It starts the way so many American health care stories start now: with a calendar.¹
Not a diagnosis. Not a lab result. A date circled in red, six months out, when the insurance plan renews and the math might finally stop working. Until then, you ration refills, postpone scans, and make a quiet inventory of what you can afford to ignore. People don’t talk about this part much—the way time itself becomes a cost center—but it’s everywhere if you listen closely enough.²
By 2028, the United States will face a choice it has postponed for half a century. We can keep pretending our system is merely inefficient, or we can admit what it actually is: a structurally inverted machine that maximizes extraction at the expense of care. Fixing it won’t require a miracle. It will require discipline, sequencing, and a willingness to stop subsidizing failure.³
The good news—rare in this domain—is that we already know how to build best-in-world health care. The evidence is sitting in plain sight, across borders and within our own system. The problem has never been design. It’s been power.⁴
The first rule of repair is to stop confusing health care with insurance.
America does not have a health care system so much as a payment labyrinth that happens to include hospitals. We spend nearly twice as much per capita as other wealthy nations and get less life expectancy, worse chronic disease control, and higher maternal mortality in return.⁵ That gap is not clinical. It is administrative and political.⁶
A serious post-2028 plan starts by collapsing the number of payers—not to one overnight, but to a disciplined, standardized core. The fastest path is not a sudden leap to single payer, which would trigger institutional panic and endless litigation. It is a public option that is boring, universal, and impossible to opt out of over time.⁷
Medicare already exists. It works. It is popular. The trick is to expand it downward and outward—first to everyone over 55, then to children, then to anyone who wants in—while simultaneously standardizing reimbursement rules across private plans. The goal is not to outlaw private insurance. It is to make it redundant.⁸
This matters because cost control does not come from price caps alone. It comes from simplicity. Every hospital administrator in America can tell you how many staff hours are burned reconciling billing codes across dozens of insurers. Eliminate that friction, and you free billions before touching a scalpel.⁹
But coverage is only the chassis. The engine is primary care—and this is where the American system quietly collapses.
We have built a country where it is easier to see a specialist than a generalist, easier to get a procedure than a conversation. That is not an accident. It is a reimbursement choice.¹⁰ If you want best-in-world outcomes, you pay for continuity, not heroics.¹¹
The post-2028 plan must do something radical by American standards and utterly mundane elsewhere: guarantee every person a primary care clinician with a capped panel size and a salaried model. No fee-for-service hamster wheel. No incentive to rush. Just time, accountability, and prevention.¹²
Countries that do this—quietly, relentlessly—catch disease earlier, spend less on catastrophic interventions, and trust their systems more. We know this because we can measure it.¹³ The resistance is not empirical. It is cultural and financial.
Which brings us to drugs—the most visible, obscene failure in the American model.
The United States subsidizes global pharmaceutical innovation and then pretends this is an act of generosity rather than leverage. We pay the highest prices in the world for medications whose research we often helped fund, then forbid our own government from negotiating aggressively on our behalf.¹⁴ This is not market capitalism. It is self-imposed extortion.¹⁵
A best-in-world system after 2028 would do three things simultaneously. It would expand federal price negotiation to all high-volume drugs. It would enforce international reference pricing. And it would break the patent abuse pipeline that allows minor reformulations to reset monopolies indefinitely.¹⁶
None of this requires new science. It requires spine.
The same applies to hospitals.
The quiet secret of American health care costs is that they are driven less by wages or technology than by consolidation. Over the past two decades, hospital systems have swallowed competitors, negotiated higher prices, and justified it all in the language of “efficiency.” The result has been fewer choices, higher bills, and no measurable improvement in outcomes.¹⁷
A serious reform agenda uses antitrust law as health policy. It blocks further consolidation. It forces price transparency that actually means something. And it ties nonprofit hospital status to measurable community benefit, not branding exercises.¹⁸
If a hospital receives tax exemptions, it should prove—annually—that it is reducing uncompensated care, expanding access, and improving outcomes in its service area. Otherwise, it pays taxes like everyone else.¹⁹
Then there is the workforce.
America does not have a doctor shortage so much as a maldistribution crisis wrapped in educational debt.²⁰ We train clinicians at enormous cost, then funnel them into subspecialties and urban centers because that is where survival is financially possible.²¹
Fixing this is not complicated. It requires tuition-free medical and nursing education tied to service commitments, expanded scope-of-practice for non-physician clinicians, and immigration policies that welcome trained health workers rather than wasting their skills.²²
Other countries treat health workforce planning as infrastructure. We treat it as an accident. That alone explains much of the gap.²³
Technology, meanwhile, needs to be demoted from savior to tool.
Electronic records should talk to each other. Data should follow patients. AI should reduce clerical burden, not generate new billing games. The measure of success is not innovation theater but minutes returned to care.²⁴
And yes, this all costs money—just less than what we already spend badly.²⁵
The political mistake reformers make is arguing that better health care requires higher spending. The truth is harsher and more persuasive: we are already paying for a Rolls-Royce system and driving it into a ditch.²⁶ The task is to reallocate, not explode the budget.
The sequencing matters. Coverage expansion first. Cost controls embedded early. Workforce reform alongside reimbursement change. Drug pricing in parallel. Antitrust throughout.²⁷ Do this in pieces, transparently, with pilots and metrics, and the panic subsides.
What cannot happen—what has failed every time—is half-reform. Tweaks that preserve the extraction model while promising relief later.²⁸ That path leads exactly where we are now.
The moral argument, finally, is not abstract.
A system that ties survival to employment, geography, and luck is not merely inefficient. It is corrosive. It teaches people to delay care, to hide illness, to fear time. It turns health into a private gamble and then acts surprised when the house wins.²⁹
Best-in-world health care after 2028 is not a fantasy. It is a decision. Other countries made it decades ago. We have simply been negotiating with the wrong stakeholders.³⁰
If the next administration wants a legacy that actually lasts, it will stop asking whether America can afford universal, affordable care—and start asking why we tolerate anything less.³¹
⸻
Biibliography
1. Institute of Medicine. Hidden Costs, Value Lost: Uninsurance in America. National Academies Press, 2003. Foundational analysis of how delayed care and insurance gaps create cascading health and financial harm.
2. Kaiser Family Foundation. “Americans’ Challenges with Health Care Costs.” KFF, 2023. Survey data documenting widespread care deferral due to cost and insurance instability.
3. Woolhandler, Steffie, and David U. Himmelstein. “Administrative Waste in the U.S. Health Care System.” Annals of Internal Medicine 172, no. 2 (2020). Estimates the scale and structure of nonclinical waste.
4. Commonwealth Fund. Mirror, Mirror 2021. Comparative performance analysis of health systems across high-income countries.
5. OECD. Health at a Glance 2023. International comparisons of health spending, outcomes, and access.
6. Berwick, Donald M., Thomas W. Nolan, and John Whittington. “The Triple Aim.” Health Affairs 27, no. 3 (2008). Framework linking system design to outcomes and cost.
7. Oberlander, Jonathan. The Political Life of Medicare. University of Chicago Press, 2003. History of Medicare’s expansion and political durability.
8. Blahous, Charles. Medicare for All: Issues and Challenges. Mercatus Center, 2018. Analysis of expansion pathways and fiscal mechanics.
9. Tseng, Phillip et al. “Administrative Costs in U.S. Health Care.” Health Affairs 37, no. 11 (2018). Detailed breakdown of billing and insurance overhead.
10. Bodenheimer, Thomas, and Christine Sinsky. “From Triple Aim to Quadruple Aim.” Annals of Family Medicine 12, no. 6 (2014). Demonstrates how primary care structure affects outcomes and clinician burnout.
11. Starfield, Barbara. “Primary Care and Health.” Milbank Quarterly 83, no. 3 (2005). Landmark evidence linking primary care to population health.
12. OECD. Strengthening Primary Care Systems. OECD Publishing, 2020. Comparative policy analysis of salaried and panel-based care models.
13. Commonwealth Fund. “Primary Care Spending and Outcomes.” 2019. Empirical links between investment in primary care and system performance.
14. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Drug Pricing: Federal Investment in Drug Development. GAO-21-282, 2021. Documents public funding role in pharmaceutical R&D.
15. Kesselheim, Aaron S., et al. “The High Cost of Prescription Drugs in the United States.” JAMA 316, no. 8 (2016). Analysis of pricing mechanisms and patent abuse.
16. Congressional Budget Office. Options for Reducing the Deficit: Drug Pricing. 2022. Policy levers for negotiation and reference pricing.
17. Gaynor, Martin, Kate Ho, and Robert J. Town. “The Industrial Organization of Health Care Markets.” Journal of Economic Literature 53, no. 2 (2015). Evidence on consolidation and pricing power.
18. Federal Trade Commission. Policy Perspectives on Competition and Health Care. 2020. Antitrust frameworks applied to health systems.
19. Internal Revenue Service. Community Benefit Standard for Hospitals. IRS guidance and enforcement history.
20. Association of American Medical Colleges. The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand. 2023. Workforce distribution analysis.
21. Salsberg, Edward, et al. “U.S. Physician Workforce.” Health Affairs 40, no. 2 (2021). Examines debt, specialty choice, and geographic imbalance.
22. National Academies of Sciences. The Future of Nursing 2020–2030. NASEM, 2021. Scope-of-practice and workforce reform recommendations.
23. OECD. Health Workforce Policies in OECD Countries. 2016. Comparative planning strategies.
24. Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT. Reducing Clinician Burden. HHS, 2020. Documentation of EHR-related inefficiencies.
25. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National Health Expenditure Accounts. CMS, 2023. Spending trends and allocation data.
26. Emanuel, Ezekiel J. Which Country Has the World’s Best Health Care? PublicAffairs, 2020. Comparative cost-performance critique.
27. Brookings Institution. Sequencing Health Reform. 2019. Analysis of phased reform strategies.
28. Hacker, Jacob S. The Divided Welfare State. Cambridge University Press, 2002. Explains partial reform failure dynamics.
29. Case, Anne, and Angus Deaton. Deaths of Despair. Princeton University Press, 2020. Links systemic stressors to mortality.
30. World Health Organization. Health Systems Governance. WHO, 2014. Institutional design principles for resilient systems.
31. Blendon, Robert J., et al. “Public Opinion and Health Reform.” New England Journal of Medicine 367 (2012). Evidence that durable reform aligns with public trust.