The whole article is worth reading, but pasting an excerpt below for those who can’t see beyond the paywall:

> STAT asked more than a dozen of the country’s leading health policy experts to assess the methodology and conclusions behind a cluster of studies produced by UnitedHealth and by industry groups over the past four years amid an intensifying debate over the utility of Medicare Advantage. Although the studies consistently documented the program’s benefits, the expert reviewers found their conclusions to be overstated and often based on proprietary datasets more likely to yield favorable outcomes for UnitedHealth and other insurers. In some cases, they said, the studies seemed to seek out a desired conclusion — rather than search for the truth about the program’s costs and outcomes for patients.       

> “All of this is trying to protect the cash cow,” said Steve Lieberman, a policy analyst at the University of Southern California whose research has come under attack from the industry. “It’s like the old joke in Washington about grassroots — this is the AstroTurf version of grassroots.”  

> Lobbying groups that promote Medicare Advantage make sure the studies and white papers get in front of lawmakers, regulators, and reporters. One of them, America’s Physician Groups, regularly cites the reports in its letters to members of Congress and comment letters to federal officials who make policy. Another, the Better Medicare Alliance, which counts UnitedHealth as an “ally,” fills journalists’ inboxes with sunny headlines about the program.

Study funded by UnitedHealth Group and co-authored by UNH employee finds one of its most profitable lines of business leads to better outcomes. Investigative reporting finds this paper is flawed and part of a pattern UNH engages in to shape the healthcare debate in its favor.