Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

3 shocking healthcare statistics for 2023

3 shocking healthcare statistics for 2023
Getty Images

Pearl is a clinical professor of plastic surgery at the Stanford University School of Medicine and is on the faculty of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

As the New Year begins, a trio of healthcare statistics cast an intense and unflattering light on a nation in crisis.


These figures, all of them unimaginable just a generation ago, set the stage for a financial reckoning in 2023 and beyond.

Shocking stat No. 1: The number of Americans on Medicaid

Without looking it up: What percentage of Americans receive some or all health-insurance coverage from the government?

You might assume a low percentage. After all, publicly funded healthcare is commonly associated with Canada and countries in Europe, but you wouldn’t lump the United States with that group, right?

The shocking truth is that most of the U.S. population will soon be on some form of government-sponsored health insurance. Right now, 158 million Americans (nearly half of the nation’s 330 million population) are covered by a combination of Medicare, Medicaid and subsidized enrollment in the state and federal exchanges. Experts predict that percentage will climb.

Within that population is an even-more shocking statistic: According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), enrollment in Medicaid surpassed 90 million in 2022.

This program, traditionally linked to a small population of Americans in poverty, will serve more than 100 million people in fiscal year 2023 (or 1 in 3 insured Americans). Since 2020, Medicaid enrollment has jumped 30% thanks to expansion programs in several more states under the Affordable Care Act and Covid-19 public health emergency funding.

The implications for states are daunting. Though the federal government can spend hundreds of billions more than it receives in taxes each year, states must balance their budgets annually. To accomplish that amid rising Medicaid costs, state leaders will have to (a) raise taxes, (b) reduce spending on things like education, road maintenance and law enforcement, or (c) restrict access to medical services.

Medicaid recipients already struggle to find primary care doctors. They also face lengthy delays for specialty care. Both outcomes result from low Medicaid reimbursement rates for physicians and hospitals.

Accordingly, millions of Americans have turned to emergency rooms as go-to locations for routine care, which has created two life-threatening problems:

1. Fewer people are getting preventive screenings or consistent help managing their chronic conditions, leading to often-avoidable problems like heart attacks, strokes and cancer.

2. As ERs swell with non-emergent patients, those with urgent and life-threatening issues have to wait longer for evaluation and treatment.

This combination—more ER patients with preventable issues and unnecessary ER utilization—will invariably drive our nation’s medical expenses higher.

While economic pressures are mounting for states, the federal government is feeling the strain, too.

The Medicare trust fund, which finances the cost of care for people over 65, is on pace to become insolvent by 2028. Last month, Congress approved a reduction in payments for doctors and hospitals to lower costs, which ignited a frightening new possibility: Healthcare providers could start refusing Medicare patients in the future as they do Medicaid enrollees today.

Shocking stat No. 2: The annual % increase in employee deductibles

Healthcare inflation hasn’t just taken a big slice out of government funds, it’s also hitting the pocketbooks of people with private insurance.

Since 2000, medical costs have risen each year by 4.85%, significantly outpacing the 2.85% annual increase in GDP.

With healthcare premiums rising at a faster rate than revenue, businesses have made up the difference by transferring the financial burden to employees in the form of high-deductible health plans.

In 2022, despite below average healthcare inflation, U.S. employees paid a shocking 10.4% more in out-of-pocket healthcare expenses than the year before.

Already, medical costs are the No. 1 cause of bankruptcies in the United States. If a recession ensues as many economists predict, millions more workers and families will suffer economic hardships.

Shocking stat No. 3: The % of seniors choosing Medicare Advantage

“Traditional” Medicare, enacted by Congress in 1965, continues to use a fee-for-service reimbursement model—one that pays doctors and hospitals based on the quantity (rather than quality) of medical services they provide.

In 1997, Congress created an alternative program called Medicare Advantage (MA). Unlike traditional Medicare, this option is “capitated.” That means the federal government pays healthcare providers an annual, up-front fee based on the age and health status of the enrollees.

Supporters of MA say that capitation incentivizes doctors to keep patients healthy without over-treating and over-testing them.

However, there are some downsides. Although seniors enrolled in MA enjoy more predictable annual costs and added benefits such as eyeglass coverage, they have fewer choices when selecting doctors and hospitals.

Despite this limitation, the program continues to grow in popularity and was chosen by 48% of all Medicare enrollees in 2022. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that MA will soon be the dominant choice of Medicare members.

This fact requires additional analysis by Congress which passed the original Medicare legislation and never could have imagined most Americans would be willing to relinquish choice, even for added benefits and reduced financial risk. And the implications are profound.

In recent years, companies like Amazon, CVS and Walmart have invested billions in acquiring pharmacies, medical groups and insurance capabilities in hopes of disrupting traditional healthcare. All of these retail giants are testing capitated coverage models as a way to lower costs and improve care.

As Americans grow more receptive to capitation and limitations in choice, the door is being propped open for these companies to step in and dominate U.S. healthcare in the future. While the economies of scale of having corporate giants leading healthcare are clear, debate among policy experts rages over whether that is what is best for the health of our nation.

Connecting the dots

Healthcare inflation has exceeded GDP growth for half a century. As a result, employers and American families are finding the cost of care progressively out of reach. Medicaid offers a temporary solution for many, but without improvements in how healthcare is provided, the government will inevitably cut back on funding, restrict access and erode quality.

These three shocking statistics prove how precarious our healthcare system has become. Given the lack of bipartisan cooperation, the chances Congress will successfully address each of them is low.

As such, something will have to give—soon.


Read More

Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

Congress Must Stop Media Consolidation Before Local Journalism Collapses

This week, I joined a coalition of journalists in Washington, D.C., to speak directly with lawmakers about a crisis unfolding in plain sight: the rapid disappearance of local, community‑rooted journalism. The advocacy day, organized by the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership (HTTP), brought together reporters and media leaders who understand that the future of local news is inseparable from the future of American democracy.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

A Shutdown Averted, and a Narrow Window Into Congress’s ICE Dilemma

Congress’s latest shutdown scare ended the way these episodes usually do: with a stopgap deal, a sigh of relief, and little sense that the underlying conflict had been resolved. But buried inside the agreement was a revealing maneuver. While most of the federal government received longer-term funding, the Department of Homeland Security, and especially Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was given only a short-term extension. That asymmetry was deliberate. It preserved leverage over one of the most controversial federal agencies without triggering a prolonged shutdown, while also exposing the narrow terrain on which Congress is still willing to confront executive power. As with so many recent budget deals, the decision emerged less from open debate than from late-stage negotiations compressed into the final hours before the deadline.

How the Deal Was Framed

Democrats used the funding deadline to force a conversation about ICE’s enforcement practices, but they were careful about how that conversation was structured. Rather than reopening the far more combustible debate over immigration levels, deportation priorities, or statutory authority, they framed the dispute as one about law-enforcement standards, specifically transparency, accountability, and oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You
A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

ICE Monitors Should Become Election Monitors: And so Must You

The brutality of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the related cohort of federal officers in Minneapolis spurred more than 30,000 stalwart Minnesotans to step forward in January and be trained as monitors. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s demands to Minnesota’s Governor demonstrate that the ICE surge is linked to elections, and other ICE-related threats, including Steve Bannon calling for ICE agents deployment to polling stations, make clear that elections should be on the monitoring agenda in Minnesota and across the nation.

A recent exhortation by the New York Times Editorial Board underscores the need for citizen action to defend elections and outlines some steps. Additional avenues are also available. My three decades of experience with international and citizen election observation in numerous countries demonstrates that monitoring safeguards trustworthy elections and promotes public confidence in them - both of which are needed here and now in the US.

Keep ReadingShow less