Blog

KFF Health News published yet another article indicating public desire for the government to do something about rising healthcare costs -- this time, focusing on California. The article notes "With health insurance premiums and hospital prices rising faster than inflation, more than 40% of adults nationally struggle to afford their care and, like most, want the government to address it." Additionally, "Nearly two-thirds of Californians worry about receiving an unexpected medical bill, surpassing financial concerns such as the cost of rent or food, according to a 2025 CHCF-NORC survey. Six in 10 said they or a family member had skipped care because of cost."

It is unclear how much difference a state can make by itself, especially when each state is heavily reliant on the federal government for Medicaid funding. However, public sentiment does seem much more amenable to proposals such as "Medicare-for-all" than say, the time that Affordable Care Act was being deliberated (about sixteen years ago).

KFF Health News published two pieces that discussed expected growth in healthcare spending next year. One article mentioned that the premiums on Affordable Care Act health insurance exchanges are expected to rise 15% next year, which is significantly higher than inflation, even if it is less than the 26% average premium increase for this year. Another article listed estimates of an increase of 8%-9.5% for what employers expect to pay for health care next year. Whether on the health insurance exchanges where individuals purchase insurance for themselves or in the employer-based coverage market, healthcare spending is expected to grow substantially faster than inflation... again.

The second article mentioned some measures that some employers are taking to help slow the growth of healthcare spending. For example, one person in human resources talked about providing free onsite primary care to catch problems early. Interestingly, "Many companies — about 29% of large ones — reported difficulty getting information on how much their plans paid for medical care or price comparisons among providers."

An Arm and a Leg published an episode about many people in Minnesota not having the option to remain with their current Medicare Advantage plan at renewal time. Apparently, a non-profit insurance organization called UCare started shutting down because of financial losses. One might think that competitors would generally welcome the opportunity to grow market share by wooing the customers from a former rival, but in this case, some other health insurance carriers also stopped offering plans in the affected markets. Some other health insurance carriers handled the situation by deciding to not pay commissions to insurance brokers for enrollments this year. One profiled health insurance broker looked into the rationale and was told "Let's face it, we [large health insurer] don't want everybody that sunk UCare on our plan."

For all of the touted benefits of switching to Medicare Advantage (administered by private companies), traditional Medicare (administered by the federal government) has the benefit of stability (not canceling plans in response to changing market conditions). Separately, disruptions like these seem to be rooted in the high cost of health care, which in this case, caused UCare to shut down; these disruptions did nothing to address that underlying cause.

As another data point in the trend of mounting frustration about rising healthcare costs, KFF Health News published an article about the growing momentum behind "Medicare for All", a movement "to bring universal healthcare to every American," even though the specific mechanisms can vary. The article notes that "nearly 60% of Americans favor a system of Medicare for All, while 85% of Democrats support it." Perhaps more surprising is that "According to one survey, more than half of all physicians have said they'd prefer some sort of single-payer system. ... The American College of Physicians, the nation's second-largest physician group, also supports Medicare for All." While Medicare for All would likely streamline paperwork for doctors, Medicare for All likely would not leave room for negotiation for rates, potentially limiting physicians' overall compensation over time. Already, many physicians refuse to accept Medicare plans because of the lower reimbursements.

As the article points out, translating this general sentiment into actual legislation still takes many steps and would still need to overcome many entrenched interests. Even still, it seems clear that decades of marketplace dysfunction has helped shape public sentiment. Perhaps the momentum will continue to grow enough to actually shape public policy.

KFF Health News published an article highlighting politicians in at least four states pushing for "single-payer, universal healthcare systems": Oregon, California, New York, and Washington. Oregon is the furthest along, with their Universal Health Plan Governance Board trying to establish "medical, vision, dental, and mental health benefits for every state resident from cradle to grave — with no premiums, deductibles, or copayments" starting in 2032. The article also noted that "In California, Democratic candidates for governor are not debating whether to implement single-payer but how. New York lawmakers are debating a single-payer bill called the New York Health Act. And in Washington, state legislators have created a commission to design a universal healthcare plan."

The surge of interest in universal healthcare is a response to the long-running frustration at the rise in healthcare premiums and dissatisfaction with the status quo (including denials). However, the article also highlights how difficult it can be to enact legislation to this effect, with health insurers funding opposition, and even the medical community being unsure. Even if a state successfully enacts legislation, executing the plan can be very difficult, as Vermont's previous effort shows.

For the case of Oregon, the plan to provide all of those benefits ("from cradle to grave") without deductibles and premiums seems quite ambitious and probably naive. Given free health care, patients are more likely to consume more, and the cost to support such a system might rise unsustainably.