Why is it so hard to get medical care? And what should we do about it?

You may have noticed, should you or a family member or a friend have had a health problem recently, that it is difficult to get care. It is difficult to find a doctor (or a nurse practitioner, or any health care provider) who is available to add you to their panel. If you are lucky enough to have one, especially one who practices primary care (a family physician or general internist or geriatrician for adults), it is still difficult to get an appointment. If you think you just have a simple question, it can be difficult to get through to them to ask it. Sometimes you can get a nurse, or a medical assistant, or perhaps the desk clerk who may be familiar with some things enough to answer, but often they cannot. Many practices now have “patient portals” (e.g., MyChart ®) where you can post a question for your doctor (often in the form of “I have these symptoms but I can’t get an appointment; do you think I need to be seen?”) that, hopefully, they will answer before you are in extremis.

When all these methods fail, and you are still sick, you can visit an Urgent Care Center, sometimes run by local health systems and sometimes by private chains. They can care for many problems and do some tests, but a lot of things will lead to them sending you to the local Emergency Department. That is, of course, what you were trying to avoid, if for no other reason than the long wait (often hours, even if you have a severe problem that, once they diagnose it, can truly be an emergency; I wrote in the past about a close family member who waited 7 hours to be found to have appendicitis). Not all ED waiting rooms look like “The Pitt”, but it is not uncommon, especially in those centers who have the facilities to care for really dire problems needing urgent intervention (heart attacks, strokes, acute abdominal issues needing surgery, etc.) 

A big part of the problem is that there is a shortage of primary care physicians. This is worse in the US than in other countries but is becoming a problem elsewhere as well, as discussed by Dr. Kenny Lin in “Primary Care Supply and Access Challenges Around the World” on his substack CommonSenseMD. There are also shortages of other physicians (thus the line out the door of the cardiologist’s office), exacerbated by distribution problems (specialists tend to group in major cities and wealthier suburbs). But much of the delay in getting into subspecialists would be mitigated by having more family doctors and other primary care physicians. This works in 4 ways:

1.      The primary care doctor can take care of lots of the problems that people otherwise seek out subspecialty care for. Because you have a heart, it doesn’t mean you need a cardiologist.
2. If the primary care doctor identifies a problem that they think does require a subspecialist (say, a cardiologist) they can refer you to one who is less backed up because primary care doctors have done an assessment and identified that there is a problem requiring a subspecialist. This also makes the subspecialist more effective, because the people they see have already been assessed by a physician and they have a clearer issue on which to focus their attention.
3. Once the subspecialist does their assessment, makes their treatment plan, and initiates it, much of the follow-up can be done by the primary care doctor, freeing the subspecialist from needing to see so many follow-ups and having more appointments for new patient assessments.
4.  Many people (especially older people) have more than one health problem. Not only is going to a separate subspecialist for each potentially inefficient and possibly unnecessary, but can result in “communications problems” between them. This can be dangerous for the patient, in part because treatments for one condition sometimes worsen another. Having a primary care doctor who cares for the whole person, not just one organ system or disease, and is in possession of the assessments and plans from all the subspecialists, means the patient receives care that is coordinated and managed appropriately.

This model is understood and often utilized by subspecialty physicians who understand that their time and effort is best spent in the narrow area in which they are expert. The problem is that it requires a sufficient number of primary care doctors (about 40-50% of physicians), and, in the US, we don’t have them, and are not even moving in the right direction. As I have discussed before, a big reason that students do not choose to become primary care doctors is money…that their incomes are far less than subspecialists, and this needs to be addressed (see, for example, Primary Care, Private Equity, and Profit: How to ensure poor quality care for the American people, Sept 28, 2023).

Another part of the reason people do not access care is cost; the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) newsletter Family Medicine Today reports on a survey by West Health-Gallup that 1 In 3 Americans Are Making Basic Living Sacrifices, Borrowing Money To Afford Health Care. Of course ‘…the “need to make these trade-offs was far more common among the uninsured, Gallup found, with 62% saying they made at least one sacrifice to afford their care. However, 29% of those with insurance also said they were forced to make a trade-off to cover their health care costs.” So…a big problem.

The cost issue may seem to be one that is more clearly related to my contention, in a recent blog (Feb 26, 2026), that The problem with the US healthcare 'system': THE INSATIABLE PURSUIT OF EVER MORE MONEY BY CORPORATIONS AND WALL ST., but in fact so is the shortage of primary care physicians and the difficulty getting appointments. On Feb 18, Health Care Un-covered addressed “The Economic Exploitation of Independent Physicians by Insurers”. It is also a result of practices being owned by profit-making private equity companies (or sometimes by insurance companies, such as UnitedHealth owning Optum) that determine the practice parameters and character, including the speed-up (seeing more patients more quickly) and other business approaches that are good for making money but not for people’s health. In addition, this includes the practice of replacing primary care physicians with less-trained non-physicians, such as nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants. I don’t mean to disparage these professionals, and indeed they can be very good and effective in the roles they are put in – seeing acute minor illnesses or checking on the status of chronic illness such as diabetes and hypertension. But being the coordinator, the “quarterback” – of care for the whole person that the primary care physician can fill, as I described above, requires more, not less, training. It makes care better; not the “most profit” or the “most efficient” but the “most likely to maintain and improve the patient’s health”. Even when for-profit companies don’t own the practices, “A wave of coordinated lawsuits is transforming the No Surprises Act’s arbitration system into a battlefield where insurers seek to intimidate physicians, rewrite the law and consolidate control” (How Insurers Are Using the Courts to Rewrite the No Surprises Act, Health Care Un-covered, Mar 11).

The health of the US population has long been worse, using generally accepted health parameters and measures, than in comparable countries. The situation is not improving, as insurers decrease access by increasing premiums and co-pays and deductibles, forcing a significant percentage of Americans to cut back on other necessities, as well as often denying coverage for important care. These practices control not only patients but physicians, along with the control exerted by hospital systems are for-profit ownership of physician practices. It also contributes to a downgraded role and lower pay for primary care physicians, who are key to maintaining health in the US and other countries. It is not a good situation, and it is getting worse, if Americans’ health is the measure.

It is past time for us to ensure that this is the measure, and not maximizing the profit of corporations!

Outrageous behavior by hospitals harms Americans' health to make money

The article in the NY Times (June 1, 2023) titled “This Nonprofit Health System Cuts Off Patients With Medical Debt” carries the subhead “Doctors at the Allina Health System, a wealthy nonprofit in the Midwest, aren’t allowed to see poor patients or children with too many unpaid medical bills”. That sounds bad. It is bad. It is disgusting. It is reprehensible. But it is only one example of the extreme lengths many “non-profit” hospitals go to in order to maximize their income (their “non” profit!) at the cost of limiting care to people.

I don’t know how many hospitals, hospital chains, or “health systems” have gone as far as Allina in explicitly refusing to see patients, but most of them go as far as they think they can – and maybe tiptoe over the line. The article states that “Many hospitals in the United States use aggressive tactics to collect medical debt. They flood local courts with collections lawsuits. They garnish patients’ wages. They seize their tax refunds.” This is, unsurprisingly, most prevalent among those that can do it, those that are wealthy, those that are in urban or suburban areas where they can make money taking care of insured people. (A different calculus informs the often-marginal rural hospital.)

It is, in theory, possible to have two different worldviews regarding this situation. One (mine) is that the main purpose of health care, hospitals, doctors, etc., is to improve the health of the population, not to make money. To the extent that the pursuit of money gets in the way of (or explicitly blocks) caring for the health of people, it is wrong, unethical, and should be condemned. Another possible view, however, is that the business of any business (making widgets, providing income tax services, flogging corporate interests on the internet) is to make money, and that healthcare is just another business, and if some people can’t afford it this is no different from someone not being able to afford a car. I do not believe this, and think it is a morally vacuous position (and, more important, one that actually hurts people), but it is popular in some circles. Folks cite the maxim attributed to economist Milton Friedman that the only responsibility a corporation has is to make profit for its shareholders.

But wait – these are NON-profits! They do not HAVE shareholders! They do have Boards of Directors and (very) highly paid management teams, but they don’t pay taxes. Because they are non-profits! The reason that they don’t is because, under the law, they are expected to provide “community benefit”. While such systems often try to claim that they are doing so by occasionally sponsoring low-cost events such as health fairs where you can get your blood pressure or blood sugar checked, that is not what the requirement actually intended. The Times article correctly states “Nonprofit hospitals like Allina get enormous tax breaks in exchange for providing care for the poorest people in their communities.” That means taking care of people who have need, and not pursuing ANY of the gross collection tactics, not to mention refusing care. “But a New York Times investigation last year found that over the past several decades, nonprofits have fallen short of their charitable missions, with few consequences.” Put simply, these non-profit hospitals are given very large benefits (no taxes) because they are supposed to care for those with need, for the poor, but then they do not. But they keep the money.

These non-profit hospitals (and systems), run by finance people and accountants, operate as if they were for-profits, seeking to maximize income just as much as the for-profits do. Not having to pay shareholders, they can pay huge salaries to management, and accumulate enormous bank balances. In fact, this is an incredible competitive advantage – if you are a for-profit, you have to pay taxes! As a result, most for-profit hospitals in large urban markets cannot, and do not seek to,  compete with non-profits, and are found primarily in niche markets, for example in subspecialty hospitals providing particular kinds of procedural care to well-insured people.

Not that I am endorsing overtly for-profit health care. It is also slimy and disgusting, meeting some needs of some people and openly refusing care to others. The pursuit of profit and money is the root of the failure of our health system to do what most of us think it is there for: to improve health. However, non-profits operating in this sector get huge government (meaning taxpayer!) subsidy for doing – things that they do not do, do not want to do, and will take every legal (and often extra-legal) avenue to avoid doing. Indeed, in addition to not paying taxes they get great financial payments from other government programs, such as the 340B drug program, often worth tens of millions (see "Non-profit" hospital systems behaving worse than for-profits: No end to the scams, October 1, 2022).

If there is anyone left who is still taking evidence-free issue with the idea that the US health non-system is a failure at providing health, take a look at this recent piece from the Washington Post by Steven Woolf and Laudan Aron. Yes, it is an “Opinion” piece, but it is full of facts (see graphic) and backed up by the work of the National Academy of Medicine in its report “Shorter Lives, Poorer Health”. Since 1980, when the life expectancy of Americans was in the lower half of wealthy countries, it has slowly dropped so that by the early 2000s it was the lowest, and well before COVID arrived, had plateaued while that of other countries continued to rise. Almost all countries took a “life-expectancy” hit with COVID, but for most it was short-lived and has since rebounded. Except the US, where it has just started to drop a little more slowly.

 

Life expectancy is not the only measure of health system function or success. However, there is no accepted measure (deaths of middle-aged people, infant mortality, maternal mortality, years of productive life lost, etc. etc.) in which the US does not lag its peers, and often poorer countries. Unless you think the provision of boutique specialty care to wealthy people (including foreigners) is somehow a measure of health system success.

Woolf and Aron cite the National Academy report which lists a number of reasons why the US does poorly:

(1) unhealthy behaviors, such as our diets and use of firearms;

(2) inadequate health care and public health systems;

(3) poor socioeconomic conditions;

(4) unhealthy and unsafe environments; and

(5) deficient public policies.

They note the last is most important, including failure to address basic human needs for food, housing, education, and jobs. The continuing effects of racism. The failure to have an adequately funded public health infrastructure.

The National Academy did not look at the fact that our gangster-capitalist system has taken over health care as a cash cow to have money extracted and only incidentally (when convenient and profitable) provide health care, but this too is a clear failure of public policy.

If hospitals, non-profit or for-profit, are not providing all the health needs of our people, rich and poor, they must be forced to do so, by public policy. They should be provided with a negotiated, global, annual budget for operations (and a separate one for capital, so they don’t milk patients to make money to expand) by a national health system. And be held to it.

Addressing the problem of greedy hospitals, the pursuit of money rather than health, will not solve our health problems. Not only does it leave the other parasites, insurance and pharmaceutic companies, it leaves all the other societal inequities cited above, that also must be aggressively acted on.

But it is a necessary step, and a good start.

"Non-profit" hospital chains join for-profits in destroying our health system

The New York Times’ latest exposé on the despicable actions of large, ostensibly “non-profit” health systems, ‘How a Sprawling Hospital Chain Ignited Its Own Staffing Crisis’, examines Ascension Health, one of the largest such systems in the US. It is definitely worth reading, although you may want to try deep breathing first. Ascension owns hospitals over a wide area of the US, mainly in the Midwest, and took a bow in 2019 when it “was trumpeting its success at reducing its number of employees per occupied bed, a common industry staffing metric”, saving $500M! Unfortunately, cutting the number of employees to bare bones limited the quality of care available to patients. And when the COVID pandemic hit, and occupancy rates skyrocketed, they were woefully understaffed – except that the woe was experienced by the patients who sought, and to one degree or another, received care in those hospitals. It was and remains a disaster. Among the impacts cited in the article: at one hospital “there were so few nurses that psychiatric patients with Covid were left waiting a full day for beds, and a single aide was on hand to assist with 32 infected patients”; at another “Chronic understaffing meant that patients languished in dried feces, while robots replaced nursing assistants who would normally sit with mentally impaired patients.” Think about that patient being your parent! Disgusting? Upsetting? Dangerous? How about downright evil?

But, you might think, the cost cutting was necessary. After all we read about hospitals that are on the brink, are barely surviving, needing government bailouts to keep serving their communities. Oh, wait, those are different hospitals. Those are rural safety net hospitals. Ascension has $18 Billion in the bank. $18 Billion! In a “non-profit” hospital system! Boy, I’m sure that those C-suite execs who oversaw that got big 7-figure bonuses! And now? With that much in the bank, I doubt they are going to suffer much just because people are getting terrible care and dying in their hospitals.

So how are these systems non-profit? The Times does a good summary:

In exchange for avoiding taxes, the Internal Revenue Service requires them to offer services, such as free health care for low-income patients, that help their communities.

But…

The Times this year has documented how large chains of nonprofit hospitals have moved away from their charitable missions. Some have skimped on free care for the poor, illegally saddling tens of thousands of patients with debts. Others have plowed resources into affluent suburbs while siphoning money from poorer areas. And many have cut staff to skeletal levels, often at the expense of patient safety.

Oh. That doesn’t sound so good. And, to be sure, Ascension is far from the only “non-profit” hospital chain to behave in this manner; most of the big and “successful” ones do so. The West’s Providence Health System, the focus of a previous Times exposé and post on this blog ("Non-profit" hospital systems behaving worse than for-profits: No end to the scams”, October 1, 2022), ironically started by a group of nuns to care for the poor and underserved, also gets coverage in this article.

There is so much evil here it is hard to know where to start. Certainly, a key part is running networks of institutions ostensibly created to heal the sick and injured (“hospitals”) as if they were manufacturing businesses and employing au courant management strategies designed for manufacturing, such as “just in time” supply chains and cutting staff down to the bone. This is absurd; hospitals, to be effective, to be able to meet regular seasonal changes, not to mention disasters or pandemics, need to have excess capacity at all times. Running “lean and mean” is wrong on many levels. It is exploitive of the staff, and indeed puts staff in the position of providing poor-quality care to their patients, compromising their professionalism and commitment; the testimonies of the nurses at Ascension are the most damning part of the report. It makes it difficult to impossible to gear up in times of need. And it um, kills people. You cannot have a potential staff of on-again-off-again health care workers to be employed just when needed “just in time”. If you could, if such excess capacity existed in the society, it would be yet another sign of perversion, of oppressing people and their families and communities to make more money – profit for “non-profits”.

Another way that this is, to put it gently, inequitable, is described in the Times article: cutting back on services in high-need-but-low-income communities and reallocating them to wealthier neighborhoods. And, of course, emphasizing and marketing high profit-margin services (cancer care, orthopedics, neurosurgery, cardiac interventions). Again, a  morally bankrupt strategy to meet not the health needs of our country but rather the dollar desires of a board of directors!

So what do I have to add to the excellent coverage given to this issue by the NY Times? They even call it “Profits over Patients”, which it is. I think I can give the problem a name that the Times will not: Capitalism. Capitalism is the problem. And it is not just any capitalism, it is not the capitalism of mom-and-pop stores or small businesses or making a reasonable profit, it is the capitalism-run-amok, it is the capitalism of anything-for-a-buck, full-speed-ahead, don’t-care-who-gets-hurt, bigger-is-better, I-want-to-be-a-billionaire-too that we have seen increasingly over the last decades. It is the capitalism that Noam Chomsky calls “gangster capitalism”, but in many ways what these folks do worse than what gangsters do, because it threatens not only people but all of our society. Sure, a gangster may threaten or even kill you. These systems are designed in a way that will kill thousands! But you know what? That is capitalism, that is the end point of capitalism. That is the Gordon Gekko, greed-is-good, result of capitalism that is not only unfettered by government regulation (especially with the elimination of many of the best parts of the New Deal) but that is actively enabled by a government that is willing to let private companies take all the profits when they make them and bail them out when they lose. And it is arguably even more evil that the hospitals described in the Times article are large “non-profits” which behave exactly like for-profits except that they don’t pay taxes! Who would have thought I’d be arguing for for-profits? Well, I’m not; they actually providing even worse care for the community because there are almost no regulations governing what they do. But at least they pay taxes.

So what can be done? A great deal actually.

•  Ban for profit corporations, or any entity controlled by private equity, from health care delivery. Yes, hospitals, but also clinics, urgent care centers, nursing homes, etc.
• Require not-for-profit entities to behave like non-profits are supposed to, with community benefit being the SOLE criterion by which they are judged. Do not allow building of facilities, expansion, or the dissolution of “product lines” except when it can be demonstrated that this will benefit the health of the overall community. Not allow “we’re moving into/building into this prosperous expanding suburb because, you know, they will need health care” if it means there will be inadequate resources to serve the people in the most needy, sickest, and poorest communities. No cannibalizing inner-cities to feed wealthier suburbs. And while it may not be possible to directly regulate the income (salary and bonuses) of C-suite executives of non-profits, the requirements should ensure that they cannot make loads of money and build huge reserves ($18 billion! Come  on!) If they won’t do this, tax them
  
• ·Ensure that the communities most in need, especially in rural areas, have their needs met on a case by case basis. The absurd Hobson’s Choice the federal government is offering rural hospitals, crystallized in the headline of the article cited in the second paragraph, “A Rural Hospital’s Excruciating Choice: $3.2 Million a Year or Inpatient Care?” must be changed so that each hospital, and the larger community it serves (sometimes geographically enormous) gets support for what it needs, inpatient care, outpatient care, and usually both.

Even better, while eliminating private for-profit ownership, discourage misbehavior by non-profit owners by creating and implementing a single payer health system, such as Medicare for All, which as the sole payer would be able to with and regulate these health systems for the benefit of the health care of the people of our country.