July 22, 2025
Even with health insurance, a single major illness can lead to financial ruin for a middle-class family. What realistic models or systemic changes would best protect us from unaffordable healthcare costs?
Beyond Coverage: Architecting a U.S. Healthcare System for Financial Security
The Anatomy of Financial Ruin: How Insured Americans Accumulate Medical Debt
The prevailing assumption that health insurance serves as a reliable shield against financial hardship has been systematically dismantled by the modern realities of the American healthcare system. For a growing number of middle-class families, possessing an insurance card is no longer a guarantee of security; instead, it is often the prelude to a complex and costly battle with medical debt. Despite over 90% of the United States population holding some form of health coverage, medical debt remains a pervasive and persistent crisis.¹ This section deconstructs the paradox of how insured individuals accumulate crippling debt, moving beyond the simple binary of “covered” versus “uncovered” to reveal the structural deficiencies in insurance design, the systemic traps that ensnare unsuspecting patients, and the unique economic pressures that place the middle class at the epicenter of this crisis.
The Underinsurance Crisis: Defining the Gap Between Having a Policy and Having Protection
The core of the affordability crisis lies not only with the 27.1 million individuals who lack any insurance coverage but also with a vast and expanding population of the “underinsured”.² Underinsurance describes a state in which an individual has a health policy for the entire year but still faces such high deductibles and out-of-pocket medical expenses relative to their income that their coverage fails to provide affordable access to care.³ In 2024, an estimated 23% of U.S. adults—nearly one in four—fell into this category.⁴
This gap between nominal coverage and functional protection is a primary driver of medical debt and care avoidance. The cost of coverage itself, through monthly premiums, places a significant strain on household budgets even before a doctor is consulted.⁵ For those with employer-sponsored insurance, the combined cost of premium contributions and potential deductible spending has been growing faster than median income for over a decade, consuming an ever-larger share of family budgets.⁶ This pre-existing financial pressure means that when a medical need arises, families are already on precarious footing. Consequently, a substantial portion of the population, including those with insurance, reports forgoing or delaying needed medical care due to cost concerns.⁷ Nearly three in five underinsured adults report avoiding necessary healthcare because of its cost, a rate approaching that of the uninsured.⁴ This phenomenon transforms underinsurance from a mere policy classification into a significant public health issue, creating a vicious cycle where delayed care for manageable conditions can evolve into more severe and costly emergencies down the line.
The Mechanics of Cost-Sharing: Deductibles, Coinsurance, and the Flawed Promise of Out-of-Pocket Maximums
For insured individuals who do seek care, the architecture of modern health plans is replete with mechanisms that transfer substantial financial risk onto the patient. The single leading contributor to medical debt among the insured is not exotic, uncovered treatments, but rather standard cost-sharing for covered services received from in-network providers.⁸ The proliferation of High-Deductible Health Plans (HDHPs)—defined as plans with deductibles of at least $1,000 for an individual and $2,000 for a family—is a central feature of this trend.⁹ While these plans offer lower monthly premiums, they shift a large portion of the initial financial burden to consumers, who may not fully grasp the trade-off until a significant medical event occurs.⁵ Data confirms that individuals in higher-deductible plans are significantly more likely to have difficulty paying medical bills than those in lower-deductible plans (34% vs. 24%).⁸
The scale of this cost-sharing can be devastating. For many middle-class families, even a single major medical event like a surgery can rapidly deplete their liquid cash assets.⁸ In 2013, 43% of workers had annual out-of-pocket (OOP) maximums exceeding $3,000, a figure that can overwhelm a household with median liquid assets of just $12,000, even for those with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level.⁸ The burden is particularly acute for individuals with chronic conditions such as cancer or diabetes. For these patients, cost-sharing is not a one-time event but a recurring annual expense. While they may manage the bills for a time, the financial burdens compound year after year, eventually becoming unsustainable.¹
Furthermore, the perceived safety net of the annual OOP maximum is often illusory due to “cost-sharing multipliers” embedded in plan designs. These multipliers can dramatically increase a family’s financial exposure beyond what they might reasonably anticipate from reading their policy documents. A critical vulnerability is chronological: a single episode of care, such as a surgery in December with complications in January, can force a patient to meet their full deductible and OOP maximum in two consecutive plan years, effectively doubling their liability for one illness.⁸ Another multiplier affects families, as many plans apply separate deductibles to each family member. If more than one person in a family experiences a significant health issue in a year, the total out-of-pocket expenditure can be double or triple the individual limit.⁸ This reveals a fundamental flaw in how financial risk is communicated and managed within the system; planning based on a single year’s OOP limit is dangerously inadequate, as the true financial risk is a function of the duration and timing of an illness relative to the arbitrary one-year cycle of insurance plans.
Systemic Traps: Surprise Billing, Non-Covered Services, and Narrow Network Gaps
Beyond the planned cost-sharing of deductibles and copayments, the U.S. healthcare system contains structural traps that can generate unexpected and catastrophic bills. One of the most notorious has been “surprise billing,” which occurs when a patient receives care at an in-network facility but is unknowingly treated by an out-of-network provider, such as an anesthesiologist, radiologist, or emergency room physician.⁸ In these situations, the out-of-network provider could historically “balance bill” the patient for the difference between their full charge and the amount the insurance plan was willing to pay—a sum that could amount to thousands of dollars.¹¹
The federal No Surprises Act (NSA), which took effect in 2022, was a landmark piece of legislation designed to address this problem.¹³ The law provides robust consumer protections against surprise bills for most emergency services and for out-of-network care delivered at in-network facilities. Under the NSA, patients are only responsible for their standard in-network cost-sharing (deductible, copay, coinsurance) in these situations.¹¹ However, the law’s protections are not absolute. The NSA does not apply to non-emergency services provided at an out-of-network facility, nor does it cover ground ambulance services. Crucially, in certain non-emergency situations, out-of-network providers at in-network facilities can still ask patients to sign a consent form to waive their surprise billing protections, a choice that could leave a patient financially vulnerable if they feel compelled to see a specific provider.¹¹
A separate but equally perilous trap is the issue of “non-covered services.” Health insurance policies are not all-encompassing; they contain explicit exclusions for certain categories of care. These often include services like cosmetic surgery, most dental procedures (fillings, extractions), hearing aids, and routine foot care.¹⁴ More ambiguously, payers can also deny claims for services they deem not “medically reasonable and necessary”.¹⁴ This can include denying coverage for a hospital stay if the insurer determines the care could have been provided in a lower-cost setting, or refusing to pay for diagnostic tests or therapies deemed excessive or unrelated to a patient’s primary diagnosis.¹⁴ When a service is deemed non-covered, the financial responsibility falls entirely on the patient, who may not be aware of the coverage denial until after the service has been rendered and the bill arrives.
The Middle-Class Squeeze: A Unique Vulnerability
The cumulative effect of high cost-sharing, systemic traps, and rising premiums creates a unique and acute financial squeeze on middle-class families. Counterintuitively, data reveals that the middle class often experiences the highest rate of medical debt. In 2020, nearly 17 million middle-class individuals (23.5%) held medical debt, a rate higher than the 22% observed among lower-income individuals.¹⁷ This phenomenon exposes a critical paradox: the very demographic most likely to be insured through the workplace is also the most vulnerable to the financial toxicity of that insurance.
The explanation for this paradox lies in the structure of the U.S. social safety net and the distribution of wealth. Lower-income families, while facing immense financial challenges, are more likely to qualify for Medicaid, which typically has minimal or no cost-sharing, or for significant premium and cost-sharing subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.¹⁷ Higher-income families, conversely, are more likely to possess the disposable income and liquid assets necessary to absorb thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs without facing financial ruin.¹⁷
The middle class is caught in a precarious middle ground. They often earn too much to qualify for substantial government assistance but lack the financial cushion to comfortably handle the high cost-sharing common in employer-sponsored plans.¹⁷ For over a decade, the growth in health insurance costs—both premium contributions and deductibles—has outpaced the growth in median household income.⁶ In 2018, the combined cost of premiums and potential deductible spending for a middle-income family reached 11.5% of their income, a significant increase from just seven states a decade prior where this figure exceeded 10%.⁶ This relentless erosion of disposable income means that when a major illness strikes, these families have little to no buffer. Their insurance, which they have diligently paid for, proves to be a porous shield, exposing them to costs that can lead directly to depleted savings, credit card debt, and, in the worst cases, bankruptcy. The insurance held by the middle class thus functions less as a comprehensive shield and more as a high-stakes gamble, creating a unique and systemic vulnerability trap.
Global Perspectives on Financial Protection in Healthcare
The challenges of healthcare affordability and financial protection are not unique to the United States, but the approaches taken by other high-income nations offer a stark contrast. By examining the architecture of established universal healthcare systems, it is possible to identify a range of policy levers, governing philosophies, and inherent trade-offs that shape how societies protect their citizens from catastrophic health costs. This analysis moves beyond simplistic labels to explore the functional mechanics of four distinct models: Canada’s single-payer system, the United Kingdom’s socialized National Health Service, Germany’s social insurance model, and Switzerland’s system of managed competition. The goal is not to identify a single model for direct importation but to understand the spectrum of possibilities and the lessons they hold for U.S. reform efforts.
The Single-Payer Model: Canada’s Medicare System
Canada’s universal health insurance program, known as Medicare, operates as a single-payer system. It is not a single national plan but a decentralized network of ten provincial and three territorial health insurance plans, all adhering to national standards set by the Canada Health Act.¹⁸ The government, funded through general taxation, acts as the “single payer” for all services deemed “medically necessary,” which primarily include hospital and physician care.²⁰ A core principle of this model is the elimination of financial barriers at the point of service; for covered care, there are no deductibles, copayments, or other forms of patient cost-sharing.¹⁹
However, the comprehensiveness of Canadian Medicare is a critical point of nuance. The Canada Health Act does not mandate coverage for services delivered outside of a hospital setting, most notably prescription drugs, dental care, and vision care.¹⁸ This has created significant coverage gaps, leading to the development of a robust private insurance market to fill them. Approximately two-thirds of Canadians hold supplemental private insurance policies, typically obtained through their employers, to cover these essential but publicly uninsured services.²¹ This reveals that even within a classic single-payer framework, the private insurance industry is not eliminated but rather repurposed from a primary to a supplemental role.
The primary trade-off associated with the Canadian model is access, specifically wait times for non-emergency procedures and specialist consultations. Multiple studies have documented that Canadians are more likely to experience long waits for elective surgery compared to residents of other developed nations.²⁰ In 2022, the average wait time from a referral by a general practitioner to receiving specialist treatment was 27.4 weeks.²¹ This highlights a fundamental policy choice: the Canadian system prioritizes eliminating direct financial barriers for core medical services, but manages demand and cost, in part, through queuing and capacity constraints.
The National Health Service (NHS) Model: The UK’s Approach
The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) represents a socialized model of healthcare. Established in 1948 on the principles that care should be comprehensive, universal, and free at the point of delivery, the NHS is a system in which the government not only finances care but also directly owns and operates the majority of healthcare facilities and employs a vast workforce of clinicians.²³ Funded primarily through general taxation, the NHS provides a wide range of services—including GP visits, hospital care, mental health services, and emergency treatment—at no cost to legal residents.²³ There are no copays or deductibles for these core services.
Similar to Canada, the NHS model does incorporate some patient cost-sharing for specific services, though with numerous exemptions. In England, patients pay a flat fee per prescription item (services are free in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland), and there are subsidized charges for dental and optical services.²³ The 2024 Commonwealth Fund report lauded the UK’s system as the top performer for affordability among ten high-income nations, a direct result of its minimal reliance on out-of-pocket payments.²⁶ A parallel private healthcare market exists, which individuals can use to bypass NHS wait times or access services with more amenities, but it serves a relatively small portion of the population for core medical needs.²³
The principal challenge facing the NHS, much like the Canadian system, is access and timeliness of care. Long wait times for specialist referrals and elective surgeries are a persistent issue, exacerbated in recent years by funding pressures and workforce shortages.²³ Reports indicate that thousands of patients have waited over 18 months for specialist referrals, and a significant percentage of cancer patients do not begin treatment within the target two-month window.²³ This positions the NHS as a system that provides exceptional financial protection but struggles with capacity constraints that can delay non-urgent care.
The Social Insurance Model: Germany’s Statutory Health Insurance (SHI)
Germany’s healthcare system is a multi-payer model built on a foundation of mandatory social insurance and the principle of solidarity. Approximately 90% of the population is covered by Statutory Health Insurance (SHI), administered through a network of competing, non-profit “sickness funds”.²⁸ This coverage is financed through joint contributions from employers and employees, which are pooled into a central Health Fund.²⁸ The system operates on a “principle of benefits in kind,” meaning insured individuals receive medical care without needing to make large up-front payments.²⁸
While patient cost-sharing exists, it is strictly regulated to ensure financial protection. Patients pay small, fixed copayments for prescription drugs and for each day of a hospital stay. Crucially, total annual out-of-pocket spending is capped at 2% of a household’s gross income, or just 1% for individuals with chronic illnesses.²⁶ This cap provides a robust safety net against catastrophic costs, a feature that distinguishes it from the high-deductible plans common in the U.S. A smaller segment of the population—primarily high-income earners and the self-employed—can opt out of the SHI system and purchase private health insurance, which may offer broader amenities and, in some cases, faster access to specialists due to higher provider reimbursement rates.²⁹
The German system generally offers excellent and timely access to care, with minimal wait times for most appointments and procedures.³¹ However, the dual structure of statutory and private insurance has created a subtle two-tiered system of access. Studies have shown that privately insured patients often receive appointments with specialists more quickly than SHI patients, a direct result of the financial incentive created by higher private reimbursement rates.²⁹ Despite this, the overall system is recognized for its high quality and strong financial protections, occupying a middle ground that balances patient cost responsibility with a firm cap on financial risk.
The Managed Competition Model: Switzerland’s Mandate-and-Subsidize System
Switzerland achieves universal coverage through a unique model of managed competition. The system is built upon a federal mandate requiring every resident to purchase a basic health insurance policy from a selection of private, non-profit insurance companies.³³ The government’s role is not to provide insurance directly but to heavily regulate the market, define the mandatory benefits package, and provide income-based subsidies to help lower- and middle-income households afford the monthly premiums.³³
A defining feature of the Swiss system is its significant reliance on patient cost-sharing. In addition to community-rated premiums, every insured individual is subject to a mandatory annual deductible (which they can choose from a range of options, with higher deductibles corresponding to lower premiums) and a coinsurance payment (typically 10%) on costs incurred after the deductible is met, up to an annual cap.³³ As a result, out-of-pocket payments in Switzerland are exceptionally high compared to other European nations, accounting for 23% to 26% of total health expenditure.³³
The trade-off for this high patient cost burden is unparalleled access and choice. The Swiss healthcare system is renowned for having virtually no wait times for specialist appointments or elective procedures.²² Patients enjoy a high degree of freedom in choosing their doctors and hospitals, and overall quality of care and patient satisfaction are rated as excellent.³⁴ However, the system is also one of the most expensive in the world, and the substantial out-of-pocket requirements can create significant financial barriers to care, particularly for those who do not qualify for substantial subsidies.³³ This model illustrates a different philosophical approach: prioritizing rapid access and consumer choice while placing a greater degree of financial responsibility on the individual, mitigated by targeted government support.
These international examples reveal that “universal coverage” is not a monolithic concept but a spectrum of policy choices. Systems like the UK’s NHS and Canada’s Medicare prioritize first-dollar coverage for core services, accepting potential wait times as a trade-off. In contrast, Switzerland prioritizes rapid access and choice, accepting high patient cost-sharing as its trade-off. Germany occupies a middle ground, using strictly capped copayments to balance access with some patient financial responsibility. This spectrum highlights a fundamental policy tension often obscured in the U.S. debate: the choice is not simply between universal and non-universal systems, but about how a system allocates costs and manages demand. The U.S. system is an outlier in that it often combines the negative aspects of multiple models—high cost-sharing, administrative complexity, and access issues—without the comprehensive financial protections that are the hallmark of its international peers.
| Metric | United States | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | Switzerland |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| System Type | Multi-payer, private-dominant | Single-payer, provincially run | National Health Service (Socialized) | Social Insurance (Statutory Sickness Funds) | Managed Competition (Mandated Private) |
| Funding Mechanism | Employer/employee premiums, taxes (Medicare/Medicaid), OOP | General Taxation (federal & provincial) | General Taxation | Employer & employee payroll contributions | Mandated individual premiums, subsidies, taxes |
| Avg. OOP Spending (% of total health expenditure) | 11% ³⁶ | 15% ²⁶ | 16% ²⁶ | 13% ²⁶ | 23% ³³ |
| Typical Patient Cost-Sharing | High deductibles, coinsurance, copays | None for core services; OOP for drugs, dental | None for core services; copays for drugs, dental | Capped copays (2% of income) | High mandatory deductibles & coinsurance |
| Wait Times (Median, Specialist) | Varies; low if insured/can pay | Long (e.g., 27.4 weeks) ²¹ | Long, variable by region ²³ | Short ³¹ | Virtually none ²² |
| Commonwealth Fund Overall Ranking (2024) | 10th of 10 ²⁶ | 7th of 10 ²⁶ | 3rd of 10 ²⁶ | 9th of 10 ²⁶ | 8th of 10 ²⁶ |
| Key Quality Indicator (Avoidable Mortality per 100,000) | 102 (Preventable), 82 (Treatable) ²⁷ | 250 (Preventable), 162 (Treatable) ²⁷ | 261 (Preventable), 185 (Treatable) ²⁷ | 264 (Preventable), 211 (Treatable) ²⁷ | 197 (Preventable), 158 (Treatable) ²⁷ |
A Blueprint for Reform: Evaluating Systemic Changes for the U.S.
Drawing lessons from the domestic crisis of underinsurance and the varied approaches of international systems, the path toward greater financial security in the United States requires an evaluation of concrete, systemic reform proposals. These proposals exist on a spectrum, from reinforcing the existing private insurance framework to introducing government-led competition and market-wide price regulation. This section analyzes four distinct models for reform, assessing the mechanism, economic impact, and potential of each to protect middle-class families from unaffordable healthcare costs.
Model 1: Reinforcing the Current System
This approach seeks to preserve the fundamental structure of the U.S. multi-payer system while strengthening its weakest points through targeted regulation and enhanced government purchasing power.
Strengthening Cost-Sharing Protections: The Economic Impact of Stricter Out-of-Pocket Caps
A primary cause of medical debt for the insured is exposure to catastrophic out-of-pocket costs. A direct policy response is to implement stricter, more comprehensive caps on annual patient spending. A key area for this reform is Traditional Medicare, which, unlike most commercial plans and all Medicare Advantage plans, has no annual limit on out-of-pocket spending for Parts A and B services.³⁸ This leaves beneficiaries with significant health problems exposed to potentially unlimited costs.
An analysis by the Urban Institute modeled the impact of introducing a $5,000 annual OOP cap in Traditional Medicare. Such a policy would provide immediate and substantial relief to the approximately 4.5 million beneficiaries (12% of the total) whose cost-sharing currently exceeds this amount, reducing their average cost-sharing payments by about $5,500 per year.³⁸ However, this protection comes at a significant cost to the Medicare program. The analysis estimated that a $5,000 cap would increase total Medicare spending by $39 billion, or 7.8%, in a single year.³⁸ This new spending would have to be financed through higher Part B premiums, increased general tax revenues, or, for Part A services, a rise in payroll taxes to support the already strained Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.³⁸ While this reform effectively targets the most extreme cases of financial hardship, it does not address the more common problem of families struggling to meet high deductibles for less severe but still costly medical events. Furthermore, a large body of evidence confirms that even small amounts of cost-sharing, such as copayments between $1 and $5, can act as a significant barrier to care for people with low incomes, causing them to delay or skip necessary treatments.³⁹
Expanding Price Controls: Government Negotiation of Drug Prices and Its System-Wide Implications
A second incremental approach focuses on controlling the underlying prices of healthcare services and products, with prescription drugs being the primary target. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 took a landmark step by amending the “non-interference clause” that had previously forbidden Medicare from directly negotiating drug prices.⁴¹ The law empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate a “Maximum Fair Price” for a select number of high-expenditure drugs that lack generic or biosimilar competition.⁴¹
The initial results of this policy demonstrate its potential for significant savings. The first round of negotiations, covering just 10 drugs, is projected to reduce government spending by an estimated $6.37 billion in 2026 alone, with the negotiated prices being, on average, 22% below the prior net prices.⁴¹ Projections suggest that extending this negotiating authority more broadly could save the federal government tens of billions of dollars annually.⁴² The primary argument against this policy, advanced vigorously by the pharmaceutical industry, is that government price-setting will reduce revenue, thereby disincentivizing research and development and leading to a decline in pharmaceutical innovation.⁴³ The Congressional Budget Office estimated the IRA’s provisions could lead to 9% fewer new drugs entering the market over 30 years.⁴³ There are also complex international considerations; critics argue that tying U.S. prices to international benchmarks could lead to trade disputes or cause manufacturers to raise prices in lower-income countries to compensate for reduced U.S. profits.⁴⁴
Model 2: Introducing a Public Competitor
A more structural reform involves the creation of a “public health insurance option,” a government-run health plan designed to compete directly with private insurance companies. This is not a single-payer system but rather an additional choice offered to consumers, typically on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces and potentially within the employer-sponsored market.⁴⁵ The core premise is that a non-profit public plan, leveraging government administrative efficiencies and purchasing power, could offer a more affordable, high-quality alternative to private plans, thereby increasing competition and driving down costs across the market.⁴⁵ Several states, including Colorado and Nevada, have begun implementing their own versions of this model.⁴⁸
The viability and impact of a public option are almost entirely dependent on one critical design feature: the rates it pays to healthcare providers.⁴⁶
A Public Option with Medicare-Based Rates: If a public option were to pay doctors and hospitals at or near Medicare rates—which are substantially lower than typical commercial rates—it could offer significantly lower premiums. Economic modeling from the Urban Institute projects that such a plan could reduce premiums for participating employers by 18% to 25%.⁴⁶ This would generate substantial savings for households and employers and would also reduce federal spending on ACA premium subsidies.⁴⁶ However, this design faces two major hurdles. First, providers may refuse to participate in a plan with low reimbursement rates, leading to narrow networks and limited access to care. Second, it creates a paradoxical “benchmark effect” within the ACA’s subsidy structure. Because ACA premium tax credits are pegged to the cost of the second-lowest-cost silver plan (the “benchmark”), a highly affordable public option could become the new benchmark. This would lower the dollar value of subsidies for everyone in that market, potentially making coverage
less affordable for low-income individuals who prefer to enroll in a private plan with a broader network.⁴⁹A Public Option with Commercial-Based Rates: If a public option were to negotiate rates with providers on a level playing field with private insurers, it would likely fail to achieve significant cost advantages. Its lower administrative costs and lack of a profit margin would probably be offset by disadvantages in utilization management and risk selection, resulting in premiums that are not substantially lower than existing private plans.⁵⁰ In this scenario, the public option would do little to solve the underlying affordability crisis.
Model 3: Regulating the Entire Market
This model represents a more fundamental shift in the government’s role, from being a payer or competitor to being a market-wide price regulator. Under an “all-payer rate setting” system, a government or quasi-governmental entity establishes uniform payment rates for hospital and/or physician services. All payers in the market—including private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid—are required to pay these same rates.⁵² This approach eliminates the complex and costly process of individual negotiations between hundreds of insurers and providers, creating a standardized and transparent pricing environment.
The longest-running U.S. example of this model is Maryland’s all-payer system for hospital services, which has operated for decades under a federal Medicare waiver.⁵⁵ The evidence from Maryland is compelling. The system has been highly effective at controlling the growth of hospital costs; over several decades, Maryland’s average hospital cost per admission transformed from being 26%
above the national average to 2% below it.⁵³ The model also eliminates the practice of “cost-shifting,” where hospitals overcharge private payers to compensate for lower payments from public programs, and it significantly reduces administrative waste for both hospitals and insurers.⁵⁶
Despite its proven effectiveness, scaling an all-payer model nationally presents formidable political and administrative challenges. It requires the creation of a politically independent and technically sophisticated regulatory body capable of setting fair and efficient rates without falling victim to “regulatory capture” by the powerful hospital industry.⁵³ Such a direct assertion of government control over pricing would face immense opposition from providers and insurers who benefit from the current system of negotiated rates, making it one of the most politically difficult reforms to implement.⁵²
Model 4: A Hybrid Pathway
Recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of the preceding models, a fourth pathway emerges: a hybrid approach that strategically combines a public option with market-wide rate regulation. This model would introduce a public insurance option that pays providers based on a regulated fee schedule (e.g., 125% of Medicare rates). Critically, it would simultaneously cap the payment rates that all private insurers in that market could pay providers at the same or a similar level.⁴⁶
This synthesis addresses the primary weaknesses of the standalone public option. By applying capped rates to the entire market, the hybrid model prevents providers from cost-shifting to private plans to make up for lower public option payments. It extends the cost-saving benefits of regulated prices to everyone with private insurance, not just those who choose to enroll in the public plan.⁴⁶ This transforms the public option from being just another competitor into a regulatory anchor for the entire market.
The economic impact of this hybrid model is projected to be far greater than that of a public option alone. Urban Institute simulations show that while a public option introduced into the employer market could save employers $32 to $86 billion, a system of market-wide capped rates could generate savings of $145 to $202 billion.⁴⁶ This structure effectively creates a system analogous to the competition between traditional Medicare and private Medicare Advantage plans, where private entities compete on efficiency and benefits within a framework of government-regulated provider payments.⁴⁶ This approach leverages the political appeal of “choice” and “competition” inherent in the public option concept to achieve the powerful economic effects of broad price regulation, representing a potent, if politically ambitious, pathway to systemic reform.
The Political Economy of Reform: Stakeholders, Feasibility, and Realistic Pathways
The technical and economic merits of any healthcare reform proposal are only one part of the equation. To be “realistic,” a model must also be able to navigate the complex and often contentious landscape of American politics, which is shaped by powerful industry stakeholders, deep partisan divides, and public opinion. Understanding this political economy is essential for assessing the true feasibility of systemic change and for identifying the most viable pathways toward protecting families from unaffordable healthcare costs.
Mapping the Influence: Positions of Key Stakeholders
The U.S. healthcare sector, representing 17% of the national economy, is composed of numerous stakeholders with deeply entrenched financial interests and significant political influence.⁵⁷ Their positions on reform are critical to its prospects.
Insurers: Private health insurance companies generally oppose reforms that would diminish their central role in the market, such as a single-payer system or a robust public option that could capture significant market share. Their business model is predicated on managing risk and negotiating rates, functions that would be curtailed or eliminated under more regulated systems. While they may support reforms that simplify administrative processes, they resist policies like price caps or profit limits that directly impact their revenue.⁵⁸
Hospitals and Physicians (Providers): This is a diverse group, but providers are generally unified in their opposition to policies that would lead to lower reimbursement rates. Proposals like a public option paying Medicare-level rates or an all-payer rate-setting system are viewed as direct threats to their financial stability.⁴⁶ However, providers are also burdened by the administrative complexity of the current system. Consequently, there is strong, bipartisan support within the medical community for reforms that streamline processes like prior authorization, which they see as a major impediment to patient care and a source of professional burnout.⁵⁹
Pharmaceutical Companies: The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most powerful lobbying forces in Washington and is vehemently opposed to any form of government price controls. Arguing that price negotiation stifles the innovation necessary to develop new cures, the industry has deployed extensive legal and lobbying resources to fight the drug price negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.⁴³
Employers: As the primary source of health coverage for over half of Americans, employers are a pivotal stakeholder. They are acutely concerned with the rising cost of premiums, which impacts their bottom line and competitiveness. They could be major beneficiaries of reforms that successfully lower costs, such as a public option with capped provider rates that could reduce employer spending by tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars.⁴⁶ However, they are also wary of major disruptions to the employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) system, which is a key tool for attracting and retaining talent.⁵⁸
Patients and the Public: Public opinion polls consistently show strong support for government action to lower healthcare costs. A public health insurance option, for instance, is supported by nearly 70% of Americans.⁴⁸ Affordability consistently ranks as a top concern for voters.⁵⁷ However, public support can be fragmented and is often influenced by political messaging that frames reforms in terms of “socialized medicine,” loss of choice, or government overreach.⁶⁰
Navigating the Political Divide: Bipartisanship vs. Gridlock
The history of healthcare reform in the U.S. is a story of deep and persistent partisan division. The contentious passage of the Affordable Care Act and the subsequent efforts to repeal it underscore the difficulty of achieving consensus on the fundamental architecture of the health system.⁵⁷
Areas of Potential Bipartisan Consensus: Despite the polarization, some areas of common ground exist, typically focused on incremental, less disruptive reforms. The passage of the No Surprises Act to combat surprise medical bills is a prime example of successful bipartisan action. There is also growing bipartisan support for policies that promote price transparency and for legislative efforts to reform the prior authorization process in Medicare Advantage, which has drawn widespread provider frustration.⁵⁷ These issues represent a “feasibility frontier” where the most politically achievable reforms are often those with a more limited, though still meaningful, impact on the core drivers of cost.
Areas of Deep Division: More fundamental, systemic reforms remain highly polarizing. Democratic proposals generally favor expanding the government’s role in providing coverage and controlling costs, as seen in support for a public option, expanding ACA subsidies, or moving toward a Medicare-for-All system.⁴⁵ Republican proposals, in contrast, typically advocate for market-based solutions, increased state flexibility through block grants, and reduced federal spending and regulation. These approaches, as modeled in past legislative efforts, often lead to significant coverage losses and a weakening of protections for people with pre-existing conditions.³⁹
Incremental vs. Comprehensive Reform: Assessing Viable Trajectories
Given the stakeholder opposition and political gridlock surrounding large-scale change, most policy experts view a “big bang” reform—such as an immediate transition to a national single-payer system—as politically infeasible in the United States.⁶¹ The disruption to established industries and the public’s general skepticism toward radical change create insurmountable political hurdles.
A more plausible pathway to systemic change lies in strategic incrementalism, where foundational reforms are built upon the existing system over time. Two primary trajectories emerge from this analysis:
Pathway 1: Strengthening and Expanding the ACA. This pathway involves making the enhanced ACA premium subsidies permanent, closing the Medicaid coverage gap in states that have not expanded the program, and potentially introducing a public option on the ACA marketplaces. State-level experiments with public options in Colorado and Nevada provide a potential roadmap for federal action.⁴⁸ However, a key limitation of state-led reform is the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which exempts the large, self-funded employer plans that cover a majority of privately insured workers from state regulation. This means that even the most ambitious state reforms cannot reach a huge segment of their populations, highlighting the eventual need for federal action or waivers to achieve market-wide impact.
Pathway 2: The Hybrid Evolution. This pathway represents the most ambitious yet potentially achievable systemic reform. It involves the federal introduction of a public option combined with market-wide capped provider rates, as described in the previous section. This model could be framed not as a government takeover but as an evolution of America’s existing hybrid public-private system.⁶⁶ By starting in the ACA marketplaces and potentially expanding to the employer market over time, it could gradually introduce the powerful cost-containment benefits of price regulation while preserving a competitive market of private insurers. This approach could build a broader coalition of support by appealing to employers and middle-class families with the promise of significant premium reductions.
Conclusion: Charting a Realistic Course Toward Affordable Healthcare
The financial ruin faced by insured, middle-class American families is not an accident but a direct consequence of a healthcare system that prioritizes volume and profit over affordability and protection. The analysis reveals a system riddled with structural flaws—from high-deductible plans that shift catastrophic risk onto individuals to systemic traps like surprise billing and non-covered services—that render a health insurance policy an unreliable safeguard. The middle class is uniquely vulnerable, caught between ineligibility for robust public assistance and a lack of the financial reserves needed to weather the high out-of-pocket costs that have become standard in private insurance.
International comparisons demonstrate that this outcome is a policy choice, not an inevitability. While no single foreign model offers a perfect, transferable solution, they collectively reveal a commitment to the principle that healthcare access should not lead to financial hardship. Whether through a single-payer system like Canada’s, a socialized service like the UK’s NHS, or a regulated multi-payer model like Germany’s, other high-income nations have established frameworks that provide far greater financial protection. These systems make different trade-offs regarding access, choice, and cost, but they share a common foundation of universal coverage with strong controls on out-of-pocket spending.
To architect a more secure system in the United States, policymakers must move beyond incremental fixes and consider fundamental, systemic changes. This report has evaluated a spectrum of realistic models, each with distinct potential and political hurdles:
Reinforcing the current system through stricter out-of-pocket caps and expanded drug price negotiation can provide meaningful relief but does not address the underlying drivers of high costs and premiums.
Introducing a public health insurance option could increase competition and lower costs, but its effectiveness is entirely contingent on its ability to pay providers lower rates, a feature that creates significant political opposition and potential market distortions.
Implementing all-payer rate setting, as demonstrated in Maryland, offers a powerful tool for cost containment and administrative simplification but represents a level of government price regulation that faces immense political and industry opposition.
The most potent and strategically viable path forward may lie in a hybrid model that combines a public option with market-wide capped provider rates. This approach leverages the political appeal of competition and choice to introduce the powerful economic discipline of price regulation. By anchoring the entire private market to a regulated price structure, this model offers the potential for deep, system-wide savings for families and employers, directly addressing the core drivers of the affordability crisis.
Achieving such a reform, however, requires navigating a formidable political landscape. Powerful stakeholders will resist changes that threaten their revenue streams, and partisan divisions will continue to complicate any effort at comprehensive change. A realistic course, therefore, must be one of strategic incrementalism, building on areas of emerging bipartisan consensus—such as price transparency and administrative simplification—while laying the groundwork for more foundational reforms. State-level innovations can serve as crucial laboratories for policy design, but ultimately, federal action will be necessary to overcome statutory barriers like ERISA and ensure that all Americans, regardless of how they get their insurance, are protected.
Ultimately, charting a course toward affordable healthcare requires a clear-eyed acknowledgment of the trade-offs involved and a political commitment to rebalancing the system in favor of patients and families. The goal is not merely to ensure that every American has an insurance card, but to guarantee that when illness strikes, that card is a shield against financial ruin, not a gateway to it.
Cited works
The burden of medical debt in the United States - Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/the-burden-of-medical-debt-in-the-united-states/
National Uninsured Rate at 8.2 Percent in the First Quarter of 2024 - HHS ASPE, https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ee0475e44e27daef00155e95a24fd023/nhis-q1-2024-datapoint.pdf
BEING UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED IN THE U.S. - PAN Foundation, https://www.panfoundation.org/app/uploads/2020/10/Issue-Brief-14-Being-uninsured-and-underinsured-in-the-US.pdf
State of Health Insurance Coverage in U.S.: 2024 Biennial Survey | Commonwealth Fund, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/surveys/2024/nov/state-health-insurance-coverage-us-2024-biennial-survey
From Medical Bill to Medical Debt, https://unduemedicaldebt.org/from-medical-bill-to-medical-debt/
NEW STATE-BY-STATE REPORT: Health Insurance Costs Taking …, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/press-release/2019/new-state-state-report-health-insurance-costs-taking-larger-share-middle-class
Americans’ Challenges with Health Care Costs - KFF, https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/americans-challenges-with-health-care-costs/
Medical Debt among People With Health Insurance - How Does …, https://www.kff.org/report-section/medical-debt-among-people-with-health-insurance-how-does-medical-debt-become-a-problem-for-people-with-health-insurance/
Nearly Half of Families In High-Deductible Health Plans Whose Members Have Chronic Conditions Face Substantial Financial Burden, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4423400/
Surprise Medical Bills / Out-of-Network Payment - American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), https://www.asahq.org/advocating-for-you/surprise-medical-bills
Avoid Surprise Healthcare Expenses: How the No Surprises Act Can Protect You, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/publications/avoid-surprise-healthcare-expenses
No Surprises Act - Mayo Clinic, https://www.mayoclinic.org/billing-insurance/no-surprises-act
Ending Surprise Medical Bills - CMS, https://www.cms.gov/nosurprises/ending-surprise-medical-bills
What Are Non-Covered Services In Medical Billing? | Operant Billing, https://operantbilling.com/what-are-non-covered-services-in-medical-billing/
What’s not covered? - Medicare, https://www.medicare.gov/providers-services/original-medicare/not-covered
Medicare Non-covered Services - AAFP, https://www.aafp.org/family-physician/practice-and-career/getting-paid/coding/non-covered-services.html
Medical Debt Hits the Heart of the Middle Class - Third Way, https://www.thirdway.org/report/medical-debt-hits-the-heart-of-the-middle-class
About Canada’s health care system - Canada.ca, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-health-care-system.html
Medicare (Canada) - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(Canada)
Issue Brief: Canada’s Single-Payer Health Care Model (AHIP), https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/SD/6478.pdf
US vs. Canadian Healthcare: What is The Difference? | RUSM, https://medical.rossu.edu/about/blog/us-vs-canadian-healthcare
Fraser Institute News Release: Switzerland has nearly 65% more doctors and much shorter wait times than Canada, despite spending roughly same amount on health care - Newswire.ca, https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/fraser-institute-news-release-switzerland-has-nearly-65-more-doctors-and-much-shorter-wait-times-than-canada-despite-spending-roughly-same-amount-on-health-care-808641921.html
UK Healthcare System: What Foreigners Need to Know, https://www.internationalinsurance.com/health/systems/uk.php
Exploring The National Health Service (What Is NHS) In The UK, https://www.britannicaoverseas.com/exam/nhs/overview
National Health Service - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service
Mirror, Mirror 2024: A Portrait of the Failing U.S. Health System - Commonwealth Fund, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024
Mirror, Mirror 2024: A Portrait of the Failing U.S. Health System …, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/Blumenthal_mirror_mirror_2024_final_v2.pdf
Statutory health insurance - GKV-Spitzenverband, https://www.gkv-spitzenverband.de/english/statutory_health_insurance/statutory_health_insurance.jsp
Waiting times in primary care depending on insurance scheme in Germany - PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5859448/
Waiting times for elective treatments according to insurance status: A randomized empirical study in Germany - PubMed Central, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2246139/
Reduce waiting time at the doctor: 6 practical tips for practices - Nelly Solutions, https://www.getnelly.de/en/blog/wartezeit-beim-arzt
(PDF) Explaining Waiting Time Variations for Elective Surgery Across OECD Countries, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5205871_Explaining_Waiting_Time_Variations_for_Elective_Surgery_Across_OECD_Countries
Switzerland health system information, https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/countries/switzerland
Switzerland: Health System Outcomes, https://healthsystemsfacts.org/switzerland/switzerland-health-system-outcomes/
The healthcare system in Switzerland | Expatica, https://www.expatica.com/ch/healthcare/healthcare-basics/healthcare-in-switzerland-103130/
Mirror, Mirror 2021: Reflecting Poorly | Commonwealth Fund, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly
A Portrait of the Failing U.S. Health System – Comparing Performance in 10 Nations - Commonwealth Fund, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/EMBARGOED_Blumenthal_mirror_mirror_2024_EMBARGOED_v3.pdf
Adding an Out-of-Pocket Spending Limit to … - Urban Institute, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2022-06/Adding%20an%20Out-of-Pocket%20Spending%20Limit%20to%20Traditional%20Medicare.pdf
House Republican Health Agenda Cuts Coverage, Raises People’s Costs, https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/house-republican-health-agenda-cuts-coverage-raises-peoples-costs
The financial burden of out-of-pocket expenses in the United States and Canada, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4778086/
Impact of federal negotiation of prescription drug prices - Brookings Institution, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/impact-of-federal-negotiation-of-prescription-drug-prices/
What if the Federal Government Negotiated Pharmaceutical Prices for Seniors? An Estimate of National Savings - PubMed Central, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2517993/
Medicare Drug Price Negotiations: All You Need to Know …, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/explainer/2025/may/medicare-drug-price-negotiations-all-you-need-know
The Global Risks of America’s “Most-Favored-Nation” Drug Pricing Policy, https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2025/05/22/the-global-risks-of-americas-most-favored-nation-drug-pricing-policy/
Public health insurance option - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option
Introducing a Public Option or Capped Provider Payment Rates into Private Insurance Markets: Updated Estimates - Urban Institute, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103817/introducing-a-public-option-or-capped-provider-payment-rates-into-private-insurance-markets_0.pdf
Estimating the Impact of a Public Option or Capping Provider Payment Rates | Urban Institute, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/estimating-the-impact-of-a-public-option-or-capping-provider-payment-rates.pdf
State Public Health Insurance Options: A Comparison, https://unitedstatesofcare.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024-Comparison-Chart-of-State-Public-Options.pdf
Effects of a Public Option on Health Insurance Costs and Coverage - RAND Corporation, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10120.html
The Consequences of a Public Health Insurance Option: Evidence from Medicare Part D, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1162/ajhe_a_00119
Designing a public option that would reduce health care provider prices, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/designing-a-public-option-that-would-reduce-health-care-provider-prices/
The All-Payer Rate Setting Model for Pricing Medical Services and Drugs | Journal of Ethics, https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/all-payer-rate-setting-model-pricing-medical-services-and-drugs/2015-08
Hospital Rate Setting: Successful in Maryland but Challenging to Replicate, https://healthcarevaluehub.org/resource/2020/hospital-rate-setting-successful-in-maryland-but-challenging-to-replicate/
All-payer rate setting - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-payer_rate_setting
Maryland All-Payer Model - CMS, https://www.cms.gov/priorities/innovation/innovation-models/maryland-all-payer-model
All-payer ratesetting: Down but not out - PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4195134/
The Politics of Health Care and the 2024 Election - KFF, https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-the-politics-of-health-care-and-the-2024-election/
Health Care Reform: Duties & Responsibilities of Stakeholders, https://www.sju.edu/centers/icb/blog/health-care-reform-duties-and-responsibilities-of-the-stakeholders
New Congress can create lasting legacy of health reform | American Medical Association, https://www.ama-assn.org/about/leadership/new-congress-can-create-lasting-legacy-health-reform
“Comprehensive Healthcare for America”: Using the Insights of Behavioral Economics to Transform the U. S. Healthcare System - PMC - PubMed Central, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10209990/
Single-Payer, Multiple-Payer, and State-Based Financing of Health Care: Introduction to the Special Section - PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6775924/
Insurers and Customers Brace for Double Whammy to Obamacare Premiums, https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/obamacare-premiums-subsidies-trump-republicans-policy-fallout-kff-analysis/
Considering Single Payer Proposals in U.S.: Lessons from Abroad | Commonwealth Fund, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/2019/apr/considering-single-payer-proposals-lessons-from-abroad
What Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Means for Rural Health Clinics, https://www.narhc.org/News/31439/What-Trumps-One-Big-Beautiful-Bill-Means-for-Rural-Health-Clinics
Achieving an equitable national health system for America - Brookings Institution, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/achieving-an-equitable-national-health-system-for-america/
A Public-Private Hybrid Healthcare System - Modern Health Talk, https://mhealthtalk.com/hybrid/
Designing US health insurance from scratch: A proposal for …, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/designing-us-health-insurance-from-scratch-a-proposal-for-universal-basic-coverage/