Connect with us

Economics

Why Is Upstart Stock Down Despite Growth? 5 Things to Know

Are investors overreacting with UPST stock down over 90% from its ATHs? Or is it time to give up on Upstart stock?
The post Why Is Upstart Stock Down Despite…

Published

on

Despite beating first-quarter expectations and showing strong growth, Upstart stock is down 75% YTD. In fact, Upstart Holdings (Nasdaq: UPST) posted its fourth straight quarter with over 100% YOY revenue growth.

Although this may be true, Upstart stock lost over half its value following the earnings report. Investors quickly sold shares after learning about the company’s plans to hold excess loans on its balance sheet.

The Federal Reserve’s aggressive rate hikes to cool surging inflation is causing less interest in borrowing. As a result, Upstart said it would hold the unsold loans on its balance sheet, countering its previous business model.

The investor reaction is causing management to backtrack. According to a report from the WSJ, the company’s CFO has other plans to deal with the extra loans.

After a steep selloff yesterday, the stock market officially entered a bear market. Are investors overreacting with UPST stock down over 90% from its ATHs? Or is it time to give up on Upstart Holdings? Here are five things to know about Upstart stock and what you can expect going forward.

No. 5 Q1 Earnings Beat

Upstart’s first-quarter earnings mark its seventh profitable quarter in a row. Loan transaction volume surged 174% YOY to 465K with over 350K new borrowers.

The company easily beat both top and bottom-line expectations.

  • EPS: 0.61 vs 0.53 exp.
  • Revenue: $310 million vs. $300 million exp.

Not only did Upstart stock generate more revenue, but they are converting it into earnings. Net income skyrocketed 224% YOY, reaching $32.7 million.

So far, Upstart’s algorithms are helping get loans into borrowers’ hands which may not be able to get approved otherwise. For instance, the company notes 74% of users get instant approval without document uploads or calls.

Though the quarter shows solid growth in most areas, there are a few red flags. For one thing, higher interest rates are starting to deter borrowing.

The pandemic caused massive consumer spending between interest rates dropping and government assistance. As a result, Upstart saw strong demand for its services. Moreover, consumers were less likely to default, driving credit performance up.

Upstart generates earnings primarily in one of two ways. First, they earn a fee for loan referrals from banks. And secondly, banks pay a fee when they find a loan through the Upstart Platform.

With this in mind, default rates are creeping back up while consumer loans remain at an all-time high. For this reason, investors are skeptical about the company’s future.

No. 4 Slowing Demand for Loans

Although the company continues delivering strong growth, management is lowering its guidance. On the recent earnings call, CEO David Girouard mentions a few critical factors.

  1. Higher underlying base rates
  2. Investors demanding risk premium

The Fed manages interest rates to influence the economy. During the pandemic, the discount rate was set to a historical low of 0.25% to encourage economic growth. As a result, consumer spending shot up.

Consequently, demand is getting overheated while supply is lacking in many areas. For example, many gas and oil companies went out of business during the pandemic while energy demand fell. Now that people are returning to their everyday lives (work, travel, etc.), demand is back to pre-pandemic levels.

The demand imbalance is causing inflation to soar. As demand rises, prices also rise unless supply can meet it. Accordingly, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), a popular measure of inflation, is up 8.6% from last year.

No. 3 Inflation and Upstart Stock

Inflation may have more to do with Upstart stock than you think. For one thing, the Fed is trying to discourage buying (demand) to cool inflation by raising interest rates. Yet, for Upstart, this directly affects its business. Upstart makes money from consumers buying loans.

With higher interest rates on loans, people are less willing to borrow. As a result, a few weeks ago, Upstart hinted it would be putting the excess loans on its balance sheet.

Many investors took to Upstart stock because of its lower risk balance sheet. The idea of swelling the balance sheet for anything other than R&D was not in the plans. So, Upstart stock fell over 61% after earnings as investors fled for safer assets.

On top of this, as David mentions on the earnings call, investors are demanding risk premiums. In other words, in this environment, investors are less willing to pay for risky assets.

For example, unprofitable growth stocks are some of the worst-hit during this market selloff. The investor mindset is shifting from growth to value as cash flow, and returns are the primary concern.

Therefore, management is backtracking on its comments. Instead of holding loans on its balance sheet, it will scale back lending volume.

Keep reading to learn what this means for Upstart stock as we advance.

No. 2 Upstart to Scale Back Lending Volume

According to the WSJ report, Upstart CFO Sanjay Datta says the company will “likely scale back its lending volume” if demand weakens. In contrast to the company’s previous comments, they will not be placing temporary loans on the balance sheet.

Datta mentions being “a bit caught off guard” by the reaction. Seeing how other growth companies sold off aggressively, investors were not waiting to see if weakening demand is temporary or not.

Upstart stock has mostly used its balance sheet for new investments, like auto lending. So, the extra $150 million meant more risk for investors.

Upstart is trying to expand into other ventures to expand its market potential. The auto market is an ample opportunity for Upstart as the company already has partnerships with 35 different OEMs.

So far, the auto segment has tripled its dealership partners while almost doubling transactions. With this in mind, Upstart predicts the auto segment will bring its addressable market to $751 billion. Vehicles are one of the biggest markets for loans, so this may be the start of something.

No. 1 Upstart Stock Forecast: UPST Stock Oversold?

The company listening to investors and reflecting on its previous comments is positive news. But Upstart stock is still well below pre-earnings levels.

At the same time, the market selloff is leaving no stones unturned. This week we are seeing energy stocks and healthcare, two safer sectors this year, join the selloff.

The big question as we advance will be how much demand will Upstart see as interest rates rise. Fed officials are meeting again this week to discuss one of the biggest interest rate hikes in recent memory.

Will the hikes have more of an effect on Upstart stock? Or is it already priced in? We can’t predict if and by how much the Fed will raise interest rates. But what we can do is plan ahead.

Upstart stock is already down over 90% from its all-time highs of over $400 per share. Yet this doesn’t mean it can’t go lower. If you are looking for a high-risk, high-reward setup at these levels, you may find some luck with UPST stock. But, with several interest rate hikes on the horizon this year, look for continued pressure this year.

Keep Reading This Article and Find Out the Top 2 Reasons Upstart Stock is Down


Enter your email below to read the reveal the top two reasons why Upstart stock is down.
You’ll also be opted in to receive our free daily e-letter, Investment U, where you’ll find expert investment insight, analysis and stock picks for all the best investment opportunities.

You’ll also receive occasional special offers from Oxford Club and our affiliates. You can unsubscribe at any time. Privacy Policy | Newsletter FAQ

"); } else if (data['response'] == 'Already Active On List') { // email already exists in system send confirmation anyway $(".status").html("
The email address is already on this list. You may now read the rest of the article.
"); } revive.setCookie(listCode, true, 365); function dieGated(){ $(".gated-content").show(); $(".gated").remove(); } setTimeout(dieGated, 3500); }; // hide iframe before adding src iframe.setAttribute("style", "display:none"); // iframe src should be the leadgen link iframe.src = signupUrl; iframe.setAttribute("id", "hacking_iris"); document.body.appendChild(iframe); } else if (data['response'] == 'Undeliverable') { $(".status").html("
Email was processed, but got an undeliverable error. Please check the email address and try again.
"); } else if (data['response'] == 'SpamTrap') { // invalid email $(".status").html("
We could not process this email address. Please check the email address and try again.
"); } else { // uknown error $(".status").html("
An error has occurred, please try again.
"); } }); // portrait });

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Government

US: The New Real Hoaxes?

US: The New Real Hoaxes?

Authored by Pete Hoekstra via The Gatestone Institute,

The investigative reporting by these two organizations…

Published

on

US: The New Real Hoaxes?

Authored by Pete Hoekstra via The Gatestone Institute,

  • The investigative reporting by these two organizations [the New York Times and the Washington Post] was so thorough and groundbreaking it turned up things that were not even there.

  • For having refused to rescind these awards, the Pulitzer Committee should receive its own Pulitzer -- for fraud.

  • The real hoax appears to have been the CCP's ostensible good behavior and the now-hugely-discredited initial reporting on the virus.

  • Or how about the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up? Once again, On October 14, 2020, just weeks before the 2020 presidential election, a critical story of possible extensive influence-peddling with senior intelligence officers in the CCP, Russia and Ukraine by the son of a presidential candidate. The contents of the laptop raised questions that the candidate at the time, Vice President Joe Biden, could be compromised. The entire subject was decisively pushed aside, along with the potential threat to national security that such an eventuality might entail.

  • Also not allowed during the January 6th hearings have been any witnesses for the defense, any cross-examination, or any exculpatory evidence.

  • One wonders, for instance if the January 6th Committee will consider the July 29, 2022 tweet by General Keith Kellogg, that on January 3, 2021, Trump, in front of witnesses, did indeed ask for "troops needed" for January 6. Kellogg wrote: "I was in the room."

  • The January 6th Committee has also not released any information about government informants or FBI undercover law enforcement officers who might have been in the crowd, and Pelosi is also said to be blocking access to a massive quantity of documents. Finally, according to attorney Mark Levin, under the Constitution's separation of powers, Congress, has no legitimacy even to hold a criminal investigation: that power belongs to the Judiciary. The entire proceeding is illegitimate and a usurpation of power.

  • Is it surprising that after the Pulitzer decision, the Russia collusion hoax, the Whitmer kidnapping hoax, the Covid origin hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop hoax, and now the January 6th Committee hoax, that many Americans believe there is something wrong with the system?

Recently former US President Donald Trump challenged the award of Pulitzer Prizes to the New York Times and the Washington Post for their investigative reporting on alleged collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.

The investigative reporting by these two organizations was so thorough and groundbreaking it turned up things that were not even there.

You have to hand it to them for this so-called "great reporting": the Pulitzer Committee sure did.

We now know, of course, the grand conspiracy pushed by these papers is nothing more than thoroughly debunked disinformation. For having refused to rescind these awards, the Pulitzer Committee should receive its own Pulitzer -- for fraud.

The intractability of the Pulitzer Committee is only the latest example of why so many Americans have been losing trust in their institutions, both public and private. Rather than admitting that these awards were a mistake, and that much of the reporting was not investigative reporting, but merely a recitation of fabrications put forward by political hacks for campaign purposes, the Pulitzer Committee announced that it will stand by its initial decision, facts be dammed.

The Russia hoax is emblematic of the model built by the anti-Trump, anti-America First, anti-populist movement that the American people have experienced for the last six years. It embodies many of the characteristics that have frustrated Americans. It is a combination of influential forces -- media, social media, political players, and government -- that put forward information detrimental to one -- oddly always the same -- political viewpoint. In this instance, populists -- believers in the rights, wisdom or virtues of the common people, according to Merriam Webster -- who might embrace the concept of personal freedom espoused by the Constitution, a free market economy, economic growth, energy independence, school choice, equal application of the law and decentralized governance.

Much of the material used to foster the Russia hoax originated from the discredited "Steele Dossier," pedaled by former British spy Christopher Steele, funded by Clinton-linked opposition research firm FusionGPS, and pushed by Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussman. This discredited information was shared widely -- and often, it seems, with prior knowledge of its falseness -- through the mainstream media and social media when it was leaked to the press early in 2017 just before Donald Trump was sworn in as president. The material contributed to the launching of the Mueller "Russiagate" investigation, which cast a shadow over the first two years of the Trump administration. Government officials were involved as CIA Director John BrennanFBI Director James Comey and DNI James Clapper all lent their credibility to the supposed authenticity or seriousness of the Russian materials. All of this did tremendous damage to the effectiveness of the Trump administration, as it sought to govern, by putting it under a cloud of suspicion and illegitimacy from the outset.

This, however, was not the only example. Consider the disrupted kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in her key swing state for presidential elections. "The FBI got walloped [in April]", according to the New York Post, " when a Michigan jury concluded that the bureau had entrapped two men accused of plotting to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Those men and others were arrested a few weeks before the 2020 election in a high-profile, FBI-fabricated case...."

The media, however, for the most part portrayed the kidnapping plot as the work of domestic terrorists, with the implied inference being they were right-wing Trump supporters. Whitmer went so far as to accuse Trump of being complicit in the plan, even though it emerged that these alleged plotters had also supposedly wanted to hang Trump. The FBI, it was later shown, had been heavily involved in the plot through informants and individuals it had placed in the group. By the time the case came to trial after the election, Biden had won Michigan's electoral votes and the damage had been done.

Consider, also, the COVID pandemic. The "facts" at the time were supposedly that it came from "nature" and that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government had supposedly known nothing about its human-to-human transmissibility, even though it had "made whistleblowers disappear and refused to hand over virus samples so the West could make a vaccine."

The CCP, early on, was portrayed as a constructive player in controlling the spread of the virus, even as it was recalling and hoarding all of its Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). This fiction was reinforced by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the World Health Organization, and other prominent participants – apart from Taiwan, which futilely tried to warn the WHO of the coronavirus's fierce human-to-human transmissibility, only to be dismissed.

The mainstream media and social media also quickly began parroting the "official" story line. Social media companies suspended the accounts of whoever might have had a different opinion and some were even canceled.

For the 10 months leading up to the November 2020 election, the narrative was set: COVID-19 was a naturally occurring virus and the CCP was in the clear. Imagine how different the 2020 presidential election might have been if the debate was how the world would have held the CCP accountable for the leak and coverup of COVID from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Now in 2022, a lab-leak is considered the most "likely cause" of the coronavirus, but again the political damage, and a gigantic amount of non-political damage, has already been done. The real hoax appears to have been the CCP's ostensible good behavior and the now-hugely-discredited initial reporting on the virus.

Or how about the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up? Once again, On October 14, 2020, just weeks before the 2020 presidential election, a critical story of possible extensive influence-peddling with senior intelligence officers in the CCP, Russia and Ukraine by the son of a presidential candidate. The contents of the laptop raised questions that the candidate at the time, Vice President Joe Biden, could be compromised. The entire subject was decisively pushed aside, along with the potential threat to national security that such an eventuality might entail.

Discussion of Hunter Biden's laptop with its reportedly incriminating information about the Biden family business dealings with the CCPRussia, and other actors in what appeared to be a model of pay-for-play, was instantly shut down. Fifty-one former government intelligence officials , who we now know were perfectly well aware that the laptop was real – the FBI had been holding it for months -- wrote a letter describing the contents of the laptop as having "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation" designed to damage Joe Biden.

NPR famously downplayed the story, and once again, if you used social media to post information originally reported by the New York Post, you were canceled.

A year and a half after the election, the facts were finally "officially" accepted: Well, what do you know, it really was Hunter Biden's laptop and the material on it "is real!"

Once again, the leadership at the FBI, the media, social media, and former government officials had developed a hoax to damage their political opposition and the people who supported it.

Finally, there is the January 6th Committee, a one-sided investigative body, sometimes called "the third (attempted) impeachment." The Committee appears to have been put in place to stop Trump from running for office again. Before the proceeding even began, its outcome was predetermined: Trump was to be found guilty of -- something. As Stalin secret police chief, Lavrentiy Beria used to say during Soviet Russia's reign of terror, "Find me the man and I'll find you the crime." So the US show trial commenced.

Even its start was ominous. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in an unprecedented move, vetoed the committee appointments of Representatives Jim Banks and Jim Jordan. This rebuff led House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to pull his five Republican candidates from participating. Pelosi, it appeared, wanted only anti-Trump folks to serve on the Committee. Also not allowed during the January 6 hearings have been any witnesses for the defense, any cross-examination, or any exculpatory evidence.

One wonders, for instance if the January 6th Committee will consider the July 29, 2022 tweet by General Keith Kellogg, that on January 3, 2021, Trump, in front of witnesses, did indeed ask for "troops needed" for January 6. Kellogg wrote:, "I was in the room:"

"Great OpEd. Reinforces my earlier comment on 6 Jan Cmte. Has quote from DOD IG Report regarding 3 Jan 2021 meeting with Actg Def Secy Miller/CJCS Milley in the Oval on the 6 Jan NG request by POTUS on troops needed. I was in the room."

While purportedly examining in detail every decision and action by Trump and his team, the Committee refuses to question Pelosi, among the leading figures responsible for the security of the Capitol. She reportedly "turned down" requests for greater security. According to the Federalist:

"Four days after the riot, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, who resigned his post in the aftermath, told The Washington Post his request for pre-emptive reinforcement from the National Guard ahead of Jan. 6 was turned down. Sund said House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, overseen by Pelosi, thought the guard's deployment was bad "optics" two days before the raid.... Despite the Associated Press and Washington Post's best efforts to run interference for the speaker, suddenly exonerating her of duties overseeing Capitol security, the riot on Jan. 6 was a security failure Pelosi owns. If the "speaker trusts security professionals to make security decisions," then why, as the police breach unfolded, did Irving feel compelled to seek the speaker's approval to dispatch the National Guard, as The New York Times reported? How could Pelosi also order the extended shut down of the Capitol to visitors, citing coronavirus, and install metal detectors in the House chamber?"

The Committee has not evaluated the performance of the Capitol Police or other law enforcement agencies, but it has targeted the "private records of individuals with no connection to the violence."

The January 6th Committee has also not released any information about government informants or FBI undercover law enforcement officers who might have been in the crowd, and Pelosi is also said to be blocking access to a massive quantity of documents. Finally, according to attorney Mark Levin, under the Constitution's separation of powers, Congress, has no legitimacy even to hold a criminal investigation: that power belongs to the Judiciary. The entire proceeding is illegitimate and a usurpation of power. The Committee's narrative is clear: Donald Trump is responsible for the events of January 6, now let us manufacture the evidence to prove it.

This article has not even delved into the 28 states that "changed voting rules to boost mail-in ballots." Some States apparently omitted both state law and the need for states' legislatures to be the sole arbiters of election law, as required by the Constitution; the $400 million spent by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg; the 2000-plus "mules" and the algorithms that sent conservative emails to spam while emails with liberal content went through to the addressees.

Is it any wonder that many Americans have lost faith in their institutions and leaders? Is it surprising that after the Pulitzer decision, the Russia collusion hoax, the Whitmer kidnapping hoax, the Covid origin hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop hoax, and now the January 6th Committee hoax, that many Americans believe there is something wrong with the system? The media, social media, government officials and others have been complicit in undermining our rule of law and possibly even subverting an election.

*  *  *

Peter Hoekstra was US Ambassador to the Netherlands during the Trump administration. He served 18 years in the U.S. House of Representatives representing the second district of Michigan and served as Chairman and Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. He is currently Chairman of the Center for Security Policy Board of Advisors and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/12/2022 - 23:55

Read More

Continue Reading

Economics

LFST INVESTOR NOTICE: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit Against LifeStance Health Group, Inc. and Announces Opportunity for Investors with Substantial Losses to Lead Case

LFST INVESTOR NOTICE: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit Against LifeStance Health Group, Inc. and Announces Opportunity for Investors with Substantial Losses to Lead Case
PR Newswire
SAN DIEGO, Aug. 12, 2022

SAN DIEGO,…

Published

on

LFST INVESTOR NOTICE: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit Against LifeStance Health Group, Inc. and Announces Opportunity for Investors with Substantial Losses to Lead Case

PR Newswire

SAN DIEGO, Aug. 12, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent purchasers of LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LFST) common stock issued in connection with LifeStance Health's June 10, 2021 initial public stock offering (the "IPO"). Captioned Nayani v. LifeStance Health Group, Inc., No. 22-cv-06833 (S.D.N.Y.) – the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit charges LifeStance Health, certain of its top executives and directors, as well as the IPO's underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. 

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, please provide your information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-lifestance-health-group-inc-class-action-lawsuit-lfst.html 

You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than October 11, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: LifeStance Health is one of the nation's largest providers of virtual and in-person outpatient mental health care. LifeStance Health benefitted from the state and local lockdown orders necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic starting in the spring of 2020. But by December 2020, several COVID-19 vaccines were being approved and administered, meaning LifeStance Health's access to clients seeking virtual mental health services would significantly decline while demand for in-person services would increase. LifeStance Health conducted its IPO on June 10, 2021, selling 46 million shares at $18.00 per share, raising $828 million in gross proceeds.

However, as the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit alleges, the IPO's registration statement failed to disclose the following material facts: (i) that the number of virtual visits clients were undertaking utilizing LifeStance Health was decreasing as the COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted, thereby flatlining LifeStance Health's out-patient/virtual revenue growth; (ii) that the percentage of in-person visits clients were undertaking utilizing LifeStance Health was increasing as the COVID-19 lockdowns were being lifted, thereby causing LifeStance Health's operating expenses to increase substantially; (iii) that LifeStance Health had lost a large number of physicians due to burn-out and, as a result, its physician retention rate had fallen significantly below the 87% highlighted in the IPO's registration statement and LifeStance Health had been expending additional costs to onboard new physicians who were less productive than the outgoing physicians they were replacing; and (iv) as a result, LifeStance Health's business metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as the IPO's registration statement represented.

At the time of the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit's filing, LifeStance Health common stock traded in a range of $4.77-$7.70, a reduction of upwards of 73% from the price the shares were sold at in the IPO.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud.  You can view a copy of the complaint by clicking here.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased LifeStance Health common stock issued in connection with the IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit.  An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the LifeStance Health class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. 

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year alone – more than triple the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html

Attorney advertising. 
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. 
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. 

Contact:



Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 


655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA  92101 


J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900 


jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com 

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lfst-investor-notice-robbins-geller-rudman--dowd-llp-files-class-action-lawsuit-against-lifestance-health-group-inc-and-announces-opportunity-for-investors-with-substantial-losses-to-lead-case-301605195.html

SOURCE Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

Read More

Continue Reading

Economics

House Passes the Inflation Reduction Act

House Passes the Inflation Reduction Act
PR Newswire
ARLINGTON, Va., Aug. 12, 2022

Bill Goes to the President’s Desk with Important Insulin and Health Care Provisions
ARLINGTON, Va., Aug. 12, 2022 /PRNewswire/ — Today, the House passed the Senate-…

Published

on

House Passes the Inflation Reduction Act

PR Newswire

Bill Goes to the President's Desk with Important Insulin and Health Care Provisions

ARLINGTON, Va., Aug. 12, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, the House passed the Senate-approved Inflation Reduction Act – historic legislation that limits the cost of insulin for seniors enrolled in Medicare and extends the COVID-19 expansion of Affordable Care Act (ACA) health insurance premium tax credits, crucial financial assistance that spared millions of Americans from pandemic disruptions in their health care.

"The American Diabetes Association has been the leading organization advocating for copay caps for insulin, resulting in the enactment of these cost-sharing limits in 22 states and the District of Columbia," said Lisa Murdock, chief advocacy officer for the American Diabetes Association® (ADA). "While we have more work to do to expand this benefit to all people with diabetes who rely on insulin to survive, this first national copay cap is a significant step in the right direction and a potentially life-saving policy change for seniors."

"Having health insurance is the single strongest predictor of whether adults with diabetes have access to high-quality health care and are able to manage their diabetes," said Dr. Robert Gabbay, the ADA's chief scientific and medical officer. "Uninsured Americans who are at risk for diabetes and its complications are much less likely to receive a diagnosis, and if they do get a diagnosis, they still average 60 percent fewer office visits with a physician and experience 168 percent more hospital visits than their insured counterparts. The expansion of these ACA health insurance subsidies will literally save lives of people with diabetes."

The Inflation Reduction Act also caps the cost of all prescription drugs at $2,000 per year for seniors who have Medicare Part D and allows Medicare to negotiate the price of some of the most expensive prescription drugs directly with drug manufacturers, reducing the cost of these often out-of-reach medications to seniors. $1 in every $3 spent on prescription drugs in the U.S. is spent on someone with diabetes, and this out-of-pocket cost limit will benefit people with diabetes who rely on more than just insulin to survive.

For more information about how the Inflation Reduction Act helps people with diabetes, check out the ADA's Inflation Reduction Act explainer.

About the American Diabetes Association

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) is the nation's leading voluntary health organization fighting to bend the curve on the diabetes epidemic and help people living with diabetes thrive. For 81 years, the ADA has driven discovery and research to treat, manage, and prevent diabetes while working relentlessly for a cure. Through advocacy, program development, and education we aim to improve the quality of life for the over 133 million Americans living with diabetes or prediabetes. Diabetes has brought us together. What we do next will make us Connected for Life. To learn more or to get involved, visit us at diabetes.org or call 1-800-DIABETES (1-800-342-2383). Join the fight with us on Facebook (American Diabetes Association), Spanish Facebook (Asociación Americana de la Diabetes), LinkedIn (American Diabetes Association), Twitter (@AmDiabetesAssn), and Instagram (@AmDiabetesAssn). 

Contact: 
Daisy Diaz, 703-253-4807
press@diabetes.org

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/house-passes-the-inflation-reduction-act-301605287.html

SOURCE American Diabetes Association

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending