Pricey prescriptions and nagging medical costs are swamping some insurers and employers now. Patients may start paying for it next year.Health insurance will grow more expensive in many corners of the market in 2026, and coverage may shrink. That could leave patients paying more for doctor visits and dealing with prescription coverage changes.Price increases could be especially stark in individual coverage marketplaces, where insurers also are predicting the federal government will end some support that helps people buy coverage.Were in a period of uncertainty in every health insurance market right now, which is something we havent seen in a very long time, said Larry Levitt, an executive vice president at the nonprofit KFF, which studies health care.Whats hitting insurersIn conference calls to discuss recent earnings reports, insurers ticked off a list of rising costs: More people are receiving care. Visits to expensive emergency rooms are rising, as are claims for mental health treatments.Insurers also say more healthy customers are dropping coverage in the individual market. That leaves a higher concentration of sicker patients who generate claims.Enrollment in the Affordable Care Acts insurance marketplaces swelled the past few years. But a crackdown on fraud and a tightening of eligibility verifications that were loosened during the COVID-19 pandemic makes it harder for some to stay covered, Jefferies analyst David Windley noted.People who use little care are disappearing, he said.Prescription drugs pose another challenge, especially popular and expensive diabetes and obesity treatments sometimes called GLP-1 drugs. Those include Ozempic, Mounjaro, Wegovy and Zepbound.Pharmacy just gives me a headache, no pun intended, said Vinnie Daboul, Boston-based managing director of the employee benefits consultant RT Consulting.There are more super expensive drugsNew gene therapies that can come with a one-time cost of more than $2 million also are having an impact, insurance brokers say. Those drugs, which target rare diseases, and some newer cancer treatments are part of the reason Sun Life Financial covered 47 claims last year that cost over $3 million.The financial services company covers high-cost claims for employers that pay their own medical bills. Sun Life probably had no claims that expensive a decade ago and maybe a handful at best five years ago, said Jen Collier, president of health and risk solutions.Some of these drugs are rarely used, but they cause overall costs to rise. That raises insurance premiums.Its adding to medical (cost growth) in a way that we havent seen in the past, Collier said.Marketplace pain is in the forecastPrice hikes will be most apparent on the Affordable Care Acts individual coverage marketplaces. Insurers there are raising premiums around 20% in 2026, according to KFF, which has been analyzing state regulatory filings.But the actual hike consumers see may be much bigger. Enhanced tax credits that help people buy coverage could expire at the end of the year, unless Congress renews them.If those go away, customer coverage costs could soar 75% or more, according to KFF.Business owner Shirley Modlin worries about marketplace price hikes. She cant afford to provide coverage for the roughly 20 employees at 3D Design and Manufacturing in Powhatan, Virginia, so she reimburses them $350 a month for coverage they buy.Modlin knows her reimbursement only covers a slice of what her workers pay. She worries another price hike might push some to look for work at a bigger company that offers benefits.My employee may not want to go to work for a large corporation, but when they consider how they have to pay their bills, sometimes they have to make sacrifices, she said.Employers may shift costsCosts also have been growing in the bigger market for employer-sponsored coverage, the benefits consultant Mercer says. Employees may not feel that as much because companies generally pay most of the premium.But they may notice coverage changes.About half the large employers Mercer surveyed earlier this year said they are likely or very likely to shift more costs to their employees. That may mean higher deductibles or that people have to pay more before they reach the out-of-pocket maximum on their coverage.Drug coverage changes are possibleFor prescriptions, patients may see caps on those expensive obesity treatments or limits on who can take them.Some plans also may start using separate deductibles for their pharmaceutical and medical benefits or having patients pay more for their prescriptions, Daboul said.Coverage changes could vary around the country, noted Emily Bremer, president of a St. Louis-based independent insurance agency, The Bremer Group.Employers arent eager to cut benefits, she said, so people may not see dramatic prescription coverage changes next year. But that may not last.If something doesnt give with pharmacy costs, its going to be coming sooner than wed like to think, Bremer said.The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.Tom Murphy, AP Health Writer

Netflix appears to have its first No. 1 box-office title in the streaming companys 18-year history thanks to the sensation of KPop Demon Hunters.Rival studios on Sunday estimated KPop Demon Hunters led all films over the weekend with $16-18 million in ticket sales. Distribution executives from three studios shared their estimates for the Netflix phenomenon on condition of anonymity because the streaming company has a policy of not reporting ticket sales.Following a dominating few weeks as one of the most popular Netflix releases ever, the streamer put the film into 1,750 theaters for sing-along screenings Saturday and Sunday. Studios are able to accurately estimate ticket sales for all releases on Sunday morning, though the uncommon nature of the KPop Demon Hunters releases means a wider variance. Some estimates were as high as $20 million.It amounted to a victory lap for KPop Demon Hunters, arguably the biggest hit of Hollywoods summer, and an ironic success for Netflix, whose emphasis on streaming, not theatrical release, upended the movie industry. Another sore spot for Hollywood: The film was developed and produced by Sony Pictures, which sold it to Netflix.Not all exhibitors went along. AMC, the largest theater chain in North America, declined to show the movie. But that didnt stop Netflix from claiming the box-office title its more traditional competitors typically own.David A. Gross, who runs the movie consulting firm FranchiseRe, called it a completely unique two-day musical event.It may turn out to be higher, said Gross. Theater owners are quick on their feet and can add capacity according to demand.The theatrical release, though limited, is out of the ordinary for the streaming giant, which has long stressed a commitment to subscriber releases. The movie debuted on the platform in late June and is currently Netflixs most-watched animated original film.The film centers on Huntr/x, a KPop superstar trio who double as demon hunters. The members, Rumi (Arden Cho), Mira (May Hong) and Zooey (Ji-young Yoo), must protect their fans and face their biggest enemy yet: a rival boy band made up of demons in disguise.Zach Creggers horror hit Weapons maintained strength in the box office during its third weekend, bringing in $15.6 million domestically. The buzzy horror movie has proved its staying power, raking in over $100 million globally since its release.Disneys Freakier Friday landed behind the horror movie once again, earning $9.2 million in North American theaters.The two films are real bright spots as the box office heads into a rather quiet finish for the summer, said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst for the data firm Comscore. Both films, which premiered simultaneously earlier this month, had a minimal 36% drop from last weekend.I think we have to look at the currency of the goodwill generated by people having these great summer moviegoing experiences, Dergarabedian said. We have to look at that as a more important metric than just the bottom-line dollars and cents.The Fantastic Four: First Steps earned $5.9 million domestically during its fifth weekend. The movie enjoyed a strong $118 million debut but has experienced a steady decline.Newcomer Honey Dont! opened in 1,317 North American theaters with a weekend gross estimate of $3 million, in line with expectations. The movie made it to the top 10, right above The Naked Gun.The dark comedy stars Margaret Qualley as Honey ODonahue, a small-town private investigator who investigates a slew of strange deaths tied to a church in Bakersfield, California.Top 10 movies by domestic box officeWith final domestic figures being released Monday, this list factors in the estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, according to Comscore:Weapons, $15.6 million.Freakier Friday, $9.2 million.The Fantastic Four: First Steps, $5.9 million.The Bad Guys 2, $5.1 million.Nobody 2, $3.7 million.Superman, $3.4 million.Honey Dont! $3 million.The Naked Gun, $3 million.Jurassic World Rebirth, $2.1 million.Relay, $2 million.Itzel Luna and Jake Coyle, Associated Press

As more companies demand employees spend more days in their workplaces each week, some critics claim that tightening return to office (RTO) rules in part aim to provoke resignations from employees unwilling to give up their remote or hybrid work arrangements. Data now suggests employer use of that indirect quiet-firing manner of reducing head count is far more widespread than previously suspected and often involves tactics that go beyond ordering people back to their desks.Reinforced RTO mandates, especially by large companies like Amazon and Starbucks, sparked accusations that managements tighter in-office requirements are a cover for pushing flexibility-loving workers to quit. It turns out, businesses are also using other methods to trim head count, including cutting worker benefits, increasing workloads, delaying pay raises, or gradually isolating targets in the workplace until they resign. A recent survey of 1,128 U.S. business leaders by CV writing platform ResumeTemplatesfound 42 percent of respondents admitted to having used those quiet-firing strategies this year, with an additional 11 percent saying they plan to do so in coming months.The main reason that total of 53 percent of participants said theyd employed the stratagem was to avoid severance, legal, and other costs that layoffs usually generate. They also credited the ruse with averting the bad blood and even worse reputational damage that firing people can create.In addition to establishing that a small majority of employers have or intend to resort to quiet firing this year, the survey also identified the most common methods that managers use to passively push workers toward the door.Delaying promised raises topped the list, with 47 percent of participants citing the tactic. That compared with 46 percent of respondents who said theyd tightened RTO or other workplace rules, 45 percent who increased workloads without compensation, and 32 percent who cut wages or benefits to sour employees on their jobs. Micromanaging workers or, inversely, cutting them out of projects and consultations entirely was another method mentioned, as was ignoring toxic environments that undermine the well-being of people designated for departure.The scenarios for which the passive maneuver to lower head count was used varied. Around 41 percent of participating managers said theyd deployed it against specific employees theyd deemed troublesome, problematic, or simply unwanted. That included 47 percent of respondents who said theyd embraced quiet firing to get rid of underperforming employees, and 41 percent whod used it with staff who complained about or resisted strengthened RTO rules.Just over a third of participants said the method allowed them to sidestep severance payments that often accompany formal layoffs, with an equal 34 percent crediting it with lowering the attendant legal headaches. Around 32 percent said the passively manipulative approach allowed them to avoid the bad external publicity that can arise when businesses cut staff.But company owners and executives who answered the survey also noted there were broader economic and business reasons that made lowering head count necessary. In many cases, quiet firing was ultimately selected as the means to achieve that.The most frequently cited of those external pressures was slowing revenue and sales, at 50 percent. Adjusting to increased costs from import tariffs was second, at 46 percent. Nearly 40 percent of participants said staff reductions had already been or will be made this year in anticipation of a recession, and the same percentage pointed to wage inflation as a factor in cuts.But in spite of the frequent and increasing recourse to quiet firing, its results received mixed reviews from survey respondents. A whopping 85 percent of participants called it a somewhat or very effective way of influencing employees to leave with lower costs and legal hassles. But 98 percent of respondents acknowledged the technique also had a negative effect on workplace morale, with nearly 40 percent describing that erosion as considerable.For that reason alone, Julia Toothacre, ResumeTemplates chief career strategist, warned that quiet firing is a double-edged sword employers should think entirely through before using.From a business perspective, quiet firing can seem like an efficient way to reduce head count without triggering layoffs, bad press, or severance costs, Toothacre said in comments about the surveys results. But its shortsighted. Creating an environment that pushes people to quit inevitably damages morale, productivity, and trust. It can also negatively impact hiring in the future. And lets be honest, when this tactic is applied broadly, companies risk losing high performers, not just underperformers.Another possible result is businesses not losing anyone at all. Survey respondents reported that employees targeted by quiet firing dont always quit as hoped especially in an increasingly challenging labor market.Indeed, 77 percent of participants said some of their quiet-firing efforts had failed when workers decided that finding a new job elsewhere would be more arduous than roughing it out where they were. One reason for that fatalism, 53 percent of responding managers said in their rather depressing view of the modern workforce, is that a large number of current workers simply tolerate poor treatment rather than quitting.That may wind up leaving manipulating executives with more than they bargained for. Because refusals of targeted employees to quit can have potentially negative consequences for the workplaces they remain in and the employers who wanted them gone.Many workers will stick it out right now not because theyre engaged, but because the job market feels uncertain, Toothacre said. Theyre weighing the stress of a toxic workplace against the risk of landing a new job that pays less. This calculator puts employees in survival mode, which will ultimately impact productivity.In other words, although quiet firing is spreading among businesses, its lower costs and confrontations up front may well be offset by lower workplace happiness and productivity over time. By Bruce CrumleyThis article originally appeared on Fast Companys sister publication, Inc.Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy.

Matt Losak got interested in evictions when he was nearly subject to one. He was working for a union, which required frequent travel. One month he accidentally left his rent check on his refrigerator and left. He called the property manager, who told him it wouldnt be a problem as long as he gave her the check when he returned and paid a $25 late fee, all of which he did.Six weeks later, he received an eviction notice for failure to pay rent.Losak fought the eviction off by proving that the property owners had signed the eviction papers after having already cashed his check. I caught them by the toe, he said. But the experience focused him on the fact that, in most places, landlords can move to evict tenants for any reason. Its one part of why evictions have been climbing steadily since the pandemic, even outpacing pre-pandemic levels in some places.Losak helped found Renters United Maryland in 2017, and enshrining good cause protection from eviction was his number-one issue. Good cause laws require landlords to have a specific reason for evicting someone or terminating their lease, although typically tenants can still be removed for things like violating lease agreements or failing to pay rent. The lack of good cause protections, is a major loophole, he says, allowing a landlord to, based on whim and caprice, rip somebody out of their home.When Losak first started advocating for good cause, he says state lawmakers literally laughed in my face. They didnt buy that it was a big problem, not to mention that landlords and their lobbyists, who oppose such laws, hold huge sway.But his organization has worked to build support over the years. It pushed the idea that a lack of stable housing leads to concrete costs in mental and physical health declines, lower academic achievement for children, and higher crime rates. Theres all types of costs, financial and social, that people are beginning to recognize are directly related to unstable or poor quality homes, he says.The Pandemic EffectThen came the pandemic, which clearly was an accelerant and focused state lawmakers attention on housing policy, he says. In 2020, experts and analysts put the number of potential evictions at anywhere between 17 million and 28 million. That fear of widespread evictions led courts and others to look at the eviction process differently and try things out, says Sarah Gallagher, vice president of state and local innovation at the National Low Income Housing Coalition.Eventually eviction moratoria and rental assistance would help to keep the number of evictions low. Now, however, those protections are gone and rents are rising rapidly. The housing crisis, Gallagher says, is even worse than it was before the pandemic. Rents rose 29% between 2019 and 2023 and homelessness is at a record high.So lawmakers have been looking for other tools to continue helping people stay housed. Maryland was among a number of other states that considered good cause eviction protections during this years legislative session. After a bottleneck against advancing legislation was ousted, the bill came close to passage. Losak was able to marshal support from a wide coalition that included the ACLU, NAACP, unions, and even the governor. Legislation passed the state house, only to die in the senate under pressure from landlord lobbies.Losak noted that next year is an election year for the Maryland legislature. There is a bubble of anger and frustration that is growing among a huge number of Marylanders that might very well have a political impact, he says. Were optimistic.Fights are now brewing in Chicago and Rhode Island. These cities and states are looking to join a growing movement: 11 states and 27 localities have now passed good cause laws. The majority of those laws were passed in the years since 2020. It is gaining momentum, Gallagher says.Reducing eviction ratesResearch has found that these laws reduce eviction filing rates, keeping people both housed and firmly rooted in their communities. Academics have also found that good cause protections in California, Oregon, and New Hampshire didnt decrease housing production after they passed.New York State passed good cause eviction protection last year that went into effect immediately in New York City and allowed other places to opt in. It used to be that, as long as a New York landlord filled out all the forms correctly, it could evict someone. But now landlords cant just say, Well, I want this person out, says Judith Goldiner, attorney in charge of the civil law reform unit at The Legal Aid Society.Under the new law,landlords have to offer their tenants a lease renewal unless they can prove they have a good reason not to, such as illegal behavior or the need to demolish a building. It also capped rent increases. But the law came with a long list of exceptions, including any building built after 2009, luxury buildings, and buildings owned by someone with a portfolio of 10 or fewer units. The carveouts mean that, while its a useful tool, Goldiner says, it is often unduly complicated and hard to explain. It can be hard even to figure out what entity owns buildings, let alone how many others they own.The law is still new, so there havent been decisions hammering out exactly what counts as a good cause for evicting someone. Still, Goldiner knows of a number of tenants who were able to use it to negotiate leases instead of ending up in eviction proceedings. Definitely its been really helpful for a lot of people to actually avoid litigation, she says.Expanding tenant protectionsGood cause laws wont stop evictions all on their own. There isnt one protection thats going to do it all, Gallagher says. You have to look at putting in tenant protections at all stages of the housing and eviction process. That includes starting with regulating how tenants are screened by landlords so they arent discriminated against all the way to sealing eviction records after tenants are forced out so they arent penalized when trying to get housing in the future.Still, good cause laws are particularly important because they help insulate tenants from retaliation for asserting any rights they do have. They enable tenants to speak out against unsafe or unhealthy housing conditions or other abuses. Under good cause laws, landlords cant kick people out just because they, say, asked for repairs. And policies like right to counsel, which guarantees legal representation in eviction proceedings, are only useful if there are actual rights for lawyers to defend.If tenants dont have the ability to advocate for their rights, then what good is the protection? Gallagher says.

The global race for better batteries has never been more intense. Electric vehicles, drones, and next-generationaircraftall depend on high-performance energy storageyet the traditional approach to battery R&D is struggling to keep pace with demand.Innovation and investment alonewontsolve theproblem,unlesswe compress the timeline. Speed is now the defining barrier between potential and impact.Even asAIspeedsup materials discovery, battery lifetime still dictates success: each charge-discharge cycle lasts about six hours, so proving out 500 cycles can take up to eight months, turning lifetime testing into the key bottleneck for promising chemistries.Thatschanging. Physics-informedAIis redefining battery development. National labs like NRELhave shownhow neural networks can diagnose battery health 1,000 times faster than conventional models, bringing real-time insight into degradation and performance.The Real Cost of Traditional TestingBattery development has always been a waiting game. Considerthe mathematics: testing at a standard C/3 rate allows for just two complete cycles per day.Multiply thatacross different chemistries, protocols, and form factors, andyourelooking at years of validation beforea single productreaches market.Thisisntjust inefficientitsbecoming unsustainable. While battery researchers methodically work through their testing cycles, the market landscape shifts beneath them. New competitorsemerge, customer requirements evolve, and breakthrough technologies risk becoming obsolete beforetheyreevenvalidated.The industryneeds a fundamental shift in how it approaches innovation.Why ConventionalAIIsntthe AnswerMany companies have turned to traditional machine learning, hoping to accelerate their development cycles. But conventionalAItools face critical limitations in battery applications:Data scarcity:Unlikeconsumer tech, battery research generatesrelatively small, messy datasets that resist standard ML approaches.Black box problem:Correlation-based models mightidentifypatterns, but theycantexplain why those patterns exist, which is a nonstarter in a field governed by strict electrochemical and thermodynamic principles.Regulatory challenges:Engineers and regulatorsneed to understandnot just what anAIpredicts, but why it makes those predictions.Enter Physics-InformedAIPhysics-informedAIrepresentsa fundamental departure from conventional approaches. Instead of learning patterns from data alone, these models embed physical laws directly into their architecture. The result isAIthatdoesntjust recognize correlationsitcorrelates withthe underlying physics.This approach transforms how we think about battery development. Rather than waiting months for empirical validation, physics-informed models can simulate real battery behavior with remarkable accuracy. They account for aging, degradation, thermal stress, and mechanical factorsall grounded inestablishedscientific principles.At Factorial,weveachieved something that seemed impossible just years ago: predicting cycle life outcomes afterjust 12 weeks of early testing, compared to the 36 months typicallyrequired.Software-Driven BreakthroughsThe impact extends beyond faster testing. Using our newly launchedGammatron platforma proprietary physics-informedAIsystemwe recentlyoptimizedafast-chargingprotocol without altering any physical components. The result: a twofold improvement in cycle life, achieved entirely through software.Gammatron, developed to simulate and predict battery behavior with high accuracy, has transformed our approach todevelopment with Stellantis. By forecasting long-term performance from just two weeks of early data, the platform helped accelerate validation timelines and informed protocol adjustments that significantly extended battery lifespan, without changing chemistry or hardware.Werenot the only ones seeing thislevelof transformation. At The Battery Show Europe, Monolith CEO Richard Ahlfeldsharedthat his company, working withCellforceGroup, is usingAIto reduce battery materials testing requirements by up to 70%, whilemaintainingor even improving discovery rates. Thesearenttheoretical savings. Monolith reports 2040% reductions in testing across active partner projects today, accelerating products to market by months.Thisrepresentsa new paradigm in battery developmentone where software innovations can drive hardware-level gains. As our models continuously learn from new lab data, they evolve in real time, accelerating innovation throughout the entire product lifecycle. This combination ofAIand lab data enables a feedbackloop thatisntseen in traditionalAImodels.Transforming Industry StandardsPhysics-informedAIenables capabilities that were previously impossible:Precision matching:Align specific chemistries with target applications based on predictive performance modeling rather than trial and error.Virtual prototyping:Simulate performance outcomes before investing in physical prototypes, dramatically reducing development costs and timelines.Intelligent optimization:Fine-tune charging protocols foroptimalspeed and safety without extensive physical testing.Predictivemonitoring:Identifypotential failure modes early in the development cycle, reducing both risk and cost.Perhaps mostimportantly, these tools support continuous learning throughout the product lifecycle. As new materials, processes, and data become available, the models evolve, enabling rapid adaptation across diverse battery platforms and applications.The Simulation-First FutureWerewitnessingthe emergence of a new development paradigmdigitalcell design. Tomorrows battery breakthroughs will begin not in physical labs, but in sophisticated simulations that combine domainexpertise, experimental validation, and intelligentAImodeling.This shift from hardware-first to data-first innovation will separate industry leaders from followers. Companies that can seamlessly integrate these capabilities will unlock longer range, faster charging, and greater resilience, solving what are fundamentally systems challenges rather than just materials challenges.The tools exist today. The questionisntwhether this transformation will happen, but how quickly companies will adapt toleveragethese capabilities.