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Why rising costs, rushed visits, and outdated systems shattered the doctor-patient bond.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

Political and Economic Pressures Set Up a Healthcare Shift in 2026
man in white dress shirt holding white paper

Political and Economic Pressures Set Up a Healthcare Shift in 2026

Healthcare in 2025 was consumed by chaos, conflict and relentless drama. Yet despite unprecedented political turmoil, cultural division and major technological breakthroughs, there was little meaningful improvement in how care is paid for or delivered.

That outcome was not surprising. American medicine is extraordinarily resistant to change. In most years, even when problems are obvious and widely acknowledged, the safest bet is that the care patients experience in January will look much the same in December.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Finish Line Is a Commons
Athletes compete in a hyrox event with puma branding.

The Finish Line Is a Commons

A decade ago, bootcamp workouts had little to do with appearance or chasing personal records. For me, they meant survival. They offered a way to manage stress, process grief, and stay upright beneath the weight of vocation and responsibility. Pastoral leadership, specifically during the time of “parachute church-planting,” often convinces a person that stillness is an unattainable luxury and that exhaustion is a sign of virtue. Eventually, my body defied those assumptions. So I went to the workout and may have discovered the “secret sauce” behind such entrepreneurial success. Then I returned. And kept returning. Mornings meant emerging outdoors at first light. I found myself in empty parking lots, on tracks, inside gyms, and eventually in a neighboring storefront home to BKM Fitness, owned by Braint Mitchell. There was no soundtrack, only measured breath and occasional encouragement called out by someone who hardly knew my name.

I could not have predicted that such spaces would become the most honest civic grounds I occupy. Today, my sense of belonging unfolds less in churches, classrooms, or boardrooms, and more in bootcamp circles, running groups, the leaderboard on Peloton, and, more recently, at a Hyrox start line—a hybrid fitness space where community looks and feels different.

Keep ReadingShow less
Freezing Child Care Funding Throws the Baby Out with the Bathwater
boy's writing on book

Freezing Child Care Funding Throws the Baby Out with the Bathwater

In the South, there is an idiom that says, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” It means not discarding something valuable while trying to eliminate something harmful. The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) proposed response to unsubstantiated child care fraud allegations in Minnesota risks doing exactly that.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has frozen child care and family assistance grants in five states, and reports indicate that this action may be extended nationwide. Fraud at any level is wrong and should be thoroughly investigated, and once proven to be true, addressed. However, freezing child care payments and family assistance grants based on the views of a single social media “influencer” is an overcorrection that threatens the stability of child care programs and leaves families without care options through no fault of their own.

Across the nation, Americans rely heavily on child care. According to the Center for American Progress, nearly 70 percent of children under age six had all available parents in the workforce in 2023, underscoring how essential child care is to family and economic stability.

Child care funding, therefore, is not optional. It is a necessity that must remain stable and predictable.

Without consistent funding, child care operations are forced to significantly reduce capacity, and some are forced to close altogether. In 2025, a longtime family child care owner made the difficult decision to close her business after state budget cuts eliminated critical child care funding. While this example reflects a state-level funding failure, the impact is the same. When funding becomes unreliable, as is the case with the current funding freeze, child care business owners, employees, parents, and children all suffer.

The economic consequences extend well beyond families. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, when parents cannot find or afford child care, they are pushed out of the workforce, and businesses lose skilled employees. Child care gaps disrupt staffing across industries and cost states an estimated $1 billion annually in lost economic activity.

Child care is no longer just a family issue. It is an economic issue. It is one of the few sectors that directly affects every other industry. At a time when women are being encouraged to have more children, a strong support system must also exist, and that includes consistent, reliable child care funding.

Misuse of government funds is not a new concept. During the COVID-19 pandemic, more than $200 billion in federal relief funding across programs was reportedly misused. Fraud occurs in every industry, and no system is immune to it.

If allegations of child care fraud are substantiated, safeguards should absolutely be implemented to prevent future misuse; however, freezing child care funding would further delay payments to a sector already plagued by late reimbursements, disrupt services for children and families, and destabilize small businesses that operate on thin margins.

The solution is straightforward. Strengthen oversight to mitigate risk, without punishing the entire field. We must acknowledge that the vast majority of child care programs operate in good faith and in compliance with the law, providing care to millions of children nationwide. According to a 2020 report by the United States Government Accountability Office, only seven states since 2013 have had errors in more than 10 percent of their child care fund payments.

Yes, accountability matters, but solutions must be precise and measured. Sweeping actions based on unsubstantiated claims destabilize the entire child care system. When child care collapses, families lose care, caregivers lose income, small businesses close, and the economy suffers.

We can strengthen safeguards without dismantling the system that families and the economy depend on. We can address misuse if and where it exists. But we cannot afford to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Eboni Delaney is the Director of Policy and Movement Building at the National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC), and a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project in Partnership with the National Black Child Development Institute.

Keep ReadingShow less
The ACA’s Missing Mandate: Why Costs Keep Rising

Repealing the ACA’s individual mandate destabilized insurance markets, drove premiums higher, and left families paying the price.

Getty Images

The ACA’s Missing Mandate: Why Costs Keep Rising

By repealing the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, policymakers allowed healthy Americans to walk away—leaving insurers with risk pools dominated by those most likely to need care. The result was inevitable: premiums soared, markets destabilized, and families were left paying the price.

When Congress passed the ACA, its most controversial feature was the individual mandate—the requirement that all Americans carry health insurance or pay a penalty. Critics called it coercion. In reality, it was the glue holding the system together.

Keep ReadingShow less