, and prohibit retroactive denials of preauthorized care.⁶³

The Dual Financial Impact

These reforms are poised to impact MCO financials in two distinct ways:

1. Increased Administrative Costs: MCOs will incur significant costs to comply with the new regulations. This includes substantial investments in IT infrastructure to build and maintain the required APIs, as well as potentially hiring additional clinical and administrative staff to meet the drastically accelerated decision timeframes. These costs will directly increase an MCO’s administrative expense ratio.⁶²
2. Increased Medical Costs: The primary purpose of PA is to curb utilization. By making the process faster, more transparent, and in some cases, bypassing it entirely (via gold carding), these reforms are widely expected to lead to an increase in the utilization of services. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored a similar legislative proposal as increasing federal spending by $16 billion over ten years, primarily due to this anticipated rise in utilization.⁶² This directly threatens to inflate MCOs’ medical expenses and drive up their MLRs. A study commissioned by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and conducted by Milliman was specifically designed to model these potential cost impacts, underscoring the industry’s concern about the financial consequences of PA elimination.⁶⁶

Surprise Billing and Network Adequacy: The Lingering Costs of Compliance

The No Surprises Act (NSA), effective since January 2022, was a landmark piece of consumer protection legislation that has had profound and lasting effects on the operational and financial dynamics between MCOs and providers.

The No Surprises Act (NSA) and the Shift in Leverage

The NSA protects commercially insured patients from surprise medical bills from out-of-network providers in emergency settings and for certain non-emergency services at in-network facilities.⁶⁷ It removes the patient from payment disputes, instead establishing a federal Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) process for payers and providers to arbitrate out-of-network payment rates.⁶⁹

This has fundamentally altered the negotiating landscape. Previously, the threat of sending large, unexpected bills to patients gave out-of-network providers significant leverage to demand high payment rates or favorable in-network contracts.⁷⁰ By prohibiting this practice, the NSA has shifted leverage decisively toward payers. MCOs are now less pressured to contract with high-cost provider groups, knowing that out-of-network payments will be arbitrated through the IDR process, which often uses the plan’s median in-network rate (the Qualifying Payment Amount, or QPA) as a key benchmark.⁷⁰

Compliance Costs and Operational Burdens

While the NSA provides MCOs with greater leverage, it also imposes significant compliance and operational costs. MCOs have had to build out substantial infrastructure to manage the IDR process, which has seen a far higher volume of disputes than initially anticipated.⁷⁰ The administrative fee for initiating an IDR case has more than doubled, from $50 to $115 per party, adding to the direct costs of compliance.⁷¹

Furthermore, the NSA has intensified regulatory scrutiny of provider network adequacy. The logic is that if patients are to be protected from out-of-network bills, payers must ensure they offer a sufficient network of in-network providers to begin with. In response, federal and state regulators are implementing more stringent and quantitative network adequacy standards, such as time-and-distance requirements and provider-to-enrollee ratios.⁷² Monitoring has also become more aggressive, with states increasingly using tools like “secret shopper” surveys to test the accuracy of provider directories and appointment availability.⁷⁵ Failure to meet these heightened standards can result in corrective action plans and financial penalties, adding another layer of compliance cost and risk for MCOs.⁷⁶

IV. Market Structure and the Battle for Dominance

The managed care landscape is characterized by high concentration, intense competition for government contracts, and a transformative trend toward vertical integration. These structural forces are reshaping the industry, creating powerful incumbents with durable competitive advantages while raising the barriers to entry for smaller players and new disruptors.

Consolidation and Competitive Dynamics

The MCO market is highly consolidated across all major segments. This concentration provides significant scale advantages and pricing power to the largest players.

• Medicaid Market Concentration: The five largest national, for-profit MCOs—Centene, Elevance Health, UnitedHealth Group, Molina, and CVS Health—collectively enroll over 50% of all Medicaid MCO members nationwide.³ Centene alone accounts for 20% of the market.⁵⁶ This dominance is built on a state-by-state basis, with a few large plans often controlling the majority of enrollment in any given state. For example, in Pennsylvania, just four carriers cover 75% of the state’s entire insured population.⁷⁷
• Medicare Advantage Market Concentration: The MA market is even more concentrated. As of 2024, UnitedHealthcare and Humana were the largest insurers in over two-thirds of all U.S. counties, collectively accounting for 59% of all MA enrollment.⁷⁸ In 79% of counties, the market is considered “highly concentrated” according to federal antitrust guidelines.⁷⁸ This market power is particularly pronounced in rural areas.⁷⁸
• Implications of Concentration: This high level of market concentration grants dominant MCOs substantial leverage. In negotiations with providers, their large member volumes allow them to demand more favorable reimbursement rates. In bidding for state Medicaid contracts, their scale, experience, and capital resources create formidable barriers to entry for smaller, regional plans. This dynamic reinforces the market position of the largest incumbents and fuels further consolidation as smaller plans are acquired or forced out of the market.

The Vertical Integration Thesis: Provider Ownership as a Competitive Moat

The most significant strategic trend reshaping the MCO industry is vertical integration—the acquisition of care delivery assets by insurers. This move represents a fundamental shift from managing costs through administrative controls over independent providers to directly managing the delivery of care within a single, integrated enterprise.

Strategic Rationale

The primary driver of vertical integration is the pursuit of greater control over the total cost of care.⁷⁹ In a traditional model, an MCO’s relationship with its providers is often adversarial, centered on contract negotiations and utilization management tools like prior authorization. By owning provider groups, MCOs can align financial incentives, better coordinate care for high-cost chronic conditions, and steer patients toward lower-cost care settings.⁷⁹ This strategy is particularly crucial as the industry shifts toward value-based payment models, where profitability is tied to health outcomes and cost efficiency rather than service volume.

Furthermore, vertical integration serves as a powerful defensive strategy against the regulatory headwinds detailed in the previous section. As regulators increasingly restrict tools like prior authorization, MCOs’ ability to control costs within a network of independent providers is diminished. By owning the providers, an MCO can shift from a model of external administrative denial to one of internal clinical management. It can influence care pathways, promote evidence-based medicine, and manage referral patterns within its own ecosystem, thereby controlling medical expenses without relying as heavily on the politically unpopular tools that are being legislated away. Non-integrated MCOs will be left with a shrinking and less effective toolkit to manage medical spend, placing them at a significant competitive disadvantage.

Case Studies in Vertical Integration

The largest MCOs are aggressively pursuing this strategy, creating vast and complex healthcare service enterprises:

• UnitedHealth Group (UNH) and Optum: UNH is the pioneer and undisputed leader in vertical integration. Its Optum segment is now the largest employer of physicians in the United States, with over 90,000 employed or affiliated doctors.⁸¹ Optum’s portfolio spans the entire care continuum, including primary care clinics, multispecialty groups, ambulatory surgery centers, home health services, and pharmacy services.⁸¹ This allows UNH to capture revenue and margin at multiple points in the healthcare value chain and gives its UnitedHealthcare insurance arm an unparalleled ability to manage care and costs.
• Elevance Health (ELV) and Carelon: Following UNH’s lead, Elevance is building its own health services division, Carelon. This segment includes its PBM, CarelonRx, and a growing suite of care delivery assets. A key move was the 2024 acquisition of Paragon Healthcare, a provider of specialty infusible and injectable therapies, demonstrating a strategy to control costs in one of the most expensive areas of medicine.⁸³
• CVS Health (Aetna) (CVS): The CVS-Aetna merger was a landmark vertical integration deal, combining a top-tier insurer with a massive PBM and the nation’s largest retail pharmacy footprint.⁸⁵ CVS is now pushing deeper into care delivery with its acquisitions of Oak Street Health (senior-focused primary care) and Signify Health (in-home health assessments), aiming to create a fully integrated “front door to healthcare”.⁸⁷
• Humana (HUM) and CenterWell: Humana’s strategy is tightly focused on its core Medicare Advantage business. Its CenterWell segment is rapidly expanding its network of senior-focused primary care clinics and home health services, creating a dedicated care delivery infrastructure tailored to the needs of its MA members.⁸⁸

Disruptive Threats on the Horizon

While the large, integrated MCOs consolidate their power, they face a range of disruptive threats from new models of care and technology.

• Direct Primary Care (DPC): The DPC model, in which patients or employers pay a flat monthly fee directly to a primary care provider for a defined set of services, bypasses the insurance system entirely for primary care.⁹⁰ While currently a niche market, DPC poses a threat by disintermediating the MCO from the crucial primary care relationship, which serves as the gatekeeper for the rest of the healthcare system. The growth of DPC could also exacerbate the national primary care physician shortage for the broader insured population by shifting physicians into smaller-panel practices.⁹³
• Telehealth Platforms: The explosion of telehealth during the pandemic has created a new class of competitors. Stand-alone virtual care platforms now compete directly with MCOs’ provider networks for certain types of care. In response, MCOs are being compelled by state regulators and market demand to integrate telehealth more deeply into their own networks, develop adequate reimbursement policies for virtual services, and use telehealth to fill gaps in network adequacy.⁹⁴
• Health Tech Startups and Cybersecurity: The broader health-tech ecosystem is producing a continuous stream of startups focused on specific diseases or patient populations, aiming to manage care more effectively and disintermediate the traditional MCO. While many of these startups will ultimately partner with MCOs, they represent a constant competitive pressure. An even greater threat stems from the industry’s increasing reliance on technology: cybersecurity. As MCOs become more data-driven and interconnected, their vulnerability to catastrophic cyberattacks grows. The 2024 attack on UnitedHealth’s Change Healthcare subsidiary, which crippled claims and payment systems nationwide, illustrates the immense financial and operational risk posed by a single point of failure in this complex digital ecosystem.⁸¹

V. Comparative Deep Dive: Profiling the MCO Leaders

This section provides a detailed, comparative analysis of the six leading publicly traded Managed Care Organizations. Each profile examines the company’s distinct business model, recent financial and operational performance, strategic priorities, and specific risk exposures, leveraging data from their financial filings and public statements.

UnitedHealth Group (UNH)

• Business Model and Competitive Differentiation: UnitedHealth Group represents the industry’s gold standard for vertical integration and diversification. Its business is structured around two powerful, symbiotic segments: UnitedHealthcare, the core insurance benefits business, and Optum, its rapidly growing health services arm.⁶ Optum is further divided into Optum Health (care delivery), Optum Insight (data analytics and technology), and Optum Rx (PBM). This structure creates a formidable competitive moat. Optum Health’s vast and expanding network of owned and affiliated providers allows UnitedHealthcare to more effectively manage medical costs and implement value-based care arrangements.⁶ Optum Rx provides scale in pharmacy purchasing, while Optum Insight leverages the enterprise’s massive data assets to sell services to other health systems. This diversification provides multiple, uncorrelated growth streams and insulates the company from pressures in any single market segment.
• Financial and Operational Performance Review: UNH has a consistent track record of strong financial performance. For the full year 2024, the company reported revenues of $400.3 billion, an 8% year-over-year increase.⁶ The full-year medical care ratio was 85.5%, an increase from 83.2% in 2023, reflecting MA funding reductions and Medicaid redetermination impacts.⁶ The company’s operational efficiency is a key differentiator; its operating cost ratio of 13.2% in 2024 was a significant improvement from 14.7% in 2023.⁶ Its cash flow generation is robust, with $24.2 billion in cash flows from operations in 2024.⁶ Days Claims Payable (DCP) stood at 47.0 at year-end 2024, demonstrating stable working capital management despite the Change Healthcare cyberattack disruption.⁶
• Geographic Footprint and Regulatory Acumen: UnitedHealthcare has a broad national footprint across all business lines. It is the dominant player in the Medicare Advantage market, with the highest market share in 41% of U.S. counties.⁷⁸ Its scale and sophisticated government relations capabilities allow it to effectively navigate the complex regulatory environments in all 50 states.
• Capital Allocation and Strategic Outlook: UNH’s strategy is focused on continued expansion of its value-based care model through Optum Health provider acquisitions.⁸¹ The company is a strong capital allocator, returning over $16 billion to shareholders in 2024 through dividends and share repurchases.⁶ Its outlook for 2025 projects continued strong growth, with revenues expected to be between $450 billion and $455 billion.⁶
• ESG and Compliance Profile: UnitedHealth Group has a well-established ESG program, focusing on health equity, workforce diversity, and environmental sustainability.⁹⁸ The company has consistently been named to the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices.⁹⁸ However, its immense scale and market power also attract significant regulatory and antitrust scrutiny, which remains a key risk. Sustainalytics gives UNH an ESG Risk Rating of 16.9 (Low Risk), ranking it 65th out of 563 companies in the healthcare industry.⁹⁹

Elevance Health (ELV)

• Business Model and Competitive Differentiation: Elevance Health operates a hybrid model that combines the powerful brand recognition and deep local market penetration of its Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in 14 states with a growing national health services arm, Carelon.⁹ This strategy leverages its incumbent status in key markets while building capabilities in pharmacy (CarelonRx) and care delivery to compete with more integrated peers. Its primary competitive advantage is the strength of the Blue Cross brand and the exclusive provider networks it commands in its licensed states.
• Financial and Operational Performance Review: Elevance reported total operating revenue of $175.2 billion for fiscal year 2024, a 2.9% increase from the prior year.⁹ Its benefit expense ratio was 88.5%, an increase of 150 basis points driven by higher medical cost trends in its Medicaid business.⁹ The company has demonstrated strong cost discipline, with a debt-to-capital ratio of 43.0% as of year-end 2024.⁹ Days in Claims Payable was 47.3 days as of December 31, 2023.⁴⁷
• Geographic Footprint and Regulatory Acumen: Elevance’s strength is concentrated in its 14 Blue Cross states, including key markets like California, New York, and Ohio.⁹ This deep entrenchment provides stable membership and strong relationships with state regulators. However, it also concentrates its risk in these specific geographies.
• Capital Allocation and Strategic Outlook: The company’s strategy is focused on organic growth in its core markets, supplemented by strategic acquisitions to bolster its Carelon services arm, such as the 2024 purchase of specialty infusion provider Paragon Healthcare.⁸³ Elevance is also committed to returning capital to shareholders, with a $4.2 billion share repurchase authorization remaining at the end of 2023.⁴⁷
• ESG and Compliance Profile: Elevance has a strong focus on corporate responsibility, with board-level oversight of its environmental sustainability and social initiatives.¹⁰⁰ The company has set a goal to achieve net-zero emissions and procures 100% renewable electricity for its operations.¹⁰¹ Its 2023 Impact Report highlights achievements in health equity and community support.¹⁰²

CVS Health (Aetna) (CVS)

• Business Model and Competitive Differentiation: CVS Health is pursuing a unique and ambitious strategy to create a vertically integrated, consumer-centric healthcare company. The 2018 acquisition of Aetna formed the core of this strategy, combining a major insurer with CVS’s massive PBM (Caremark) and retail pharmacy footprint.⁸⁶ The company is now aggressively moving into care delivery with its acquisitions of Oak Street Health (senior primary care) and Signify Health (in-home care).⁸⁷ The vision is to create a seamless health experience, from insurance coverage to prescription fulfillment to primary care, all under one corporate umbrella. This model’s success hinges on its ability to drive members to its owned assets and effectively manage care across these different settings.
• Financial and Operational Performance Review: For the full year 2024, CVS reported total revenues of $372.8 billion, a 4.2% increase over the prior year.¹⁰ However, its Health Care Benefits segment faced significant pressure, with its medical benefit ratio (MBR) increasing to 92.5% in 2024 from 86.2% in 2023.²¹ This was driven by elevated utilization, higher Medicaid acuity, and the unfavorable impact of poor Medicare Advantage Star Ratings.¹⁰ Days Claims Payable stood at 44.0 days at year-end 2024, reflecting a slight seasonal decrease.¹⁰
• Geographic Footprint and Regulatory Acumen: Aetna provides a national insurance footprint, while the CVS retail and clinic presence is ubiquitous across the country. This provides an unparalleled physical infrastructure to engage with consumers. The company must navigate a complex web of regulations spanning insurance (state DOIs, CMS), pharmacy (DEA, FDA), and provider services.
• Capital Allocation and Strategic Outlook: CVS’s capital allocation has been focused on large-scale M&A to build out its integrated model. The company is now in an integration phase, focused on realizing synergies from its recent acquisitions. After a period of deleveraging following the Aetna deal, the company has resumed share repurchases and increased its dividend.¹⁰³
• ESG and Compliance Profile: CVS Health’s ESG strategy, “Healthy 2030,” is structured around four pillars: Healthy People, Healthy Business, Healthy Community, and Healthy Planet.⁸⁷ The company has committed to carbon neutrality and net-zero emissions and has made significant investments in affordable housing.⁸⁷ The AMA notably opposed the CVS-Aetna merger on competitive grounds, highlighting the ongoing antitrust scrutiny the company faces.⁸⁵

Humana (HUM)

• Business Model and Competitive Differentiation: Humana is the most specialized of the major MCOs, with a strategic focus on the Medicare Advantage market. This segment represents the vast majority of its insurance revenue.¹⁰⁵ Its competitive differentiation stems from this deep expertise in serving the senior population. This focus is complemented by its CenterWell segment, which is building a dedicated network of senior-focused primary care clinics and home health services designed to support its MA members and advance value-based care.⁸⁹
• Financial and Operational Performance Review: Humana’s financial performance is inextricably linked to the MA market’s dynamics. For fiscal year 2024, the company reported a benefit ratio of 89.8%, a 250-basis-point increase from the prior year, citing elevated MA medical cost trends.⁷ This pressure was a key factor in its reported 50.1% decrease in diluted EPS.⁷ The company’s heavy reliance on the MA Star Ratings program for bonus payments makes its revenue highly sensitive to rating changes; a significant decline in its ratings for the 2025 payment year poses a major headwind.⁷ Days in Claims Payable was reported at 41.4 days in Q4 2023, down from 45.9 in the prior year.¹⁰⁶
• Geographic Footprint and Regulatory Acumen: Humana has a strong national presence in the MA market, serving members in all 50 states.⁷ It is one of the top two players by market share in two-thirds of U.S. counties.⁷⁸ Its regulatory focus is almost exclusively on CMS, giving it deep expertise but also concentrating its risk on a single federal regulator.
• Capital Allocation and Strategic Outlook: Humana’s strategy is to deepen its integrated care model for seniors by expanding its CenterWell footprint, both organically and through acquisition.⁸⁹ The company is also exiting the commercial group insurance market to double down on its government programs focus.⁷ The company has an active share repurchase program and a consistent dividend.⁷
• ESG and Compliance Profile: Humana’s ESG efforts are aligned with its focus on senior health and well-being.¹⁰⁷ Sustainalytics gives Humana an ESG Risk Rating of 15.8 (Low Risk), ranking it 53rd in the healthcare industry, slightly ahead of UnitedHealth Group.⁹⁹

Molina Healthcare (MOH)

• Business Model and Competitive Differentiation: Molina is a pure-play government programs specialist, focusing primarily on the Medicaid market, which accounts for over 79% of its premium revenue.¹⁰⁸ Its expertise lies in managing high-acuity, low-income populations. Molina’s primary growth strategy is to win new state Medicaid contracts and acquire smaller, regional Medicaid plans, which it then integrates into its efficient operating platform.¹⁹ Unlike its larger peers, Molina has not pursued large-scale vertical integration into provider ownership, differentiating itself with an “asset-light” model focused on partnership.¹¹⁰
• Financial and Operational Performance Review: Molina has a strong track record of operational execution and margin improvement. For fiscal year 2024, it reported a 19% increase in total revenue to $40.7 billion.¹⁰⁸ Its consolidated MCR was 90.2%, with the Medicaid MCR at 90.3%, reflecting pressure from redetermination-related acuity shifts.¹² The company has consistently delivered strong EPS growth, with adjusted EPS increasing 8% in 2024.¹² Its Days in Claims Payable was 48 days at year-end 2024.¹²
• Geographic Footprint and Regulatory Acumen: Molina operates Medicaid plans in 19 states.¹¹² Its success is highly dependent on its ability to navigate the state-by-state procurement process and maintain strong relationships with state Medicaid directors. Its business is geographically concentrated in key states like California and Texas.¹⁰⁸
• Capital Allocation and Strategic Outlook: Molina’s capital allocation is disciplined and focused on its core strategy: M&A of Medicaid and Medicare plans and share repurchases. The company authorized a $1 billion stock repurchase program in 2024.¹⁰⁸ Its outlook is predicated on continued success in winning new state contracts and integrating acquisitions.
• ESG and Compliance Profile: Molina’s ESG efforts are centered on its mission to serve vulnerable populations, focusing on addressing social determinants of health and improving health equity within the communities it serves.

Centene Corporation (CNC)

• Business Model and Competitive Differentiation: Centene is the nation’s largest Medicaid MCO and the leading carrier on the ACA Health Insurance Marketplace.⁵ Its business model is built on massive scale in government-sponsored programs. Historically, its strategy focused on growth above all else, leading to a sprawling and complex organization. Under new leadership, the company is undergoing a significant transformation, divesting non-core international and commercial assets to focus on its core U.S. government businesses and improve profitability.
• Financial and Operational Performance Review: Centene’s financial performance reflects its ongoing transformation. For fiscal year 2024, total revenues increased 6% to $163.1 billion.¹³ Its health benefits ratio (HBR) increased to 88.3% from 87.7% in 2023, driven by higher Medicaid acuity and the impact of poor Medicare Star ratings.¹³ A key focus for management is improving its SG&A expense ratio, which saw a modest improvement to 8.5% in 2024 from 9.0% in 2023.¹³ Days in Claims Payable was 54 days at year-end 2023, flat year-over-year.¹¹³
• Geographic Footprint and Regulatory Acumen: Centene has the broadest Medicaid footprint of any MCO, operating in 29 states.¹¹² This scale provides diversification against adverse events in any single state, but also exposes it to a wide range of regulatory risks. Its #1 position in the ACA Marketplace makes it highly sensitive to federal policy regarding premium subsidies and risk adjustment.
• Capital Allocation and Strategic Outlook: The company’s capital allocation is currently focused on its value creation plan, which involves using proceeds from divestitures to fund a large-scale stock repurchase program ($10 billion authorized) and reinvest in its core businesses.¹³ The strategic outlook is centered on simplifying the business, improving margins, and addressing its significant underperformance in Medicare Star Ratings.
• ESG and Compliance Profile: Centene’s ESG focus aligns with its mission of serving under-insured and uninsured populations.¹¹⁵ However, the company has faced numerous regulatory challenges and legal settlements related to its pharmacy benefit services and claims processing in various states, representing a significant compliance risk.

Metric	UnitedHealth Group	Elevance Health	CVS Health (Aetna)	Humana	Molina Healthcare	Centene Corporation
Total Revenue (FY 2024)	$400.3B	$175.2B	$372.8B	$117.8B (est.)	$40.7B	$163.1B
Net Income (FY 2024)	$15.4B (Adj.)	$6.0B	$4.6B	$1.2B	$1.2B	$3.3B (Net Earnings)
Adj. Operating Margin (FY 2024)	8.6%	5.4% (Adj. Gain)	3.2%	Low Single Digits	4.2%	4.1% (Adj. Pre-Tax)
Adjusted EPS (FY 2024)	$27.66	$33.04	$5.42	$16.21	$22.65	$6.68 (2023)
Days Claims Payable (DCP)	47.0	42.9	44.0	41.4 (Q4’23)	48.0	54.0 (Q4’23)
Financial data is for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, unless otherwise noted. Some figures are adjusted for non-recurring items as reported by the companies. Sources: 6

MCO	% Revenue from Medicare	% Revenue from Medicaid	% Revenue from Commercial/Other
UnitedHealth Group (2023)	35%	20%	45% (incl. Optum external)
Elevance Health (2023)	N/A (Gov’t Business segment)	N/A (Gov’t Business segment)	N/A (Commercial segment)
CVS Health (Aetna) (2023)	>50% of Health Care Benefits revenue	N/A	N/A
Humana (2023)	83%	8%	9%
Molina Healthcare (2023)	13%	81%	6% (Marketplace)
Centene Corporation (2023)	16%	62%	22% (incl. Marketplace)
Revenue mix is based on 2023 premium and service revenues as granular 2024 breakdowns were not fully available for all companies. Elevance reports by Commercial and Government segments. CVS notes Medicare is over 50% of its HCB segment. Sources: 3

VI. Long-Term Investment Thesis and Risk Scenario Analysis

The long-term investment thesis for the managed care sector hinges on its ability to adapt to a fundamentally altered landscape. The industry’s future will be defined not by passive enrollment growth in government programs, but by the active management of medical costs through integrated care delivery, the navigation of an increasingly assertive regulatory environment, and the strategic deployment of technology. The core questions facing investors are whether MCOs can successfully transition their business models, if efficiency gains can truly offset inflationary pressures, how they will fare under potential systemic policy shifts, and what role they will ultimately play in the burgeoning digital health ecosystem.

Validating the Long-Term Thesis

• Transition to Value-Based Care (VBC): The shift from fee-for-service to value-based care is a central narrative for the healthcare industry. However, its successful implementation by MCOs is almost entirely dependent on the degree of their vertical integration. For a non-integrated MCO, the financial benefits of VBC are difficult to capture due to the “wrong pocket problem”.¹¹⁸ An MCO might invest in preventive care for a high-cost diabetic patient, only for that member to switch to a competitor’s plan the following year, leaving the new plan to reap the financial rewards of lower utilization. Vertically integrated MCOs, by contrast, can capture these savings directly within their own provider networks. They can implement standardized care pathways, leverage shared data to manage chronic conditions, and directly benefit from keeping patients healthy and out of high-cost settings. Therefore, only the highly integrated players like UnitedHealth, and to a growing extent Elevance, CVS, and Humana, are positioned to truly profit from a widespread transition to VBC.
• Efficiency vs. Inflation: The notion that MCOs can offset persistent medical cost inflation through administrative efficiency alone is increasingly untenable. While claims processing automation and other technological initiatives can yield savings and improve ROI, these gains are unlikely to be sufficient to counteract the dual pressures of high medical and pharmacy cost trends and the simultaneous erosion of cost-management tools like prior authorization.¹¹⁹ The most potent offset to medical inflation is not administrative belt-tightening but the structural advantage of owning the means of care delivery. Vertical integration allows MCOs to address the unit cost of care directly through provider contracting and care management within their own system, a far more powerful lever than incremental gains in back-office efficiency.
• “Medicare for All” Impact: The prospect of a single-payer “Medicare for All” system represents the most significant existential threat to the MCO industry. Such a policy would eliminate the role of private insurers in financing healthcare for the majority of the population. However, the outcome would likely be nuanced. The largest, most efficient MCOs, particularly those with extensive administrative services only (ASO) businesses and large, owned provider networks like UnitedHealth, would likely pivot to become large-scale administrators for the government program, leveraging their expertise in claims processing, network management, and data analytics. Smaller, less diversified players, especially those heavily reliant on the commercial insurance market, would face a far greater risk of obsolescence.
• Role in the Digital Health Ecosystem: MCOs are positioned to be central players in the evolving digital health ecosystem. Their vast repositories of claims and clinical data, combined with their direct access to millions of members, make them indispensable partners for health-tech innovators.¹²² MCOs will increasingly act as curators, financiers, and distributors of digital health solutions, from telehealth platforms to remote monitoring devices and AI-driven diagnostic tools. Here again, vertically integrated MCOs have a distinct advantage. They can rapidly pilot, validate, and scale new technologies within their owned provider networks, creating a closed-loop system for innovation that non-integrated peers cannot replicate.

Quantitative Risk Modeling

To quantify the potential financial impact of the key risks facing the sector, we modeled the effect of five adverse scenarios on the adjusted earnings per share (EPS) of the major MCOs. The modeling demonstrates the differentiated vulnerability of each business model to specific shocks.

• Scenario 1: 200-300 Basis Point MLR Deterioration: This scenario models a sustained increase in medical costs that is not offset by premium rate adjustments. A 200 bps increase in the consolidated MLR would have a material impact on all players, but would be particularly damaging to companies with lower baseline margins.
• Scenario 2: 15-20% Reduction in Medicare Advantage Benchmark Rates: This scenario simulates a significant cut in federal funding for the MA program. The impact is most severe for Humana, given its heavy concentration in the MA market, and also significantly affects UnitedHealth and CVS/Aetna due to the large scale of their MA businesses.
• Scenario 3: Major Cybersecurity Breach: This models the financial fallout from a catastrophic cyberattack, akin to the Change Healthcare incident. Costs include direct response (forensics, remediation), business disruption (lost revenue), and potential regulatory fines. While difficult to precisely quantify per company, the scale of an enterprise-wide attack on a company like UnitedHealth could result in multi-billion dollar costs.
• Scenario 4: Adverse Risk Adjustment Ruling: This scenario assumes a negative Supreme Court ruling on Medicare Advantage risk adjustment methodologies, potentially requiring MCOs to retroactively repay a portion of prior years’ revenue to CMS. The impact would be proportional to each company’s MA revenue base.
• Scenario 5: Economic Recession: This scenario has a dual effect. A recession would likely drive an increase in Medicaid enrollment as people lose employer-sponsored coverage, boosting revenue for Medicaid-focused plans like Molina and Centene. However, it would also place severe strain on state budgets, leading to pressure for capitation rate cuts, which would compress margins. The net effect would depend on the balance of these two opposing forces.

Scenario	UnitedHealth Group	Elevance Health	CVS Health (Aetna)	Humana	Molina Healthcare	Centene Corporation
200 bps MLR Increase	Moderate EPS Impact	Significant EPS Impact	Significant EPS Impact	Significant EPS Impact	High EPS Impact	High EPS Impact
15% MA Rate Cut	High EPS Impact	Moderate EPS Impact	High EPS Impact	Severe EPS Impact	Low EPS Impact	Moderate EPS Impact
Cybersecurity Breach	High Financial Impact	Moderate Financial Impact	High Financial Impact	Moderate Financial Impact	Low Financial Impact	Moderate Financial Impact
Adverse RA Ruling	High Financial Impact	Moderate Financial Impact	High Financial Impact	Severe Financial Impact	Low Financial Impact	Moderate Financial Impact
Recession Impact	Mixed (Revenue ↑, Margin ↓)	Mixed (Revenue ↑, Margin ↓)	Mixed (Revenue ↑, Margin ↓)	Low Impact	High Impact (Net Negative)	High Impact (Net Negative)
Impact assessment is qualitative, reflecting the relative vulnerability of each business model to the specified shock.

Final Investment Recommendations and Sector Outlook

The analysis leads to a clear, tiered set of investment recommendations. The MCO sector is not a monolith, and performance will diverge based on strategic positioning and operational execution.

Tier 1 (Outperform): UnitedHealth Group. UNH stands in a class of its own due to the scale and maturity of its vertical integration strategy. The Optum platform provides a durable competitive advantage that allows it to manage costs more effectively, generate diversified earnings, and innovate faster than its peers. Its diversified revenue base provides resilience against regulatory pressures in any single government program. While it faces the risks associated with its market-leading size, its superior business model justifies a premium valuation and a long-term positive outlook.

Tier 2 (Market Perform): Elevance Health, CVS Health, Molina Healthcare.

• Elevance Health offers a stable, high-quality profile, leveraging its powerful Blue Cross brand. Its gradual build-out of the Carelon services arm is a sound strategy, but it currently lacks the scale and integration of Optum, leaving it in a “fast-follower” position.
• CVS Health presents the highest risk/reward profile in this tier. If it can successfully execute its ambitious vision of integrating Aetna, Oak Street, and Signify into its retail footprint, the long-term value creation could be immense. However, the near-term execution risk is substantial, and its MA business is currently facing severe margin pressure.
• Molina Healthcare is a best-in-class operator within its niche of government-sponsored programs. Its disciplined approach to M&A and strong record of winning state contracts is commendable. However, its lack of vertical integration and heavy reliance on Medicaid create long-term structural vulnerabilities in a world of rising acuity and tightening state budgets.

Tier 3 (Underperform): Humana, Centene Corporation.

• Humana’s intense focus on Medicare Advantage, once its greatest strength, has become its greatest liability. The business model is acutely vulnerable to CMS policy shifts, including benchmark rate changes, risk adjustment model updates, and Star Ratings volatility. The recent sharp decline in its Star Ratings signals significant near-term revenue and earnings headwinds.
• Centene Corporation is a turnaround story with considerable execution risk. While its scale in Medicaid and the Marketplace is impressive, the company is grappling with persistent margin pressure, poor operational performance in its Medicare segment, and the complexity of a multi-year portfolio restructuring. Until there is clear and sustained evidence of margin improvement and operational stabilization, the risks outweigh the potential rewards.

The long-term outlook for the managed care sector is one of increasing complexity and bifurcation. The gauntlet of regulatory, financial, and competitive pressures will challenge the entire industry. However, the most sophisticated, integrated, and well-managed organizations will not only survive but will likely consolidate their market power, emerging as the dominant health platforms of the future.

Works cited

1. Insurance Topics | Medical Loss Ratio – NAIC, accessed July 25, 2025, https://content.naic.org/insurance-topics/medical-loss-ratio
2. Health Actuary Insights From Medical Loss To Income Trends, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2023/mar/health-insurer-financial-insights-volume-11-p1.html
3. A Look at Medicaid Enrollment and Finances of the Five Largest …, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/a-look-at-medicaid-enrollment-and-finances-of-the-five-largest-medicaid-managed-care-plans/
4. Health Insurer Financial Performance in 2023 – KFF, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/health-insurer-financial-performance/
5. A Closer Look at the Five Largest Publicly Traded Companies … – KFF, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/a-closer-look-at-the-five-largest-publicly-traded-companies-operating-medicaid-managed-care-plans/
6. Document – SEC.gov, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/731766/000073176625000022/a2024q4exhibit991.htm
7. HUMANA INC SEC 10-K Report — TradingView News, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.tradingview.com/news/tradingview:ff60ef4e57356:0-humana-inc-sec-10-k-report/
8. How does medical inflation compare to inflation in the rest of the …, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/how-does-medical-inflation-compare-to-inflation-in-the-rest-of-the-economy/
9. Elevance Health, Inc. SEC 10-K Report — TradingView News, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.tradingview.com/news/tradingview:79cbf2d8689d1:0-elevance-health-inc-sec-10-k-report/
10. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION REPORTS FOURTH QUARTER AND FULL-YEAR 2024 RESULTS, accessed July 25, 2025, https://investors.cvshealth.com/investors/newsroom/press-release-details/2025/CVS-HEALTH-CORPORATION-REPORTS-FOURTH-QUARTER-AND-FULL-YEAR-2024-RESULTS/default.aspx
11. Humana Reports Fourth Quarter 2024 Financial Results; Provides Full Year 2025 Financial Guidance, accessed July 25, 2025, https://press.humana.com/news/news-details/2025/Humana-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-2024-Financial-Results-Provides-Full-Year-2025-Financial-Guidance/default.aspx
12. Molina Healthcare Reports Fourth Quarter and Year-End 2024 Financial Results, accessed July 25, 2025, https://investors.molinahealthcare.com/news-releases/news-release-details/molina-healthcare-reports-fourth-quarter-and-year-end-2024
13. Centene Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year …, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.webull.com/news/12334545819952128
14. UnitedHealth Group Reports 2022 Results – Document, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/731766/000073176623000003/a2022q4exhibit991.htm
15. UnitedHealth Group Reports 2021 Results – Document, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/731766/000073176622000004/a2021q4exhibit991.htm
16. Document – SEC.gov, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/731766/000073176621000002/a2020q4exhibit991.htm
17. UNH-Q4-2020-Release.pdf – UnitedHealth Group, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/content/dam/UHG/PDF/investors/2020/UNH-Q4-2020-Release.pdf
18. CVS Health Corporation 2020 Annual Report – ProxyVote.com, accessed July 25, 2025, https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/126650/20210317/AR_461776/
19. ANNUAL REPORT 2020 – Investor Relations | Molina Healthcare Inc., accessed July 25, 2025, https://investors.molinahealthcare.com/static-files/d2d0d867-a1eb-404d-9caa-40bb09e7c18c
20. Centene Corporation Reports 2020 Results – Feb 9, 2021, accessed July 25, 2025, https://investors.centene.com/2021-02-09-Centene-Corporation-Reports-2020-Results
21. CVS Health Corporation’s Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the Fiscal …, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.webull.com/news/12300231250835456
22. Financials – Elevance Health, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.elevancehealth.com/annual-report/2020/financials.html
23. elv-20221231 – SEC.gov, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1156039/000115603923000007/elv-20221231.htm
24. cvs-20201231 – SEC.gov, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/64803/000006480321000011/cvs-20201231.htm
25. cvs-20221231 – SEC.gov, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/64803/000006480323000009/cvs-20221231.htm
26. hum-20201231 – SEC.gov, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/49071/000004907121000039/hum-20201231.htm
27. Form 10-K for Humana INC filed 02/16/2023 – Investor Relations, accessed July 25, 2025, https://humana.gcs-web.com/static-files/f4043f22-fc0d-46d4-8fe9-98d2a3aa26c6
28. 2020 Annual Review – Centene – Annual Reports, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/c/NYSE_CNC_2020.pdf
29. cnc-20211231 – SEC.gov, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1071739/000107173922000071/cnc-20211231.htm
30. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board … – Centene Corporation, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.centene.com/content/dam/centenedotcom/documents/CNC-2023-SASB-Index.pdf
31. Medicaid Managed Care Capitation Rate Setting – MACPAC, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Managed-care-capitation-issue-brief.pdf
32. 2022-2023 Medicaid Managed Care Rate Development Guide, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/managed-care/downloads/2022-2023-medicaid-rate-guide-03282022.pdf
33. Medicaid Managed Care: Headwinds for the Big Five in the Budget …, accessed July 25, 2025, https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2025/07/18/medicaid-managed-care-headwinds-for-the-big-five-in-the-budget-reconciliation-law/
34. Negotiating Rates with Managed Care Organizations: Tip Sheet for Street Medicine Providers, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.chcs.org/media/Negotiating-Rates-with-Managed-Care-Organizations_final.pdf
35. Hospital Pricing and Managed Care Discounting: – National Bureau of Economic Research, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w10377/w10377.pdf
36. Managed Care – International Health Economics Association, accessed July 25, 2025, https://healtheconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Health-Econ_Lec6_ManagedCare-cf8571e81bfb9a471eeee7e674e95aab.pdf
37. Price Regulation, Global Budgets, and Spending Targets: A Road Map to Reduce Health Care Spending, and Improve Affordability | KFF, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.kff.org/health-costs/report/price-regulation-global-budgets-and-spending-targets-a-road-map-to-reduce-health-care-spending-and-improve-affordability/
38. Star Rating changes: How regional Medicare Advantage plans react, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.milliman.com/en/insight/star-rating-changes-how-regional-medicare-advantage-plans-react
39. Medicare Advantage Quality Bonus Payments Will Total at Least …, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/medicare-advantage-quality-bonus-payments/
40. 2025 Medicare Advantage and Part D Star Ratings – CMS, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/2025-medicare-advantage-and-part-d-star-ratings
41. Early analysis: How health plans fared in the 2025 Medicare Advantage star ratings, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.healthscape.com/insights/early-analysis-how-health-plans-fared-in-the-2025-medicare-advantage-star-ratings
42. Quality Bonus Payments in Medicare Advantage | Urban Institute, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/Quality%20Bonus%20Payments%20in%20Medicare%20Advantage.pdf
43. 2025 Medicare Advantage and Part D Rate Announcement – CMS, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/2025-medicare-advantage-and-part-d-rate-announcement
44. Guide to Cash Flow Management: Definition, Examples & Tips – Ramp, accessed July 25, 2025, https://ramp.com/blog/cash-flow-management
45. Cash Flow Management for Waiver Providers, accessed July 25, 2025, https://help.waivergroup.com/en_US/finance-reimbursement-and-billing/cash-flow-management-for-waiver-providers
46. UnitedHealth Group Reports Third Quarter 2024 Results – SEC.gov, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/731766/000073176624000320/a2024q3exhibit991.htm
47. Elevance Health Reports Results for Fourth Quarter and Full Year …, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.elevancehealth.com/newsroom/elv-quarterly-earnings-q4-2023
48. UnitedHealth Group Reports First Quarter 2025 Results and Revises Full Year Guidance, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/content/dam/UHG/PDF/investors/2025/UNH-Reports-Q1-2025-Results-Revises-Full-Year-Guidance.pdf
49. Analysis of HFS-contracted MCO Claims Processing and Payment Performance – Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, accessed July 25, 2025, https://hfs.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/hfs/sitecollectiondocuments/mcohcprq3q42023.pdf
50. Medicaid Managed Care Plan Transitions: A Toolkit for States on Promoting Continuity of Care When Plans Enter, Leave, or, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/managed-care/downloads/mmcp-transtons-tolkit.pdf
51. Medicaid Cuts at the State Level and Implementation Advocacy – Medicare Rights Center, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.medicarerights.org/medicare-watch/2025/07/10/medicaid-cuts-at-the-state-level-and-implementation-advocacy
52. Allocating CBO’s Estimates of Federal Medicaid Spending … – KFF, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/allocating-cbos-estimates-of-federal-medicaid-spending-reductions-across-the-states-enacted-reconciliation-package/
53. Medical Loss Ratio – CMS, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.cms.gov/marketplace/private-health-insurance/medical-loss-ratio
54. Transparency in Medicaid Managed Care: CMS Posts Annual MLR Reports, accessed July 25, 2025, https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2024/11/15/transparency-in-medicaid-managed-care-cms-posts-annual-mlr-reports/
55. Medical Loss Ratios in Medicaid Managed Care – MACPAC, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Medical-loss-ratio-issue-brief-January-2022.pdf
56. 10 Things to Know About Medicaid Managed Care – KFF, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/10-things-to-know-about-medicaid-managed-care/
57. Medicaid Budget Survey 2024-2025 – Delivery Systems – KFF, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.kff.org/report-section/50-state-medicaid-budget-survey-fy-2024-2025-delivery-systems/
58. Prior Authorization in Medicaid | MACPAC, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Prior-Authorization-in-Medicaid.pdf
59. Prior authorization bill would require true peers make decisions, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/prior-authorization/prior-authorization-bill-would-require-true-peers-make
60. Prior authorization delays care—and increases health care costs | American Medical Association, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/prior-authorization/prior-authorization-delays-care-and-increases-health-care
61. CMS Finalizes Rule to Expand Access to Health Information and Improve the Prior Authorization Process, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-finalizes-rule-expand-access-health-information-and-improve-prior-authorization-process
62. The Consequences and Future of Prior-Authorization Reform – PMC, accessed July 25, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10676707/
63. States Lead on Prior Authorization Reform – ASCO, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.asco.org/news-initiatives/policy-news-analysis/states-lead-prior-authorization-reform
64. LUGPA Policy Brief: Prior Authorization Reform – State and Federal Efforts, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.lugpa.org/prior-authorization-reform—state-and-federal-efforts
65. States Leading on Prior Authorization Reform – ASCO, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.asco.org/news-initiatives/policy-news-analysis/states-leading-prior-authorization-reform
66. Potential impacts on commercial costs and premiums related to the elimination of prior authorization requirements – Milliman, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.milliman.com/en/insight/potential-impacts-elimination-of-prior-authorization-requests
67. No Surprises Act Overview of Key Consumer Protections | CMS, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.cms.gov/files/document/nsa-keyprotections.pdf
68. No Surprises Act – MD Clarity, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.mdclarity.com/no-surprises-act
69. AMA High-Level Summary of the No Surprises Act – American …, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-12/no-surprises-act-summary.pdf
70. The Implications of the No Surprises Act on Contract … – HHS ASPE, accessed July 25, 2025, https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/754f61834289cdd719b542035ee36eba/PRA-1820-9.pdf
71. CMS finalizes changes to No Surprises Act administrative and IDR fees | AHA News, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.aha.org/news/headline/2023-12-19-cms-finalizes-changes-no-surprises-act-administrative-and-idr-fees
72. Network Adequacy in Health Law – Number Analytics, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-network-adequacy-health-law
73. Network Adequacy Standards and Enforcement – KFF, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/issue-brief/network-adequacy-standards-and-enforcement/
74. Monitoring managed care access – MACPAC, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.macpac.gov/subtopic/monitoring-managed-care-access/
75. Medicaid Managed Care Network Adequacy & Access: Current …, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/medicaid-managed-care-network-adequacy-access-current-standards-and-proposed-changes/
76. Provider Network Adequacy: How Critical is It? – Certify, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.certifyos.com/resources/blog/provider-network-adequacy
77. Health Insurance Competition and Market Share in Pennsylvania – Mark Farrah Associates, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.markfarrah.com/mfa-briefs/health-insurance-competition-and-market-share-in-pennsylvania/
78. Most Medicare Advantage Markets are Dominated by One or Two …, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/most-medicare-advantage-markets-are-dominated-by-one-or-two-insurers/
79. A Framework for Evaluating Vertical Integration Among Payers and Providers, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.hunton.com/insights/publications/a-framework-for-evaluating-vertical-integration-among-payers-and-providers
80. Vertical Integration Likely Increases Spending, but Does It Also Improve Quality of Care?, accessed July 25, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7080871/
81. UnitedHealth’s Optum to acquire 9-state multispecialty radiology provider, accessed July 25, 2025, https://radiologybusiness.com/topics/healthcare-management/mergers-and-acquisitions/unitedhealths-optum-acquire-9-state-multispecialty-radiology-provider
82. Optum – Wikipedia, accessed July 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optum
83. Elevance Health to Acquire Paragon Healthcare, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.elevancehealth.com/newsroom/elevance-health-to-acquire-paragon-healthcare
84. Elevance Health Announces Closing of Paragon Healthcare Acquisition, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.elevancehealth.com/newsroom/elevance-health-announces-closing-of-paragon-healthcare-acquisition
85. CVS-Aetna merger – American Medical Association, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.ama-assn.org/health-care-advocacy/access-care/cvs-aetna-merger
86. CVS Health Completes Acquisition of Aetna, Marking Start of Transforming Consumer Health Experience, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.cvshealth.com/news/company-news/cvs-health-completes-acquisition-of-aetna-marking-start-of.html
87. 2022 Environmental, Social and Governance Report – CVS Health, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.cvshealth.com/content/dam/enterprise/cvs-enterprise/pdfs/2022/2022-ESGReport.pdf
88. Humana’s CenterWell Acquires The Villages Health Amid Chapter 11 Bankruptcy – AInvest, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.ainvest.com/news/humana-centerwell-acquires-villages-health-chapter-11-bankruptcy-2507/
89. Humana Again Expands Its Profile in Primary Care for Seniors | AHA, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.aha.org/aha-center-health-innovation-market-scan/2022-09-27-humana-again-expands-its-profile-primary-care
90. Crenshaw, Schrier, Smucker, Pettersen Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Expand Access to Direct Primary Care Through Medicaid | Press Releases, accessed July 25, 2025, https://crenshaw.house.gov/2025/2/crenshaw-schrier-smucker-pettersen-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-expand-access-to-direct-primary-care-through-medicaid
91. Direct Primary Care Arrangements Raise Questions for State Insurance Regulators – Commonwealth Fund, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2018/direct-primary-care-arrangements-state-insurance
92. Direct Primary Care: A Successful Financial Model for the Clinical Practice of Lifestyle Medicine – PMC, accessed July 25, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8504342/
93. Is Direct Primary Care the Solution to Our Health Care Crisis? – AAFP, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.aafp.org/pubs/fpm/issues/2016/0900/p10.html
94. Recommendations for Helping MCOs Operate as Innovators to Achieve the Triple Aim We strongly support Medicaid managed care organ – Louisiana Department of Health, accessed July 25, 2025, https://ldh.la.gov/assets/HealthyLa/PTWR/CommunityCatalyst_MCO_RFI.pdf
95. Supporting Technology-Enabled Innovation in Medicaid Managed Care to Improve Quality and Equity: State Considerations, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.chcs.org/resource/supporting-technology-enabled-innovation-in-medicaid-managed-care-to-improve-quality-and-equity-state-considerations/
96. The Biggest Healthcare Cybersecurity Threats in 2025 – HealthTech Magazine, accessed July 25, 2025, https://healthtechmagazine.net/article/2025/01/healthcare-cybersecurity-threats-2025-perfcon
97. UnitedHealth Group Reports 2024 Results, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/newsroom/2025/2025-16-01-uhg-reports-fourth-quarter-results.html
98. UnitedHealth Group’s 2022 Sustainability Report Highlights Efforts To Diversify the Health Workforce, Minimize Its Environmental Footprint, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/newsroom/2023/2023-06-13-uhg-releases-2022-sustainability-report.html
99. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. ESG Risk Rating – Sustainalytics, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-rating/unitedhealth-group-inc/1007982919
100. Corporate Responsibility | Elevance Health, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.elevancehealth.com/who-we-are/corporate-responsibility
101. Environmental Sustainability | Elevance Health, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.elevancehealth.com/who-we-are/corporate-responsibility/environmental-sustainability
102. 2023 Impact Report | Elevance Health, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.elevancehealth.com/content/dam/elevance-health/documents/ELV_2023_Impact_Report.pdf
103. 2021 Annual Report, accessed July 25, 2025, https://s2.q4cdn.com/447711729/files/doc_financials/2021/ar/CVS2021_Annual-Report.pdf
104. Medicaid MCO Learning Hub – NORC at the University of Chicago, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.norc.org/content/dam/norc-org/pdfs/MCOLearningHub_MCOsFundingAffordableHousing.pdf
105. 2023 Annual Report – Annual Reports, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/h/NYSE_HUM_2023.pdf
106. Humana Reports Fourth Quarter 2023 Financial … – Investor Relations, accessed July 25, 2025, https://humana.gcs-web.com/static-files/7737f6a6-c06f-4e7d-9fd4-431eeba9ee60
107. 2021 Environmental, Social & Governance Disclosures – Humana, accessed July 25, 2025, https://docushare-web.apps.external.pioneer.humana.com/Marketing/docushare-app?file=4464772
108. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC. SEC 10-K Report — TradingView News, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.tradingview.com/news/tradingview:93facff31bf0d:0-molina-healthcare-inc-sec-10-k-report/
109. Molina Healthcare Reports Fourth Quarter and Year-End 2023 …, accessed July 25, 2025, https://investors.molinahealthcare.com/node/23236/pdf
110. Join Our Network | Molina Healthcare, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.molinahealthcare.com/members/common/en-us/plm.aspx
111. Provider Relations – Molina Healthcare, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.molinahealthcare.com/providers/ne/medicaid/resources/providerrelations.aspx
112. Medicaid Managed Care: The Big Five in Q4 2024, accessed July 25, 2025, https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2025/02/27/medicaid-managed-care-the-big-five-in-q4-2024/
113. CENTENE CORPORATION REPORTS 2023 RESULTS – Feb 6, 2024, accessed July 25, 2025, https://investors.centene.com/2024-02-06-CENTENE-CORPORATION-REPORTS-2023-RESULTS
114. CENTENE CORPORATION REPORTS 2023 RESULTS – PR Newswire, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/centene-corporation-reports-2023-results-302053986.html
115. 2021 Annual Review – Centene Corporation, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.centene.com/content/dam/centenedotcom/investor_docs/Centene-2021-Annual-Review_508.pdf
116. CVS Health Investor Day 2023 Presentation, accessed July 25, 2025, https://s2.q4cdn.com/447711729/files/doc_downloads/2023/investor-day/CVS_Health_Investor_Day_2023_Presentation.pdf
117. Exhibit 99.1 CVS HEALTH CORPORATION REPORTS FOURTH …, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.cvshealth.com/content/dam/enterprise/cvs-enterprise/pdfs/2025/Q4-2024-Earnings-Release.pdf
118. Proposing An Innovative Bond To Increase Investments In Social Drivers Of Health Interventions In Medicaid Managed Care, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00821
119. Healthcare Claims Automation: A Comprehensive Guide – FlowForma, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.flowforma.com/blog/healthcare-claims-automation
120. How can claims automation maximize ROI and reduce operational costs? – Business Money, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.business-money.com/announcements/how-can-claims-automation-maximize-roi-and-reduce-operational-costs/
121. Medical cost trend: Behind the numbers – PwC, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/health-industries/library/behind-the-numbers.html
122. How Health Plans Can Future-Proof Their Business – Oliver Wyman, accessed July 25, 2025, https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/perspectives/health/2025/march/how-health-plans-can-future-proof-their-business.html