Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Collapse of Patient Trust: How U.S. Healthcare Lost Its Way

Why rising costs, rushed visits, and outdated systems shattered the doctor-patient bond.

Opinion

A doctor and patient holding hands.

Trust in America’s doctors has hit historic lows. This story explores how decades of missed opportunities, rising costs, and systemic inertia eroded the doctor-patient bond — and what it will take to restore confidence in modern medicine.

Getty Images, thianchai sitthikongsak

Just as the political health of a nation requires trust in elected officials, the physical and mental health of Americans depends on the trust embedded in the doctor-patient relationship.

For most of the past century, that bond was ironclad. Now, that relationship is fraying.


Gallup polling shows just 44% of Americans rate the quality of care they receive as “good” or “excellent,” the weakest showing since Gallup began asking the question in 2001. Meanwhile, trust in doctors’ honesty and ethics has dropped 14 points since 2021, falling to its lowest point this century.

At first glance, you might assume this decline resulted from recent, external factors: COVID-19, political polarization, and rising vaccine skepticism. Instead, today’s drop in confidence can best be understood as the predictable result of decisions physicians failed to make 20 years ago.

How The Arc Bent

To understand why patients now rate their doctors so poorly, we need to trace the entire arc of modern medicine: how trust was built, how it reached its peak, and why it declined.

The arc began with the arrival of antibiotics in the 1920s and 30s. Before then, doctors most often offered patients hope and compassion rather than cures. But with the availability of sulfa drugs and, later, penicillin, a doctor’s visit became more likely to prolong a life than shorten it.

The second half of the 20th century marked a golden era in medicine. Breakthroughs in surgery, transplantation, chemotherapy, and vaccines were paired with broader access through employer-sponsored insurance and the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. Life expectancy climbed year after year, and public confidence in doctors soared.

But every arc bends. By the 1990s, the daily demands of clinical practice had undergone significant shifts. Acute problems like pneumonia or broken bones—conditions that often could be treated in a single encounter—gave way to chronic illnesses such as diabetes, heart failure, and hypertension. These conditions demand lifelong management: frequent monitoring, medication adjustments, and repeated follow-ups. Furthermore, the epidemic of chronic disease led to a major uptick in their complications, including heart attacks, strokes, cancers, and kidney failures.

As the need for medical care rose faster than physicians’ ability to provide it, costs soared while clinical outcomes stagnated. Insurers, caught between surging costs and payer resistance, had only one lever to pull: rationing. They rolled out high-deductible plans, imposed prior authorization requirements, and denied a higher number of claims. Doctors, meanwhile, reassured by high patient satisfaction scores, resisted the opportunity to overhaul medical practice. Most kept their small, siloed offices, accepting fee-for-service payments that rewarded volume over outcomes.

As the gap between patient needs and physician capacity widened, access to care steadily eroded. Appointments that once took days to schedule began stretching into weeks or even months, both in primary and specialty care. And when patients finally got through the door, visits felt hurried. With doctors averaging just 17 minutes per encounter, there was little time to listen fully, explain thoroughly, or follow up afterward.

The consequences were predictable. Delayed appointments allowed medical problems to worsen. Rushed exams led to misdiagnoses. And for patients left waiting, worrying, or returning with complications, the logical conclusion was that their doctors didn’t care.

Meanwhile, even as patients noticed the increasingly compromised quality, medical professionals clung to the belief that minor fixes could repair the system and restore the doctor-patient bond. But with less than half of Americans now confident in the quality of care they receive—and premiums projected to rise by nearly 9% next year—the time for denial is over.

To repair the doctor-patient relationship, physicians will need to acknowledge how far patient confidence has plunged and accept the data on their performance. Life expectancy remains the same in the United States today as it was in 2010, and it remains five years below most other developed nations. Further, healthcare now consumes nearly one-fifth of the nation’s GDP, with half of Americans struggling to afford their medical bills.

Lessons From Business Turnarounds

To improve the nation’s health and restore the trust that is vital to the doctor-patient relationship, physicians will need to radically shift how they provide medical care. The question is how best to accomplish that most effectively.

As a professor of strategy at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, I’ve studied dozens of companies facing similar existential threats. The successful ones either increased operational excellence or embraced new technology.

Following the first scenario, doctors would join together and use the opportunity to achieve economies of scale, collaborate across specialties to avoid duplication of services, and minimize resource waste through clinical care coordination. Moreover, they would apply the principle of specialization to create high-volume centers of excellence capable of providing consistently high quality with far greater efficiency and significantly lower costs.

Following the second, physicians would move quickly to implement generative AI solutions that empower patients to take on more of their own care and better control their chronic diseases. In addition, they would double down on maximizing people’s health, avoiding medical errors, and minimizing the 30-50% of heart attacks, strokes, cancers, and kidney failures that result from poorly controlled chronic diseases.

In both scenarios, employers, elected officials, and insurers will need to support and incentivize the process by shifting reimbursement to hospitals and doctors from pay-for-volume (fee-for-service) to pay-for-value (capitation). They would do so to maximize the health of the country and maintain healthcare affordability.

If nothing changes, however, annual costs will outpace inflation, quality will continue to decline, and the gap between healthcare prices and what patients can afford will widen. That will serve as fertile soil for disruption. Entrepreneurs will seize the opportunity and introduce generative AI tools that replace (rather than complement) physicians. As a consequence, the doctor-patient relationship will continue to erode, and only the wealthiest Americans will be able to obtain the personalized medical care they desire. Costs may decline, but people’s health will languish, as well. And trust will evaporate forever.

Dr. Robert Pearl, the author of “ ChatGPT, MD,” teaches at both the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Read More

Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

US President Donald Trump hailed a "tremendous day for the Middle East" as he and regional leaders signed a declaration on Oct. 13, 2025, meant to cement a ceasefire in Gaza, hours after Israel and Hamas exchanged hostages and prisoners. (TNS)

Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

President Trump took a rhetorical victory lap in front of the Israeli parliament Monday. Ignoring his patented departures from the teleprompter, which violated all sorts of valuable norms, it was a speech Trump deserved to give. The ending of the war — even if it’s just a ceasefire — and the release of Israel’s last living hostages is, by itself, a monumental diplomatic accomplishment, and Trump deserves to take a bow.

Much of Trump’s prepared text was forward-looking, calling for a new “golden age” for the Middle East to mirror the one allegedly unfolding here in America. I’m generally skeptical about “golden ages,” here or abroad, and especially leery about any talk about “everlasting peace” in a region that has known “peace” for only a handful of years since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Keep ReadingShow less
A child looks into an empty fridge-freezer in a domestic kitchen.

The Trump administration’s suspension of the USDA’s Household Food Security Report halts decades of hunger data tracking.

Getty Images, Catherine Falls Commercial

Trump Gives Up the Fight Against Hunger

A Vanishing Measure of Hunger

Consider a hunger policy director at a state Department of Social Services studying food insecurity data across the state. For years, she has relied on the USDA’s annual Household Food Security Report to identify where hunger is rising, how many families are skipping meals, and how many children go to bed hungry. Those numbers help her target resources and advocate for stronger programs.

Now there is no new data. The survey has been “suspended for review,” officially to allow for a “methodological reassessment” and cost analysis. Critics say the timing and language suggest political motives. It is one of many federal data programs quietly dropped under a Trump executive order on so-called “nonessential statistics,” a phrase that almost parodies itself. Labeling hunger data “nonessential” is like turning off a fire alarm because it makes too much noise; it implies that acknowledging food insecurity is optional and reveals more about the administration’s priorities than reality.

Keep ReadingShow less
Standing Up for Democracy Requires Giving the Other Side Credit When It Is Deserved

U.S. President Donald Trump poses with the signed agreement at a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war on October 13, 2025 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt.

(Photo by Suzanne Plunkett - Pool / Getty Images)

Standing Up for Democracy Requires Giving the Other Side Credit When It Is Deserved

American political leaders have forgotten how to be gracious to their opponents when people on the other side do something for which they deserve credit. Our antagonisms have become so deep and bitter that we are reluctant to give an inch to our political adversaries.

This is not good for democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Critical Value of Indigenous Climate Stewardship

As the COP 30 nears, Indigenous-led conservation offers the best hope to protect the Amazon rainforest and stabilize the global climate system.

Getty Images, photography by Ulrich Hollmann

The Critical Value of Indigenous Climate Stewardship

In August, I traveled by bus, small plane, and canoe to the sacred headwaters of the Amazon, in Ecuador. It’s a place with very few roads, yet like many areas in the rainforest, foreign business interests have made contact with its peoples and in just the last decade have rapidly changed the landscape, scarring it with mines or clearcutting for cattle ranching.

The Amazon Rainforest is rightly called the “lungs of the planet.” It stores approximately 56.8 billion metric tons of carbon, equivalent to nearly twice the world’s yearly carbon emissions. With more than 2,500 tree species that account for roughly one-third of all tropical trees on earth, the Amazon stores the equivalent to 10–15 years of all global fossil fuel emissions. The "flying rivers" generated by the forest affect precipitation patterns in the United States, as well our food supply chains, and scientists are warning that in the face of accelerating climate change, deforestation, drought, and fire, the Amazon stands at a perilous tipping point.

Keep ReadingShow less