When you lose your health insurance, you may also lose your primary doctor – and that hurts your health
When you lose your health insurance or switch to a plan that skimps on preventive care, something critical breaks.
The connection to your primary care provider, usually a doctor, gets severed. You stop getting routine checkups. Warning signs get missed. Medical problems that could have been caught early become emergencies. And because emergencies are both dangerous and expensive, your health gets worse while your medical bills climb.
As gerontology researchers who study health and financial well-being in later life, we've analyzed how someone's ties to the health care system strengthen or unravel depending on whether they have insurance coverage. What we've found is simple: Staying connected to a trusted doctor keeps you healthier and saves the system money. Breaking that link does just the opposite.
And that's exactly what has us worried right now. Members of Congress are debating whether to make major cuts to Medicaid and other social safety net programs. If the Senate passes its own version of the tax-and-spending package that the House approved in May 2025, millions of Americans will soon face exactly this kind of disruption – with big consequences for their health and well-being.
Someone can lose their health insurance for a number of reasons. For many Americans, coverage is tied to employment. Being fired, retiring before you turn 65 and become eligible to enroll in the Medicare program, or even getting a new job can mean losing insurance. Others wind up uninsured due to a different array of changes: moving to a different state, getting divorced or aging out of a parent's plan after their 26th birthday.
And those who buy their own coverage may find that they can no longer afford the premiums. In 2024, average premiums on the individual market exceeded more than US$600 per month for many adults, even with subsidies.
Government-sponsored insurance programs can also leave you vulnerable to this predicament. The Senate is currently considering its own version of a tax-and-spending bill the House of Representatives passed in May that would make cuts and changes to Medicaid. If the provisions in the House bill are enacted, millions of Americans who get health insurance through Medicaid – a health insurance program jointly run by the federal government and the states that is mainly for people who have low incomes or disabilities – would lose their coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Health insurance is more than a way to pay medical bills; it's a doorway into the health care system itself. It connects people to health care providers who come to know their medical history, their medications and their personal circumstances.
When that door closes, the effects are immediate. Uninsured people are much less likely to have a usual source of care – typically a doctor or another primary care provider or clinic you know and trust. That relationship acts as a foundation for managing chronic conditions, staying current with preventive screenings and getting guidance when new symptoms arise.
Researchers have found that adults who go uninsured for even six months become significantly more likely to postpone care or forgo it altogether to save money. In practical terms, this means they're less likely to be examined by someone who knows their medical history and can spot red flags early.
The Affordable Care Act, the landmark health care law enacted during the Obama administration, made the number of Americans without insurance plummet. The share of people without insurance fell from 16% in 2010 to 7.7% in 2023.
The people who got insurance coverage, particularly those who were middle age, saw big improvements in their health.
In research that looked at data collected from 2014 to 2020, we followed what happened to 12,000 adults who were 50 or older and lived across the nation.
Our research team analyzed how their experiences changed when they lost, and sometimes later regained, a regular source of care during those six years.
Many of the participants in this study had multiple chronic conditions like diabetes, hypertension and heart disease.
The results were striking.
Those who didn't see the same provider on a regular basis were far less likely to feel heard or respected by health care professionals. They had fewer medical appointments, filled fewer prescriptions and were less likely to follow through with recommended treatments.
Their health also deteriorated considerably over the six years. Their blood pressure and blood sugar levels rose, and they had more elevated indicators of kidney impairment compared with their counterparts who had regular care providers.
The longer they went without consistent health care, the worse these clinical markers became.
Preventive care is one of the best tools that both patients and their health care providers have to head off major health problems. This care includes screenings like cholesterol and blood pressure checks, mammograms, PAP smears and prostate exams, as well as routine vaccinations. But most people only get preventive care when they stay engaged with the health care system.
And that's far more likely when you have stable and comprehensive health insurance coverage.
Our research team also examined what happened to preventive care based on whether the participants had a regular doctor. We found that those who kept seeing the same providers were almost three times more likely to get basic preventive services than those who did not.
Over time, these missed preventive care opportunities can add up to a big problem. They can turn what could have been a manageable issue into an emergency room visit or a long, expensive hospital stay.
For example, imagine a man in his 50s who no longer gets cholesterol screenings after losing insurance coverage. Over several years, his undiagnosed high cholesterol leads to a heart attack that could have been prevented with early medication. Or a woman who skips mammograms because of out-of-pocket costs, only to face a late-stage cancer diagnosis that might have been caught years earlier.
Patients whose conditions take too long to be diagnosed aren't the only ones who pay the price.
We also studied how stable care relationships affect health care spending. To do this, we linked Medicare claims cost data to our original study and tracked the medical costs of the same adults age 50 and older from 2014 to 2020. One of our key findings is that people with regular care providers were 38% less likely to incur above-average health care costs.
These savings aren't just for patients – they ripple through the entire health care system. Primary care stability lowers costs for both public and private health insurers and, ultimately, for taxpayers.
But when people lose their health care coverage, those savings disappear.
Emergency rooms see more uninsured patients seeking care that could have been handled earlier and more cheaply in a clinic or doctor's office. While hospitals are legally required to provide emergency care regardless of a patient's ability to pay, much of the resulting cost goes unreimbursed.
Hospitals foot the bill for about two-thirds of those losses. They pass the other third along to private insurance companies through higher hospital fees. Those insurers, in turn, raise their customers' premiums. Larger taxpayer subsidies can then be required to keep hospitals open.
For the nearly 80 million Americans enrolled in Medicaid, the program provides more than coverage.
It contributes to the health care stability our research shows is critical for good health. Medicaid makes it possible for many Americans with serious medical conditions to have a regular doctor, get routine preventive services and have someone to turn to when symptoms arise – even when they have low incomes. It helps prevent health care from becoming purely crisis-driven.
As Congress considers cutting Medicaid funding by hundreds of billions of dollars, we believe that lawmakers should realize that scaling back coverage would break the fragile links between millions of patients and the providers who know them best.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Jane Tavares, UMass Boston and Marc Cohen, UMass Boston
Read more:
Why do cuts to Medicaid matter for Americans over 65? 2 experts on aging explain why lives are at stake
LGBTQ+ patients stay up-to-date on preventive care when their doctors are supportive, saving money and lives throughout society
A brief history of Medicaid and America's long struggle to establish a health care safety net
Jane Tavares receives funding from from the SCAN Foundation, the RRF Foundation for Aging, and Milbank Memorial Fund .
Marc Cohen receives funding from the SCAN Foundation, the RRF Foundation for Aging and Milbank Memorial Fund .

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
FDA to offer faster drug reviews to companies promoting ‘national priorities'
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. regulators will begin offering faster reviews to new medicines that administration officials deem as promoting 'the health interests of Americans,' under a new initiative announced Tuesday. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency will aim to review select drugs in one to two months. FDA's long-standing accelerated approval program generally issues decisions in six months for drugs that treat life-threatening diseases. Regular drug reviews take about 10 months. Since arriving at the FDA in April, Makary has repeatedly told FDA staff they need to 'challenge assumptions' and rethink procedures. In a medical journal commentary published last week, Makary suggested the agency could conduct 'rapid or instant reviews,' pointing to the truncated process used to authorize the first COVID-19 vaccines under Operation Warp Speed. For the new program, the FDA will issue a limited number of 'national priority vouchers' to companies 'aligned with U.S. national priorities,' the agency said in a statement. The special designation will give the selected companies access to extra FDA communications, streamlined staff reviews and the ability to submit much of their product information in advance. Speeding up drug approvals has long been a priority of the pharmaceutical industry, which has successfully lobbied Congress to create a variety of special programs and pathways for faster reviews. Many aspects of the plan announced Tuesday overlap with older programs. But the broad criteria for receiving a voucher will give FDA officials unprecedented discretion in deciding which companies can benefit from the fastest reviews. 'The ultimate goal is to bring more cures and meaningful treatments to the American public,' Makary said in a statement. Makary previously said the FDA should be willing to ease its scientific requirements for certain drugs, for instance, by not always requiring randomized studies in which patients are tracked over time to track safety and effectiveness. Such trials are generally considered the gold standard of medical research, though the FDA has increasingly been willing to accept smaller, less-definitive studies for rare or life-threatening diseases. In several recent cases, the FDA has faced criticism for approving drugs based on preliminary data that didn't ultimately show benefits for patients. The push to rapidly accelerated drug approvals is the opposite approach that Makary and his boss, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have taken on vaccines. Promising a 'return to gold-standard science,' Kennedy previously announced that all new vaccines would have to be compared to placebo, or a dummy shot, to win approval. Kennedy and Makary also have announced a stricter policy on seasonal updates to COVID-19 shots, saying they will have to undergo new testing before they can be approved for use in healthy children and most adults. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


Politico
24 minutes ago
- Politico
Study: Medicaid cuts would take a toll
Presented by WASHINGTON WATCH The changes to Medicaid that the House passed last month and the Senate is now considering could lead to between 8,000 and nearly 25,000 preventable deaths, according to a new study published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The changes, which are part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, include work requirements for most adults to qualify for Medicaid coverage and criteria under which states could lose a part of their federal payments if they offer coverage to undocumented people. How so: Researchers at Harvard Medical School and the City University of New York's Hunter College calculated the health harms that would affect an estimated more than 7 million people who, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would lose their Medicaid coverage. The death estimates are based on peer-reviewed analyses of the effects of previous Medicaid reforms, such as a Massachusetts health care reform and an analysis of Medicaid expansion in three states before the Affordable Care Act took effect. Why it matters: 'Implementing the current House bill would lead to 1.9 million people losing their personal physician, 1.3 million forgoing needed medications, and [380,270] women going without a mammogram,' the researchers wrote. More than 1 million people would incur medical debt, and about a quarter-million people would be refused treatment because of such debts, they add. Researchers note that their projections should be seen as approximations since they're based on CBO estimates of coverage loss that might be off the mark and on extrapolation from studies that assessed policy changes similar but not identical to those in the House bill. What's next: On Monday, Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) unveiled the Senate's portion of the bill the House passed in May. The draft Senate version could make it harder for states that expanded Medicaid to use financial loopholes to get higher Medicaid payments, POLITICO's Robert King reports. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. Loneliness among older adults isn't associated with an increased risk of death, says a new study from the University of Waterloo's School of Public Health Science in Canada, contradicting the former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy's assertion — and others' — about the link. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Danny Nguyen at dnguyen@ Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: Dannyn516.70, CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. WORLD VIEW European Union member countries neighboring Russia and Belarus are preparing their hospitals for war. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are among the nations revisiting crisis-response protocols for health-care facilities, organizing training exercises, investing in ballistic helmets and vests and shifting operating theaters underground, POLITICO's Giedre Peseckyte reports. Why it matters: Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago, the threat of military conflict has loomed large for those countries that were once part of the USSR or of Russia's sphere of influence and are now EU and NATO members. 'It's not a question of if [Russia] will attack,' said Ragnar Vaiknemets, deputy director general of the Estonian Health Board, which oversees preparedness for crises from pandemics to war. 'It's a question about when.' While an attack on a NATO country should, in theory, trigger a response from the military alliance, including the United States, the Eastern-front countries see war readiness as urgent. How so: Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Clinics in Lithuania, which is about 30 miles from the border with Belarus — a country ruled by a dictator aligned with Russian President Vladimir Putin is developing underground infrastructure, shelters, helicopter landing sites and autonomous systems that would allow it to function even if electricity or water supplies were cut off. Along with supplying body armor for ambulance crews, Estonia would distribute satellite phones to maintain communications if traditional networks fail. Electrical generators are being installed across the country's health care system, following Ukraine's experience with Russian strikes that routinely cut off civilian power. And there are plans to establish an independent internet network, if needed. The small Baltic country is also procuring mobile medical units — pop-up treatment facilities deployable in emergencies — which should help address the currently limited critical-care capacity in Europe. Estonia has also allocated nearly $29 million for mass casualty supplies, including orthopedic gear, tourniquets and trauma kits. The stockpiles would ensure that hospitals can operate until supplies from allies reach them, Vaiknemets said, adding that NATO is crucial to securing supply routes. In Latvia, the Covid-19-era demand that health care facilities maintain a three-month supply of medicines comes in handy for war preparations. 'I have never thought that I would say thanks to Covid, but thanks to Covid … we found financial resources,' said Agnese Vaļuliene, health ministry state secretary.


Hamilton Spectator
43 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
FDA to offer faster drug reviews to companies promoting ‘national priorities'
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. regulators will begin offering faster reviews to new medicines that administration officials deem as promoting 'the health interests of Americans,' under a new initiative announced Tuesday. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency will aim to review select drugs in one to two months. FDA's long-standing accelerated approval program generally issues decisions in six months for drugs that treat life-threatening diseases . Regular drug reviews take about 10 months. Since arriving at the FDA in April, Makary has repeatedly told FDA staff they need to 'challenge assumptions' and rethink procedures. In a medical journal commentary published last week, Makary suggested the agency could conduct 'rapid or instant reviews,' pointing to the truncated process used to authorize the first COVID-19 vaccines under Operation Warp Speed. For the new program, the FDA will issue a limited number of 'national priority vouchers' to companies 'aligned with U.S. national priorities,' the agency said in a statement. The special designation will give the selected companies access to extra FDA communications, streamlined staff reviews and the ability to submit much of their product information in advance. Speeding up drug approvals has long been a priority of the pharmaceutical industry, which has successfully lobbied Congress to create a variety of special programs and pathways for faster reviews. Many aspects of the plan announced Tuesday overlap with older programs. But the broad criteria for receiving a voucher will give FDA officials unprecedented discretion in deciding which companies can benefit from the fastest reviews. 'The ultimate goal is to bring more cures and meaningful treatments to the American public,' Makary said in a statement. Makary previously said the FDA should be willing to ease its scientific requirements for certain drugs, for instance, by not always requiring randomized studies in which patients are tracked over time to track safety and effectiveness. Such trials are generally considered the gold standard of medical research, though the FDA has increasingly been willing to accept smaller, less-definitive studies for rare or life-threatening diseases . In several recent cases , the FDA has faced criticism for approving drugs based on preliminary data that didn't ultimately show benefits for patients. The push to rapidly accelerated drug approvals is the opposite approach that Makary and his boss, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. , have taken on vaccines. Promising a 'return to gold-standard science,' Kennedy previously announced that all new vaccines would have to be compared to placebo, or a dummy shot, to win approval. Kennedy and Makary also have announced a stricter policy on seasonal updates to COVID-19 shots, saying they will have to undergo new testing before they can be approved for use in healthy children and most adults. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.