The 25% Problem: Why Health Care Is So Expensive (And What We Can Do About It)

http://www.chcf.org

Health care costs hurt Californians every day. Millions can’t afford the care they need. More than half of all Californians skip or delay getting care because it costs too much.

How did we get here?

Health care is too expensive for people in large part because underlying costs in our health care system have grown unchecked for decades. Underlying costs are the “base ingredients” that determine how expensive health care is. Think of things like hospital operating costs, prescription drug prices, and doctor fees — when these costs go up year after year, they get passed on to patients through higher premiums, bigger deductibles, and larger medical bills.

The solution to the affordability crisis isn’t to slash health care spending across the board — that often makes things worse for patients. Instead, we need to be smart about cutting that 25% that doesn’t provide any value for patients.

Some of that rising cost has produced things we actually want, such as breakthrough treatments that save lives, cutting-edge medical equipment, or hospitals retrofitted to withstand earthquakes.

But around 25 cents of every dollar in our health care system doesn’t help patients get better care or become healthier. In 2020, it was estimated that this added up to as much as $73 billion dollars a year in California’s health care system. Where does that money go? The top three culprits are:

The solution to the affordability crisis isn’t to slash health care spending across the board — that often makes things worse for patients. Instead, we need to be smart about cutting that 25% that doesn’t provide any value for patients. Sometimes that might actually mean spending more money upfront, like making sure everyone can see a primary care doctor, to save money down the road by keeping people healthier.

This work is challenging, but it’s critical. Millions already can’t afford health care. If Californians’ health care costs keep rising the way they have been, even more families will be left behind.

The Problem and Why It Matters

Unchecked growth in the underlying costs of our health care system has driven total health care spending — from families, governments, employers and others combined — to more than triple since 2000, far outpacing inflation, economic growth, and wages.

Here are just a few key examples of the impact on California families:

Health insurance is increasingly becoming unaffordable for California families.

Families are skipping care or going into debt.

Overview of the 3 Reasons

1. Administrative Waste

Health care requires some office work — doctors and hospitals have to schedule appointments, send bills, and keep records. But in the U.S., we spend way too much time and money on administrative tasks, which does nothing to make care better for patients.

Why Does This Happen?

Our health care system is complex. Different hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies often all use different computer systems for clinical data, billing, and administrative tasks. They can’t easily share information with each other. This means:

  • Staff in different parts of the system spend extra time entering the same information over and over;
  • Insurance companies and hospitals have to hire more people just to handle paperwork; and
  • Simple tasks become complicated and expensive.

How Much Money Gets Wasted?

Researchers in 2020 estimated that administrative waste cost the California health care system nearly $21 billion a year, making it the number one source of health care spending that doesn’t do anything to help patients or improve care.

How This Hurts Patients

Administrative waste doesn’t just cost money. It also hurts patient care:

  • Doctors spend less time with patients because they’re busy with forms.
  • Patients wait longer to get care.
  • Doctors have to call insurance companies over and over to find out what’s covered, and this can delay treatment when people need help.
Take a deeper dive into Administrative Waste 

2. Unfair Pricing and Too Few Choices

Health care spending depends on two things: 1) how much care people get and 2) the prices that are charged for that care. In California, we have a big problem with pricing.

Same Care, Very Different Prices

The same medical procedure can cost wildly different amounts depending on where you go. For example, a knee replacement might cost $50,000 at one hospital and $70,000 at another. This happens even when both hospitals provide the same quality of care. In other words, the more expensive hospital is not necessarily better.

Lack of Competition Drives Prices Up and Hurts Patients

In many areas, there isn’t enough competition among health care organizations. For example, big hospital systems are buying up smaller hospitals. In some areas, there’s only one major hospital system left. Likewise, a few large insurance companies control most of the market. In some areas, one insurance company dominates.

When hospitals and insurance companies don’t have to compete:

  • Prices can go up without any improvement in care quality.
  • Patients have fewer choices about where to get care.
  • Families pay more for the same treatment.
  • Some areas become “take it or leave it” markets.

This creates unfair contracts where the biggest companies can demand high prices because patients have nowhere else to go.

Take a deeper dive into Unfair Pricing and Too Few Choices 

3. Not Enough Prevention in Health Care

When doctors find health problems early, they’re much easier and cheaper to treat. For example:

  • Regular cancer screenings can find problems before they become serious cancer.
  • Checking on people with heart problems can prevent expensive hospital stays.
  • Treating diabetes early prevents costly complications later.

Too often, though, people don’t get these early checks because there might not be a primary care doctor that can see them when they need it. By the time they see a doctor, their problems are much more serious and expensive to fix.

We Don’t Spend Enough on Prevention

Most prevention happens when you visit your primary care doctor for regular check-ups and basic care. But the U.S. has a big problem: We spend only 5 cents of every health care dollar on primary care, while other wealthy countries spend three times that amount.

California research shows that when provider organizations spend more money on primary care:

  • Patients get better quality care.
  • People are happier with their treatment.
  • Fewer people end up in the emergency room.
  • Fewer people need expensive hospital stays.
  • Overall health care costs go down.

We could save billions of dollars by helping people stay healthy instead of waiting until they get really sick. It’s like fixing a small leak in your roof instead of waiting until your whole ceiling falls down.

Take a deeper dive into Not Enough Prevention →

Solutions

The good news is that we can fix these problems. California is working on several smart solutions right now.

The Office of Health Care Affordability

Created in In 2022, the Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA) aims to break the cycle of the last decades and make sure that underlying costs in the health care system don’t continue to spiral out of control year over year.

Cost Growth Targets

In 2024, OHCA set an important new target: Total spending by health care’s major players — like hospitals, insurance companies, and large medical groups — can’t increase by more than 3% each year. That’s roughly how much a typical California family’s income grows every year. The target will be implemented in phases over the next several years.

This creates a powerful new incentive for these health care organizations to manage their underlying costs, rather than allowing them to grow unchecked and passing on increases every year to patients. Over time, this should help make health care more affordable for families.

If a health care organization exceeds its spending growth target without a good reason, OHCA will take increasingly serious enforcement actions, starting with guidance to the company on how to meet the target all the way to financial penalties. Penalty money will go into a fund and then back to California families to help them pay for their health care.

Making Sure Quality Stays High

Spending caps are intended to target things like administrative inefficiencies and monopolies, not quality of care.

To ensure health care organizations are focusing in the right places, OHCA is charged with ensuring:

  • Patients can still get the care they need.
  • Care quality stays just as good.
  • Hospitals and clinics have enough doctors and nurses.

OHCA is taking steps to address unfair pricing by reviewing health care mergers and acquisitions.

Healthcare 2026: Three Realities

Congress returns to DC this week to debate the merits of extending the advanced premium tax credits that enable coverage for 4 million in a climate of high anxiety about U.S. intervention in Venezuela and heightened tension with Russia and China.

For many, these unfolding events are numbing: helplessness, frustration and fear are widespread. As 2026 unfolds for U.S. healthcare, the realities are these:

  • The healthcare economy will be under pressure to do more with less. The health economy is increasingly controlled by private investors and large publicly traded companies in every sector whose shareholder obligations are primary. Public funding from federal, state and local sources is shrinking as a result of the Big Beautiful Bill and pushback from taxpayers who think the system wasteful and ineffective. The S&P Health Index for 2025 closed the year underperforming the broader market. Private equity investments in healthcare except AI solutions that reduce operating costs at scale are troubled. Thus, in 2026, operating margins in every sector will be stressed, access to private capital will be vital and business as usual obsolete.
  • Mass populism will magnify attention to the healthcare affordability. Per polls, costs of living are issue one to voters. While prices for gas and groceries have moderated, housing and healthcare prices have escalated unabated. Voters think both essential but the majority think consolidation, corporatization and regulatory protections advantage the biggest players and protect special interests. In housing, it’s simpler for consumers: mortgages, rent and utility costs are straightforward. But healthcare is more complicated: out of pocket costs—premiums, co-pays, deductibles, caregivers, OTC et al—are not easily calculable and price estimator tools, patient support and revenue cycle management policies make it easier for consumers. The net result: a large and growing majority of voters think healthcare is unaffordable and government intervention needed.
  • The mid-term election November 3, 2026 will be likely be the reset for healthcare’s future in 2028 and beyond. All 435 House Seats, 35 U.S. Senate seats and 39 state/territorial governors will be elected. All will face voters anxious about the future and how they’ll pay their bills. The 2026 results will set the stage for 2028 Presidential campaigns that will feature a wide range of alternatives to the healthcare status quo. Some will be incremental; others labeled radical. But all will promise changes unwelcome to many of its prominent incumbents.

Each sector in healthcare—hospitals, physician services, long-term care, insurers, life science manufacturers, enablers and advisors—is vulnerable. None welcomes unflattering attention and all spend heavily on messaging and advocacy to protect themselves.  All recognize the elephant in the room—large employers that have patiently funded the system’s profitability and value protective regulation that limit disruption. And in all, implementation of AI solutions that lower operating costs and streamline performance is THE immediate priority.

The realties of 2026 for healthcare are foreboding: business as usual is not an option.

2026: A Tough Road Ahead in Health Care

As we ring in the new year there is one thing – maybe the biggest thing – lingering from 2025 that can’t be dropped: The alarming state of health care.

Every aspect of the health care system feels like it’s working against its customers by prioritizing profits over care.

There are significant signs we could be at a breaking point.

  • More Americans than ever are opting to go without health insurance. Gallup poll found 1 in 3 are considering running that risk, saying they can’t afford the costs.
  • For the first time in history, concern for rising health care costs is stride for stride with housing and food costs as American wages are struggling to keep pace. For many income levels they feel left permanently behind.
  • And not only are people paying record-high premiums, what they have to pay for prescription drugs at the pharmacy counter is breaking the bank as insurance companies have gobbled up pharmacy benefit managers to capture more and more of what we spend on health care.
  • The number of pharmacies serving the country’s sick has dwindled to the lowest levels in more than 50 years. Rite-Aid, which once operated more than 5,000 stores across the country, closed all of its locations and declared bankruptcy last year. Thousands of independent pharmacies have also closed, largely because of the stranglehold PBMs now have on the prescription drug supply chain. The closures have created hundreds of pharmacy deserts, leaving patients with a dwindling number of low-cost and convenient options.
  • Medicaid cuts mandated by Congress and the Trump administration last year are expected to cause more rural hospitals to close. More than 100 closed in the last decade and hundreds more are on the brink, according to a Boston University study. Health care is in such a bad spot it’s near the top of the 2026 Congressional agenda. Democrats want to restore the enhanced subsidies that made coverage affordable for the more than 20 million Americans who rely on the Affordable Care Act marketplace for their health insurance but most Congressional Republicans say the subsidies are a waste of money. Despite all that, there’s pessimism that politicians have the appetite for real change.

“We are frogs in a boiling pot,” said Eric Pachman, co-founder of the prescription drug watchdog 46 Brooklyn and data analyst on Wall Street. “Every year health care plans cost more but the coverage we pay for gets crappier.”

Pachman was recently at home when he got a call from a close relative whose son was in the middle of an allergic reaction. The family didn’t have health insurance because the premiums were beyond their means.

“He gave his son an Epi Pen and then drove to the hospital close by,” Pachman said. “He sat there for a while with his son in the parking lot to make sure he didn’t get worse but he didn’t go in.”

Americans are making those alarming decisions while health insurance companies continue to make big profits.

The country’s three largest health insurance companies and their in-house pharmacy benefit managers have rocketed toward the top of the Fortune 500 list of richest companies.

UnitedHealth has become America’s third-richest company behind Walmart and Amazon. In 2024, the company, which has about 30 million Americans enrolled in its health plans, brought in more than $400 billion in revenue, according to its financial filings.

CVS Health is just behind UnitedHealth at No. 5 on the country’s Fortune 500 list, bringing in nearly $373 billion in 2024. Cigna is 13th with $247 billion in revenue.

Health care alarms similar to sirens of 2008 housing collapse

The warning signs of this health care crisis bear a haunting resemblance to the 2008 housing market crash.

  • Cost vs. Income: In 2006, the average employer-sponsored family health care plan cost $11,381, representing 23% of the average salary. In 2026, the average plan is expected to exceed $27,000 against an average salary of $84,000 — a staggering 32% of income.
  • Shifting Risk: Just as risky mortgages were offloaded onto consumers, employers have shoved a larger portion of health care costs onto their workers.
  • Debt: Half of American adults now report they could not pay a $500 medical bill without going into debt.
  • Opacity: Much like the complex derivatives in mortgages in 2008, PBMs and insurers refuse to make their pricing public. This lack of transparency leaves patients fearing to open their mail after a hospital visit.

The sad joke in Washington D.C. right now is that everyone keeps talking about the price of health care but no one knows what the actual prices are.

In that Gallup poll, those surveyed gave the U.S. health care system a grade of D+.

“Our government continues to apply band-aids to a bloated pricing system rather than prescribing real, system-wide solutions,” said Antonio Ciaccia, co-founder of the pharmacy drug data site 46Brooklyn.com and former head of government affairs for the Ohio Pharmacist Association.

Lawmakers in more than a dozen states have tried to rein in insurers and their PBMs with lawsuits and regulations. Those lawsuits have led to more than $400 million in payouts by the big three health insurers and their subsidiaries.

Despite that the system keeps on going.

After years of battling insurers and their PBMs, Ohio’s Republican Attorney General, Dave Yost, came to the conclusion that any major reforms would have to come at the federal level.

He formed a coalition with 39 other states and has made repeated trips to Washington D.C. urging Congress to act.

“PBMs were originally intended to reduce the financial burden on Americans for prescription drugs, but the reality today is starkly different,” Yost said. “Instead of prioritizing the interests of patients, PBMs have shifted their focus to maximizing profits and marginalizing local pharmacies from the marketplace.”

Pachman also said if more people do opt out of insurance they will still go to hospitals for medical care.

“Hospitals cannot turn those patients away because they are legally required to treat them,” Pachman. “That means the cost burden will be shifted to those that do pay for insurance.”

While any type of significant reforms seem unlikely, many states are at least starting to ban medical debt from credit reports.

Fifteen states have the ban in place and Ohio, Alaska, North Carolina and Michigan are exploring similar statutes this year.

Chris Deacon, an attorney, author, health care reform advocate and former director for the New Jersey treasury department said the only incentive right now is for insurers to keep growing the $5.3 trillion spent on health care in the United States in 2024.

“There’s no incentive to control prices,” Deacon said. “And there’s no transparency whatsoever in any of this.”

Drug prices to keep rising 

The drug price hikes that are helping drive the health affordability crisis will continue for the rest of President Trump’s term, key industry stakeholders are now predicting  despite his deals with drugmakers and Medicare negotiating lower prices.

The big picture: 

Insurers, drug supply middlemen and hospitals who represent 13% of all pharmaceutical purchases predict single-digit price increases for branded drugs over the next three years, according to a new survey by TD Cowen.

  • The increase will be largely driven by pricey new medications, such as drugs for cancer, diabetes and obesity, as well as cell and gene therapies, the purchasers said.
  • Drugmakers are already set to raise prices this year on at least 350 medications, including common vaccines and cancer treatments.

State of play: 

Democrat and Republican policymakers have prioritized lowering drug prices in recent years in response to mounting public concern over health costs.

  • Congress during the Biden administration passed the Inflation Reduction Act, allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prices for select drugs.
  • Trump has made direct deals with drugmakers for decreased U.S. prices on certain products.

Yes, but: 

TD Cowen’s latest annual drug purchaser survey shows these policy interventions aren’t driving prices down, at least in the near term.

  • Insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and other payers said they expect their cost of acquiring a drug to increase by 8%, on average, over the next three years. They gave the same figure when surveyed in 2024, 2023 and 2022.
  • Prices for generic drugs are predicted to increase by 2% over the same period.
  • “As long as biopharma delivers innovation, we see no change in the upward trend in drug prices,” TD Cowen wrote in its analysis.

By the numbers: 

44% of purchasers surveyed expect Medicare drug negotiations to have a modest impact on cost, and another 30% said they don’t think they will have any impact.

  • But 74% said they think drug usage will increase over the next five years due to the policy changes and the IRA’s out-of-pocket cost protections for seniors.

Reality check: 

Patients aren’t necessarily going to see an out-of-pocket increase as drug acquisition prices rise, due to rebates and other discounts.

  • But payers often pass increased costs along to patients, including by raising monthly premiums.
  • Net drug prices increased one-tenth of a percent in 2024 after accounting for rebates and discounts, per an IQVIA report published in April.

What they’re saying: 

Patients “bear an unfair burden as out-of-pocket costs have risen faster than the net prices paid by PBMs and insurers,” PhRMA spokesperson Chanse Jones said. “At the same time, innovation … continues to skyrocket.”

  • Advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs said in response to the survey results that the IRA’s reforms are working for seniors.
  • “[T]hat’s exactly why expanding and protecting the law matters,” Alyson Bancroft, director of policy, legislation and alliances, told Axios in an email.
  • Health and Human Services communications director Andrew Nixon told Axios the agency doesn’t weigh in on third-party analyses, but said HHS continues to advance policies to lower drug costs so patients can afford treatments.

What we’re watching: 

Purchasers expect coverage of obesity drugs to grow over the next three years.

  • Almost 30% of respondents said they currently have very limited coverage of GLP-1s for obesity, but nearly 20% said they expect to offer complete coverage for a finite amount of time within three years.
  • Medications for diabetes, obesity and rheumatological conditions were cited as likely to have the greatest decrease in price over the next three years. That’s due to coming patent expirations and increased competition among advanced products, TD Cowen noted.

The 5 economic themes we’re watching in 2026

https://www.axios.com/2026/01/05/economy-tariffs-ai

Tariff drama and tax cuts! AI spending and AI-spurred job losses! New Federal Reserve leadership! It is on track to be a big year across all the key policy areas of interest to economy-watchers.

The big picture: 

Seismic changes have been set in motion by the Trump administration’s sweeping policy agenda and a mega-wave of investment in artificial intelligence — likely to determine the fate of the economy in 2026.

1. The AI economy

The biggest macro questions are whether the alarm bells about AI and the labor market will start to ring true — and whether the productivity effects move from just anecdotes to the economic data.

  • Last year, much evidence pointed to AI as a marginal part of the labor market slowdown. Some economists (and officials inside the White House) argue that broader adoption of the technology would boost the labor market, at least in the short term.

Of note: 

AI spending buoyed economic growth, at least in the first nine months of 2025. It is also lifting the stock market, which might help support spending among wealthier consumers.

  • Whether this turns out to be a bubble that pops — and the extent such a risk poses to the broader financial system as the Fed rolls back regulations — is the related theme to watch.
  • That said, any correction in AI investment looks more likely to be a down-the-road story than a 2026 issue.

2. Tax cut boost

The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law in July, is set to have its maximum economic punch in the early months of 2026, a likely tailwind for overall economic growth.

  • But how large, how broad-based and how sustained that boost will turn out to be remains to be seen.

Zoom in: 

Fiscal policy is on track to add about 2.3 percentage points to first-quarter GDP growth, per data from the Hutchins Center Fiscal Impact Measure from the Brookings Institution.

  • On the individual tax side, beneficiaries of policies like a deduction for tip income, Social Security payments and expanded deductibility of state and local tax are on track to generate super-sized tax refunds this spring,
  • On the corporate side, businesses are enjoying new tax incentives for capital spending, especially on factories.
  • Federal spending on immigration enforcement, meanwhile, is ramping up due to the legislation.

3. Trade uncertainty (maybe) resolving

Any day now, the Supreme Court will hand down a decision that might scramble the centerpiece of President Trump’s economic agenda: the ability to impose huge tariffs unilaterally.

  • If the court strikes down the bulk of Trump’s tariffs, fiscal revenues could be put at risk, resulting in a chaotic refund process.
  • That said, the ruling will help create some guardrails on what kinds of legal authority the president has to impose unilateral tariffs. That, in turn, could lead to a more stable tariff picture (albeit with much higher rates than pre-2025).
  • While there are other authorities the president can use to enact tariffs besides the sweeping authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act he has claimed, they require a more deliberative process than the kind of whipsawing that importers faced last year.

4. Future of the Fed

Fed chair Jerome Powell’s term is up in May, and Trump’s selection of his successor is imminent, with Kevin Hassett and Kevin Warsh the leading job candidates.

Zoom out: 

Whoever takes the reins will face immense pressure from Trump to lower interest rates to rock-bottom levels — amid continued high inflation — and how they handle that pressure may determine the future of the central bank’s independence from the White House.

  • Trump expects the future Fed chair to consult with him on rates, while casting the intention to lower rates as a key qualification for the next leader.
  • The question is whether the next Fed chair can resist that political pressure and whether financial markets believe that is the case. If bond markets lose confidence that the Fed will raise short-term rates if necessary to combat an inflation surge, it could paradoxically drive up long-term rates.
  • Another huge question: the makeup of the influential Fed board, with the Supreme Court also set to decide whether Trump can fire governor Lisa Cook and, by extension, other Biden-appointed governors.

5. Affordability and the midterms

With voters going to the polls in November, the cost of living is emerging as a core battleground.

  • Democrats seeking to take control of Congress are making political hay about the affordability crisis.
  • Trump has called the term affordability a “con job,” but said recently that he believes “pricing” will be a major election issue.

Flashback: 

The Consumer Price Index is up a moderate 2.7% over the last 12 months, but that increase came on top of the Biden-era inflation surge.

  • The index is up 23.7% since January 2021, even more for some often-purchased subcategories, including groceries (up 24.6%).

Over the holiday break, the administration quietly shelved plans to impose levies on imported pasta and furniture.

  • It’s a hint that the White House is eager to avoid trade levies that might flow directly to prices consumers pay, as opposed to affecting input costs for businesses.

The Other Health Care Cliff Americans Are About to Fall Off

In mid-December, members of Congress members left Capitol Hill for the final time in 2025, thus ensuring that the year would end with a failure arguably more significant than anything they accomplished during the prior 12 months: the end, despite a widespread public clamor for action, of subsidies put in place during the pandemic that made premiums of ACA marketplace plans affordable for millions of Americans.

Although important health care stories often fail to get much media attention, the failed efforts – mostly, but not exclusively, by Democrats – to save the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare subsidies were different. As patients from Maine to California opened their yearly renewal letters, many were shocked to see their monthly premiums for 2026 would be doubling or even tripling – right when the rising cost of living was already the No. 1 voter concern.

But there’s another aspect to America’s looming health care crisis that almost no one is talking about.

This is the other side of the coin – the out-of-pocket expenses that everyday consumers pay for doctor visits or prescription drugs – because of higher deductibles, or because of the growing number of patients who will risk not having any insurance at all next year because they can no longer afford it.

Even before the new year began, many Americans were dreading a double whammy of skyrocketing premiums and a sharp spike of what they expect to pay on top of that, out of their own pockets.

For example, Doug Butchart of Elgin, Ill., told ABC News that while his wife Shadene – who is living with the neurological disorder amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) – paid about $3,000 in out-of-pocket costs last year, that’s expected to rise as high as $10,000 in 2026, on top of monthly premiums that are tripling with government inaction on the ACA subsidies. It’s all more than the senior couple currently earns from Social Security.

Of course, millions of other Americans who switched to insurance plans that trade lower monthly premiums for sharply higher deductibles are taking an economic gamble that won’t play out until they see how healthy they are in 2026. In particular, those joining the surge of patients switching their ACA health coverage from the common Silver plan to the lower-premium Bronze coverage could pay thousands more as a result.

An analysis by KFF, the health care think tank, found that the average deductible in 2026 for patients who sign up for a Silver plan, assuming no reductions for cost sharing, will rise to $5,304, but for those who opt into a Bronze plan, the average deductible will spike to $7,576 – meaning a more than $2,000 higher outlay for sicker patients who max out on their covered expenses.

Katie Keith, director of Georgetown University’s Center for Health Policy and the Law and a former Biden administration aide, said the skyrocketing cost of insurance means “people are so premium sensitive that they might still go with Bronze and kind of leave money on the table – then they’re facing at least a $9,000 deductible, or whatever out-of-pocket max is, and just huge burdens.”

Keith and other health policy experts see a perfect storm of negative factors for higher out-of-pocket expenses in 2026 – from the impact of generally rising health costs to the added burden of government inaction or indifference in Washington. Among the factors behind a looming crisis:

  • Last summer, the Trump administration finalized new rules for the ACA that changed a key calculation and thus increased the maximum in out-of-pocket expenses that can be set by insurers – a ruling that also affects the millions of Americans who receive health insurance through a private employer.
  • The new math proposed by the Trump administration’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) adds yet another 4% hike on top of an already expected steep increase. The higher limit means individuals in some plans will pay $10,600 before their insurance kicks in, with a bump to $21,200 for families – an overall increase of 83% for individuals and 67% for families since the out-of-pocket maximum established by the ACA went into effect in 2014.
  • The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported that, because of these changes, a family of two or more people on the same plan could face an additional $900 in medical bills if a family member is seriously ill or injured in 2026.
  • Increasingly, employers are putting more of the economic burden on their workers for health care costs, especially through higher deductibles. For one thing, the KFF Employer Health Benefits Study has found that – for employees whose coverage carries a deductible, on individual plans – that average out-of-pocket cost has outpaced inflation and more than tripled in less than two decades, from $567 in 2006 to $1,887 in 2025.
  • What’s more, increasing pressure for workers to share the cost burdens of their health insurance has also caused more employer plans to offer a higher deductible option, and more people are signing up for that risk. Federal data shows that while only 38% of private-company employees had the option for a high-deductible plan in 2015, that number has now risen to more than half.
  • Perhaps the biggest factor is the end, for now, of the tax credits that had been holding down the cost of monthly premiums for ACA marketplace coverage since the COVID-19 epidemic. In states gathering data about early enrollment trends this past fall as higher premium notices went out, the shift away from traditionally popular Silver plans into Bronze coverage, with its higher out of pocket costs, has been dramatic.

For example, in California, where the Covered California program is considered a trailblazer in public health plans, officials told NBC News they’ve seen a “substantial” movement of enrollees choosing the Bronze plans with the highest out-of-pocket deductibles. Typically, officials reported, about one in five new enrollees go with the Bronze option, but for 2026 that number has soared to more than one-third. It’s a similar story in Idaho, where officials told NBC that Bronze enrollments are running 5% higher than normal, with most moving from Silver plans.

“There’s a lot yet to be seen, but there are definitely some early warning signs in terms of the decisions consumers are having to make in reaction to the changing federal policy,” Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, told the network.

Even more worrisome, however, is the number of Americans who are cancelling their ACA marketplace coverage altogether, because – all evidence suggests – they can no longer afford the premiums for any level of plan. In Pennsylvania, after families began receiving notices that – in many cases – their premiums had doubled, officials reported that about 40,000 people dropped their coverage, which is double the total from the 2024 enrollment period. What’s more, new enrollments in the Keystone State are also running about 20% lower than this time last year.

This is on top of a growing number of people – especially in the younger age brackets – who are switching to other low-cost alternatives that also are essentially a big gamble. These include so-called short-term plans, which are not compliant with ACA coverage requirements and that often come with annual or lifetime caps on coverage, don’t cover certain critical expenses like prescription drugs or paternity care and can penalize patients with preexisting conditions. There are also so-called catastrophic plans, which usually carry the maximum allowable deductible and which – in recognition of the worsening health insurance climate in the U.S. – have been expanded as an option to consumers over age 30. You may have even heard ads for faith-based sharing plans, whose members pool their expenses. People who sign up for those plans often find out they are not covered for a serious illness.

No wonder growing numbers of us are more anxious about the cost of health care than any time since the ACA was enacted in 2010 – perhaps ever. In November, a West Health-Gallup survey found that 47% of U.S. adults are worried they can’t afford health care next year – the highest number since the survey began in 2021. Those surveyed cited the rising cost of out-of-pocket requirements for prescription drugs in particular. And the number of Americans who say the cost of health care is causing “a lot of stress” in their daily lives has nearly doubled since the survey began, to 15%.

Georgetown’s Keith noted that – with patients and their families getting hit with higher costs on all sides – both the federal government and individual states have shown there are legislative actions that can reduce out-of-pocket costs for these anxious consumers. These include the federal No Surprises Act, which was signed into law by President Donald Trump in 2020 to address surprise medical bills, and a $2,000 annual cap on prescription drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries that went into effect in 2025 (it will rise to $2,100 this year), as well as various state efforts to curb tack-on facility fees or impose limits on insulin charges.

“There are many different flavors – ways that patients are getting charged,” Keith said. Indeed, that’s the bad news, since many of the fixes that lawmakers have been working on feel like bail-out buckets of water against a tsunami of rising medical expenses that in 2026 threaten the broader American economy, not to mention the national psyche.

Rising out-of-pocket expenses might be the looming health crisis that no one is talking about, but the lack of media coverage is likely to change over the course of 2026 as horror stories trickle in from those who gambled on not getting sick over the next 12 months – and lost that wager.

Why health insurance is getting more expensive

There’s a good chance your health insurance premiums are going up next year, regardless of where you get coverage.

Why it matters: 

The spike in what millions of Affordable Care Act plan enrollees pay will be acute, but workplace insurance is getting more expensive, too — and all at a time when affordability is prominently on Americans’ minds.

ACA premiums have dominated the political discourse in Congress for weeks, but there’s no real sign that any relief is coming from Washington.

  • Even extending the Biden-era enhanced ACA subsidies — which most Republicans don’t want to do — would do nothing to address what’s driving the surging cost of care or employer insurance affordability issues.
  • And all signs point to Democrats hammering Republicans for high costs in all forms of health insurance leading up to next year’s midterm elections.

The big picture: 

Health insurance gets more expensive almost every year, keeping up with increases in the costs of procedures, tests, drugs and more. But some years see bigger jumps than others, and 2026 is looking like one of those years.

  • That means tough choices for families, employers and workers all faced with shouldering higher premiums or out-of-pocket spending. Some will conclude it’s prohibitively expensive and go uninsured.
  • Another thing that’s different about this year is that the white-hot political rancor around ACA premiums is putting health insurance back centerstage politically.

By the numbers: 

ACA insurers themselves are raising premiums by an estimated 26%, in part due to rising hospital costs, higher demand for pricey GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, and the threat of tariffs.

  • But add in the loss of federal subsidies, and the increase is 114% — or more than double what they currently pay, according to KFF. 22 million out of 24 million marketplace enrollees now receive subsidies.
  • Premiums in the small group employer market will go up by a median of 11%, also per KFF, due to some of the same reasons insurers cite in ACA markets.

For employer health insurance, there’s no comprehensive data yet for 2026, but estimates from earlier this year put the increases in the high single digits.

When Drug Price Transparency Isn’t Enough

Policymakers and advocates often promote drug price transparency to lower costs and improve equity. While transparency is an important first step toward accountability and informed public budgeting, it does not guarantee affordable prices or fair access to medicines.

Transparency Has Some Benefits

Drug price transparency helps show how and why medicines cost what they do along the supply chain (i.e., from the manufacturer to the pharmacy), which makes it easier to identify where costs can be reduced or better regulated. By making this information public, transparency allows patients, payers, and policymakers to make more informed decisions and encourage manufacturers to prices drugs more fairly. Ultimately, it supports a fairer system where patients can better afford and obtain the treatments they need, improving access to care.

States with Drug Transparency Laws

While federal policy to improve price transparency is lacking, the states have moved to make things clearer for patients and payers. Vermont was the first U.S. state to enact a drug price transparency law in 2016. Since then, many others have followed suit. At least 14 states have passed some version of transparency legislation, though the details and their enforcement of these laws differ widely.

For example, only Vermont and Maine require drug companies or insurers to disclose the actual prices paid after discounts (called the “net price”). Alternately, Oregon and Nevada require drug manufacturers to publicly report their profit to state government agencies. And Connecticut, Louisiana, and Nevada mandate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to report the total rebates they receive, but not the amounts for each specific drug. Despite these efforts, no state has yet achieved full transparency across the entire drug supply chain.

Transparency is Not Enough

Even with clear pricing, Americans still pay about 2.6 times more for prescription drugs than people in other wealthy countries. Early evidence suggests that these laws have done little to curb drug prices. To date, only four states – CaliforniaMaineMinnesota, and Oregon – have published analyses of their own laws. These reports share common concerns: difficulty tracking pricing across the supply chain and uncertainty about whether state agencies have the authority (or the will) to act when data is incomplete or unreliable. 

Most transparency laws fall short on requiring detailed cost or profit data, focusing instead on broad price trends. As a result, this narrow scope makes it difficult to identify the exact drivers of high drug prices. Even when transparency discourages manufacturers from raising prices, these policies do not directly control pricing or define what constitutes an ‘unjustified’ price increase. Manufacturers can simply adjust by setting higher launch prices or implementing smaller, more frequent increases to stay below reporting thresholds. Still, the result is a system where drug costs can vary by as much as $719 for the same 30-day prescription even when prices are publicly listed.

What can also be done?

Creating a consistent national framework could replace the current patchwork of state laws and improve oversight of how drugs are priced. For example, the Drug Price Transparency in Medicaid Act (H.R. 2450) could do just that: it would standardize reporting requirements and reveal how drug prices are set, rebated, and reimbursed. But transparency alone can’t lower costs—it only shows the problem.

To make transparency meaningful, policymakers must address the underlying contracts and incentives that drive high prices.

Hidden rebate deals and opaque pricing structures between PBMs and drugmakers often inflate costs and limit patients from seeing savings. Transparency legislation should also be paired with value-based pricing that links payments to clinical benefits. Federal programs like the Medicare Drug Negotiation Program provide additional leverage, but broader reforms are needed to reach the commercial market (i.e., where most Americans get their prescription drugs and still face high prices).

Still, transparency can have downsides, especially globally. Fully public drug prices could push companies to stop offering lower prices in low- and middle-income countries. To avoid cross-country comparisons, they could raise prices across the board, making medicines less affordable where they’re needed most. To make transparency more equitable, policymakers should combine disclosure with protections that preserve affordability worldwide.

Conclusion

In short, transparency is necessary but an incomplete fix for America’s drug pricing system. Simply shining a light on how prices are set isn’t enough. Policymakers need to be paired with other reforms, such as removing the incentives that encourage high prices, holding PBMs and manufacturers accountable, extending the negotiating power beyond Medicare, and protecting prescription drug access both at home and abroad. Without these other steps, transparency laws risk highlighting unfairness without actually improving it.

The Double Whammy Behind the 2026 ACA Premium Shock

Millions of ACA enrollees will face steep premium hikes in 2026 as insurer rate increases collide with the expiration of enhanced federal subsidies.

As health insurance premium costs have taken center stage this fall, you may have seen seemingly conflicting reports about how much premiums are increasing, especially for ACA marketplace plans. This isn’t a reporting error. Instead, it reflects a double whammy of increases that more than 20 million ACA enrollees are poised to face in 2026.

To understand what’s happening, it helps to think of ACA premium increases as a one-two punch.

The first hit comes from the overall increase in health insurance premiums for 2026. On average, insurers raised premiums for ACA marketplace plans by roughly 26 percent from 2025 to 2026. This increase reflects a rise in the total cost of coverage, the full premium paid jointly by enrollees and the federal government through subsidies, not just what individuals pay out of pocket.

Premium increases are not new. Insurers raise rates every year. But the 2026 hike is striking: more than three times the 7 percent increase in 2025 and the 6 percent increase in 2024. Insurers have attributed roughly four percentage points of this increase to the anticipated expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits, arguing that enrollment will decline and that sicker, higher-cost enrollees will make up a larger share of the risk pool. Insurers also cite provider consolidation and high pharmaceutical prices as drivers of higher premiums.

These explanations deserve scrutiny. As Wendell Potter recently documented, the seven largest private insurance corporations have collectively taken in more than $10 trillion in revenue since 2014 with revenues steadily increasing each year. Against that backdrop, claims that today’s premium spikes are unavoidable or purely defensive ring hollow.

The second hit falls directly on consumers who currently rely on enhanced premium subsidies (in the form of tax credits) to make coverage affordable. Those enhanced subsidies, first made available during the pandemic, are set to expire at the end of 2025, and Congress appears poised to let them lapse without an extension. If that happens, many enrollees will see the tax credits that lower their monthly premiums shrink dramatically or disappear altogether. Taking this into account, the amount people pay out of pocket for ACA premiums is expected to increase by an estimated 114 percent in 2026. And that is just for the premiums. People enrolled in ACA plans will also have to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars out of their own pockets in deductibles and copays before their coverage kicks in.

This double whammy will have drastic, and potentially deadly, consequences for millions of Americans. I am already seeing panic from people in my own community and across the country, echoed daily on social media. Yet Congress has taken no action to cushion the blow. The Republicans leading both the House and the Senate are leaving Washington without extending the enhanced tax credits, even as the clock runs out.

This is an abdication of Congress’s responsibility to represent the people it serves, people who have been clear about what they want and need: health insurance they can actually afford. Rather than getting bogged down in partisan gridlock or abstract market ideology, Congress must act now to extend the enhanced premium tax credits. That extension should be treated as an urgent bridge to a real fix to our health care system; one that reduces dependence on Big Insurance, lowers costs for patients, and ensures that no one is forced to go without care.

Chaos, confusion, stagnation defined healthcare in 2025

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chaos-confusion-stagnation-defined-healthcare-2025-robert-pearl-m-d–cdkuc/

2025 was 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 received this month looked almost identical to what they experienced on January 1 — except more expensive.

That yearlong pattern (of intense disruption followed by little improvement) played out across nearly every major healthcare storyline.

Luigi Mangioli is preparing to stand trial almost exactly twelve months after the fatal shooting of UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson. The killing sparked fears for major health insurers and raised questions about the fragility of the nation’s largest payer. In a February article, I called it a defining moment for UnitedHealth: an opportunity for the company to start competing on health, not denials. But despite the initial shock and ongoing scrutiny, nothing has shifted in how UnitedHealth pays for (or denies) medical care.

Then, in late fall, the nation endured the longest government closure in U.S. history, driven largely by conflicts over healthcare spending and the Affordable Care Act’s health exchanges. However, the eventual resolution to reopen the government came with no respite for the 24 million Americans currently enrolled in an exchange.

For a broader view of the year, here are five major areas of healthcare that generated chaos, confusion and conflict in 2025 – but little meaningful improvement.

1. Political chaos: Turning science into a battleground

No aspect of healthcare saw more volatility in 2025 than in the political arena. The tone was set in January when President Trump returned to office and began reshaping federal health agencies with unprecedented speed.

Within days, he issued a record flurry of executive orders targeting the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid waivers, Medicare Advantage oversight, prior-authorization rules and federal nutrition standards.

He replaced long-entrenched leaders at HHS, NIH, CDC and FDA with political outsiders, many of whose views on vaccines, chronic disease and scientific evidence diverged sharply from the career experts they superseded. The nomination of RFK Jr. to lead HHS became a flashpoint. His reluctance to confront the measles outbreak in Texas, combined with mixed messaging on vaccine policy, have deepened concern for public health.

The result has been rapid turnover of expert clinicians and a revolving door of leaders in the FDA, CDC and NIH. Senior scientists continue to resign, key programs remain stalled and career staff report growing political interference in decisions that previously rested on data and expert consensus.

2. Economic crisis: Costs soar as coverage grew more fragile

Beneath the political theatrics of 2025 was a sobering reality: Americans will once again pay far more for healthcare next year than the year before. And for many, the financial protections that once softened those increases are disappearing.

Insurers on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace requested median premium hikes of 18% for 2026, the steepest jump since 2018 and well above this year’s 7% hike. If Congress fails to extend the enhanced ACA subsidies, families who once paid affordable monthly premiums will see their costs double or even triple.

The broader economic picture makes these pressures unavoidable. The United States is now spending $5.6 trillion annually on healthcare. National health expenditures are projected to climb another 7.1% this year, far outpacing economic growth. At the same time, federal debt service continues to soar, consuming more of the national budget than Medicaid itself.

The result is an economic crisis hiding in plain sight, one that will increasingly strain the financial, physical and mental health of Americans in the year to come.

3. Regulatory confusion: Agencies rebooted but didn’t improve health

This year shook the foundations of America’s public-health architecture and left yawning gaps where trust, clarity and expert oversight once stood. Politics has replaced science as the primary driver of healthcare policy.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lost its director just weeks after her confirmation. Within days, top-level scientists and center heads resigned en masse, citing political interference and a collapse of scientific independence. Months later, there still is no permanent CDC head.

At the Food and Drug Administration, career reviewers say they’ve been forced to reconsider or abandon scientific best practices. Across both the CDC and FDA, advisory committees that once evaluated evidence through rigorous, peer-driven processes now rely on anecdote and ideology. One striking example is the FDA’s decision to stop requiring hepatitis B vaccination at birth, a move that public-health experts warn could lead to tens of thousands of additional infections for a disease that had been reduced to fewer than 20 annual cases.

Meanwhile, the administration’s sweeping “health-freedom agenda” (under the banner Make America Healthy Again) has identified food packaging, additives, school-lunch standards and “ultra-processed” diets as public-health priorities. But the proposals to improve nutrition remain largely unformed, as the likelihood of meaningful improvements fade.

What remains at year’s end is a set of agencies still functioning, but with public trust weakened and no clear path to rebuilding it.

4. Technological contradiction: AI leapt ahead while medicine stood still

No field generated more excitement, or exposed more contradictions, in 2025 than generative artificial intelligence.

In the broader economy, GenAI models transformed finance, logistics, law, retail and customer service. New large language models, including GPT-5, DeepSeek and Gemini 3, demonstrated near-expert performance on clinical reasoning, interpretation of complex symptoms and risk prediction. Ambient listening matured into a reliable documentation tool, and with the emergence of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)Americans are relying on large language models when they have medical questions.

Yet inside traditional medicine, progress remains stalled. Clinicians continue to be encouraged to use AI for administrative shortcuts (coding, charting, prior authorization claims) but national specialty organizations haven’t pushed them to use GenAI for diagnosing disease, reducing medical errors or improving clinical outcomes.

Fear of liability has discouraged technology companies from offering GenAI tools that would allow patients to evaluate symptoms or manage their chronic diseases. Yet usage continues to grow. In polling I conducted this fall, 77% of patients and 63% of healthcare professionals reported using a generative-AI tool in the past three months for health-related information or decision support. Meanwhile, medical schools still teach pre-AI workflows, even as medical students and residents turn to GenAI for clinical knowledge and case analysis. The divide between institutional practice and the behaviors of patients and the next generation of physicians is expanding at an accelerating pace.

5. Cultural conflict: A growing divide between the public & the profession

If 2025 revealed anything about American healthcare, it was a widening cultural rift: between younger patients and medical professionals, and between science and public belief.

This rift is felt particularly among Gen Z and Millennials, generations that grew up online, accustomed to second-screen verification and skeptical of traditional authority. As I wrote in 3 Ways Doctors Can Win Back Gen Z And Millennial Patients, younger Americans expect shared decision-making, transparency and digital-first convenience — expectations medicine failed to fulfill in 2025.

At the same time, disinformation and political rhetoric seeped deeper into public life. Social media spread half-truths faster than public-health leaders could correct them. Vaccine skepticism rose thanks to political disinformation. Basic nutritional science became partisan, too. And the public’s confusion only intensified.

What 2025 reveals about the road ahead

By year’s end, one truth became impossible to ignore: despite unprecedented political turmoil, economic instability, scientific breakthroughs and cultural upheaval, the basic structure of American healthcare remained unchanged.

The incentives driving the system, the chronic diseases afflicting the population and the unaffordability confronting families all persist as we enter 2026. At the same time, as generative AI transforms nearly every other sector of the economy, the fax machine remains the most common method physicians use to exchange vital medical information.

The question now is whether mounting economic, political and cultural pressures will finally force American medicine to transform care delivery next year. For more on that, follow me on Forbes and look for my next article on January 5, featuring my healthcare predictions for 2026.