It’s been a tough year for Humana (No. 39 on the Fortune 500), the health-insurance giant that primarily serves seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. Rising medical costs and a drop in the quality ratings that are used to calculate bonus payments have made an impact. On Nov. 5, Humana reported a drop in net income to $1.62 a share, from $3.98 a share the year prior, and lowered its full-year earnings guidance.
CEO Jim Rechtin, who has been in the role since July 2024, spoke to Fortune prior to the release of earnings, and discussed how he’s navigating a tough climate and trying to transform Humana.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
You started your career in the Peace Corps, directing a public health and water sanitation project in what’s today the Republic of Congo. What did you learn from that experience?
Six months in, I was ready to quit and go home. We were doing construction projects to build latrines and cap wells and we expected the communities to fund those things themselves.
They’re sitting there, saying ‘I have a stream in my backyard that has perfectly clear water in it.’ As we began to ask questions, people would come back to say, ‘Well, we need latrines in the market. We need latrines at the school, the hospital.’ So we were able to target the project in a different way. The fundamental lesson is, go talk to your customers and ask them what they need, because they know.
You’re assigned this project, but the project doesn’t work because nobody’s been on the ground there and you spend your first year realizing it’s not going to work. So you start talking to people and listening to them and you realize that we misunderstood the need. That really is, frankly, no different than my first year and a half here.
Humana is like the Peace Corps?
You come in with an idea of what needs to happen, but the reality is you don’t know.
So you spend a whole bunch of time going out, talking to members, providers, your own associates, and you begin putting ideas together.
Most of my background has been in the provider space, not the insurance space. We’re both, but we’re predominantly in the insurance space. The challenge there is that it’s a business built around managing a high volume of transactions and pricing risk, but it’s not a business that is inherently attuned to consumers. If you interviewed a bunch of our 65,000 associates, you’d walk away and say, ‘Hey, these are good people. They really care about customers.’ Then you would realize that we have almost no tools to collect feedback from our customers.
A lot of what we’re trying to do now is behave more like a consumer health care company, to the degree that there is such a thing in the U.S. right now, as opposed to a traditional insurance company. That starts with understanding who your customer is and getting feedback and trying to balance that multiyear journey with the near-term pressures.
Once you get all that feedback, are there some inherent constrictions with the business model in terms of incorporating it?
I don’t want to pretend that there aren’t obstacles, but I would say that they’re not structural to the business or the sector. They are obstacles of history, the cultural biases that we bring to every conversation. It’s the way that we have chosen to do things that we have to unwind.
Any examples?
We recently rolled out a new portal for the annual enrollment process. What we have never done before is say: Let’s rapidly prototype one in 30 days, trial it with a bunch of real consumers, get feedback, modify the next 30 days, get feedback again and so on. We would have typically come up with a six-month plan to build something, with no input from the people who are going to use it and then find out that we didn’t build it quite right. There’s no structural reason to do it one way or another.
Your customer base must skew older because the bulk of your revenue comes from Medicare Advantage (private Medicare-approved plans that often offer extra benefits like vision, dental and fitness coverage).
Yes, most of our business is built to serve seniors. We do have other businesses that don’t serve seniors, and those are growing, but we predominantly serve seniors. They’re on Facebook, they use YouTube, they shop on Amazon. They may not be as digitally native as a 25-year-old, but they’re absolutely digitally engaged. Sometimes we get caught up in the bias that they’re not. We need to give them the type of experience that they want to engage with. We sponsor the Senior Games, kind of like the Olympics for seniors, and this year we rolled out an adjacent event called the Cognitive Games.
Cognitive games?
It’s things like Bejeweled and Wordle and those kinds of games. In the first week, we engaged a few hundred thousand people, so we knew we’d built something that they wanted.
How does that help the Humana band?
On the Cognitive Games, I don’t know the answer. For what it’s worth, we didn’t start sponsoring the Senior Games because we were looking for an ROI. We thought it was a good thing to do, as a civic contribution. We almost stumbled into the ROI by accident because we were seeing people enrolling at the Senior Games or after.
The bigger thing is how it changed perceptions of our brand. If you were to interview people at the Senior Games about Humana, they would tell you that it’s about wellness, taking an interest in the whole person’s health. That goes beyond a let-me-pay-your-claim consumer health care company. We’re out where consumers are, building a relationship with them. We’re not managing a payment transaction in the shadows.
Any thoughts on the current administration’s moves to cut health care costs?
Health care is one of the largest expenditures in the federal and state budgets. There’s not much that goes on in the policy world that doesn’t have some second- or third-order implication for us. So, yes, we pay attention. Yes, it matters. I think we should all be concerned about the fiscal pressures that the country is under right now. Those fiscal pressures and the size of health care expenses means there will continue to be pressure on our sector.
There are these opposing forces: One is the fiscal realities of our country and our government; the other is an active voter block that really loves Medicare and Medicare Advantage. Those two things are pushing on each other, and we sit in between. We can play that role passively and hope that those two pressures resolve themselves, or we have an opportunity to be proactive in trying to diffuse that pressure, taking a more active stance in helping consumers make good health care decisions, which will reduce costs over time. Most consumers want to make good health care decisions. They need information and the tools to be able to do that. And so we can play a more active role. To me, that goes right back to being a consumer health care company.
“Most consumers want to make good health care decisions. They need information and the tools to be able to do that.”Jim Rechtin, CEO, Humana
What are we not paying enough attention to, in terms of the opportunities or the challenges?
Most of the conversation is about one annual budget after another. The things that we need to fix are not going to be fixed in an annual budget cycle. How do we get a more holistic solution to the fiscal pressures and the health care components?
What would you do?
How do you take the unnecessary utilization out of the system? And how do we streamline and simplify the system in a way that takes a whole bunch of the bureaucratic cost out of it? That’s not limited to any one sector. A lot of that has to do with how the different sectors of health care interact with each other. Billing and collecting costs too much. Distribution costs too much. The hurdles to access create unnecessary cost. We need more modern pipes to exchange data between the different players in the industry. We need, frankly, more access to data so that we can better inform and guide and educate our members on how to access care. The fragmented nature of how our system works creates friction. It creates cost. And a lot of that is about not being modernized.
Is AI as transformative as we make it out to be in this space?
It will be over the next five years. You can’t move as fast as you’d like to roll out the capability, the tools. But yes, health care and the industry and the economy more broadly are going to look very different.
How are you using it right now?
Let me give you examples. We are rolling out ambient listening technology that takes the administrative burden of being a doctor off our doctors and allows them to spend more time with the patient. We have a new tool that we just rolled out for our brokers and sales agents that we refer to as Agent Assist that allows them to streamline a very complicated sales process. For Medicare Advantage, they have to comb through dozens and dozens of documents. AI can comb through all of those documents on an automated basis and answer very basic questions much more rapidly, shortening the sales cycle and getting frankly more accurate answers. Eventually, consumers are going to interact with it directly. We can’t do that yet, but that’s coming, probably three years from now.
If we want real-time approvals of requests, then we want AI for prior authorizations. But we want it to say yes, not no, right? Right now, we use AI tools to get to a faster yes. The nos go to a doctor who can get better documentation in front of them faster to make that process more efficient.
What do we do for this next generation of entry-level workers that may not have a lot of job opportunities right now?
I grew up predominantly in Indianapolis and a little bit in Kentucky. That was my whole life. I spent very little time in any other part of the country. During my sophomore year, I did a service trip to Appalachia. I spent a month mostly living with a family there, and I walked away realizing how different life is only a couple hundred miles away from where I grew up. It got me curious: What’s it like elsewhere? So I did a service trip to Honduras and then the Dominican Republic. I wanted to learn more. And that’s what led me to the Peace Corps.
What I wanted to do is live in a community that was very different from the community I grew up in. Experiencing new things is really what’s valuable from a learning experience. If we are going to find ourselves in a world where entry-level jobs are harder to come by, and the economy is in transition, and we need to find mechanisms to allow a generation of kids to keep growing, to get those new experiences.
What did it teach you about yourself?
I was a political science major. We talked about rule of law and democracy. You don’t really understand what those are until you’re in a place where they aren’t. That was probably the biggest thing that was eye-opening for me, to be in a place where you don’t have a mature judicial system or legal system. But the biggest thing that I realized is the power of asking questions.
Five years from now, will Humana look different?
It better, because if it doesn’t look different, it won’t survive, right? I think that’s true of everybody. Humana has unique positioning to have a real impact on how improved quality care reduces total cost. We serve seniors, who have a lot of health care needs, and it’s an individual product so you can tailor the product. Third, we are also in the primary care space. We’re in the home health space. We have our own ability to distribute medication in areas that have the greatest ability to impact chronic conditions and the total cost of delivering health care services. I think you can really have an impact on both cost and quality of care.
How do you want people to think about the brand?
If we’re going to stop being viewed as a health insurance company and start being viewed as consumer health care company, we need to engage our members in a way that does two things. One is arm them with what they need to make better health care decisions on the front end to avoid or delay downstream issues. Second, help them navigate the system. We’re not the provider who touches them every day, but we have more data and more knowledge about those providers and about the experience that they are going to have with them than anybody else. We have never stepped back and fully acknowledged that we have agency in that experience.
So you’ve been more of a passive actor in the background in that process?
Way too often. That’s what health insurance has been: They’ve been passive actors.
So what are your priorities right now?
We are not where we want to be, and we’ve been very public. The challenge is that when we realized we had fallen behind, we only had three months to fix it. We feel very good about the trajectory that we’re on for next year. We have to get our star ratings right, which means we need to make sure that we are delivering for our customers, both from an experience standpoint and clinical standpoint. That’s number one.
The second priority for us is what I would describe as tech enablement. How do we use technology to better engage members and run more efficiently? Third, how do we really differentiate the experience we are delivering, which is not all technology driven. We’ve simplified our product. We’ve made it easier to access preventative care and we’re taking away the financial hurdles. To do that, we are streamlining the prior authorization process to make it less cumbersome, both for providers and consumers. We are partnering with companies like EPIC (an electronic health record system) to create more cost transparency for our members. At the end of the day, it’s about building an experience that a consumer wants to be a part of.
For Mark Zuckerberg, the most significant creation from his two years at Harvard University wasn’t the precursor to a global social network, but a prank website that nearly got him expelled.
The Meta CEO said in a 2017 commencement address at his alma mater that the controversial site, Facemash, was “the most important thing I built in my time here” for one simple reason: it led him to his wife, Priscilla Chan.
“Without Facemash I wouldn’t have met Priscilla, and she’s the most important person in my life,” Zuckerberg said during the speech.
In 2003, Zuckerberg, then a sophomore, created Facemash by hacking into Harvard’s online student directories and using the photos to create a site where users could rank students’ attractiveness. The site went viral, but it was quickly shut down by the university. Zuckerberg was called before Harvard’s Administrative Board, facing accusations of breaching security, violating copyrights, and infringing on individual privacy.
“Everyone thought I was going to get kicked out,” Zuckerberg recalled in his speech. “My parents came to help me pack. My friends threw me a going-away party.”
It was at this party, thrown by friends who believed his expulsion was imminent, where he met Chan, another Harvard undergraduate. “We met in line for the bathroom in the Pfoho Belltower, and in what must be one of the all time romantic lines, I said: ‘I’m going to get kicked out in three days, so we need to go on a date quickly,’” Zuckerberg said.
Chan, who described her now-husband to The New Yorker as “this nerdy guy who was just a little bit out there,” went on the date with him. Zuckerberg did not get expelled from Harvard after all, but he did famously drop out the following year to focus on building Facebook.
While the 2010 film The Social Network portrayed Facemash as a critical stepping stone to the creation of Facebook, Zuckerberg himself has downplayed its technical or conceptual importance.
“And, you know, that movie made it seem like Facemash was so important to creating Facebook. It wasn’t,” he said during his commencement speech. But he did confirm that the series of events it set in motion—the administrative hearing, the “going-away” party, the line for the bathroom—ultimately connected him with the mother of his three children.
Chan, for her part, went on to graduate from Harvard in 2007, taught science, and then attended medical school at the University of California, San Francisco, becoming a pediatrician.
She and Zuckerberg got married in 2012, and in 2015, they co-founded the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a philanthropic organization focused on leveraging technology to address major world challenges in health, education, and science. Chan serves as co-CEO of the initiative, which has pledged to give away 99% of the couple’s shares in Meta Platforms to fund its work.
You can watch the entirety of Zuckerberg’s Harvard commencement speech below:
For this story, Fortune journalists used generative AI as a research tool. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan watchdog that regularly estimates how much the U.S. Congress is adding to the $38 trillion national debt.
With enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies due to expire within days, some Senate Democrats are scrambling to protect millions of Americans from getting the unpleasant holiday gift of spiking health insurance premiums. The CRFB says there’s just one problem with the plan: It’s not funded.
“With the national debt as large as the economy and interest payments costing $1 trillion annually, it is absurd to suggest adding hundreds of billions more to the debt,” CRFB President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a statement on Friday afternoon.
The proposal, backed by members of the Senate Democratic caucus, would fully extend the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years, from 2026 through 2028, with no additional income limits on who can qualify. Those subsidies, originally boosted during the pandemic and later renewed, were designed to lower premiums and prevent coverage losses for middle‑ and lower‑income households purchasing insurance on the ACA exchanges.
CRFB estimated that even this three‑year extension alone would add roughly $300 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, largely because the federal government would continue to shoulder a larger share of premium costs while enrollment and subsidy amounts remain elevated. If Congress ultimately moves to make the enhanced subsidies permanent—as many advocates have urged—the total cost could swell to nearly $550 billion in additional borrowing over the next decade.
Reversing recent guardrails
MacGuineas called the Senate bill “far worse than even a debt-financed extension” as it would roll back several “program integrity” measures that were enacted as part of a 2025 reconciliation law and were intended to tighten oversight of ACA subsidies. On top of that, it would be funded by borrowing even more. “This is a bad idea made worse,” MacGuineas added.
The watchdog group’s central critique is that the new Senate plan does not attempt to offset its costs through spending cuts or new revenue and, in their view, goes beyond a simple extension by expanding the underlying subsidy structure.
The legislation would permanently repeal restrictions that eliminated subsidies for certain groups enrolling during special enrollment periods and would scrap rules requiring full repayment of excess advance subsidies and stricter verification of eligibility and tax reconciliation. The bill would also nullify portions of a 2025 federal regulation that loosened limits on the actuarial value of exchange plans and altered how subsidies are calculated, effectively reshaping how generous plans can be and how federal support is determined. CRFB warned these reversals would increase costs further while weakening safeguards designed to reduce misuse and error in the subsidy system.
MacGuineas said that any subsidy extension should be paired with broader reforms to curb health spending and reduce overall borrowing. In her view, lawmakers are missing a chance to redesign ACA support in a way that lowers premiums while also improving the long‑term budget outlook.
The debate over ACA subsidies recently contributed to a government funding standoff, and CRFB argued that the new Senate bill reflects a political compromise that prioritizes short‑term relief over long‑term fiscal responsibility.
“After a pointless government shutdown over this issue, it is beyond disappointing that this is the preferred solution to such an important issue,” MacGuineas wrote.
The off-year elections cast the government shutdown and cost-of-living arguments in a different light. Democrats made stunning gains and almost flipped a deep-red district in Tennessee as politicians from the far left and center coalesced around “affordability.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly smelling blood in the water and doubling down on the theme heading into the pivotal midterm elections of 2026. President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Pennsylvania soon to discuss pocketbook anxieties. But he is repeating predecessor Joe Biden’s habit of dismissing inflation, despite widespread evidence to the contrary.
“We fixed inflation, and we fixed almost everything,” Trump said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting, in which he also dismissed affordability as a “hoax” pushed by Democrats.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a politically fraught choice: allow premiums to jump sharply—including in swing states like Pennsylvania where ACA enrollees face double‑digit increases—or pass an expensive subsidy extension that would, as CRFB calculates, explode the deficit without addressing underlying health care costs.
Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market.
The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of Thrones, Friends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.
That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.
“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”
By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump.
Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.
The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.
The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.
“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”
European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.
The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.
Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.
Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.
Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation.
“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.
Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.
The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.
Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking.
Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.