WSJ's Editorial Board Contradicts What Its Newsroom Has Reported on Medicare Advantage

The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board vs. The Wall Street Journal’s Newsroom.

The paper that exposed Medicare Advantage’s $50 billion overbilling scheme is now urging the government to make it the default for every senior in America.

During my two decades working for Big Insurance, I learned what industry spin looks like. I know what it sounds like. And I know that when a major newspaper’s editorial board publishes a piece defending an industry that has spent millions cultivating its editorial goodwill, the result often reads exactly like the Wall Street Journal’s editorial yesterday, “The Truth About Medicare Advantage.”

The piece is a masterclass in selective evidence. But what makes it remarkable is that the most damning rebuttal to it doesn’t come from me, or from Medicare Advantage’s many critics, or from the political left. It comes from the Wall Street Journal’s own newsroom.

In the fall of 2022, a team of Journal reporters did something extraordinary. They negotiated a data-sharing agreement with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, gaining access to 1.6 billion Medicare Advantage records over a 12-year period — every prescription filled, every doctor visit, every hospitalization. The investigation that followed was among the most rigorous pieces of health care journalism in years.

What they found was damning. Medicare Advantage plans received roughly $50 billion in payments between 2018 and 2021 for diagnoses that were questionable — conditions added to patients’ records not by their doctors, but by the insurers themselves. The Pulitzer Prize committee called it a series showing how health insurers gamed the Medicare Advantage program to collect billions for nonexistent ailments while shunting expensive cases onto the public.

The Journal’s editorial board was apparently not paying attention to its own reporters. Because in its editorial yesterday, the board cites a study funded by Elevance Health — one of the largest Medicare Advantage insurers in the country — to argue that private MA plans reduce Medicare spending. It calls opposition to Medicare Advantage “ideological, no matter the facts.”

“No matter the facts” certainly applies to the Journal’s editorial.

The central fact the editorial board cannot afford to acknowledge — because the entire argument would collapse if it did — is the ongoing Medicare Advantage overpayment scandal. MedPAC, the independent congressional agency that advises Congress on Medicare, projects that for 2026, Medicare Advantage payments will run $76 billion — or 14% — above what traditional Medicare would spend on the same beneficiaries, after accounting for health status, coding differences, and geographic factors. Note that the $76 billion in overpayments is just for this year. Looking back over the history of the Medicare Advantage program and the total likely would grow to nearly a trillion dollars if not more.

This is not a partisan number. MedPAC is a nonpartisan body. The methodology accounts for the very factors the industry argues should be included. And the conclusion is unambiguous: the federal government spends substantially more of our tax dollars per person under Medicare Advantage than it would under traditional Medicare. That $76 billion overpayment is not a rounding error. It is more than the entire annual budget of the Department of Education.

The Journal’s editorial board also ignores what that overpayment costs seniors who never chose a private plan. The Journal’s own reporting detailed how MA overpayments translated into roughly $13.4 billion in additional Part B premium costs in 2025 alone — costs borne by every Medicare beneficiary, including those in traditional Medicare who never signed up for a private Medicare replacement plan, which is what Medicare Advantage is. Every senior paying Part B premiums is, in effect, subsidizing the insurers the editorial board is championing.

The editorial argues that Medicare Advantage reduces the incentives for hospitals to upcode patients to a higher level of complexity. This would be a compelling point if the Journal’s own investigation had not spent years documenting how MA insurers themselves are the upcoding problem.

The Journal’s investigation found that coding intensity in Medicare Advantage runs 20% higher than in traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Of the 17 audits the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General has conducted since 2019, there was no support for nearly 69% of diagnoses that Medicare Advantage plans used for risk adjustment, leading to more than $100 million in overpayments to MA plans from upcoding alone. That’s not a rounding error either.

In the early years of private Medicare plans, insurers went to great lengths to sign up only the healthiest seniors and to run off the seniors when they got sick. It was called “cherry picking” and “lemon dropping.” I saw it up close in the early ‘90s when I was at Humana, one of the first insurers to get into the private Medicare replacement business. It was so prevalent in the industry that in 2003 Congress passed legislation to authorize the government to pay insurers more for signing up less-healthy seniors. So for two decades now, insurers have been paid more for sicker patients, which means they have powerful financial incentives to make patients look sicker on paper — but not to pay for treatments they supposedly would need. The Journal’s reporters found that among Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who had an HIV diagnosis added to their record by their insurer, just 17% received any treatment for the disease. Among beneficiaries diagnosed with HIV by their own physician, 92% received treatment. Diagnoses without treatment are not better care. They are extra revenue.

The editorial’s most revealing sentence may be this one: “The opposition to Advantage is ideological, no matter the facts.” This is a tell. It reframes data as politics, and politics as bias — a classic spin move designed to preempt legitimate criticism by impugning the critic’s motives.

But the criticism of Medicare Advantage is most certainly not ideological, and it is not coming only from Democrats. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a Republican, wrote to UnitedHealth Group’s CEO arguing that the “apparent fraud, waste, and abuse at issue is simply unacceptable and harms not only Medicare beneficiaries, but also the American taxpayer.” The Trump administration’s Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation into UnitedHealth Group’s Medicare Advantage billing practices (which the Journal reported as a scoop). The Senate Judiciary Committee, which Grassley chairs, published a 104-page report on MA overbilling.

Another senior Republican, Sen. Bill Cassidy, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, is the lead sponsor of a bill that would crack down on upcoding. It’s called The No UPCODE Act. These are not the actions of ideologues. They are the actions of Republican legislative leaders and committee investigators who read the Journal’s own reporting and followed up.

The editorial’s timing is no coincidence. Trump’s Medicare director, Chris Klomp, recently confirmed that the administration is actively considering a policy that would automatically enroll new Medicare beneficiaries into private Medicare Advantage plans — a proposal straight out of the Project 2025 blueprint. The editorial reads, at least in part, as advance justification for that policy.

Under current law, seniors who enroll in Medicare are automatically covered by traditional Medicare unless they affirmatively choose a private plan. Under a default enrollment scheme, the reverse would be true: seniors who fail to make an active choice would be placed into a private plan, with the option to switch back – but not for three years. Seniors would be locked in a plan that the government chose for them, that has a limited network of doctors and hospitals, that makes them pay the entire bill for services they might receive outside of that network, and that denies coverage for medically necessary care far more than traditional Medicare – for three years.

The consequences of getting automatic enrollment in MA wrong are severe and often irreversible. The vast majority of states do not require Medigap insurers to sell supplemental coverage to beneficiaries who want to switch back from Medicare Advantage to traditional Medicare outside of limited time windows. For many seniors, once they are in, they are in. The editorial board does not mention this.

And the program is hardly the stable backstop the board describes. A Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health analysis found that approximately 10% of Medicare Advantage enrollees — roughly 2.9 million seniors — are being forced to find new coverage in 2026 as insurers exit markets, a tenfold increase in the forced disenrollment rate compared to just two years ago. The board wants to make this the default destination for every new senior in America, just as the private market is demonstrating it cannot sustain its current commitments.

Let’s return to the study the editorial board cites as evidence that Medicare Advantage saves money. The board presents it as peer-reviewed fact. What it does not say is that the researchers are affiliated with Elevance Health — formerly Anthem — one of the largest Medicare Advantage insurers in the country. Industry-funded research is not automatically wrong, but it requires disclosure and scrutiny that the editorial board does not provide. I know from personal experience that industry-funded research is typically rigged to support conclusions the funder wants to convey – to policymakers, the business community, the media and the public – and that any data that do not support the funder’s business objectives never make it into the final report.

In the communications business, we used to call this kind of thing a “third-party validator” — research that carries the appearance of independence while advancing the funder’s interests. I helped produce the playbook. I know how this works.

The Wall Street Journal’s newsroom has done some of the most consequential health care journalism of the past decade. Its reporters negotiated extraordinary data access. They documented, with precision, how the insurance industry has extracted billions from Medicare through practices that the Pulitzer committee described as gaming the system. They named names and they showed their work. And you can be certain that every word they wrote was carefully fact-checked and vetted by the Journal’s legal team.

The editorial board is in the same building as the Journal’s newsroom. I know because I’ve been in those rooms. I know and have worked with many of the reporters who cover the health insurance business, going back to my days in the industry. I can assure you that the Journal’s reporters are among the best in the business and, unlike the editorial writers, most certainly are not motivated by ideology.

The newspaper’s editorial board owes readers the same fidelity to evidence that its reporters have demonstrated. Instead, it has produced a piece of advocacy that reads like it was drafted in a health insurance industry communications shop — cherry-picked studies, industry talking points, and a dismissal of critics as ideologues “no matter the facts.”

I have spent the years since leaving the insurance industry trying to help people understand how spin works – how it is produced, how it travels, and how it takes hold even in institutions that should know better. The Journal editorial board’s Medicare Advantage advocacy is a case study.

This should be studied in every journalism school in America: The paper that exposed Medicare Advantage’s overbilling scheme is now urging the government to make it the default plan for every senior in America. Someone needs to explain that to the reporters who spent three years proving why that is a terrible idea.