
A System Wide Diagnosis For America's $5 Trillion Healthcare Problem
If we're serious about delivering better health outcomes at lower cost, we must embrace a new business model, one that aligns incentives, promotes transparency and holds every stakeholder accountable for the value it provides.
Each segment of the healthcare ecosystem–payers, providers, PBMs and pharmaceutical companies–is operating from its own silo, maximizing its share of the revenue pie without regard to outcomes or long-term sustainability. That siloed behavior is a fundamental flaw in a sector that now costs the United States $4.9 trillion annually.
The result is a system that punishes reform and rewards inefficiency. Hospitals expand expensive outpatient facilities to maintain margins. Insurers make money by denying claims. PBMs chase rebates that inflate drug costs. And pharmaceutical manufacturers operate in a reimbursement landscape that discourages the use of cheaper generic and biosimilar drugs. Even 340B, originally intended to serve vulnerable populations, has become a revenue tool divorced from its original purpose.
We can't keep patching a system that was never designed to deliver value. Now is the time to step back and evaluate how all the pieces interact and redesign the model accordingly.
The healthcare delivery system revolves around a business model that puts volume over outcomes. That underlying structure remains largely intact despite numerous tweaks and new initiatives over the years.
CMS's new strategy emphasizes accountability and site-neutral payment, both necessary steps toward rationalizing where and how care is delivered. But change cannot stop at policy guidance. Provider organizations must take the next step by investing in models that focus on results, not just compliance.
That means rethinking how care is delivered, particularly in rural and underserved areas. As I wrote in a May column, rural hospitals cannot survive under today's centralized, hospital-centric model. We need a distributed, tech-enabled system that integrates clinics, pharmacies and telemedicine in a tiered structure.
It also means providers must be held to evidence-based standards and be willing to compete based on performance. The government's job is to set expectations, not to micromanage care.
Payers likewise need a reset. Trust in insurers is at historic lows. And it's more than a PR problem; it's a structural one. The traditional payer model is built on controlling costs by restricting access. Prior authorization, step therapy and opaque coverage decisions have become tools of denial rather than value management.
As I noted in a February column, insurers need to move from gatekeepers to health partners. That shift requires transparency, consistent communication and a willingness to align financial incentives with long-term health outcomes. Some companies have taken early steps, like reducing prior authorization for high-performing providers, but these efforts remain too narrow.
Utilization management should focus resources where scrutiny is needed, instead of imposing blanket barriers. When done right, insurers can reward evidence-based, cost-effective care while simplifying the patient experience. Ultimately, payers that adopt a value-based model will be most likely to remain profitable. Those that cling to denial-based cost control will lose both trust and relevance.
The dysfunction in drug pricing is no secret. PBMs, originally intended to negotiate better prices, now profit from opaque rebate structures that reward high list prices and block competition from lower-cost alternatives. As I detailed in a recent column, this model harms consumers, distorts prescribing behavior and inflates costs without improving access or outcomes.
It's no coincidence that generics, despite comprising nearly 90% of prescriptions, account for only a small fraction of total drug spending. The system must be redesigned to reward clinical and economic value instead of volume. That means eliminating rebate-driven incentives, mandating transparency and tying formulary placement to outcomes rather than backroom deals.
PBM reform must be part of a broader effort to move the entire pharmaceutical supply chain towards value-based principles. This includes making sure manufacturers are reimbursed appropriately for true innovation, while allowing low-cost generics and biosimilars to compete on fair terms.
Lastly, Medicare, Medicaid and programs like 340B are essential to supporting vulnerable populations, but they can't be immune from scrutiny. We spend more than enough on public healthcare. The problem is how that money is used.
As I argued in July, Medicaid in particular has become a proxy for universal coverage without addressing the underlying inefficiencies that drive cost. Meanwhile, 340B, originally a limited safety-net program, has ballooned into a multi-billion-dollar revenue stream for hospitals, often with little connection to actual indigent care.
CMS's new strategic direction is a promising departure from past approaches. By linking payment models to cost and outcomes, it opens the door to meaningful change. But success will require the agency to stay focused on results. Accountability must be built into every public dollar spent, from reimbursement to subsidies to drug pricing. Without it, reform is impossible.
In the American healthcare ecosystem, each stakeholder is doing what the current model rewards, to the detriment of patients and taxpayers. Funding patches and other temporary solutions can't fix it. We need a fundamentally different business model, one grounded in outcomes, transparency and competition.
Each player must change the way they operate and be willing to take responsibility for creating and communicating value. With a better business model, we can have better results for patients, taxpayers and companies. The path forward isn't easy. But it is clear.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UK warned it risks exodus of 'disillusioned' doctors
Nearly one in five doctors is considering quitting in the UK, new figures show, while one in eight is thinking about leaving the country to work abroad. The General Medical Council (GMC), which commissioned the research, is warning that plans to cut hospital waiting lists will be at risk unless more is done to retain them. By July 2029, the prime minister has said 92% of patients needing routine hospital treatment like hip and knee replacements will be . "[Poor staff retention] could threaten government ambitions to reduce waiting times and deliver better care to patients," warned the authors of the GMC's latest report. The main reason doctors gave for considering moving abroad was they are "treated better" in other countries, while the second most common reason was better pay. Some 43% said they had researched career opportunities in other countries, while 15% reported taking "hard steps" towards moving abroad, like applying for roles or contacting recruiters. "Like any profession, doctors who are disillusioned with their careers will start looking elsewhere," said Charlie Massey, chief executive of the GMC. "Doctors need to be satisfied, supported, and see a hopeful future for themselves, or we may risk losing their talent and expertise altogether." Read more on Sky News:Airport reopens after plane incidentReeves told big tax rises neededHiroshima survivor's warning, 80 years on The report - which comes after a recent five-day walkout by resident doctors - is based on the responses of 4,697 doctors around the UK and also explores how they feel about career progression. One in three said they are unable to progress their education, training and careers in the way they want. Those who didn't feel like their careers were progressing were at higher risk of burnout and were less satisfied with their work. The GMC blamed workloads, competition for jobs, and lack of senior support for development for adversely impacting the career progression of UK doctors. 'Legitimate complaints' The Department of Health and Social Care acknowledged doctors had suffered "more than a decade of neglect". "Doctors have legitimate complaints about their conditions, including issues with training bottlenecks and career progression," said a spokesperson. "We want to work with them to address these and improve their working lives, which includes our plans set out in the 10 Year Health Plan to prioritise UK graduates and increase speciality training posts. "This government is committed to improving career opportunities and working conditions, bringing in ways to recognise and reward talent - as well as freeing up clinicians' time by cutting red tape."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Study attributes 440 'excess deaths' to January's Los Angeles wildfires
By Steve Gorman LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -Wildfires that devastated parts of the Los Angeles area in January indirectly led to hundreds of deaths in the ensuing weeks, far exceeding the official toll of 31 fatalities, according to a study released on Wednesday. The research, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, or JAMA, estimated 440 "excess deaths" were attributable to the fires from January 5 to February 1, using models that compared predicted mortality under normal circumstances to actual numbers documented during that period. The additional deaths likely reflect a mix of factors, including increased exposure of people with heart and lung disease to poor air quality from smoke and toxins released by the fires, as well as healthcare delays and disruptions, the study said. The findings "underscore the need to complement direct fatalities estimates with alternative methods to quantify the additional mortality burden of wildfires and of climate-related emergencies more broadly," the researchers wrote. Two wind-driven wildfires that erupted during the first week of January on opposite sides of Los Angeles damaged or destroyed nearly 16,000 structures combined - laying waste to much of the seaside district of Pacific Palisades and the foothill community of Altadena. Together, the blazes scorched 59 square miles (152 sq km), an area larger than Paris. The official tally of people who perished as a direct result of the fires stands at 31, after the most recent set of human remains were unearthed in Altadena in July, six months after the fires. Governor Gavin Newsom in February requested nearly $40 billion in wildfire aid from Congress. Some estimates put economic losses from the fires at more than $250 billion, making the conflagration one of the most costly natural disasters in U.S. history. The JAMA study acknowledged some limitations, saying the data may need to be revised upward in the future and the research did not reflect any fire-attributable deaths beyond Feb. 1.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Grey's Anatomy' star Camilla Luddington reveals autoimmune disease diagnosis: 'I was a little freaked out'
She announced the news on her "Call It What It Is" podcast. Grey's Anatomy actress Camilla Luddington has been going through a real-life medical drama. After searching for answers, Luddington was diagnosed with Hashimoto's disease earlier this year, she said on Wednesday's edition of the Call It What It Is podcast, which is cohosted by her Grey's costar Jessica Capshaw. "About two-and-a-half months ago — now still very recent — I had blood work," said Luddington, who joined the show as Dr. Jo Wilson in 2012. "It came back, and my doctor was like, 'Everything looks great except this one little thing. And I remember hearing the words autoimmune disease and thinking, 'What the f---?' And then being told that I had something called Hashimoto's hypothyroidism and that it was very common." The Cleveland Clinic estimates that the disorder affects 5 in 100 people in the United States, and it is especially prevalent among women, who are 10 times more likely than males to suffer from it. Still, the actress was "a little freaked out" at first. But then, "honestly I was relieved. I felt like I had the answer for something that I've been knowing is going on. And I have health anxiety, So there was a part of me that was like, 'Am I gaslighting myself?'" Her symptoms were very real, though. The condition causes the immune system to attack the thyroid, and what that looked like for Luddington was feeling "slothy," which Luddington said she regularly jokes about on the podcast. "What it can make you feel is tired and cold, which is really funny because Matt would make fun of me, because I'd have like 40 blankets on me at night," she said of her husband, actor Matthew Allan. "It can make you foggy, depressed, you can have dry skin, your hair can thin." For the 41-year-old mother of two young children, she wondered if it was just the normal aging process. "I thought, I have two kids, I'm in my 40s. This is what 'the 40s' is: You know, I have jobs to do, maybe I'm perimenopause," she said. "It got to the point where, by 11 a.m., I felt like I had to chug Benadryl, and I needed to nap. It didn't matter how much sleep I'd gotten the night before. There was no pushing through the day."Luddington even stopped working out, which usually energized her, in case that was the culprit. She scheduled an appointment for blood work, which had previously been cancelled because she was sick, when her husband being diagnosed, she said that she's started medication and will return to her doctor every six weeks to monitor how it's working. Hear the full conversation above. Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly