Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How America skimps on healthcare

How America skimps on healthcare
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.

Not long ago, I opened a box of cereal and found fewer flakes than usual. The bag inside was barely three-quarters full.


This wasn’t a manufacturing error. It was an example of shrinkflation. Rather than raising prices, big brands have started giving Americans less of just about everything, hoping no one would notice.

This kind of skimping doesn’t just happen at the grocery store. It has been present in American healthcare for more than a decade.

What happened to healthcare prices?

With the passage of the Medicare and Medicaid Act in 1965, healthcare costs began consuming ever-higher percentages of the nation’s gross domestic product.

In 1970, medical spending took up just 6.9% of the U.S. GDP. That number rose to 13.3% by 2000 and reached 17.2% in 2010.

People assume expensive care is better care. And, in turn, they expect pricier treatments will lead to longer, healthier lives.

Indeed, that’s what happened in the United States from 1970 to 2010. As medical costs consumed more and more of our nation’s total worth, longevity leapt nearly a decade.

Then U.S. healthcare hit a ceiling

Starting in 2010, something unexpected happened. Both of these upward healthcare trendlines flattened.

Spending on medical care today still consumes roughly 17% of the U.S. GDP—the same as in 2010. Meanwhile, U.S. life expectancy fell from 78.7 years in 2010 to 77.3 years in 2020.

What happened?

Skimping on U.S. healthcare

With the passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010, healthcare policy experts hoped coverage expansions would lead to better clinical outcomes, resulting in fewer heart attacks, strokes and cancers. They assumed fewer life-threatening medical problems would bring down medical costs.

That didn’t happen. Though the rate of healthcare inflation did, indeed, slow to match GDP growth, the decreases weren’t the result of higher-quality medical care, drug breakthroughs or a healthier citizenry. Instead, they were driven by skimping.

And as a result of skimping, the United States has fallen further behind its global peers in measures of life expectancy, maternal mortality, infant mortality, and deaths from avoidable or treatable conditions.

Here are three examples of how healthcare skimping lowers costs but at the price of poorer health:

1. High-Deductible Health Insurance

For most of the 20th century, patients with insurance paid a small portion of their total medical costs, usually a few hundred dollars each year.

Around 2010, employers adopted high-deductible insurance plans to offset the rising cost of insurance premiums. With this model, workers are now paying up to $7,050 for single coverage and $14,100 for families—before health benefits kick in.

Insurers and businesses argue that high-deductible plans force employees to have more “skin in the game,” incentivizing them to make wiser healthcare choices.

But instead of promoting smarter decisions, these plans have made care unaffordable for many. Nearly half of Americans have taken on debt due to medical bills. And 15% of people with employer-sponsored health coverage (23 million people) have seen their health get worse because they’ve delayed or skipped needed care due to costs.

2. Cost Shifting

Unlike with private insurers, the U.S. government unilaterally sets prices when paying for healthcare. In doing so, it transfers the financial burden to employers and uninsured patients, which leads to skimping.

To understand how this happens, remember that hospitals pay the same amount for doctors, nurses and medicines, regardless of how much insurance kicks in. If the dollars reimbursed for some patients don’t cover the costs of providing care, then other patients are charged more to make up the difference.

Two decades ago, Congress enacted legislation to curb federal spending on healthcare. This led Medicare to drastically reduce how much it pays for inpatient services. Consequently, private insurers and uninsured patients now pay double Medicare rates for hospital services, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

These higher prices generate heftier out-of-pocket expenses for the privately insured and massive bills for the uninsured, causing financial strain that forces millions of Americans to forgo necessary tests and treatments.

3. Delaying, Denying Care

Insurers act as the bridge between those who pay for healthcare (businesses and the government) and those who provide it (doctors and hospitals). To sell coverage, they must design a plan that (a) payers can afford and (b) providers of care will accept.

Increasingly, insurers are relying on prior authorization to restrict medical care usage.

Originally promoted as a tool to prevent inappropriate medical services, prior authorization has become an obstacle to excellent medical care. Insurers know that busy doctors will hesitate to recommend costly tests or treatments that are likely to be challenged. And even when they do move forward, patients who grow weary of the wait often give up and forgo further care.

This dynamic creates a vicious cycle: costs go down one year, but medical problems worsen the next, requiring even more skimping the year after.

The Real Cost Of Healthcare Skimping

Federal actuaries project that healthcare expenses will soar another $3 trillion, consuming 20% of the GDP, by 2031.

The reality is that our nation can’t afford to pay that much more. But instead of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of medical care, our nation is doubling down on skimping.

Already, Medicare decreased payments to doctors 2% this year with another 3.3% cut proposed for 2024. And this year, more than 10 million low-income Americans have lost Medicaid coverage as states have begun to roll back eligibility following the end of the Covid-19 pandemic. And insurers are increasingly using AI to automate denials for payment.

The truth is that the U.S. healthcare system is grossly inefficient and financially unsustainable. Until someone or something disrupts that system, replacing it with a more effective alternative, Americans will get less care, leading to poorer health.

Read More

Zohran Mamdani , New York City, NYC

New York City Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a rally at Lou Gehrig Plaza on September 02, 2025 in the South Bronx in New York City.

Getty Images, Michael M. Santiago

Beyond the Machinery of Betrayal

Zohran Mamdani’s improbable rise—from barely registering in the polls to winning a primary against all odds—has been called a miracle. A Muslim, unapologetically left, and unafraid to speak plainly about the Gaza genocide, Mamdani triumphed despite doing everything the political establishment insists is disqualifying. Against every expectation, he closed a thirty-point gap and prevailed.

And yet, as the establishment begins to circle around him, many on the left who have supported his anti-establishment insurgency feel the familiar sting of suspicion. We remember how Sanders faltered, how Warren splintered the movement, how Obama cut deals that weakened the base, how AOC voted for financing Israel’s Iron Dome even in the context of an unfolding genocide. Each disappointment reinforces the conviction that betrayal is inevitable. And the truth is that it is inevitable—not because politicians are uniquely weak or uniquely corrupt but because of the way our politics is currently structured.

Keep ReadingShow less
Is Trump Serious About Banning Mail-In Ballots… or Is It Rage-Bait?
Photo by Tiffany Tertipes on Unsplash.

Is Trump Serious About Banning Mail-In Ballots… or Is It Rage-Bait?

Earlier this month, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social, claiming he was going to “lead a movement to get rid of mail-in ballots,” adding that he would sign an executive order ahead of the 2026 midterms. However, Trump has yet to sign such an order.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Other America and Politics of Spectacle

America is two very different countries for its diverse population - one that thrives in abundance and another that stumbles from crisis to crisis.

Getty Images, Bloomberg Creative

The Other America and Politics of Spectacle

In 2024, Americans were promised a year of renewal. The election was meant to usher in stability after years of tumult, a chance to repair what had been so badly frayed. Instead, the campaign season laid bare a more uncomfortable truth: the United States is not simply divided by partisan politics. It is, in practice, two very different countries—one that thrives in abundance and another that stumbles from crisis to crisis, hoping not to slip further behind.

The numbers are stark. More than 40 million Americans lived in poverty last year. Nearly 14 million children went hungry. Homelessness surged to almost 772,000 people—an 18 percent rise, the sharpest increase ever recorded. Meanwhile, credit card debt soared past $1.14 trillion, with delinquency rates at their highest in a decade. For families who once defined the middle class, the American Dream now resembles an eviction notice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who Asked for This? Trump’s Militarization of Cities Nobody Wanted
A U.S. military uniform close up.
Getty Images, roibu

Who Asked for This? Trump’s Militarization of Cities Nobody Wanted

Nobody asked for soldiers on their streets. Yet President Trump sent 2,000 National Guard troops into Washington, D.C.—and now he’s threatening the same in Chicago and New York. The problem isn’t whether crime is up or down (it’s down). The problem is that governors didn’t request it, mayors didn’t sign off, and residents certainly didn’t take to the streets begging for troops. Yet here we are, watching as the president becomes “mayor-in-chief,” turning American cities into props for his reality-TV spectacle of power, complete with all the theatrics that blur politics with entertainment.

Federal Power Without Local Consent

D.C. has always been uniquely vulnerable because of the Home Rule Act. The president can activate its National Guard without consulting the mayor. That’s troubling enough, but now Trump is floating deployments in Illinois and New York—states where he has no such authority. The principle at stake isn’t whether troops can reduce crime; it’s whether the federal government can unilaterally occupy a city whose leaders and citizens told it to stay away.

Keep ReadingShow less