CVS Health’s November 4th decision to split into two independent, publicly traded companies is reverberating in U.S. healthcare circles, with Mark Cuban weighing in on the deal and the state of a top-heavy U.S. healthcare system.
Must Read
Responding to a CNBC interview with CVS Health CEO David Joyner — who said one main impetus for the split was new legislation aimed at breaking up big medicine —Cuban indicated that he wasn’t buying it.
“That’s pretty funny,” Cuban said in a November 4th X Post. “He is a genius financial engineer. The split is great for shareholders. Changes nothing for patients or anyone who pays for insurance or care. He is posturing to be able to say, “See, we broke up our company. Don’t fall for it.” Cuban added the hashtags for U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who co-sponsored the Break Up Big Medicine Act (S.3822) in February 2026, to his post.
“We need to pass the bill now more than ever, Cuban added.
Joyner told Jim Cramer on ‘Squawk on the Street’ that the split would “improve affordability and improve coverage” and that CVS was pulling the trigger now, saying, ‘We’re doing it out of a position of strength.’
Some healthcare experts agree with Cuban
According to S&P Global, CVS is the second-largest U.S. health insurer by revenue and the second-largest pharmacy benefit manager through CVS Caremark. On November 4th, CVS reported third-quarter revenues of $108.4 billion, up 5.4% on a year-over-year basis. The healthcare titan also projected full-year 2026 revenues at $420 billion.
Healthcare experts agree with Cuban on one point; some corporate splits are more legitimate than others.
“Cuban’s point lands: splitting a conglomerate on paper doesn’t automatically mean more choice or better care for patients,” Kevin Wolfe, founder and CEO of Kindr Health, a telehealth practice focused on women in perimenopause and menopause, told Moneywise.
Wolfe said “patients win” when they can find clinicians who listen, explain evidence-based options plainly, and aren’t stuck waiting on a gatekeeper that also owns the pharmacy, the PBM (pharmacy benefit manager), or the health insurer. “A corporate reorg that leaves those incentives untouched ‘changes nothing’ for the woman trying to get midlife care,” he noted.
By and large, healthcare carve-ups should benefit consumers
Other industry professionals say an anti-consolidation stance is just what the healthcare market needs right now, from an end-user point of view.
“Hospital consolidation has accelerated across the United States over the past two decades, fundamentally reshaping local health care markets,” Shaina Goodman, vice president of policy and government affairs at Atlanta, Georgia-based Community Catalyst, a health policy and systems organization. “Mergers, acquisitions, and the expansion of large health systems have resulted in many regions being served by only one dominant provider organization.”
While some consolidation has been justified as a means to improve efficiency and care coordination, Goodman said that “extensive evidence” suggests that excessive market concentration often leads to higher prices, reduced competition, service reductions, reduced bargaining power for employers and purchasers, and diminished consumer choice, with limited improvements in quality. “The impact of hospital consolidation has been disproportionately felt by rural and underserved communities, who have seen high rates of closure or downsizing of essential services,” Goodman noted.
Read More: Vanguard reveals what’s coming for U.S. stocks — and it could be bad news for this group of investors
Regulatory oversight will be a must going forward for Big Healthcare
Congress and state legislatures will likely need to tackle the consolidation and problematic ownership structures that drive healthcare costs up without improving access or quality. “This includes breaking up monopolies and oligopolies, strong oversight and regulation of private equity ownership of healthcare practices and facilities, and putting meaningful limitations on the vertical integration of delivery systems, insurers, and middlemen like PBMs,” Goodman added.
Keeping large healthcare companies in line, particularly on consumers and costs, will also require federal and state government oversight.
“Cuban is right that CVS’s split isn’t a win for patients if the separated businesses keep the same owners, because nothing in it lowers what patients pay,” Lilach Bullock, a Tel Aviv, Israel-based AI-powered marketing services company that works with healthcare companies, told Moneywise. “A real breakup should bar common ownership of an insurer, a PBM and a pharmacy chain, and it should bar steering patients to pharmacies the same company owns.”
Bullock said she’s worried about vertical integration, with one company landing on both sides of a price negotiation, which could further crimp consumer budgets.
“That’s where I’d expect pressure on drug prices, premiums and out-of-pocket costs,” she noted. “Separating PBMs only lowers prices if the savings reach the patient, and fees can simply shift somewhere else.”
To keep the reins firm, Bullock said regulators should check whether the spun-off unit keeps a long-term contract with its old parent, or shares board members and debt with it.
“If it does, the market power hasn’t moved,” she said. “If Washington does nothing, I’d expect cost pressure on premiums and drug prices to keep building. If lawmakers do act, savings would arrive in stages as contracts renew, so patients shouldn’t expect relief overnight.”
What To Read Next
Join 250,000+ readers and get Moneywise’s best stories and exclusive interviews first — clear insights curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.
This article originally appeared on Moneywise.com under the title: Mark Cuban slams CVS’s split into two companies as a shareholder play that ‘changes nothing’ for patients
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
