Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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Why rising costs, rushed visits, and outdated systems shattered the doctor-patient bond.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

A stethoscope, calculator, pills, and cash.

As ACA subsidies expire and Medicaid rolls shrink, millions could face higher premiums or lose coverage, reigniting a national healthcare debate.

Getty Images, athima tongloom

How Expiring Subsidies and Medicaid Cuts Could Reshape U.S. Access to Care

Current Issue

In the coming year, millions of Americans could see their health insurance premiums rise, or lose coverage entirely, as key federal supports for affordable care are set to expire. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace, which were later extended by the Inflation Reduction Act, are scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. According to one analysis, if these enhanced subsidies expire, premiums on average could increase by 25-100 percent. At the same time, several states are reducing Medicaid rolls following the end of the pandemic-era continuous coverage requirement. Over 25 million people had been disenrolled from Medicaid and CHIP during this process in 2024. Together, these changes could redefine U.S. healthcare access, reigniting debates about public health and fiscal restraint.

Background

The ACA, passed in 2010, aimed to make health insurance more accessible for millions of uninsured Americans by expanding Medicaid eligibility and creating subsidized plans under the premium tax credit. The ARPA of 2021 significantly increased those marketplace subsidies, eliminating the 400% of poverty threshold for eligibility and reducing the percentage of income that enrollees must pay in premiums. As a result, the number of people eligible for marketplace subsidies increased from 18.1 million to 21.8 million from 2020-2021. Meanwhile, pandemic policies prevented states from disenrolling almost all Medicaid and CHIP enrollees for over three years. When this continuous coverage requirement ended in April of 2023, states began to reevaluate the eligibility of tens of millions of people. The expiration of ARPA temporary subsidies combined with the end of continuous Medicaid coverage set the stage for a contentious healthcare market next year.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Healthcare in 2025: Chaos, Costs, and Controversy Without Real Progress
a person wearing a blue shirt with a white circle on it
Photo by Nappy on Unsplash

U.S. Healthcare in 2025: Chaos, Costs, and Controversy Without Real Progress

The year 2025 has been one of the most turbulent years in modern U.S. healthcare. The headlines were explosive, the rhetoric dramatic, and the controversies nonstop. Yet for all the hoopla and upheaval, the medical care Americans receive now, month in and month out, looks no better than what they experienced on January 1 — but far more expensive.

Here are five areas of healthcare that generated chaos, confusion, and conflict in 2025 without meaningful improvement.

Keep ReadingShow less
University Roundtable Puts Latino Mental Health Front and Center

woman holds "Hablo Espanol" button

Picture Provided

University Roundtable Puts Latino Mental Health Front and Center

“Keep it to yourself. Push it down. Don’t say anything.” That is how Isis Lara Fernandez was taught to live with her status as an undocumented immigrant in the United States.

At 6-years-old, Lara Fernandez fled to the U.S. with her mother and siblings to escape domestic violence in Honduras. From that point forward, Lara Fernandez navigated life with a persistent fear that her secret could be discovered at any point in time.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Health Care Debate & Feldstein’s Fix
black and gray stethoscope

The Health Care Debate & Feldstein’s Fix

Serving in Congress during the implementation of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, Republicans embraced the position of “repeal and replace.” Repeal the ACA, but replace it with what? The debate is front-and-center again, though the ground has shifted some. There is more support for the ACA. Even some Republicans are looking to temporarily extend COVID-era subsidies for ACA health plans. Other Republicans want Health Savings Accounts, so more money goes to individuals instead of insurance companies. Democratic leadership seeks an approach temporarily extending the expanded premium subsidies, during which the entire approach to health care can be rethought.

The late economist Martin Feldstein had the fix: Martin Feldstein proposed a voucher system in which everyone could purchase a health insurance plan covering health care expenses exceeding 15% of their income. This could be combined with HSAs if they prove popular with the public.

Keep ReadingShow less