Americans are frustrated. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing, premiums are climbing, deductibles are high, and many people still struggle to access care. Meanwhile, outcomes in the U.S. lag behind other high-income countries.
The explanation isn’t ideological. It’s systemic: the U.S. is trapped in a broken middle, capturing inefficiencies of both market and government systems without fully committing to either.
1. Major Drivers of High Healthcare Costs
Understanding what drives cost is essential before evaluating solutions. Here are the top drivers, ranked by impact:
| Rank | Driver | Estimated Share of Spending | Potential Savings with Reform |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Provider / Hospital Pricing | ~30% | 8–15% |
| 2 | Administrative Costs | ~15–25% | 10–20% |
| 3 | Chronic Disease / Aging Population | ~20–25% | 5–10% |
| 4 | Private Insurance Profit Incentives | ~5–10% | 3–5% |
| 5 | Drug Costs / Pharmaceuticals | ~8–10% | 3–5% |
| 6 | Provider Labor / Compensation | ~15–20% of hospital costs | 2–5% |
| 7 | Medical Devices & Supplies | ~10–12% of hospital costs | 1–3% |
| 8 | Litigation / Malpractice | ~1–2% | 0.5–1% |
| 9 | Individual Lifestyle / Risk Factors | Indirect | 2–5% |
Insight: These drivers interact, creating a system that is expensive, inefficient, and fragile.
2. Who Wins Today
While everyday Americans face rising costs, certain actors profit from the fragmented system:
- Hospitals: benefit from local monopoly power.
- Private insurers: profit from fragmented pools and complex billing.
- Pharmaceutical companies: enjoy unregulated pricing.
- Specialists: earn high fees in a fee-for-service model.
- Private equity investors: profit from cost-cutting and billing.
- Large self-insured employers: leverage tax and market advantages.
A subtle but critical dynamic involves physicians themselves:
- Many hospitals are physician-led or physician-influenced.
- Hospital consolidation, one of the largest cost drivers, often requires physician approval.
- Physicians may participate because higher prices translate to higher income, even if it raises patient costs.
Key point: Physicians are not acting maliciously, but the system incentivizes revenue maximization over patient affordability. Ethical intentions often conflict with structural incentives.
3. Two Policy Levers to Stabilize Costs
Solving the U.S. healthcare crisis requires two complementary levers:
- Insurance Design: How risk and cost are shared.
- Supply-Side Workforce & Capacity Policies: Ensuring there are enough trained providers to meet demand efficiently.
Insurance determines who pays and how costs are distributed, while workforce policies determine whether the system can deliver care efficiently. Both are essential.
4. Insurance Design: Pools, ACA Lessons, and Single-Payer
Insurance pools are the foundation of affordability. A well-designed pool spreads financial risk across healthy and high-cost individuals.
- Pool Composition Matters: A balanced mix stabilizes premiums.
- Pool Size Matters: Larger pools dilute the impact of high-cost patients, making premiums predictable.
The ACA partially addressed these challenges, but the U.S. remains fractured, leaving incomplete pools, volatile premiums, and high administrative complexity.
Shifting Financial Incentives
Single-payer does not require government-owned hospitals or clinics. Instead, it changes the financial environment:
- Providers succeed when patients are healthier and the system is efficient.
- Revenue is no longer tied to unnecessary procedures or hospital consolidation.
- Ethical intentions of physicians can align with financial incentives, creating systemic efficiency.
Takeaway: Single-payer reforms make doing right by patients financially rewarded, rather than penalized.
5. Supply-Side Workforce Policies: Reducing Wait Times and Delays
Even with universal coverage, single-payer healthcare may increase demand for services, which can create concerns about wait times and access delays. This is where supply-side policy becomes critical.
Coverage removes the financial barrier:
- Providers are guaranteed payment for care, making serving previously underserved or low-income populations economically viable.
- This alone encourages more providers to enter these markets and deliver care.
Supply-side policies ensure capacity keeps pace with demand:
- Targeted incentives, loan forgiveness, and expanded training programs help direct providers to rural and underserved areas.
- Structural bottlenecks exist: since 1997, Congress has frozen Medicare-funded residency slots at 1996 levels, limiting how many new physicians can be trained, particularly in primary care and underserved regions.
- Recent reforms have created additional residency slots, and legislation like the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act proposes adding 14,000–15,000 slots, prioritizing hospitals in underserved areas.
Impact on wait times:
- Expanding the workforce strategically can prevent coverage-driven increases in wait times from becoming a systemic problem.
- Predictable demand under single-payer allows training and staffing programs to scale efficiently.
Key takeaway: Single-payer coverage guarantees payment, activating demand, while supply-side workforce policies ensure sufficient provider capacity, mitigating delays and wait times and making access efficient and sustainable.
6. Why Healthcare is Unique
Healthcare is unlike any other market:
- Life-or-death stakes – delayed care has permanent consequences.
- Severe market failures – opaque pricing, inelastic demand, extreme information asymmetry.
- ER “free care” is inefficient – costly stopgap for uninsured patients.
- Positive externalities – vaccination and chronic disease management benefit society.
7. Moral Hazard and Usage Efficiency
- Preventive and early care utilization rises appropriately.
- Minor overuse is rare; people value convenience and time.
- Copays and evidence-based guidelines maintain efficiency.
Even minor overuse is far cheaper than delayed or fragmented care.
8. One “All-In” Solution: Option A vs Option B
Option A: Fully Commit to a National Risk Pool
- Single-payer or all-payer rate-setting
- Universal coverage
- Nationally negotiated rates for hospitals, procedures, and drugs
- Simplified administration
- Balanced risk distribution
- Supply-side workforce policies to meet demand
Benefits: structural strength, equity, administrative efficiency, predictable risk pools, cost control, public health gains, and workforce adaptability.
Incentives shift: success is measured by patient outcomes and system efficiency, not revenue maximization.
Option B: Revert to Pre-ACA Free Market
- Medical underwriting allowed
- Fewer mandated benefits
- Cheaper catastrophic plans
- Premiums low for healthy, high for high-cost individuals
Problems: maintains inequity, volatile premiums, administrative complexity, and underprovides preventive care.
The hybrid middle ground fails to deliver either efficiency or equity.
9. Conclusion: The Broken Middle and Why Single-Payer Wins
The U.S. healthcare system is trapped in a broken middle, taking the worst parts of both market and government approaches without delivering the benefits of either.
- Market failures: high prices, fragmented risk pools, volatility, and inequity.
- Government shortcomings: incomplete regulations, lack of unified risk pools, and structural bottlenecks like frozen residency slots.
The result: high bills, underinsurance, and inequitable access — while hospitals, insurers, and specialists profit. Even physicians may benefit from fee-for-service and consolidation incentives, despite patient costs rising.
Why single-payer is the better choice:
- Healthcare is a societal investment: Access improves public health, reduces downstream costs, and strengthens communities.
- Unified risk pools stabilize premiums and balance healthy and high-cost patients.
- Aligned incentives: Providers succeed when patients are healthier and the system is efficient.
- Guaranteed access in underserved areas: Coverage ensures providers are paid, while workforce policies — including residency expansion and distribution incentives — optimize access and reduce delays.
Key takeaway: The current hybrid system preserves the worst incentives of both markets and government. Single-payer coverage, combined with targeted workforce policies, realigns incentives, improves outcomes, and treats healthcare as the societal investment it truly is. Between market-only and single-payer, single-payer is the responsible and forward-looking choice.
Leave a Reply