Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Health care is not a top issue in 2024. Covid-19 explains why.

Blue donkey and red elephant facing off across a Covid particle
OsakaWayne Studios/Getty Images

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.

In a striking departure from recent voting and polling trends, health care has tumbled to the 16th most important problem facing Americans today, according to new Gallup data.

At first glance, this shift is bewildering, especially considering the central role health care played in the 2018, 2020 and 2022 election cycles.


Americans now list the nation’s top problems as immigration (28 percent), the government (20 percent), the economy in general (12 percent), inflation (11 percent), poverty, hunger and homelessness (5 percent), unifying the country (4 percent), crime/violence (4 percent), and so on.

Contrary to what the Gallup poll might suggest, the importance of health care hasn’t diminished. In fact, the scenario is quite the reverse. Health care continues to be a pivotal issue, but its impact now permeates a broader array of societal concerns, redefining what constitutes a “health care issue.”

To grasp this shift, consider the unprecedented health crisis our nation has recently navigated. The Covid-19 pandemic didn’t just challenge our health care system. It reshaped our nation and exacerbated nearly all of its underlying issues. Even with a significant reduction in disease-related fatalities, the pandemic’s imprint on our everyday lives is unmistakably widespread and deep-rooted. Four years filled with upheaval and apprehension have blurred the traditional boundaries between health care and other areas of our lives, from the economy and social relations to our trust in government and other people.

Take, for example, the direct and tangible impact of Covid-19 on our nation’s economy, which is reflected in the concerns ranked third, fourth and fifth in the Gallup survey. The pandemic’s disruption of supply chains, along with the government’s substantial financial relief packages, contributed massively to inflation. Since then, measures taken by the Federal Reserve to tame higher prices have increased interest rates, housing costs and homelessness.

As a result, the cost of health care, which was once viewed as an isolated financial burden, has become intertwined with other economic pressures, including soaring rents, grocery bills and fuel prices. Health care isn’t unimportant. It has simply become another item on a growing list of unaffordable expenses.

The pandemic took a toll not only on our pocketbooks, but also on the nation’s mental health and societal cohesion, too. Forced isolation and the widespread fear of infection sowed seeds of loneliness and distrust, leaving lasting scars on our collective psyche. This period of upheaval intensified perceptions of “the other,” fueling xenophobia and deepening social divides (reflected in first- and ninth-ranked concerns — immigration and race relations, respectively).

Immigration fears, a striking symptom of these anxious times, signal a deeper societal malaise and mistrust that gained momentum during the pandemic. Our shrinking social circles made us wary of engaging with those outside our immediate networks, exacerbating feelings of division.

As economic uncertainties and safety concerns mounted, so too has apprehension about the implications of open borders. What initially emerged as a health precaution — self-isolation — has evolved into a more profound shift in social attitudes, fueling the instinct to safeguard ourselves and our loved ones by keeping strangers out.

The ongoing crisis atmosphere also deepened distrust in government leadership (the second biggest issue), which further widened societal divisions and has prompted a desire among many Americans to unify the country (the sixth concern on the Gallup list).

The government’s handling of the pandemic — marred by testing-kit shortages, inconsistent health advisories, and fluctuating policies on school closures and mask mandates — amplified doubts about elected leaders and eroded people’s trust in regulatory bodies. Coupled with congressional struggles to enact bipartisan legislation, these issues paint a picture of pervasive government failure. The inability of elected officials to protect people’s health currently blends with its failure to address countless other basic needs.

Taken together, the reordering of national concerns in the wake of Covid-19 doesn’t suggest health care’s diminished relevance. Instead, it reveals the extent to which the pandemic unraveled the social fabric and collective psyche of our nation.

The fact that voters now prioritize issues like immigration, government effectiveness and the economy over traditional health care topics doesn’t indicate that our country is content with the health care system. To the contrary, in separate polling, 73 percent of U.S. adults say the health care system fails to meet their needs.

The reality is that the United States can’t successfully address the problems spotlighted in the Gallup poll unless we overcome our health challenges — be they physical, mental or economic.

To effectively tackle our economic hurdles, it’s essential to curb rising health care costs, which already exceed $4 trillion annually and are projected to reach $7 trillion by 2031. We also can’t narrow the widening rifts in our society unless we prioritize the physical and mental well-being of our populace. And finally, the public’s trust in government will continue eroding until legislators confront the issue of lobbying. Since 2021, health care companies have spent $1.4 billion on campaign contributions and lobbying — more than any other industry — to influence policy decisions. It is clear these practices have undermined the credibility of elected officials.

The Covid-19 pandemic indelibly altered our lives, caused widespread fear and laid bare the vulnerabilities of American politics. Its enduring influence is evident today. Surveys like this capture the extensive and profoundly negative effects it has had on people’s perceptions and priorities.




Read More

US Capitol building
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky

Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?

Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.

Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand points to the word tax on a screen

Data calculations

Getty Images

Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works

Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.

So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less