US Healthcare System’s For-Profit Model Scores Lowest, Yet Again, Among Competing Nations

A recent study published on Thursday reveals that the for-profit healthcare system in the United States continues to hold the lowest rank when compared with similar nations on crucial aspects, including access to healthcare services and key health outcomes such as life expectancy at birth.

The latest analysis by the Commonwealth Fund serves as a further condemnation of a system dominated by corporations, where countless individuals are uninsured or underinsured, and struggle to afford essential life-preserving medications, often resorting to debt or dose rationing.

“The U.S. spends heavily on healthcare, yet falls short in one of the primary responsibilities of a nation: safeguarding the health and well-being of its citizens,” the report asserts. “The majority of the nations we compared with are fulfilling this responsibility, offering lessons that each can learn from. The U.S., failing this critical measure of a successful country, remains a notable exception.”

Citizens of the U.S., a nation that spends approximately twice as much per person on healthcare as other affluent countries, “lead the shortest lives and experience the most preventable deaths,” the Commonwealth reported. The organization cited frequent “insurance company service denials” and other endemic flaws of the American system, including substantial administrative costs.

Concurrently, insurance behemoths and pharmaceutical corporations are reaping massive profits, particularly benefiting from the increasing privatization of Medicare. Over half of the Medicare-eligible population in the U.S. is currently enrolled in a privately managed Medicare Advantage plan.

“Our private, profit-motivated system results in us paying more for less,” progressive advocate Jonathan Cohn commented in reaction to the Commonwealth report.

The findings of the Commonwealth Fund strengthen the argument of progressives for a transition towards a Medicare for All system. This system would provide comprehensive, free, point-of-service coverage to all individuals in the country. Studies have consistently shown that such a program would be less costly than the incredibly wasteful for-profit system—which is predicted to push national healthcare expenditure to a staggering $7.7 trillion annually by 2032—while also saving lives.

The Commonwealth noted on Thursday that while affordability “is a widespread issue” in the U.S., Australia “provides free care in all public hospitals, and the country’s universal Medicare system ensures all Australians have coverage for all or part of the cost of general practitioner and specialist consultations and diagnostic tests, with additional subsidies available for private hospital care.”

“The U.S. remains unique in the poor performance of its healthcare sector,” the report continues. “While the other nine countries vary in the specifics of their systems and performance in different areas, unlike the U.S., they have all found a way to meet their citizens’ most basic healthcare needs, including universal coverage.”

With the U.S. Presidential election less than two months away, neither of the two major party candidates for 2024 have so far detailed their healthcare proposals.

Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, claimed during last week’s debate in Philadelphia that he merely has “the concepts of a plan,” while Harris—who previously co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation in the Senate—stated that she “absolutely” supports “private healthcare options” and aims to “preserve and expand the Affordable Care Act.”

Just days following the debate, Senator JD Vance (R-Ohio)—Trump’s running mate—expressed that the Republican nominee prefers a system where “a young American” and a “65-year-old American with a chronic condition” are not grouped into “the same risk pools,” suggesting a potential rollback of the ACA’s protections for individuals with preexisting conditions.

“Claiming protection for people with preexisting conditions while segregating them into a separate insurance risk pool where they can be charged exorbitant premiums is not genuine protection,” Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the research group KFF, responded to Vance’s remarks.