apisadmin

Source: Premium Times

He said inflation rose marginally for two consecutive months, largely induced by external shocks, especially the ongoing war between the US/Israel and Iran, which has exerted upward pressure on energy prices and transportation costs.

The Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Olayemi Cardoso, said the impact of the United States/Israel and Iran conflict on Nigeria’s economy has been largely limited, attributing this to earlier economic reforms that strengthened the country’s buffers.

Mr Cardoso disclosed this at the conclusion of the bank’s two-day Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) 305th meeting on Wednesday in Abuja. The governor stated that the committee retained the borrowing rate at 26.5 per cent amidst an inflationary surge in previous months.

According to National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) data, headline inflation year-on-year rose marginally for the second consecutive month to 15.69 per cent in April 2026 from 15.38 per cent in the preceding month, largely driven by an increase in the food component.

Briefing the press after the MPC deliberation, the central bank boss said the committee reviewed recent developments in the global and domestic economies and assessed the medium-term outlook.

He said inflation rose marginally for two consecutive months, largely induced by external shocks, especially the ongoing war between the US/Israel and Iran, which has exerted upward pressure on energy prices and transportation costs.

Mr Cardoso added that the committee recognised inflation’s transitory nature and remained confident that the current macroeconomic environment is sufficiently robust to support a return to disinflation.

Reforms

He explained that prior economic reforms introduced by the government mitigated the effects of shocks in the Nigerian economy, helping to reduce inflation.

He said the reforms produced exchange rate stability, improvements in external reserve buffers, strengthened monetary policy transmission, and a well-capitalised banking system.

“However, available evidence indicates that the impact of the crisis on the Nigerian economy has been largely muted due to the benefits of prior policy reforms.

“These include exchange rate stability, improvements in external reserve buffers, strengthened monetary policy transmission, a well-capitalised banking system, and ongoing fiscal consolidation, which have significantly bolstered the economy’s ability to absorb external shocks.

“As a result, the pass-through of global commodity and energy price shocks to domestic inflation has been significantly mitigated and would have been more pronounced in the absence of these reforms,” Mr Cardoso said.

The CBN governor also said the bank welcomed the recent sovereign rating upgrade amid prevailing external headwinds, underscoring the strength of the country’s macroeconomic fundamentals and reinforcing confidence in its reforms.

He added that the bank will necessarily maintain a vigilant position to anchor the inflation expectations further.

“Members were therefore of the view that a cautious and vigilant policy stance is necessary to anchor inflation expectations and safeguard macroeconomics,” Mr Cardoso stated.

The post How Economic Reforms Muted Middle East Pressures, Energy Price Surge in Nigeria – CBN appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

Cash-squeezed first-time home buyers probably are scratching their heads and asking: when will mortgage rates fall back to an affordable 5% interest rate again?

Home-loan rates have been volatile and unpredictable in 2026. This type of roller-coaster activity in “Mortgageland”’ makes it hard to predict when to buy a house, and schedule a move to get the kids in school by September.

Looking at Freddie Mac’s rate archives, interest rates in 2026 decreased for four straight weeks until the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran at the end of February. Then, rates increased for five straight weeks Finally, mortgage rates fell for four consecutive weeks in April and early May.

Now, with the interest ratequarterback Federal Reserve Board chairman Jerome Powell about to step down, experts are reviewing his eight-year scorecard. An inescapable part of Powell’s legacy will be the post-pandemic inflation surge, when consumer prices rose by a four-decade high of 9.1% in June 2022.

Overall prices are now 27% higher than just before the pandemic six years ago, a staggering change for a country that had experienced little inflation for generations. Prices rose just 10% in the six years before the pandemic.

Today, groceries are 30% more expensive than six years ago, after they rose just 3.6% in the six years preceding COVID. So, how does a would-be home buyer fit a 6%-plus mortgage into that budget?

A look back to 1968 Long-term mortgage rates were about 6% in 1968, when this writer began working as a financial reporter for the Chicago Daily News.

“Kid, do you know anything about mortgages?” asked Albert Jedlicka, the paper’s award-winning real estate editor. My reply: “My folks have a 5% mortgage on our three-flat in Old Town, which they purchased in 1948. I think the loan was provided by the Polish National Alliance.”

In 1973, when I purchased my first home for $28,000 in the Irving Park “Villa’’ neighborhood, First Federal Savings & Loan granted my young family a $18,000 mortgage for 30 years at around 7.5% interest.

During my reporting career, I have seen mortgage rates soar over the moon to 18.63% during the recession of 1981, and fall back to 11.75% by 1985. Then, I purchased a vintage home for $140,000 in the Sauganash neighborhood on the Northwest Side and obtained a 30-year mortgage at 11.75% from Cragin Federal Savings & Loan. A few years later, I refinanced that loan with a 7.75% interest rate for 15-years at Cragin Federal.

In the late 1980s, I authored a best-selling book titled: “‘The Mortgage Manual,” that sold 50,000 copies. The book explained the intricacies of the mortgage market and gave wouldbe borrowers information on all the popular choices for financing a home.

Remember 3% home loans?

‘‘Gen-X” and Millennial” borrowers still remember a few years ago when a home buyer could lock in a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 3% interest or less. Many people became accustomed to rates that were in the 3% range in 2020 and 2021.

Thirty-year fixed-mortgage interest rates ended 2020 at a rock-bottom 2.65% the lowest level in the Freddie Mac survev history, which began in 1971. Home-loan rates set new record lows an amazing 16 times in 2020, and tens of thousands of homeowners refinanced.

Mortgage rates may continue to be volatile, buť historically analysts say buyers are actually in a much better spot than they may think. Mortgage Rates Inch Down On May 14, mortgage rates ticked down a bit, reported Freddie Mac’s Primary Mortgage Market Survey. Benchmark 30year fixed-rate loans nationwide averaged 6.36% down from 6.37% week earlier. A year ago, 30-year fixed loans averaged 6.81% Fifteen-year fixed-rate mortgages averaged 5.71%, down slightly down from 5.72% a week earlier. A year ago, 15-year fixed loans averaged 5.92%.

A rate increase can feel frustrating for potential home buyers, especially when it looks unlikely that the 30-year rate will dropand stay in the affordable 5%range.

However, my five decades of reporting on the housing market and mortgage rates have taught me that current interest charges aren’t as bad as they might seem.

The sub-3% rates during the peak and the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic make rates in the mid-6% range feel high. Buť if you evaluate longer-term trends, today’s mortgage rates actually are not bad.

Rates decreased over the past year According to Freddie Mac data, the national average 30-year mortgage rate is down nearly one-half of 1 percentage point since early May of 2025. A year ago, the rate was 6.76%, and now, the rate is 6.36%. The average 15-year rate is down more than a quarter of 1 percentage point since early May last year. Going into May of 2025, it was 5.92%.

“‘Stable rates can encourage buyers who have been on the fence to move forward, helping to support a steady, gradual housing market,” said Matt Vernon, head of consumer lending at Bank of America.

Freddie Mac started tracking interest rates in April 1971, so analysts have mortgage data from more than 55 years to eye-ball.

When we calculate the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate since 1971, the average is 7.69%. That’s 1.33% higher than today’s benchmark rate. So, when we look at historical mortgage rates, today’s rates are better than they might seem.

Apart from the COVID-19 pandemic, the 30-year fixed rate has only fallen below 3.5% a handful of times since Freddie Mac started tracking rates in 1971, and it’s never stayed that low for weeks or months on end.

The highest weekly 30-year rate to date is 18.63%. This oCcurred in October of 1981, during a recession. That year, the average annual rate was 16.64%. Not only are today’s mortgage rates low compared to last year, buť they’re low when we look at rates from over 50 years. So, there shouldn’t be as much gloom in Mortgageland.

Putting rates into focus today Mortgage rates may be higher than home buyers would like, but they look much better when you view the bigger picture. If you’re planning on buying a home in 2026, analysts say borrowers should ask themselves the following key questions:

Can you afford to buy a house, regardless of today’s rates? Analyze everything from the down payment to monthly mortgage payments. On Chicago’s North Side, elevated home prices and a limited number of forsale listings continue to be the primary drivers of affordability challenges, according to John Irwin, veteran broker with Baird & Warner.

Will interest rates fall this year? Since the last Federal Reserve Board meeting in April, economic experts have predicted that the central bank will not cut the federal-funds rate much in 2026. This is one signal that mortgage rates won’t fall before the end of the year.

. If rates stay above 6% this year, why should you waste your time trying to outsmart the real estate market? Make your decision based on what your family can afford, and whether your lifestyle would be better with the benefits of homeownership, not on whether home-loan rates are a few basis points lower one week or the next.

The Freddie Mac survey reported that 30-year fixed-mortgage interest rates ended 2020 at a rock-bottom 2.65% the lowest level in history.

Archives of the Federal Housing Finance Board show longterm mortgage rates in the 1960s were about 6%, not much higher than the Great Depression of the 1930s, when lenders were charging 5% on five-year balloon loans.

Nearly six decades ago, between 1963 and 1965 borrowers could obtain a mortgage at 5.81% to 5.94%. Between 1971 and 1977, the now-defunct Illinois Usury Law held rates in the 7.6%-t0-9% range.

In the early 1980s, runaway inflation caused home-loan rates to skyrocket into the stratosphere. According to Freddie Mac, benchmark 30-year mortgage rates peaked at a jaw-dropping 18.63% in Oct. 1981 during that recession, which lasted a few years. Rates finally fell below 10% in april 1986, and then bounced in the 9%-to-10% range during the balance of the 1980s. nearly 26 years ago-in aug. 2000-when some of today’s Millennial borrowers were still in diapers, lenders were quoting 8.04%.

Between 2002 and 2011, rates bounced in the 4%-to-6% range. They inched into the 3%-to-4% range until 2020, when they fell into the rock-bottom 2%-bracket.

For more housing news, visit www.dondebat.biz. Don DeBat is co-author of “Escaping Condo Jail,” the ultimate survival guide for condominium living. Visit www.escapingcondojail.com.

The post Young buyers ask, ‘when will 5% mortgages return?’ appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

California’s home insurance of last resort, the FAIR Plan, is raising rates 29.1% for certain homeowners starting Oct. 15.

Rates will be highest for those in high-risk, fire prone areas.

With many homeowners and businesses across the state unable to find coverage in the standard market, consumers wound up in the Fair Access Insurance Requirements Plan, or FAIR Plan. The insurer — which is backed by six standard insurance companies for wildfire damage only — first sought a 35.8% hike to keep it from slipping into financial trouble, Michael Soller, spokesman for the state’s Department of Insurance, said Wednesday, May 20 via email.

Also see: Two California home insurers to raise rates, expand coverage by late 2026

As of year-end 2025, about four in five of the plan’s more than 668,600 homeowner policies in California would have received a higher bill by 5%-60% if the FAIR Plan got its higher rate request approved.

The number of policies the FAIR Plan carries grew 44% to 668,600 at the end of 2025 from 464,900 in the fall of 2024 — just a few months before windswept January wildfires destroyed several communities in Los Angeles County. The rising policy count was driven by claim rejections from private insurers and others that stopped underwriting new policies. The FAIR Plan’s total exposure jumped to $724 billion as of Dec. 31, 2025, a 230% increase from the fall of 2024 — a huge reason for the rate hike request by the FAIR Plan.

In the statement provided to the Southern California News Group, Soller said the insurance department is beginning to see signs of “market improvement” after several insurance companies expressed concerns about financial stability — the biggest of which was State Farm.

“When this new rate is implemented, not every FAIR Plan customer will see their premium rise by this amount,” a FAIR Plan spokeswoman wrote in a statement about the approved rate hike. “The largest component of the increase relates to the wildfire portion of policyholders’ premiums, so those policyholders whose properties are at significant wildfire risk will see a higher increase than those at lower risk, and some policyholders will see a premium decrease.”

In 2025, state California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara debuted a new catastrophic modeling system — called the “sustainable insurance strategy, or SIS — allowing the open insurance market to adjust its rates according to certain risk models.

Using the plan, insurance companies can increase rates based on the growing threat of climate change, passing on to their customers costs for insuring high-risk homes. In exchange, insurance companies are expected to write more polices in fire-prone parts of the state, where many ended coverage for hundreds of thousands of homeowners over the past decade.

Consumer advocates, however, say SIS reforms will lead to a continued spike in rates. They are deeply skeptical that insurers will actually write more policies in fire-risk communities. They also cite what they describe as loopholes in the regulations, including the exclusion of many fire-prone neighborhoods from state maps where insurers must write more policies.

Also see: California insurance commissioner candidates want tough industry sanctions

“It’s obviously going to be a real blow for consumers who already feel they’re paying too much for too little under the FAIR Plan,” said Carmen Balber, executive director of advocacy group Consumer Watchdog. “This is a pretty big deal.”

Joy Chen, executive director of the “Every Fire Survivor’s Network, echoed Balber.

“We’ve got two intersecting crises in this state, and they both are failures of the current insurance commissioner,” Chen said. “We’ve got a massive crisis of insurance accountability.”

She said that 70% of consumers with homeowners insurance have been “faithful,” paying premiums without receiving the benefits. “The L.A. fire survivors are like canaries in a coal mine.”

Earlier this month, Lara took legal action against State Farm alleging the company mishandled wildfire claims in the devastated Los Angeles fire zones.

In a state court filing, the insurance regulator said it is seeking as much as $4 million in penalties on 398 violations of state law from State Farm following a seven-month-old investigation.

Lara claimed the company underpaid claims and was slow to investigate damage to homes and possible contamination from smoke, caused by conflagrations that destroyed huge swaths of Pacific Palisades and Altadena in early January 2025. The commissioner also wants to prohibit State Farm, California’s largest home insurer, from writing new policies for a year.

The January firestorms in the seaside community and in neighboring Malibu turned to ash more than 23,448 acres, killed a dozen people, destroyed 6,837 structures and damaged nearly 1,000 others before extinguished on Jan. 31.

In Altadena, the fires were so destructive that customers have been slow to return because so much of its community went up in flames in the January wildfires. The fire turned more than 14,021 acres to ash, killed 19 people, destroyed 9,414 structures, and badly burned another 1,074.

Staff writer Amancai Biraben contributed to this report.

©2026 MediaNews Group, Inc. Visit ocregister.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The post California FAIR Plan rates going up 29.1% in late 2026 appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

Providence Health & Services plans to exit most of its Oregon health insurance business next year, citing rising costs, tougher regulation and intensifying competition from national insurers — a move that will force tens of thousands of Oregonians to find new coverage.

Leaders of the Renton, Washington-based health system announced the decision Wednesday, saying Providence will stop offering most plans through Providence Health Plan, including individual, family and employer coverage, as it seeks to strengthen its financial footing and refocus on delivering care rather than operating an insurance arm.

Providence Health Plan, based in Portland, is Oregon’s third-largest health insurer, covering more than 421,000 Oregonians. It also covers over 13,000 members in Washington, 4,800 in California and 1,000 in Montana.

It sells commercial, individual, small group and Medicare Advantage plans. The plan employs nearly 1,200 people across six states, including 878 in Oregon.

Most members will keep their current coverage through the end of 2026, giving employers and policyholders time to transition. Providence said it will stop renewing employer group plans as contracts expire but will honor existing agreements.

Providence leaders said hospitals and clinics will stay open to patients regardless of insurance changes and that the system is working to join additional insurance networks so patients can continue seeing Providence doctors under new plans. They said brokers will help employers find replacement plans that include Providence doctors and facilities.

Providence officials said the insurance arm plans to continue serving its roughly 55,000 Medicare Advantage members through a partnership with a national insurer, though that agreement is still being finalized.

Providence also plans to transfer administration of its Medicaid and Medicare supplemental plans to other organizations, which serves roughly 62,900 Oregonians, but officials did not identify potential partners.

Erik Wexler, Providence’s CEO and president, described the decision as a response to “an untenable situation,” telling employees in a message that costs, regulatory pressures and insurer consolidation have made it increasingly difficult for regional nonprofit plans to compete.

“It has become harder to support both running a health plan and delivering care,” Wexler wrote. “Meanwhile, the larger insurance companies have consolidated significantly, giving them the size and resources to operate more efficiently.”

Providence disclosed earlier this year that it was exploring the sale of its insurance arm after reporting a $102 million loss on roughly $2.5 billion in revenue. The losses were fueled in part by higher medical and pharmacy costs and a drop in its Medicare Advantage star rating to 3.5 out of 5 – assigned by the Centers for medicare & Medicaid Services, which can affect federal bonus payments and enrollment.

The move mirrors a broader national trend as hospital-owned health insurance plans struggle against giants such as UnitedHealthcare, Elevance and Aetna, which benefit from scale and lower administrative costs.

Wexler said the decision was not a reflection of the health plan’s performance or its employees.

“The direction we are taking is not a reflection of the quality of the plan or the dedication of the caregivers who support it,” he wrote. “Rather, it is about responding to the signs of the times and remaining steadfast and focused on our core work of delivering care.”

Providence leaders said they will provide transition support for affected employees and release additional details as agreements are finalized.

Providence is Oregon’s largest hospital chain, operating eight hospitals and more than 90 clinics across the state.

©2026 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit oregonlive.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The post Providence to end most health insurance plans, forcing hundreds of thousands in Oregon to switch appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

FLEMINGTON, NJ – The Flemington-Raritan Board of Education adopted a resolution May 13 calling on Gov. Mikie Sherrill and the state legislature to provide relief from rising health insurance costs that the district says are straining its budget and driving up local property taxes.

The resolution says school districts across New Jersey are “desperate for relief,” and warns that the state’s public employee health benefits programs are heading toward insolvency. It points specifically to the 31.9% premium increase that took effect in January 2026, further exacerbating an overall premium increase of nearly 74% in the preceding five years.

The resolution also cites a mid-year analysis released by the state Department of the Treasury in March, which concluded that “based on these projected losses and building in future trends, active premium rate increases for 2027 are likely to be in the double digits.”

The resolution describes rising health benefits costs in both the School Employees’ Health Benefits Program, known as SEHBP, and in the private insurance market as a source of “tremendous strain on district budgets and local taxpayers alike.” It says Sherrill and legislative leaders have publicly acknowledged the urgency of the issue.

“Rising health-care premiums are consuming an ever-larger portion of already constrained school district budgets, forcing difficult decisions that directly affect students, staff and educational quality,” the resolution says.

It warns that the downstream consequences for families and students include district deficits, program cuts and school closures.

In the resolution, the board calls upon the governor and state legislature to provide immediate, short-term relief from the unsustainable increases in health-care costs experienced by school districts in recent years, and urges Sherrill to “engage in meaningful engagement with all affected stakeholders to develop and implement practical long-term reforms to the state’s system of delivering health care to its public employees.”

The resolution will be forwarded to Sherrill, State Treasurer Aaron Binder, Sen. President Nicholas Scutari, Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, State Sen. Andrew Zwicker, Assembly members Mitchelle Drulis and Roy Freiman and the New Jersey School Boards Association.

Zwicker and Freiman represent the 16th Legislative District, which includes Flemington-Raritan.

Flemington-Raritan has absorbed a 35% increase in health benefits this year, an amount that accounts for roughly $4 million of the district’s $4.6 million budget increase, board president Ryan Birkenstock said when the district adopted its $91.5 million budget for 2026–2027 April 29.

To cover the increase, the district raised its tax levy 7%, exceeding the state’s typical 2 %annual cap by using a health-care exception that allowed an additional $3 million in local taxes. Even with that adjustment, district officials said the new revenue does not fully offset the rise in health care costs.

“Thirty-five percent increases are not sustainable,” Birkenstock said at the April 29 meeting. “We’re not the only district dealing with this. It’s happening across the state. But it puts school systems in an incredibly difficult position.”

Business administrator Tanya Dawson told the board that 90% of Flemington-Raritan’s operating budget is funded through the local tax levy, while roughly 9% comes from state aid. Of the district’s $4.5 million budget increase, state aid grew by about $200,000.

“That means any increase we feel, our community feels,” Dawson said, “because our budget is primarily supported by local tax dollars.”

The pressure on local taxpayers is compounded by the property tax levy cap, which limits how much districts can raise through local taxes even when costs rise faster than the cap allows. The state’s limited health-care exception, the resolution says, has not been enough to close the gap for many districts.

The May 13 resolution echoes warnings district officials made when adopting the budget. Dawson told the board in April that long-term projections show district expenditures continuing to outpace revenues unless the funding system changes.

“Costs are rising faster than 2% annually, while revenue growth is limited by the tax cap,” she said April 29. “Over time, that gap grows, and that’s exactly what we’re seeing now. At some point, the math simply stops working.”

Birkenstock said advocacy at the state level remains the district’s main option.

“Again, that’s more advocacy with our local legislators, with our state legislators, with the DOE, in order to get the funding formula fixed,” he said. “Because 90% shouldered on our local community is a substantial portion.”

The post Flemington-Raritan Seeking Assistance From State Regarding Rising Health Insurance Costs appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

In recent days, LGBTQ plaintiffs have won preliminary victories in three lawsuits concerning restrictions on gender-affirming care. In one, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed a trial judge on May 18 and ordered a preliminary injunction requiring Children’s Hospital Colorado (CHC) to resume providing gender-affirming care to minors. In another, a state trial judge in Kansas granted a temporary injunction on May 15 to block enforcement of Kansas’s recently enacted ban on gender-affirming care for minors. And also on May 15, a federal judge in Connecticut denied a motion by an insurer to stay a preliminary injunction requiring the insurer not to categorically deny coverage for gender-affirming facial reconstruction surgery for the plaintiffs. In light of the setbacks that transgender rights suffered at the Supreme Court last year, the occurrence of three trans-positive rulings within a short time is a hopeful sign on progress. The Colorado Supreme Court’s 5-2 ruling in Boe v. Children’s Hospital Colorado addresses the fallout from a “Declaration” issued on Dec. 18 by U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in which he proclaimed that performance of gender-affirming care for minors was neither safe nor effective and “fails to meet professionally recognized standards of health care.” This declaration was intended to place in question eligibility for federal funding under programs such as Medicare and Medicaid by health care institutions and practitioners who provide such care. Then the general counsel of HHS announced on social media that he was referring CHC to the HHS Inspector General for investigation for providing medical gender-affirming care for minors, which would be the first step toward suspending CHC from receiving federal funds, which are a substantial part of the hospital’s operating budget. CHC responded to this news by notifying patients that it could no longer provide hormone therapy or puberty blockers to transgender patients under the age of 18, potentially leaving those taking these medications high and dry. This announcement affected people from a five-state area who were relying on CHC for such care, as it was unavailable in neighboring states where it was legally banned. CHC’s notification was startling because Colorado is a state that specifically approves of providing such care, and had joined a lawsuit by the State of Oregon and many other states filed in the federal district court in Oregon, seeking an order vacating Kennedy’s Declaration and any HHS action to enforce it. On April 18, that court issued an order in Oregon v. Kennedy vacating the RFK Declaration and barring its enforcement while the litigation proceeds. In the Colorado case, the plaintiffs, two transgender minors and their parents, sought a preliminary injunction requiring CHC to continue providing care (restoring the status quo from prior to the Kennedy Declaration) while the case is being litigated. The trial judge, Denver District Court Judge Ericka F. H. Englert, denied their motion. Although she concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits of their claim, she found the equities to be in favor of CHC’s suspension of services, explaining that the harm suffered by a small number of transgender patients was outweighed by the harm that would be suffered by thousands of people if CHC had to go out of business due to suspension of Medicaid and Medicare funding. The majority of the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with the trial judge that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that suspending the services violated plaintiffs’ rights under Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, finding that the suspension was targeted on transgender youth and thus constituted discrimination because of gender identity, which is explicitly prohibited under the state law. Writing for the court, Justice William W. Hood, III, emphasized that CHC was continuing to provide puberty blockers and hormone therapy for cisgender youth who suffered from other conditions, such as premature or delayed puberty, which are treated using those medications. The court held that Judge Englert erred in ruling that the harm suffered by a small number of transgender patients was outweighed by the harm that would fall on CHC and its other patients if it lost federal funding. The majority of the court said that at the time CHC suspended the service, the possibility of funding being withheld was speculative and far off, describing the protracted administrative process that would have to be undertaken under the Medicaid and Medicare Acts before funding could be cut off and, of course, now HHS is restricted by the preliminary injunction in the Oregon case from enforcing RFK’s Declaration while that case is litigated. The court also pointed out that preserving the status quo while litigating was appropriate in light of the harms that transgender minors would suffer if their treatment was suspended. In opposing the injunction, CHC argued that it had no discriminatory intent and had suspended the services with regret under the pressure of losing federal funding. It raised the holding last year by the U.S. Supreme Court that Tennessee had not violated the Equal Protection Clause when it outlawed gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The Colorado Supreme Court majority rejected this argument, emphasizing that this case was being litigated under Colorado’s antidiscrimination law, not the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and noting the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in 2020 under Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, that discrimination against somebody because of their transgender status violates Title VII, a federal law banning discrimination because of a person’s sex. The Colorado court majority found Bostock to be the more appropriate precedent for interpreting an anti-discrimination statute. Two Colorado Supreme Court justices dissented, arguing that discriminatory intent was required to find a violation of the Colorado law, and that it was clear that CHC had no discriminatory intent. They empathized with the hospital, facing a possible financial disaster, and also disagreed with the trial judge and the majority of the Supreme Court about whether plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits, a sine qua non of obtaining preliminary relief. The Kansas decision by Douglas County, Kansas, District Judge Carl Folsom, III, was issued in response to a challenge to provisions of Kansas Statutes 65-28, a law that prohibits the use of puberty blockers or hormones as a treatment for gender dysphoria. Judge Folsom produced a lengthy, detailed opinion describing the plaintiffs, their treatment, and the impact that passage of the law already had on their well-being. The ACLU of Kansas filed suit on their behalf invoking only the Kansas Constitution, avoiding the possibility of this case going to the U.S. Supreme Court and rendering irrelevant that court’s ruling last year upholding the Tennessee ban on such treatment. Immediately on filing suit, the plaintiffs sought what is called in Kansas a “temporary injunction” to block the law from being enforced while the case continues. Judge Folsom held a two-day hearing with expert witnesses testifying both in person and by affidavits and decided that the state’s experts’ opinions were worth little weight and that the plaintiffs’ experts were better qualified and more informative. He rejected the state’s contention that the treatment ban was necessary to “protect” minors, convinced by the plaintiffs’ experts that these treatments are safe and effective for treating gender dysphoria in minors by reference to the procedures followed at Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, whose GPS Clinic is the only provider of such services in the state. Based on the expert testimony, he concluded that “it is harmful to transgender adolescents with gender dysphoria to remove the option of receiving gender-affirming medical care because that is the treatment with the most evidence of being helpful to treat gender dysphoria. It is harmful to withhold medical treatment or withdraw medical treatment in progress that is safe, effective, and medically indicated. In addition to the harms of withholding this treatment,” he continued, “transgender youth feel threatened, unwelcome, and targeted by laws that prohibit their medical care, and families without the financial means to travel are under tremendous stress. The risks of not providing puberty blockers or hormone therapy when medically indicated for an adolescent with gender dysphoria, include exacerbated distress for gender dysphoria and significant mental-health consequences, including worsening depression and anxiety and social isolation.” Furthermore, he noted, “The State has identified no other medical care that Kansas has restricted only to adults,” and observed, based on the testimony from plaintiffs and their health care providers, that “transgender adolescents who have remained patients of the GPS Clinic since [the law] went into effect are experiencing mental-health crises — their anxiety and depression have returned, and they feel society has rejected them and does not value them as individuals.” They would only have had to read President Trump’s Executive Order from Jan. 21, 2025, to reach that conclusion. The Kansas Constitution adopts language from the U.S. Declaration of Independence, whose 250th anniversary we celebrate this year, stating in Section 1, its Bill of Rights: “All men are possessed of equal and unalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The judge pointed out that this language has no textual counterpart in the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the limitations of human rights protection under the federal constitution are thus “inconsistent with state sovereignty,” according to a Kansas Supreme Court ruling from 2013. “The Kansas Constitution protects personal autonomy in Section 1 of the Kansas Bill of Rights,” he wrote. “This personal autonomy includes the fundamental right of parents to the care, custody, and control of their minor children,” and the challenged law “infringes on that fundamental parenting right, which triggers strict scrutiny,” which the law fails. “Defendant has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that [the law]’s prohibitions on puberty blockers and hormone therapy are narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.” The law also prohibits gender-affirming surgery for minors, but Judge Folsom found that the plaintiffs are not seeking such surgery as minors, and that the GPS Clinic does not provide such surgery for minors, so surgery is not included in the “temporary injunction” that he issued. “Plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their claim that [the law] does not substantially further Defendant’s interest in protecting children or the medical profession because the evidence presented to the Court demonstrated that puberty blockers and hormone therapy offer proved mental-health benefits when used to treat gender dysphoria in adolescents,” wrote Judge Folsom. He concluded that allowing the law to be enforced while this case proceeds would harm the plaintiffs, that later money damages would not remedy their injuries, and the harm they would suffer outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction might cause to the State. He also found that issuing the injunction would “not be adverse to the public interest,” and that a statewide injunction against enforcement of the law was appropriate, since limiting its effect to the plaintiffs “would substantially limit the GPS Clinic’s practice in this field of medicine, which may ultimately affect the clinic’s ability to serve Plaintiffs.” A statewide injunction is necessary to uphold the status quo while this lawsuit proceeds. As soon as this opinion was issued, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, named as a defendant in his official capacity, announced that he would appeal the ruling to the Kansas Supreme Court. In light of the court’s factual findings, it is unlikely that Judge Folsom would agree to stay his temporary injunction while Kobach appeals, although it is possible that the Kansas Supreme Court would grant a stay. Finally, on May 15, U.S. District Judge Victor A. Bolden, who had previously issued a preliminary injunction in Gordon v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, requiring Aetna to make “individualized coverage determinations” about covering gender-affirming facial reconstruction surgery “when used to treat gender dysphoria,” denied a motion by Aetna to stay the injunction while it appeals his ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The lawsuit by a group of transgender plaintiffs argues that Aetna’s position that the policies it is administering exclude coverage for such procedures violates the sex discrimination ban in the Affordable Care Act. Judge Bolden found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on that claim, noting as well that language in the policies and Aetna’s guidance publications might be interpreted to extend such coverage. In seeking a stay of the preliminary injunction, Aetna argued that if it was required to pay the two doctors who had performed the procedures on the plaintiffs, that would effectively “moot” the appeal, but Judge Bolden responded that “the majority of courts in this Circuit have found that the mooting of an appeal, without more, does not constitute irreparable injury.” A party seeking a stay has the burden of showing that denying a stay would subject it to irreparable injury. Judge Bolden was appointed to the court by President Obama. Aetna filed an appeal to the 2nd Circuit Court Appeals of Judge Bolden’s award of preliminary relief to the plaintiffs on April 2. It is possible that the 2nd Circuit would be more open to granting Aetna’s request for a stay. Lawyers associated with Advocates for Trans Equality Education Fund and volunteer attorneys from several law firms represent the plaintiffs.

The post Transgender plaintiffs win preliminary victories in three gender-affirming care lawsuits appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

ZURICH–(BUSINESS WIRE)–
Global reinsurer MS Reinsurance announced today that it produced a net profit of $415 million after tax for the year ended 2025, compared to $346 million for the year ended 2024.

The announcement follows on from the release by ultimate parent company, MS&AD¹, of the insurance group’s consolidated financial results for the full year 2025 on May 20, 2026.

“2025 was an excellent year for the company as we delivered a significantly increased net profit of $415 million, based on excellent underwriting and investment performance. This is the third year in a row that we have delivered profits to our shareholder,” said Chief Executive Officer Robert Wiest. “We have achieved this success because we have had a clear objective: to create a company that is a stable, reliable, and valuable partner to our clients across the cycle. Every decision we have taken – strategically, culturally, and organizationally – has been guided by this ambition.”

In a letter to stakeholders published today, Mr. Wiest commented further on the strategic themes underlying the company’s performance. “Today, MS Reinsurance is fundamentally different from where it was four years ago. We deliberately de-risked and rebalanced our portfolio, strengthened governance throughout the organization, and reimagined how we operate across functions and geographies. We clarified who we are and what we stand for, with a clear strategy and value proposition rooted in knowing our clients deeply, being easy to work with, and delivering value efficiently.” Read the full letter here.

In April 2026, S&P Global Ratings affirmed the company’s financial strength rating of ‘A+’ with a stable outlook and also raised its long-term issuer credit rating from ‘A’ to ‘A+’ following an uplift of the group status assessment of MS Reinsurance. Earlier this month, AM Best also affirmed the company’s financial strength rating of A+ with a stable outlook and has upgraded the long-term issuer credit rating from ‘aa- (Superior)‘ to ‘aa (Superior)’ following the assignment of a full rating enhancement. The uplift in issuer credit ratings from both agencies reflects the increased strategic and financial importance of MS Reinsurance to its parent Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Company, Limited.

Mr. Wiest concluded in his letter to stakeholders: “Reinsurance is inherently cyclical, which makes consistency both difficult and essential. Our strategy is designed to hold across the full cycle, not just when conditions are favorable.”

Increased net profit

2025 was another strong year for MS Reinsurance, with a net profit after tax of $415 million, as a result of significant positive contributions from both underwriting and investments. MS Reinsurance reported a strong investment result of $307 million and an investment return of 4.7%, despite continued financial market volatility.

Gross Written Premiums grow to $3.9 billion from $3.6 billion in 2024

MS Reinsurance was able to continue top line growth from $3.6 billion to $3.9 billion in line with growth plans and the company’s strategy to continue to build a diversified and well-balanced portfolio.

Combined Ratio improves to 87.4%

The strong combined ratio for 2025 of 87.4%, compared to 88.7% in 2024, was mainly a result of a benign loss experience mainly from shorter tail classes as well as favorable discounting impact.

Key Financial Data

About MS Re

MS Reinsurance is a global reinsurer domiciled in Switzerland with offices in Zurich, Bermuda, Miami, New York, London and Labuan. The Company underwrites non-life treaty reinsurance solutions on a worldwide basis through its three underwriting units: Americas, International, and Specialty Lines. As part of the world-leading insurance group MS&AD, MS Reinsurance combines reliability and agility to make its clients’ businesses stronger. With a drive to move quickly and a commitment to long term partnership, MS Reinsurance supports its partners with the momentum and stability they can build on.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260519322817/en/

For further information please contact:
Stephen Breen

+44 7843 076556

Stephen.breen@rein4ce.co.uk

Source: MS Reinsurance

The post MS Reinsurance reports ‘excellent’ year with improved combined ratio and net profit increasing to $415 million appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

EFFINGHAM — Entities sought the help of Effingham County officials this week in keeping public transportation running in other counties and providing health insurance to village employees.

Effingham County Board member Jeremy Deters presented the insurance proposal during the board’s Administrative Committee meeting on Monday after he was approached by village officials from Teutopolis and spoke with those from Dieterich.

“The smaller government entities in the county are having issues providing health insurance for their full-time employees,” he said.

He noted other counties in the state offer an umbrella policy for smaller municipalities to join, with the municipalities paying their portion of the cost.

“What we’re proposing here is to create this blanket policy for Effingham County as a whole to allow the smaller government entities to sign on to the collective insurance that we have,” he said, adding that it includes townships.

“The good part of that would be, the more people we bring on, the lower our premiums could get. And I don’t think that there would be any additional cost to the county as well,” he added.

The county’s health insurance provider, Hope Trust, has done that in Jasper County, where townships joined through an intergovernmental agreement.

“It’s worked out just fine,” said representative Brent Williamson.

However, Williamson cautioned that Hope Trust wants what will work best for Effingham County. He recommended the village employees fill out health applications to help assess their plan performance, so the county isn’t taking on undue risk.

“The last thing I want to do is bring eight or 10 people onto your plan if three or four are sick,” he said, pointing out such a scenario would increase the county’s risk.

Teutopolis Village Clerk Amy Vahling said the village hasn’t had major claims under its policy. The village has five employees and is hiring two new ones. While Vahling noted their current insurance provider has been great, the rates are “really expensive” for a village of its size.

Effingham County Board Chairman Joshua Douthit voiced two concerns he has about bringing other municipalities onto the county’s health insurance plan.

“No. 1, if we decide to go away from Hope Trust, you guys are on your own again. You’d be back to where you are now. So you’re relying on us to stay on Hope Trust,” he told Vahling. “No. 2, I don’t like the extra risk to the county adding multiple other entities. We don’t control policy or procedure in T-town village. We don’t control things in any townships. I know some of that would fall under workers’ compensation if they were to get hurt, and maybe not necessarily health insurance. But I do see that there could be an incident where an expectation that the county has, the village of T-town does not, or some township does not for their employees and they could get injured or hurt where they would seek claims. We would take the brunt of that.”

Douthit then asked if the county would be graded overall with all claims, not just county claims. Williamson said that would be correct.

“I think the risk is too big. And then there’s that caveat that they’re relying completely on us for this service,” added Douthit.

Vahling said the village has to seek bids for health insurance every year anyway.

“It’s just getting harder and harder. The last two years has been almost impossible to get bids because we’re so small,” she said.

County Board member Tim Ellis suggested setting clear expectations that the county can end the health insurance agreement at any time.

“I’m not necessarily opposed to it if we make those villages aware that this could happen at any time,” he said. “They’re taking the risk.”

Effingham County Treasurer Deb Ruholl asked Vahling if Teutopolis could join other villages to get their own policy instead of relying on the county.

Vahling noted that each county village has few full-time employees. So, they would still lack the 50 workers needed to enroll in Hope Trust.

Williamson suggested finishing the health applications first. This way, Hope Trust can review them and see if the proposal is workable for the county. He said Hope Trust would send a QR code to each village. He added the application takes about 5 minutes and each village would be responsible for having their employees complete it.

“Give our clinical team an opportunity to go through and take a look and see if there are any concerns, either based on health care or medication costs, that they see that are out of line. And then we could address that at that point,” he said.

The county will send a letter to each village and township to see if others are interested in participating.

Meanwhile, CEFS is proposing to incorporate its public transportation program in Shelby and other counties into Effingham County’s, beginning July 1, which is the start of the state’s fiscal year.

Effingham County is the grantee for Illinois Department of Transportation funding to provide rural public transportation in Effingham County.

Likewise, Shelby County is the grantee for funding services in that county. While Effingham only serves its own jurisdiction, Shelby County is also the grantee for Moultrie, Christian, Montgomery, Clay and Fayette counties.

CEFS Chief Executive Officer Kevin Bushur informed the committee that Shelby County no longer has the capacity to serve as the grantee, citing late audits that have placed the county on the state’s stop-payment list.

“That’s causing issues with getting the money for our services that we’re providing. They don’t want the other five counties to lose out on public transportation,” said Bushur.

Bushur said the benefits of combining all the counties would be Effingham County would own all the buses from the six other counties, as well as the maintenance facility in Shelby County. That would then enable Effingham County to use the buses from the other counties, which CEFS currently cannot do.

Program Director Beth Beck-Marts told committee members that was the first thought she had when she heard recent tornado sirens.

“What if the Agracel facility got hit by a tornado and we lost all the vehicles? We wouldn’t be able to operate because we couldn’t use theirs. These would be all pooled resources. I could pull what I needed for wherever,” she said.

Douthit asked if the same situation in another county would harm services in Effingham County.

“I will tell you I have never done anything that would be detrimental to another county. I pull resources, and I move resources all the time, but I would never move anything that is going to limit another county,” said Beck-Marts.

Douthit asked if it can be stated somewhere that, no matter what happens, Effingham County will have a specific number of buses and E-Trax will not be interrupted. Bushur said he would be open to reviewing language to make those guarantees part of the contract.

“Operationally, not much is going to change at all,” assured Beck-Marts.

Bushur said the people he has spoken with in the other six counties all support Effingham County as the grantee.

Douthit said he wants to allow the public a chance to comment on the proposal, which will also be discussed at the County Board meeting on Monday.

“Because this is a big step for us to take on the responsibility of six other counties,” he said. “I wanna make sure members of the public could attend and have input.”

The Effingham County Board meets Monday, May 18, at 4 p.m. on the third floor of the Effingham County Office Building in downtown Effingham.

© 2026 the Effingham Daily News (Effingham, Ill.). Visit www.effinghamdailynews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The post Entities turn to Effingham County for help in providing services, benefits appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

Californians are paying for their bargain shopping twice — once at the cash register and again through taxes that help underpaid workers survive.

That’s because too many low-wage employees can’t afford enough food, much less pay health insurance premiums, so they turn to government-funded programs.

At a moment when Congress is threatening deep reductions to the social safety net, California cannot continue absorbing costs that some of the world’s most profitable corporations are unwilling to bear themselves.

Gov. Gavin Newsom should have adopted the Senate’s proposed “fair share contribution” in his revised May budget to begin recovering a portion of the public dollars now propping up low-wage business models.

Since he didn’t, both houses of the Legislature should push for this common-sense step.

The Senate proposal would require the largest corporations — the top 1% to 2%, not small businesses or local franchisees — to contribute toward the Medi-Cal costs of workers whose wages are so low they qualify for public assistance. Medi-Cal is California’s public insurance program that provides free or reduced health care services to low-income families.

Senate Democrats estimate the proposal could raise between $5 billion and $8 billion annually for Medi-Cal, struggling hospitals and county health and human services programs.

These programs are helping large numbers of full-time workers survive in places like Sacramento, Fresno, Merced, Modesto and San Luis Obispo.

“Currently, 42% of Medi-Cal enrollees are full-time workers who are not enrolled in their company’s healthcare plan,” the senators reported in justifying their plan. “This is often because their wages are low enough to qualify for state-subsidized health care.”

UC Berkeley researchers, studying “the public cost of low-wage work,” have found that, when employers fail to pay sufficient wages to survive in California, workers are relying on housing assistance, Medi-Cal and CalFresh, formerly known as food stamps.

If a corporation’s workforce depends heavily on public assistance, that company should help reimburse the public systems supporting that workforce. California already has the ability to identify these employers.

Americans have been told for generations that Walmart’s low prices were a triumph of efficiency and scale. Well, that’s not the whole story. Low-wage employers are leaving it to taxpayers to subsidize the doctor visits, rent and groceries of their employees.

One widely cited national study estimated Walmart’s workforce costs taxpayers roughly $6.2 billion annually through Medicaid, SNAP (what CalFresh is called nationally) and housing assistance.

This goes beyond Walmart, though. A 2024 University of Illinois Chicago study found that nearly half of Amazon warehouse workers experienced food or housing insecurity while many relied on SNAP or Medicaid.

Retail is brutally competitive, and economists rightly debate whether higher labor costs would accelerate automation or drive companies elsewhere.

But California can no longer ignore the extent to which taxpayers are subsidizing labor costs. In Yuba County, for instance, 90% of households receiving CalFresh benefits had at least one household member who worked, according to a UC Davis study released in March.

Workers don’t end up on public assistance by accident. Low pay, unstable schedules, reduced hours and limited benefits are often exactly why they qualify in the first place.

A 2026 Institute for Policy Studies report found that many corporations spent billions on stock buybacks, artificially inflating their share prices. Meanwhile, taxpayers pick up the tab to sustain low-wage workers but receive no share of any corporate earnings.

And in California, the cost of all this is magnified. Wages that might sustain survival in Mississippi or Alabama cannot cover rent in Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego or the Bay Area.

California cannot indefinitely fund public assistance for employees of low-wage corporations while relying on volatile capital gains taxes from wealthy individuals and personal income taxes.

The role these companies play in working-class instability is shockingly well-documented, yet federal and state officials have done little to discourage it. Rather, they offer these employers tax advantages and accounting structures unavailable to ordinary wage earners.

Sen. Caroline Menjivar, D-Panorama City, said lawmakers proposed the fair share plan to avoid balancing the budget through cuts to indigent and working-class Californians.

“When 42% of the people on Medi-Cal are working, we know something needs to change,” she said.

Rather than adopting the fair share plan, Newsom proposed reinstating Medi-Cal asset limits for seniors and disabled adults, increasing premiums for some immigrants and cutting programs or services intended to prevent repeated ER visits, psychiatric crises and hospitalizations.

Healthcare advocates warn the cuts would destabilize programs designed to keep medically fragile Californians out of emergency rooms and repeated crises.

Fair share revenue could reduce pressure to cut Medi-Cal services and free up funds for CalFresh and food banks. It could support CalWORKs grants, child care and county staffing. It could help stabilize homelessness programs and affordable housing investments.

Economists and business groups have raised legitimate concerns. Would higher labor costs accelerate automation? Would some firms relocate? Can consumers tolerate the inevitable higher prices? Would pension funds lose investment returns?

But California now faces a question that tops these: What happens if the federal government continues retreating from the social safety net?

California cannot continue functioning as the health insurer of last resort, allowing the hidden cost of Wal-Mart and Amazon “savings” to pile up in public assistance programs.

Some will argue corporations already pay taxes to support these systems. But those revenues should be used to support the overall functioning and quality of life of the state: schools, infrastructure, public safety, parks, transportation and more.

Those taxes were never intended to permanently underwrite corporate compensation strategies that trap workers in a cycle of deprivation. California’s governor and legislators must start billing the companies behind these low-wage models.

©2026 The Sacramento Bee. Visit sacbee.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The post You are paying for the health care of low-wage Walmart employees. Here is why | Opinion appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.

• Ustekinumab BS 45 mg Syringe for S.C. Injection「NIPRO」 is now available in Japan, after its listing under the National Health Insurance (NHI) Drug Price Standard
• Marks first launch in Japan through partnership with NIPRO CORPORATION
• Samsung Bioepis continues to expand its global presence, widening access to life-enhancing treatments for patients with chronic autoimmune conditions

INCHEON, Korea–(BUSINESS WIRE)–
Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. today announced the launch of Ustekinumab BS 45 mg Syringe for S.C. Injection「 NIPRO」, a biosimilar referencing Stelara¹ (ustekinumab), marking its first product launch in Japan under partnership with NIPRO CORPORATION (hereafter “NIPRO”). The launch follows the Official Gazette announcement on May 19 regarding the product’s listing under the National Health Insurance (NHI) Drug Price Standard, which became effective today.

“We are thrilled to announce the launch of our first biosimilar product in Japan in partnership with NIPRO,” said Jinhan Chung, Vice President and Head of Commercial Strategy for International Markets, at Samsung Bioepis. “Together with our partner NIPRO, we look forward to supporting patients living with autoimmune diseases and contributing to the sustainability of Japan’s healthcare system by providing quality-assured, safe and effective biosimilar options.”

Ustekinumab is a human immunoglobulin G1 kappa (IgG1κ) monoclonal antibody that prevents abnormal regulation of IL-12 and IL-23 associated with immune-mediated diseases. Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) has granted marketing authorization to Ustekinumab BS 45 mg Syringe for S.C. Injection「NIPRO」 for the treatment of plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in December 2025.²

Samsung Bioepis announced a strategic partnership with NIPRO for the development and commercialization of multiple biosimilar candidates in Japan, including ustekinumab, in June 2025.

Samsung Bioepis’s ustekinumab biosimilar is also available under different brand names across the European Union (EU), Korea, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US).³

About Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.

Established in 2012, Samsung Bioepis is a biopharmaceutical company committed to realizing healthcare that is accessible to everyone. Through innovations in product development and a firm commitment to quality, Samsung Bioepis aims to become the world’s leading biopharmaceutical company. Samsung Bioepis continues to advance a broad pipeline of biologic candidates that cover a spectrum of therapeutic areas, including immunology, oncology, ophthalmology, hematology, nephrology, neurology, and endocrinology. For more information, please visit www.samsungbioepis.com and follow us on social media – X, LinkedIn.

1 Stelara is a trademark of Johnson & Johnson.
2 Ustekinumab BS 45 mg Syringe for S.C. Injection「NIPRO」 is not indicated for the treatment of Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis.
3 Samsung Bioepis’s ustekinumab biosimilar is available under the brand name PYZCHIVA in the EU, the UK, and the US. In Korea, it is available under the brand name EPYZTEK.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260519144753/en/

MEDIA CONTACT

Anna Nayun Kim, nayun86.kim@samsung.com

Yoon Kim, yoon1.kim@samsung.com

Source: Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd.

The post Samsung Bioepis Launches Ustekinumab Biosimilar, Marking Its First Product Launch in Japan appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.