https://healthcareuncovered.substack.com/p/big-insurance-reform-its-not-just?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=255152&post_id=179900814&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo4ODU1Nzg5LCJwb3N0X2lkIjoxNzk5MDA4MTQsImlhdCI6MTc2NDA4NzU2MSwiZXhwIjoxNzY2Njc5NTYxLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjU1MTUyIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.wEz_hYDnTJxnMhfcRDZi5srRAx6Q9ZNNM5EVQIH9sTg&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

I know plenty of people who are politically right-of-center – and they want to rein in Big Insurance just as much as people to the left.

Some of my closest family and friends have nearly polar opposite political beliefs than mine. And these are not family members I’m only with on holidays (like during Thanksgiving dinner later this week) or friends I only see on Facebook. These are people I love and communicate with weekly — sometimes daily. They’re my people.

And I’d say that my people largely fall into two distinct right-of-center sub groups:

The first group: 

USDA grass-fed Trump supporters who like Jeanine Pirro and Blue Lives Matter bumper stickers.

And the second group: 

Nonpolitical and anti-establishment 20-30 somethings who make their own beef-tallow.

(And both groups are patient enough to keep a Bernie-t-shirt-owning-lib, who listens to The Daily (like myself) in their lives.)

We don’t all agree on vaccines. We don’t all agree on the Gulf of America. And none of them agree with my mullet. But what we all do agree on is that through backroom deals and moneyed influence, big corporations pull Washington’s levers and squeeze American families at every chance they get – all to make their Wall Street investors and executives richer. And, as readers of HEALTH CARE un-covered undoubtedly know, Big Insurance may be the perfect example of those deals and influence.

That’s where my people and I meet in our venn diagram. While we have many sticking points, Big Insurance is not one of them.

And this is not just qualitative on my end. Poll after poll proves that my people are not the exception to the rule. An October KFF poll showed that a majority of Republicans who align with the MAGA movement (57%) said Congress should have extended the enhanced premium tax credits for Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans, and a new study by Undue Medical Debt found that 62% of Republicans blame health insurance companies the most for the medical debt crisis in the country.

The deeds of the health insurance industry have grown so rotten and their stench so unavoidable that even the President has caught a whiff. On Truth Social last month, President Trump posted about “BIG,” “BAD” and “Money sucking” health insurance companies. His message reverberated in the media and on Wall Street and helped bring this issue even more to the forefront.

But here’s the thing: Trump’s post isn’t the tip of the spear but rather the caboose following a long train of Republicans (and their voters) who as of late have begun to focus on Big Insurance. In the last six months, we’ve seen Representative Marjorie Taylor Green call on Republicans to take on Big Insurance, former Representative Mark Green (R-TN) introduce legislation to crack down on Big Insurance’s prior authorization tactics, and Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice open a criminal investigation into UnitedHealth Group’s Medicare Advantage business – all moves that have been historically uncharacteristic of their political bents but nonetheless are, in one way or another, raising the heat on Big Insurance.

If the latest news out of Washington tells us anything, it’s that conservatives are largely on the same side as many of the most liberal voices when it comes to health insurance reforms.

While my people may not speak the same health care language or advocate the exact same solutions that many health care reform advocates or left-of-center folks would raise, the differences are largely just in the terminology used. For instance, my people are not going to mention Medicare for All or a public option as an answer to our country’s health care woes. Those phrases have been carefully tarred and feathered by the insurance industry as “socialism” to hold back both centrist and Republican voters and policymakers from putting guardrails in place that would cut into the industry’s immense profits. But again, it’s the terminologies that have been discredited – not the sentiment behind them.

On more than one occasion, when talking with my people about health insurers, they have straight-up volunteered that they think “insurance companies should be outlawed.” That belief, last time I checked, was to the left of even Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sander’s proposals to finally establish universal coverage for every American by expanding Medicare to cover all of us.

Another one of my people, who handles financials for the North American-sector of a sizable global company in the home-technology space, FaceTimed me last week to show me his computer screen while he was crunching the companies’ health care costs.

In anticipation for a company-wide town hall, he had to make a slide showing that the health insurance costs for his company’s U.S.-side had increased (on average) 20% over the past several years – including a projected 25% jump in 2026. He couldn’t believe it. “Show this to Wendell,” he said.

And that’s the thing: 

Nobody can believe how out-of-control Big Insurance has become.

Where my people and I meet

It’s fair to say that I think more about health care policy than the average bear. And it’s true that my people have had me in their ear talking about these issues for nearly a decade. But as I noted above, polling shows that while certain solutions may not be as popular, the desire for action is clear and exists sans my yapping.

Over years of conversations, there have been some major themes that have stuck. I will list them below:

• Big Insurance is the villain in health care: With its army of slick lobbyists and spokesmen on TV, Big Insurance is the epitome of the D.C.-swamp monster that so many Americans disdain. Between 2014 and 2024, just seven for-profit health insurers amassed $543.4 billion in profits (of which they spent $618 million on lobbying during that time) all while 100 million Americans owe $220 billion in medical debt and Americans’ life expectancy is ranked 48th in the world.
• Big Insurance and it’s cushy government handouts: Nearly all of Big Insurance’s growth has come from contracts it engineers with the federal and state governments in the form of managing Medicaid, Medicare Advantage and some Veteran health services. These contracts are not the invisible hand of the free market but rather cushy government handouts that have allowed just seven for-profit health insurance conglomerates to capture $10.192 trillion in revenues between 2014 and 2024.
• Big Insurance’s business practices: Health insurance companies like UnitedHealth Group, Cigna and Aetna deploy rigid artificial intelligence (AI) programs to sideline doctors and automate denials, offshore jobs and employ folks in India and the Philippines to deny American’s care while they use American’s premium and tax dollars to boost million dollar C-suite compensation packages and buy back their own stocks.
• Big Insurance has grown too big: Big Insurance companies are buying up the entire health care landscape – from physician practices to pharmacies. That is why independent physicians are an endangered species and why an independent pharmacy closes nearly every day in this country.
• Big Insurance hurts the little guy: American small businesses often see double-digit yearly increases in health insurance costs that stifle Main Street America’s growth and stop Americans from being entrepreneurs altogether. And, not to mention, if businesses weren’t being raked over the coals for more premium dollars year after year, more money could be paid to workers.

I included this list because I think we are at a watershed moment in the health care debate and reforming Big Insurance is no longer a wedge issue. It’s a bridge issue.

I don’t know what comes next

Because the long standoff between Republicans and Democrats to open the government finally came to an end this month – without the ACA subsidy extensions – Big Insurance reform (and health care reform broadly) has become an unaddressed priority in American politics.

In the current moment, if Republican electeds were smart, they’d read the writing on the wall and focus on rooting out an actual source of widespread waste, fraud and abuse found in health insurance companies’ private Medicare Advantage, Medicaid and military businesses. That’s an issue that polls incredibly well with conservatives. Just tackling Medicare Advantage, for example, could save taxpayers somewhere between $80 and $140 billion annually. For reference, the DOGE website claims it has only clawed back $214 billion in total since January.

Republicans could also work with their political opposites (and fulfill a campaign promise) to pass a worthwhile health insurance reform package that builds on (or possibly replace) the consumer protections of ACA and fills the loopholes of well-intended rules that have been exploited and manipulated by Big Insurance.

And it wouldn’t be a one-party trick. For what it’s worth, I think most Democrats in Washington would be on board with anything that lessens the corporate grip Big Insurance has on our country’s public programs and improves the ACA. In the last year, we’ve already seen Democrats link with the country’s current controlling party to introduce bills that would bring meaningful change to Big Insurance:

• Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced legislation that would stop health insurance companies from owning pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs);
• Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) introduced the No UPCODE Act to curb taxpayer-sponsored overpayments to health insurers; and
• Representatives Nannette Barragan (D-CA) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, M.D. (R-IA) (among other legislators) reintroduced The DRUG Act to stop insurance companies from driving up drug prices.

These unlikely partnerships in Washington are happening because what my people (and all people) want is a health insurance system that guarantees comprehensive coverage for all of us, without forcing folks to choose between biopsies or groceries. Everybody I know – left, right and in between – wants a health care system that doesn’t bury families under mountains of medical bills or force them to attend unnecessary funerals. And all rational people want an insurance system that doesn’t buy off its buddies in Washington to serve their Wall Street daddies.

I want to scream from the mountaintops that health insurance reform is not just a moral or economic issue. It’s a winning issue.

Americans have had it. Most of Washington seems motivated. And now is the time for health care, patient and consumer advocates to change their tune and stop (just) preaching to the choir. Advocates for reform need to get their message to the corners of the country that they may have written off — or found too difficult to bridge — because the ground for health care reform is fertile for change. And I think all people are ready.

Thanksgiving is in a few days. And in times of heightened political polarization, the dinner table – filled with folks sharing a myriad of different opinions – can become a battleground between courses of mashed potatoes and pumpkin pie. But if I can gleam anything from what I see as a bi-partisan kumbaya against Big Insurance, it’s that even with all the reported divisiveness, we have one less thing to argue about.

And because of that – I don’t know what comes next – but what I do know is that the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election will be about health insurance reform. And whichever political party takes that seriously is going to seize the day.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/5-trillion-crisis-americans-keep-ignoring-robert-pearl-m-d–e9p1c/?trackingId=Cxhe7LKbRv6KaeLZ65PzzQ%3D%3D

Harvard psychologists Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris ran a now-famous experiment in the late 1990s. They showed students a short video of six people passing basketballs and told them to count the number of passes made by the three players in white.

Halfway through the film, a person in a gorilla suit walks into the frame, beats its chest and exits. Amazingly, half of viewers — both then and in multiple recreations of the study — never notice the gorilla. They’re so focused on counting passes that they miss the obvious event happening right in front of them.

The authors call this “inattentional blindness.” And you don’t need to visit a research lab to see it. It’s everywhere in American healthcare.

Policymakers, business leaders and medical societies are all busy counting their own pass equivalents: metrics like insurance subsidies, premiums and enrollment numbers.

These details matter but they miss the larger issue: medicine’s invisible gorilla. That gorilla is the $5.6 trillion our nation spends on healthcare each year, a figure that exceeds the total economic output (GDP) of every nation except the U.S. and China.

As a country, we need to stop counting passes long enough to observe how the gorilla negatively affects people everywhere: in Washington, in boardrooms, in workplaces and in rural communities. Only then can we confront the gorilla head on.

1. The gorilla in Washington

In Congress, lawmakers spent 43 days debating how to reopen the government. The fight centered on whether to continue funding the enhanced premium tax credits that have made coverage more affordable for roughly 20 million lower-income Americans who purchase health insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s online  exchanges.

Democrats argued that ending those payments in 2026 would cause premiums to spike and make care unaffordable. Republicans warned that continuing them would add nearly $400 billion to the federal deficit over the next decade. Both believed they were protecting Americans from financial harm. And both were right. If the cost of providing medical care isn’t reduced, neither the federal government nor the average family will be able to afford it.

The United States spends $14,885 per person each year on medical care while the next highest-paying nation, Switzerland, spends $9,963 per person with far better clinical outcomes, according to the Peterson Center, .

If the U.S. could cut the spending gap between American and Swiss healthcare in half, our nation would save $700 billion annually. Those savings could help maintain ACA subsidies, lower out-of-pocket costs for families and reduce federal deficits.

But the gorilla inflicts financial damage far beyond just the ACA exchanges.  Between federal funding cuts and eligibility changes, analysts warn that millions of Americans enrolled in Medicaid will become uninsured starting in 2026. Meanwhile, because federal law limits Medicare payment growth to the rate of inflation, hospitals make up lost revenue by charging private insurers and their enrollees more (already about 250% of Medicare rates). Ultimately, employers and workers will pay the price.

2. The gorilla in corporate America

America’s C-suite leaders are conducting the business equivalent of counting passes. Instead of confronting the cost of medical care itself, they’re focused on comparing premiums, raising deductibles and choosing plans with narrower physician networks.

But without major changes in how care is delivered, no plan will remain affordable.

The average cost of family health coverage premiums will approach $30,000 next year, with employers paying about $24,000 and workers responsible for the rest, according to an October KFF survey of 1,862 non-federal public and private firms. A projected 9% premium increase means employers and employees together will spend roughly $2,500 more next year per worker — limiting wage growth, hiring and investments in innovation.

America doesn’t have an insurance problem. It has a medical cost crisis.

3. The gorilla in the workplace

While workers focus on wages, benefits and job security, the same cost crisis threatening businesses and government is about to hit them hard.

More than half of U.S. adults receive health insurance through an employer. But as medical costs rise, companies are turning to automation and generative AI to reduce their expenses.

More than 1 million U.S. jobs have already vanished in 2025 and even more are set to disappear in 2026.

Amazon offers a vivid example: the company eliminated 14,000 office and professional roles and announced plans to combine robotics with generative AI to replace as many as three-quarters of its warehouse workforce. The company plans to create new, higher-skill jobs to maintain the robots, but far fewer (and not for the same people who were displaced).

When workers lose employer-based insurance, they don’t stop getting sick. They turn to Medicaid or subsidized exchange plans. That strains government budgets, lowers hospital reimbursements and pushes insurers to raise commercial premiums even higher.

Unless the cost of medical care drops dramatically, the gorilla’s impact will reverberate throughout society.

4. The gorilla in rural hospitals

The cost crisis is devastating people everywhere, but perhaps nowhere more than in rural America. Over the past two decades, 150 rural hospitals have closed or stopped offering inpatient services. Another 700 facilities (nearly one-third of those remaining) are at risk of shutting down.

With small patient populations and high fixed costs, many rural hospitals can no longer provide inpatient care. But instead of reducing the high cost of care delivery, most communities pursue short-term relief: emergency grants, temporary bailouts and added Congressional funding.

These efforts can delay closure, but they don’t change the math. Even when hospital beds are empty, the buildings must be staffed, heated, insured and maintained, turning every day into a financial loss.

To survive, the model will have to change, and painful sacrifices will be necessary.

Addressing the gorilla everywhere

The United States can dramatically reduce healthcare spending while improving quality. But doing so will require a structural overhaul, not incremental tweaks. Three major opportunities already exist.

1. Shrink our hospital footprint

America maintains far more hospitals than it needs, with many offering duplicate services at high fixed costs. A more sustainable system would:

• Consolidate low-volume hospitals.
• Build regional centers of excellence that achieve better outcomes at far lower cost.
• Eliminate overlapping specialty programs in crowded markets.

Small rural hospitals could transition into 24-hour emergency and urgent-care hubs supported by telemedicine and reliable, low-cost transportation to larger facilities.

2. Prevent diseases before they happen

According to the CDC, more effective control of chronic diseases would reduce medical costs up to $1.8 trillion by preventing as many as half of all heart attacks, strokes, cancers and kidney failures. Three pragmatic opportunities include:

• Expand the primary-care workforce.
• Allow Medicare to negotiate all drug prices, including GLP-1s.
• Use generative AI to empower patients and expand at-home monitoring.

Every complication avoided is a hospital admission, ICU stay or surgery that never happens and is never billed.

Pay for value, not volume

Healthcare’s fee-for-service payment system rewards doing more, not doing better. Capitation — fixed monthly payments to physician groups and hospitals — flips the incentive structure, rewarding improved health, not just disease treatment.

Under capitation, prevention becomes financially rewarded, chronic diseases are managed earlier and more effectively, and care shifts to high-quality, cost-efficient settings, including outpatient facilities and virtual platforms.

The result is a virtuous cycle: healthier patients, fewer complications and significantly lower cost.

No single group — government, employers, patients or clinicians — can solve this crisis alone. Success will require all stakeholders to overcome their inattentional blindness and confront the gorilla together. The only question is how much worse things must become before we do.

The Structural Flaws that Must be Fixed to Transform the U.S. Health System

Key Takeaways:

• The U.S. health system’s future is uncertain but outside forces will define its direction.
• 9 structural changes appear necessary to a transformed system of health that’s affordable, comprehensive and effective.

Last week, I had a 27-hour stay in a hospital emergency room waiting for an open bed and a morning at the food pantry loading boxes in anticipation of a possible SNAP program suspension surge. It wasn’t the week I expected. So much for plans!

Such is the case for health insurance coverage for millions in the U.S. as the federal government shutdown enters Week 6. Democrats are holding out for continuation of Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance subsidies that enable 22 million to “buy” insurance cheaper, and Republicans are holding out for federal spending cuts reflected in the One Big Beautiful Act (July 2025) that included almost a trillion reduction in Medicaid appropriations thru 2036.

ACA subsidies at the heart of the shutdown successfully expanded coverage in tandem with Medicaid expansion but added to its costs and set in motion corporatization and consolidation in every sector of the health system. The pandemic exposed the structural divide between public health programs and local health systems, and insurance premium increases and prior authorization protocols precipitated hostility toward insurers and blame games between hospitals, insurers and drug companies for perpetual cost increases.

Having mediated discussions between the White House and industry trade groups as part of the ACA’s design (2009), I witnessed first hand the process of its development into law, the underlying assumptions on which it is based and the politics before and after its passage in March 2010.  Its hanging chads were obvious. Its implementation stalled. Its potential to lower costs and improve quality never realized. It was a Plan disabled by special interests that rightly exploited its flaws and political brinksmanship that divided the country. But more fundamentally, it has failed to lower costs and improve affordability because it failed to integrate outside considerations—private capital, employers, technologies, clinical innovations and consumer finances—in its calculus.

Sixteen years later, healthcare is once again the eye of the economic storm. Insiders blame inconsistent regulatory enforcement and lack of adequate funding as root causes. Outsiders blame lack of cost controls. consolidation and disregard for affordability. Thus, while attention to subsidized insurance coverage and SNAP benefits might temporarily calm public waters, they’re not the solution.

All parties and all sides seem to agree the health system broken. For example, in my trustee surveys before planning sessions with Boards of health systems, medical groups and insurers, the finding is clear:

• 92% says the future of the U.S. health system in 7-10 years is fundamentally changed and not repeat of its past.
• 84% say their organizations are not prepared because short-term issues limit their ability to long-term planning.

Republicans think market forces will fix it. Democrats think federal policy will fix it. The public thinks it’s become Big Business that puts its interests before theirs. And the industry’s trade groups—AMA, AHA, AHIP, PhRMA, Adame, APHA, et al—face intense pressure from members adversely impacted by unwanted regulatory policies.

Few enjoy the luxury of long-term planning. That doesn’t excuse the need to address it. If a clear path to the system’s future is not built, incrementalism will enable its inevitable insolvency and forced re-construction.

What’s the solution? When comparing the U.S. health system to high performing systems in other high-income countries, these findings jump out:

• All spend less on healthcare services and more on social services than the U.S.
• All include government and privately-owned operators
• All fund their systems primarily through a combination of federal appropriations and private payments by employers and citizens.
• All pursue clinical standardization based on evidence.
• All are dealing with funding constraints as their governments address competing priorities.
• All are transitioning from episodic to chronic health as their populations age and healthiness erodes.
• All are focused on workforce modernization and technologic innovations to lower costs and reduce demand for specialty services.
• All enable private investment in their systems to increase competition and stimulate innovation.
• All facilitate local/regional regulatory oversight to address distinctions in demand and resources.
• All face with growing public dissatisfaction.
• All are expensive to operate.

No system is perfect. None offers a copy-paste solution for U.S. taxpayers. And even if one seemed dramatically better, it would be a generational surge rooted in futility that welcome it.

What’s the answer? At the risk of oversimplicity, the future seems most likely built on these 9 structural changes:

• Integrate social services (public health) with delivery.
• Create comprehensive primary and preventive health gatekeeping inclusive of physical and behavioral health, nutrition, prophylactic dentistry and consumer education.
• Rationalize specialty services and therapies to high value providers.
• Incentivize responsible health behaviors across the entire population.
• Increase private capital investments in healthcare.
• Modernize the workforce.
• Fund the system strategically.
• Define and disclose affordability, quality and value systemically.
• Facilitate technology-enabled self-care.

This will not happen quickly nor result from current momentum: the inertia of the status quo leans substantially toward protectionism not because it’s unaware. The risks are high. And while the majority of Americans are frustrated by its performance, there’s no referent to which look as a better mousetrap.

I anticipated last week would be pretty uneventful. It wasn’t. My Plan didn’t work out due, in part, to circumstances I didn’t foresee or control.

Healthcare’s the same. Outside forces seen or not will impact its future dramatically. Plans have to be made though Black Swans like the pandemic are inevitable.  But long-term planning built on plausible bets are necessary to every healthcare organization’s future.

https://substack.com/inbox/post/177828104?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=4857959&post_id=177828104&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=59t65&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

America’s health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system.

– Walter Cronkite

Healthcare policy in America is too short-sighted and vulnerable to party-politics. We need a system that’s built to last.

As open enrollment through the ACA marketplace begins November 1, millions of Americans will soon discover their health insurance rates going up in 2026 as the direct result of ACA tax subsidies expiring because party politicians in charge of the Senate refuse to budge. If you know how much your rates will be increasing in 2026, please share so I can see the impact that this inaction will have on regular folks.

Career politicians like my opponent Mike Rounds aren’t willing to stray from the party line to make sure Americans and their families get affordable healthcare, and in the process they are causing innumerable harm to not just those Americans on ACA, but also all the furloughed federal employees and families on SNAP. Something needs to change.

As an Independent candidate who supports pragmatic solutions, I will not claim my proposals are the best or only choices, but I will claim just about anything will be overall less expensive and more effective than the status quo. The bottom line is that our dysfunctional politics have us fighting over half-measure solutions to today’s problems instead of complete solutions to tomorrow’s.

Overhauling American healthcare is a complex challenge, but that cannot let it deter us. Americans deserve access to affordable, quality care. According to a KFF analysis, healthcare accounted for 27% of federal spending in fiscal year 2024. The U.S. spends far more per person on healthcare than any of the other 37 members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Despite spending nearly twice as much per person as similar wealthy countries, we still rank poorly on key health outcomes.

America does, however, hold a commanding lead in medical debt, accounting for between 50% and 66% of annual personal bankruptcies. Other wealthy countries clearly understand better how to set up a healthcare system that is both less expensive and produces the same or better outcomes.

Considering the immense costs and mediocre outcomes, I am reminded of the famous observation from Dr. Amos Wilson: “If you want to understand any problem in America, you need to look at who profits from that problem, not at who suffers from that problem.” Having done so, I support an incremental reinvention of the American healthcare system that doesn’t just solve immediate problems such as premium hikes, expiring ACA subsidies, or Medicare cuts, but also secures a stable and healthy future for the American people.

My plan for America’s healthcare system has three basic steps, ensuring folks can get the care they need, now and in the future.

Stage 1: Fixing the Supply Side: Regulate Healthcare Companies, Lower Drug Prices, & Encourage Preventive Care

The healthcare industry (from insurers to providers) is a functional monopoly, especially at the local/regional level, similar to electric, gas, and telecommunications companies. It deserves to be treated the same way. Drawing from how the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (and similar entities in other states) regulate utility companies to ensure that they provide “reliable service” and “reasonable rates,” creating a regulatory framework for healthcare companies (including insurers) is a good first step in adapting our current system into one that considers the needs of regular folks. Providers shouldn’t have to butt heads with insurers to provide the services that patients need, so creating a more transparent and regulated system would benefit every level of the process.

Pharmaceutical companies have the highest profit margins in the healthcare industry. According to a RAND report, Americans pay 278% higher prescription drug prices than similar countries where the government negotiates drug pricing. The common-sense solution is for the federal government to negotiate pricing for all drugs. Doing so will yield much greater savings for both the government and consumers.

To offset reduced pharmaceutical company profits and also help more consumers, the U.S. should negotiate a treaty with the European Union and other G7 countries to establish a pharmaceutical common market based on uniform drug development/approval standards enabling the elimination of trade barriers for drugs.

RFK Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda includes multiple nonsensical proposals that are likely to do the opposite, but there are a handful of beneficial ideas. A MAHA focus on preventive care that strengthens primary care, expands access to screenings, and incentivizes healthy lifestyles will lower long-term healthcare spending the same way that keeping up routine maintenance on your car prevents big repair bills in the future.

Investing in community health centers, mobile clinics, and telehealth services will make preventive care more accessible, particularly in underserved rural and urban areas. Similarly, reducing reliance on highly processed foods and ensuring government nutrition assistance programs incentivize and enable healthy foods would also pay dividends.

Many states approve the rates that insurers charge consumers, but these rates increase as the base cost of providing healthcare services increases. Holding healthcare companies, providers and insurers alike, to uniform standards and making information transparently available for comparison will remove the various pressures driving up the cost of care, keeping rates down for consumers.

Stage 2: Fixing the Demand Side: Create a Public Option, Streamline Administration, Increase Residency Slots

Profits are up 230% for the top 5 health insurance companies since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was adopted, while family premiums have also skyrocketed. While I think it was a step in the right direction to provide folks with healthcare, it isn’t a viable permanent solution. Creating a broadly available public option would enable Americans to buy into a health insurance plan administered by the government.

A public option like this wouldn’t have a profit motive, so it would be able to offer lower-cost plans, creating a baseline for other companies to compete with. Increased competition would drive down premiums and improve quality of service across the market, even amongst private for-profit insurers.

Technology can also help lower costs by reducing the complicated bureaucracy healthcare administrators must navigate. Healthcare providers currently spend enormous time and money dealing with insurance paperwork, eligibility verification, and billing disputes. Universally interoperable electronic health records (EHRs) and streamlined billing systems would significantly reduce costs. Uniform standards for these processes and better technology infrastructure would free up providers’ time to focus more on patient care.

By 2036, the U.S. is projected to need 86,000 more physicians than it will have. The primary cause of the growing shortage is a 1997 law freezing federal support for Medicare-funded residency positions. Limiting the number of doctors in training also fosters misallocation of training slots across the country, creating a mismatch between where they train and where they are needed most. Correcting this self-inflicted shortage is essential to maximizing access.

On the subject of innovative approaches to providing healthcare, fee-for-service payment models reward volume over value, encouraging unnecessary tests and procedures. Transitioning to value-based care, where providers are paid based on patient outcomes, can lead to better health outcomes at a lower cost. Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), bundled payments, and capitation models (in which providers receive a fixed fee per patient for a specific time period regardless of services delivered) have shown promise in reducing spending while maintaining or improving quality.

Stage 3: Use The Foundation To Build a Better System

While I believe that our leaders today should be looking towards the future with long-lasting solutions rather than scrambling for band-aid policies, I also know that we shouldn’t put the cart before the horse. I believe that Stages 1 and 2 lay the foundation for a healthier America and a more streamlined healthcare system. Stage 3 of my plan is geared towards keeping our options open for the future of American healthcare.

All OECD countries with lower per-person healthcare spending provide universal or near-universal coverage to their citizens. Various universal healthcare systems seem to be an effective way to improve access and reduce systemic costs. In particular, I think that looking to our allies such as Canada (with a single-payer system) and Germany (with a multi-payer system) would be a good place to start. In both systems, the government negotiates prices directly with providers and pharmaceutical companies, leading to significant cost savings for consumers.

Conclusion

In summary, the American healthcare system doesn’t suffer from a lack of resources but rather anti-competitive profit-seeking, inefficiency, and a lack of imagination. Creative solutions lie in addressing the supply and demand side of the healthcare industry, continuously blending technological innovation, community-based delivery, and incentivizing healthier living.

No single policy will fix the U.S. healthcare system overnight, but a combination of reforms can dramatically improve access and lower costs. Providing a public option is a foundational step that keeps options open for other innovations. In tandem, reforms such as drug price negotiation, investment in preventive care, value-based payments, and administrative simplification can deliver a more efficient and equitable healthcare system. Political will and public support are crucial, but the long-term benefits for individuals, businesses, and the broader economy make these changes not only possible but necessary.

The path forward is not and cannot be a purely partisan choice of public versus private. It must be guided solely by a simple question: What is most effective at making healthcare cheaper, faster, and more accessible for everyone? At this point, I believe a robust public option is essential, but I remain unsure whether a single-payer or a refined version of a multi-payer universal system is warranted. I’m keeping an open mind.

I am sure that Washington politicians shouldn’t be screwing over regular Americans by making their healthcare inaccessible or more expensive. As South Dakota’s Independent senator, I would be empowered to break through party-first politics to make sure people always come first.

The American healthcare is complicated, so this article leans on the longer side to try and do it justice. Thank you for reading.

https://time.com/7329578/affordable-care-act-fake-health-insurance/?utm_source=beehiiv&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter-health-matters&_bhlid=f10701e7d32a4c0c65b8a5b5ed1e328126a4225c

After a long career as a nurse, Lisa Bower, now 61, retired, started working as a part-time nanny, and, in 2021, realized she needed health insurance. The Illinois resident took to the Internet to sign up for a plan on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace.

But something went wrong and she somehow ended up on another website that looked a lot like a health insurance marketplace. She entered her phone number and soon started getting calls and texts from people who wanted to help her get health insurance. 

Within a few minutes, she was registered for a plan that she thought was ACA-compliant. But Bower had instead signed up for what’s called a fixed indemnity plan, which is not actually health insurance and which just pays a small amount for covered services. She didn’t realize that she didn’t have proper health insurance until the fall of 2025, when her son was looking for a tax form that proved she had marketplace insurance and, unable to find it, started digging into her health care paperwork.

Over three years, he found, she’d paid about $16,000 to the fixed indemnity company while receiving very little benefit. During this time, she’d paid out of pocket for costs like doctor’s appointments and medications. Had she gotten an ACA-compliant plan, she probably wouldn’t have had to pay much in premiums at all, her son says, because her low income would have qualified her for subsidies. 

“I did think at the time that it was less painful to sign up than I thought it would be,” says Bower. “I just chose what I thought was a cheap plan and didn’t think much about it.” 

Bower’s son, Jack, says that Illinois’s real health care marketplace found evidence of Lisa starting to sign up in 2021, but says that she did not complete the application. Instead, he guesses, she got lured away by Google ads and ended up somewhere else. 

“I think she holds a third of the blame, and another third of the blame goes to this company that knowingly does this marketing to get people to pay for things they don’t actually want,” Jack says. “But the other third of the blame goes to our health care system, which is so complicated that companies just thrive in the confusion and an astute person can’t make heads or tails of it.” 

The Bowers’ experience is not particularly unusual. Confusion about navigating insurance writ large and the Affordable Care Act marketplace in particular has led many people to end up with plans that they think are health insurance which in fact are not health insurance. They mistakenly click away from healthcare.gov, the website where people are supposed to sign up for ACA-compliant plans, and end up on a site with a misleading name that may provide them with an ACA-compliant plan but also might not.

Experts are predicting that this will happen to a larger degree when ACA open enrollment begins in most states on November 1. Because Congress did not extend enhanced premium tax credits, prices for ACA plans are going up an average of 75%. This may spur more people to search for less expensive plans and end up with something that is not health insurance, whether they know it or not.

“There’s no question that more people will end up with these kinds of plans if the premium tax credits are not extended,” says Claire Heyison, senior policy analyst for health insurance and marketplace policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research and policy institute.

Under the Affordable Care Act, health insurance must cover 10 essential benefits, including outpatient services, emergency services, maternity and newborn care, behavioral health treatment, prescription drugs, and pediatric services. But if people stray from the ACA marketplace, they can end up with plans that don’t cover some—or any—of these essential health benefits. People may end up with short-term plans that don’t last for a full year, or with the type of fixed indemnity plan that Bower got. Others may end up in health care sharing ministries, in which people pitch in for other peoples’ medical costs, but which sometimes do not cover preexisting conditions. 

These non-insurance products “have increasingly been marketed in ways that make them look similar to health insurance,” Heyison says. To stir further confusion, some even deploy common insurance terms like PPO (preferred provider organization) or co-pay in their terms and conditions. But people will pay a price for using them, Heyison says, because they can charge higher premiums than ACA-compliant plans, deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, impose annual or lifetime limits on coverage, and exclude benefits like prescription drug coverage or maternity care. 

Often, the websites where people end up buying non-ACA compliant insurance have the names and logos of insurers on them. Sometimes, they are lead-generation sites—like the one Lisa Bower mistakenly visited—that ask for a person’s name and phone number and then share that information with brokers who get a commission for signing up people for plans, whether they are health insurance or not. 

“This can definitely happen if someone starts Googling and clicks on the first thing they see,” says Louise Norris, health policy analyst at healthinsurance.org, an independent site providing information about insurance plans. “People might not realize that what they’re seeing isn’t real health insurance.” 

These mistakes are enabled by a legal gray area in which websites can imply that they can help people sign up for health insurance and then actually sign them up for something else. Brokers, who often work for particular health insurance companies, can often sign people up for both ACA-compliant plans and non-ACA compliant plans. But they typically get more money signing up someone for a non-ACA compliant plan than an ACA-compliant plan, says Heyison. 

Non-ACA compliant plans can spend more on administration costs like brokers and marketing because they aren’t regulated in the same way as ACA-compliant plans and have more cash to spare.

Health insurance is complicated, and brokers exist to help walk people through the process of signing up for health insurance. But they sometimes don’t have consumers’ best interest at heart, says Emma Freer, senior policy analyst for the American Economic Liberties Project. “It’s just very predatory because people clearly want information and guidance,” she says, “but many middlemen are incentivized to operate with their own financial interest in mind, not the consumer’s.” 

There has been some legal action against companies who have represented what they’re selling as health insurance, even though it’s not. In May 2025, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania charged four businessmen and two companies with conspiracy and wire fraud offenses, alleging they had executed a national telemarketing fraud scheme in which they collected tens of millions of dollars by “systematically deceiving and misleading consumers seeking health insurance through bait-and-switch sales tactics.” And in August 2025, two companies agreed to pay a total of $145 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they deceived consumers into purchasing health care plans that did not provide the comprehensive coverage that was promised. 

But because many of these companies are actually offering products that are legal—they just aren’t comprehensive health insurance—it can usually be difficult for people to recover any money, or to even get out of the plans. People who discover they signed up for the wrong plan during their state’s open enrollment period should still be able to cancel the plan and sign up for real health insurance, says Heyison, of CBPP. But those who don’t find out for months—or years—that they signed up for non-ACA compliant plans may have a harder time.

“It is definitely a situation where people need to pay close attention now, because in most cases you don’t get a do-over,” says Norris, of healthinsurance.org.

Brandon A., a 27-year-old Maryland resident, didn’t have a lot of experience signing up for health insurance because he’d been in the military and gotten health insurance there. When he went to research plans on the ACA marketplace in mid-October, he searched online for Maryland Health Connection, the state’s marketplace, but ended up on marylandhealthcoverage.org instead. 

After entering his zip code and some personal information like his social security number, he got a quote for a plan. He also started getting bombarded with texts and phone calls from people who wanted to sign him up for health insurance. He chose a plan that was just a $300 deposit and $100 a month afterwards. After a few days, and checking with some friends, something seemed off to him, so he called the company back to cancel. They argued with him, telling him it was “the best healthcare nationwide,” he says, but eventually allowed him to cancel the plan. 

In retrospect, Brandon, who didn’t want his last name used because he’s embarrassed about his error, saw that in the website’s fine print at the very bottom, in very small text, it says it is not a federal or state health insurance marketplace. “It seems too easy for these sites to pose as real marketplaces,” he says. 

Marylandhealthcoverage.org is operated by NextGen Leads, a lead-generation site that collects the information of people looking for health insurance and then charges companies for that information. It has more than 100 complaints on the Better Business Bureau of San Diego, where the company’s website says it is based. Many of the people filing these complaints say that they thought they were signing up for marketplace health insurance in states like Maryland and Georgia, entered their personal information on a site owned by NextGen Leads—often with a domain name ending in .org— and then got spammed with hundreds of calls and texts from people trying to sell them health insurance products. “Their fraudulent website to mimic a health marketplace for [redacted] resulted in selling my information where now I received so many calls from spammers that I literally can not use my phone due to the insane amount of calls,” one person wrote, in January 2025. The company did not reply to TIME’s request for comment.

Experts recommend that people who are stuck in plans that they didn’t mean to buy contact their state insurance commissioner to report the problem. They should also contact a health care navigator or assister—federally funded individuals who exist solely to provide unbiased information—to see if they might qualify to sign up for a comprehensive health insurance plan through a special enrollment period because of a qualifying life event. 

Navigators and assisters are also helpful for those seeking new insurance, rather than engaging with brokers. Healthcare.gov is the best place for people to sign up for health insurance who want to do it on their own. Though about 20 states run their own marketplaces that use a different URL, healthcare.gov will direct them to the state marketplaces. It can also direct them to local assisters and navigators.

Signing up for a plan on the true ACA marketplace should not lead consumers to get bombarded with texts or calls—if this happens to you, it probably means you ended up on a lead-generation site instead of on the real marketplace.

Heyison, of CBPP, recommends that consumers never rely on verbal promises that someone selling health insurance gives over the phone, they should instead ask for the plan documents. They should avoid companies offering an upfront gift for signing up, and ones that say that a certain price will only last a few days. Consumers should also spend a few days researching a plan, rather than buying the first thing they see, Heyison says. They should be looking for a plan on healthcare.gov and one that is ACA-compliant. 

Some states are attempting to further regulate brokers and non-ACA compliant plans, Heyison says. In California, for instance, agents and brokers are required to assess people for Medicaid and the ACA’s premium tax credit because they enroll them in health care sharing ministries, which could save them money by signing them up for government health insurance instead of a product that is not health insurance. And some states, including California, Illinois, and Massachusetts, prohibit the underwriting of short-term health insurance coverage, making it nearly impossible to sell non-ACA compliant plans in those states. 

But most other states haven’t taken action, leaving people like Lisa Bower out of luck. Her son Jack tried to call the company that issued her indemnity plan and get a refund, but he knows he likely has no legal recourse. She should have read the paperwork more closely, they both admit. This year, they’re ready for open enrollment—and are determined not to look anywhere but healthcare.gov, the official Affordable Care Act marketplace.