Access vs. Affordability: A Definitive Analysis of the Divide Between Healthcare and Health Insurance in the United States

Introduction

To provide a comprehensive, expert-level analysis of the fundamental distinction between healthcare (the service) and health insurance (the financial product) in the United States, this report will argue that this conceptual divide is the central organizing principle of the U.S. system and the primary driver of its most significant challenges, including high costs, administrative complexity, and barriers to access.

While often used interchangeably, healthcare and health insurance represent two distinct and frequently conflicting domains.

Healthcare is the delivery of medical services to maintain or restore well-being, while health insurance is a financial instrument designed to manage the economic risk of paying for those services.

The architecture of the U.S. system, which prioritizes the financial and administrative logic of insurance over the clinical needs of healthcare, creates a landscape where being “insured” does not guarantee affordable, timely, or unencumbered access to care.

The report will begin by defining these core concepts, then deconstruct the mechanics of insurance contracts and administrative hurdles.

It will subsequently quantify the immense economic burden of this system on both the nation and individuals, debunk common consumer myths, and conclude with a synthesis of findings and strategic recommendations for key stakeholders.

Section 1: The Fundamental Disconnect: Service vs. Financial Instrument

The American healthcare system is built upon a foundational, yet often misunderstood, schism between the act of providing medical care and the mechanism used to pay for it.

This distinction is not merely semantic; it is the central organizing principle that dictates patient access, provider behavior, and the flow of trillions of dollars through the economy.

Understanding this divide is the first and most critical step in analyzing the system’s performance and its profound impact on the population.

Defining the Core Concepts: Healthcare as Service, Health Insurance as Finance

In common parlance, the terms “healthcare” and “health insurance” are frequently conflated, used as synonyms in conversations about medical costs and access.¹

This linguistic habit masks a crucial conceptual difference that defines the user experience and the system’s economic realities.

Healthcare is the tangible service of providing medical care.

It is formally defined as the “efforts made to maintain or restore mental, physical, or emotional well-being by licensed and trained professionals”.²

This definition encompasses a vast and complex industry of human activity and infrastructure.

The healthcare industry is composed of doctors, nurses, therapists, dentists, pharmaceutical companies, and entire hospital systems.²

The services they render are diverse, ranging from preventative medicine like annual check-ups and vaccinations, to emergency room interventions, chronic disease management, prescription drug administration, and complex surgical procedures.¹

The ultimate goal of healthcare is clinical: to diagnose, treat, and prevent disease, thereby improving a patient’s quality of life and longevity.²

Health Insurance, in stark contrast, is not a service but a financial product.

It is a “legal entitlement to payment or reimbursement for your health care costs, generally under a contract with a health insurance company”.³

Its primary purpose is not to deliver care, but to provide “financial protection” against the potentially crippling costs associated with medical events.³

An insurance policy is a contract that agrees to “absorb or offset healthcare costs” in exchange for regular payments, known as premiums.²

This establishes health insurance as a tool for risk management, designed to pool the financial risk of a large population to cover the high costs incurred by a few.⁵

This separation creates an inherent and unavoidable conflict of interest at the heart of the U.S. system.

The objective of healthcare providers is to deliver necessary services to improve patient well-being, an activity that inherently increases costs.

Conversely, the objective of a for-profit health insurance company is to manage financial risk and maximize profit for its shareholders.⁶

Since an insurer’s largest expense is paying for healthcare services, its financial incentive is to minimize those payouts.

This dynamic places the two domains in direct opposition.

A physician may deem a specific treatment or medication medically essential for a patient’s health, but the insurer, operating under the logic of its financial contract, may deem that same service too expensive, not medically necessary by its own criteria, or simply not covered under the policy terms.

This is not a failure of the system but rather the system operating exactly as it is designed, with two powerful actors pursuing fundamentally opposing goals.

This foundational conflict is the genesis of many of the system’s most criticized features, including claim denials and the administrative battles over prior authorization.

The Spectrum of Coverage: Not All “Insurance” Is Created Equal

The term “coverage” itself is not monolithic.

The landscape includes a spectrum of financial products that offer varying levels of protection, further complicating the consumer experience.

A key distinction exists between comprehensive health insurance and the more limited medical insurance.

Comprehensive health insurance is designed to provide a broad financial safety Net. It typically covers a wide range of services, including direct medical costs, pre- and post-hospitalization expenses, ambulance charges, routine medical check-ups, and other necessities.⁷

It is intended to offer protection against both predictable costs and unforeseen events like accidents and injuries.⁷

Medical insurance, on the other hand, offers a more targeted and limited form of coverage.

It often focuses on specific, high-cost events, such as in-patient hospitalization or treatment for a narrow list of illnesses or accidents.⁷

Compared to comprehensive health insurance, medical insurance plans are less flexible, offer fewer opportunities for customization through riders (like critical illness cover), and provide a less extensive financial safety Net.⁷

Further complicating the lexicon is the distinction between a health plan and health insurance.

A health plan represents a broader, more strategic approach to organizing and receiving healthcare services.⁴

This could be a managed care plan offered by an employer, a government program like Medicare, or a plan purchased directly from a provider.

Health insurance, in this context, is the financial component—the contract that subsidizes the cost of care received through the plan.⁴

This highlights a critical nuance: the structure of care delivery (the plan) and the financing mechanism (the insurance) are two separate, though intricately linked, concepts.

Not all health plans necessarily come with insurance, and not all insurance policies are attached to a comprehensive, managed health plan.⁴

The Delivery System: The Operational World That Insurance Navigates

To fully grasp the role of insurance, it is essential to understand the operational world it interfaces with—the world of healthcare delivery.

This world has its own complex internal structure, managed by professionals in healthcare administration and management.

These roles are part of the healthcare domain, not the insurance domain, but their functions are heavily influenced and often constrained by the rules imposed by insurers.

Healthcare Administration is concerned with the day-to-day operational integrity and efficiency of a medical facility.

Administrators are responsible for a wide array of tasks that ensure a hospital, clinic, or nursing home can function smoothly.

These duties include creating staff schedules, managing the hiring and training of employees, overseeing patient records and billing systems, monitoring inventory and ordering medical supplies, and ensuring the facility complies with a host of state and federal regulations, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).⁸

Their focus is tactical and immediate: supervising departments and workflows to ensure high-quality patient services can be delivered effectively.⁸

Healthcare Management, by contrast, takes a more strategic, “big picture” view of the healthcare organization.

Managers focus on the long-term business and financial health of the institution.⁸

Their responsibilities include developing business plans, determining financial strategies, defining the organization’s overarching mission and values, designing emergency protocols, and coordinating with external partners and investors.⁸

They set the course for the organization as a whole, while administrators navigate the daily execution of that course.

This distinction is vital because it reveals the multiple layers of bureaucracy at play.

Healthcare organizations already possess a sophisticated administrative and managerial apparatus dedicated to the complex task of delivering care.

The insurance system then superimposes an entirely separate, and often conflicting, set of administrative requirements, financial rules, and procedural hurdles that providers must navigate simply to get paid for the services they render.

This dual administrative burden is a significant source of inefficiency, cost, and friction within the U.S. healthcare system.

Section 2: Deconstructing the Insurance Contract: A Guide to the Mechanics of Coverage

The health insurance policy is a complex legal contract that dictates the financial relationship between the member, the insurer, and the healthcare provider.

Its language and structure are often opaque to the average consumer, yet they hold the key to understanding one’s true financial exposure.

Navigating this contract requires fluency in its core concepts: the language of cost-sharing, the geography of provider networks, and the architecture of different plan types.

The Language of Cost-Sharing: A Lexicon of Patient Liability

Cost-sharing is the portion of costs for covered services that a member must pay out of their own pocket.¹⁴

This is distinct from the premium and is designed to make consumers more conscious of the cost of the care they use.

Understanding these terms is fundamental to predicting and managing healthcare expenses.

Term	Definition	How It Works (Example)	Counts Towards Out-of-Pocket Max?
Premium	The fixed amount paid periodically (e.g., monthly) to the insurance company to keep the policy active.	You pay a $400 premium each month, whether you see a doctor or not. This payment ensures your coverage remains in force.3	No 14
Deductible	The amount you must pay for covered health services before your insurance plan starts to pay.	Your plan has a $2,000 deductible. You pay the full cost of your first several doctor visits and lab tests until your payments total $2,000. After that, the plan begins to share costs.3	Yes 16
Copayment (Copay)	A fixed, flat fee you pay for a specific covered service, usually at the time you receive it.	After meeting your deductible, you have a $30 copay for each primary care visit and a $15 copay for each generic prescription fill.3	Yes (in most plans) 16
Coinsurance	The percentage of the cost of a covered health service that you pay after you have met your deductible.	Your plan has 20% coinsurance. After your deductible is met, you have a surgery that costs $10,000. You pay 20% ($2,000), and the insurer pays 80% ($8,000).3	Yes 16
Out-of-Pocket Maximum (OOP Max)	The most you have to pay for covered services in a plan year. Once you reach this limit, the plan pays 100% of the allowed amount for covered services for the rest of the year.	Your OOP Max is $6,850. After you have paid this amount through a combination of your deductible, copays, and coinsurance, your plan pays for all subsequent covered care in full.3	N/A

The interplay of these terms creates a sequence of payment obligations for the patient.

First, the patient pays all costs until the deductible is M.T. Then, they pay copays or coinsurance for each service.

These payments accumulate toward the out-of-pocket maximum.

Once that maximum is reached, the insurer takes over 100% of the costs for covered services.

However, this system is fraught with complexity.

Premiums never count toward the deductible or out-of-pocket maximum, and payments for services the plan doesn’t cover or amounts from out-of-network balance billing are also excluded, creating potential for costs far exceeding the stated “maximum”.¹⁴

This intricate web of rules creates a significant information asymmetry; while insurers design these plans and can model their financial risk with precision, consumers are often unable to accurately predict their total potential liability for a given year or a specific medical event.

This complexity fundamentally undermines the principles of a rational, consumer-driven market, as it prevents individuals from making simple, transparent comparisons between plans based on predictable final costs.

Navigating the Network: The Geography of Cost

Modern health insurance is predominantly a system of managed care, which relies on provider networks to control costs.²⁰

A provider network is a group of doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and other healthcare facilities that have signed a contract with an insurance plan to provide services to its members at a pre-negotiated, discounted rate.²¹

The distinction between in-network and out-of-network care is arguably the single most important factor determining a patient’s final bill.

In-Network Providers are participants in the plan’s contracted network.

When a member sees an in-network provider, they receive the full benefit of the insurer’s negotiated discount.²²

For example, a doctor’s standard charge for a visit might be $150, but the insurer’s negotiated “allowed amount” is only $90.

The member is only responsible for their cost-sharing (deductible, copay, etc.) based on that lower $90 amount, and the provider is contractually obligated to accept it as payment in full.

They are forbidden from billing the patient for the $60 difference.²⁴

This is why staying in-network is the key to minimizing out-of-pocket costs.

Out-of-Network Providers have no such contract with the insurance plan.²²

If a member’s plan allows for out-of-network care (as PPO plans do), the insurer will still only pay a percentage of its own “allowed amount,” which is often lower than the provider’s full charge.²³

The out-of-network provider is then free to bill the patient for the entire remaining balance—a practice known as

balance billing.²³

This can lead to massive, unexpected bills, as the patient is responsible for the difference between the insurer’s payment and the provider’s undiscounted fee.

For some plan types, like HMOs and EPOs, there is no coverage for non-emergency out-of-network care at all, meaning the patient is responsible for 100% of the bill.²¹

While networks are presented to consumers as a cost-saving feature, they also serve as a powerful tool for insurers to manage their own costs and market position.

By creating narrow networks, especially for specialists, insurers can funnel patients toward providers who have agreed to accept the lowest reimbursement rates, thereby increasing the insurer’s profitability.⁶

This can lead to significant access issues for patients, including long wait times for appointments.⁶

Furthermore, a provider’s inclusion in a network is not an indicator of their clinical quality; it is purely a reflection of a business agreement based on negotiated fees.⁶

This creates a “shadow market” where the primary negotiation occurs between the insurer and the provider, with the patient’s access and choice often being secondary considerations.

This dynamic also explains the perilous “in-network hospital, out-of-network doctor” trap, where a patient can carefully choose an in-network facility for a surgery, only to be unknowingly treated by an out-of-network anesthesiologist or radiologist who bills separately, generating a surprise bill.²⁷

A Comparative Analysis of Plan Architectures

The structure of a health plan dictates the rules of its network and cost-sharing, creating a series of trade-offs between cost, flexibility, and administrative burden for the consumer.

The primary plan architectures in the U.S. market are as follows:

Plan Type	Key Feature	Provider Choice (Network)	Out-of-Network Coverage	Referral Required?	Best For (Consumer Profile)
HMO (Health Maintenance Organization)	Emphasizes integrated, in-network care and cost control.	Must use providers within the HMO’s network.	None, except for emergencies.	Yes, typically requires a Primary Care Physician (PCP) referral to see a specialist.	Individuals who are comfortable with a limited network and PCP coordination in exchange for potentially lower premiums.
PPO (Preferred Provider Organization)	Offers flexibility to see any provider, with a financial incentive to stay in-network.	Can see both in-network and out-of-network providers.	Yes, but at a higher cost (higher deductible, coinsurance, and potential for balance billing).	No, referrals are not needed to see specialists.	Individuals who want more choice in providers and are willing to pay higher premiums and manage the potential costs of out-of-network care.
EPO (Exclusive Provider Organization)	A hybrid that combines the network restrictions of an HMO with the direct specialist access of a PPO.	Must use providers within the EPO’s network.	None, except for emergencies.	No, referrals are generally not needed.	Individuals who want direct access to specialists but are willing to stay within a defined network to control costs.
POS (Point of Service)	A hybrid that combines features of both HMOs and PPOs.	Members choose a PCP within a network but can go out-of-network for care.	Yes, but at a higher cost, similar to a PPO.	Yes, typically requires a PCP referral for specialist care, even in-network.	Individuals who want the option to go out-of-network but are willing to have their care coordinated by a PCP.
HDHP (High-Deductible Health Plan)	Characterized by low premiums and a very high deductible, often paired with a Health Savings Account (HSA).	Can be structured as an HMO, PPO, EPO, or POS. Network rules depend on the underlying plan type.	Depends on the underlying plan type (e.g., a PPO-based HDHP will have it, an HMO-based one will not).	Depends on the underlying plan type.	Healthy individuals with low anticipated medical needs who want to minimize monthly premiums and can afford the high deductible if an unexpected event occurs.

Sources: ³

Section 3: The Administrative Gauntlet: How Insurance Systems Mediate Access to Care

Beyond the financial architecture of cost-sharing and networks, health insurance plans employ a range of administrative processes that act as gatekeepers to care.

These mechanisms, presented as tools for care coordination and cost control, often function as significant barriers for both patients and providers, introducing delays, administrative burdens, and the potential for outright denial of medically necessary services.

The Referral Requirement: The PCP as Gatekeeper

In many managed care plans, particularly Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) and some Point of Service (POS) plans, the Primary Care Physician (PCP) plays a central role as a “gatekeeper”.⁴

Before a patient can see a specialist or receive certain types of medical services, they must first obtain a

referral, which is a formal written order from their PCP.³²

The stated purpose of this system is to improve care coordination, ensuring that a central physician is aware of all aspects of a patient’s health and can guide them to the appropriate, in-network specialist.³¹

However, the process is also a powerful cost-containment tool.

If a patient sees a specialist without obtaining the required referral beforehand, the insurance plan may refuse to pay for the services rendered, leaving the patient responsible for the full, undiscounted cost of the visit.³³

The process of obtaining a referral can be an administrative hurdle in itself.

It often requires the patient to contact the PCP’s office, sometimes necessitating an appointment, and then wait for the referral to be processed, which can take several business days.³³

Furthermore, referrals are not open-ended; they are typically limited to a certain number of visits or a specific period of time.³¹

For patients with chronic conditions requiring ongoing specialist care, this means they must repeatedly go through the referral process to ensure their follow-up visits remain covered.

While the PCP initiates the referral, the ultimate responsibility to ensure it is in place and that the specialist is indeed in-network often falls upon the patient, adding another layer of complexity to the task of seeking care.³¹

Prior Authorization: The Hidden Barrier to Medically Necessary Care

Perhaps the most contentious administrative process in American healthcare is prior authorization, also known as preauthorization or precertification.³⁵

This is a cost-control mechanism that requires a physician or other provider to obtain advance approval from a patient’s health plan before a specific service, treatment plan, or prescription drug can be provided in order for it to be covered.³⁶

Emergency care is exempt from this requirement.³⁶

From the insurer’s perspective, prior authorization serves two main purposes: to control costs by preventing unnecessary or overly expensive treatments, and to verify that the proposed care meets the plan’s definition of “medical necessity”.³⁵

However, from the perspective of physicians and patients, the process is widely viewed as a significant impediment to timely and effective care.

The American Medical Association (AMA) has extensively documented the negative impacts of prior authorization, describing it as a major administrative burden that diverts valuable clinical time and resources away from direct patient care.³⁹

Physicians report the process is often “opaque and unpredictable,” complicating the shared decision-making process with patients, as they cannot be certain which treatments an insurer will ultimately approve.⁴⁰

The clinical consequences of these administrative delays are severe.

Data from an AMA survey of physicians paints a stark picture of the harm caused by prior authorization protocols ³⁹:

• An overwhelming 93% of physicians report that prior authorization processes delay patient access to necessary care.
• 91% believe that these delays can lead to negative clinical outcomes for their patients.
• 82% state that the hurdles and delays associated with prior authorization can lead to patients abandoning their prescribed course of treatment altogether.
• Most alarmingly, 34% of physicians report that a prior authorization process has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care, such as hospitalization, permanent disability, or even death.

These statistics demonstrate that administrative mechanisms like prior authorization are not benign procedural checks.

They function as powerful tools to ration care and reduce insurer payouts.

The friction, delays, and potential for denial inherent in the process act as a strong deterrent.

An insurer can achieve the same financial outcome as an explicit claim denial by making the approval process so prolonged and burdensome that the patient or provider gives up, and the care is never delivered.

This “soft denial” through administrative friction is often less transparent and more difficult for a consumer to appeal than a formal post-service claim denial, yet it has the same practical effect: the insurer avoids a payment.

This dynamic fundamentally shifts the battleground of coverage from after-the-fact claim adjudication to a pre-service struggle for approval, placing the physician in an adversarial role against the insurer and injecting profound uncertainty into the clinical relationship.

Section 4: The Price of Health: Quantifying the Economic Impact on the Nation and the Individual

The unique structure of the American healthcare system, with its division between service delivery and financial administration, has produced an economic landscape unlike any other developed nation.

The United States is a profound outlier, characterized by exorbitant spending at the national level and a crushing cost burden on individuals and families, a burden that insurance coverage often fails to alleviate.

A Macroeconomic View: A Nation’s Uncontrolled Spending

The scale of U.S. healthcare spending is immense.

The country is an outlier not just on measures of health system performance, but on spending as well.⁴¹

In 2023, national spending on hospital care alone reached

$1.5 trillion, accounting for 31% of all national health expenditures.

Physician and clinical services comprised another 20% of the total, with retail prescription drugs adding 9%.⁴²

This means that just these three categories make up 60% of all health spending in the nation.

This level of expenditure is not static; it is growing at an unsustainable rate.

Spending on hospital care as a percentage of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is projected to increase from 5.5% in 2023 to 6.0% by 2032.⁴²

This trend indicates a systemic cost-growth problem that consistently outpaces the growth of the overall economy.

The primary payers for this enormous outlay are not individuals paying at the point of service, but large third-party entities.

In 2023, private health insurance was the largest payer for hospital care (37%), followed by the government programs Medicare (25%) and Medicaid (19%).

Direct out-of-pocket payments from patients accounted for a mere 3% of total hospital revenue, underscoring the central role that insurance intermediaries play in financing the system.⁴²

The Escalating Cost of Coverage: Premiums and Deductibles Outpace Wages

For the majority of non-elderly Americans who receive health coverage through their jobs, the cost of that coverage has become a significant and escalating financial burden.

The 2024 Employer Health Benefits Survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) provides a detailed snapshot of these costs.

2024 U.S. Health Insurance Cost Snapshot (Employer-Sponsored Plans)

Metric

Average Annual Premium (Family Coverage)

Average Annual Premium (Single Coverage)

Average Annual Deductible (Single Coverage)

1-Year Family Premium Growth (2023-2024)

1-Year Wage Growth (2023-2024)

10-Year Family Premium Growth (2014-2024)

10-Year Inflation (2014-2024)

% of Workers with Deductible of $2,000+

Sources: ⁴³

As the table illustrates, the average annual premium for family coverage through an employer reached $25,572 in 2024, while single coverage cost $8,951.⁴³

These figures represent a significant financial outlay for both employers and employees.

More concerning is the rate of growth.

The 7% increase in family premiums in 2024 substantially outpaced both the 4.5% growth in workers’ wages and the 3.2% rate of inflation.⁴³

This is not a one-year anomaly.

Over the past decade (2014-2024), the average family premium has skyrocketed by 52%, far exceeding the cumulative inflation rate of 32% over the same period.⁴³

In addition to rising premiums, the initial barrier to using care—the deductible—has also grown substantially.

The average general annual deductible for a single worker in 2024 stood at $1,787.⁴⁴

Perhaps more telling is the share of workers facing very high deductibles.

In 2024, 32% of all covered workers were in a plan with a deductible of $2,000 or more for single coverage.

This is a dramatic increase from a decade prior, when only 18% of workers faced such a high threshold.⁴⁴

This data reveals a deeply troubling paradox.

Americans are paying significantly more each year for their health insurance policies, as reflected in rising premiums.

At the same time, the financial protection offered by those policies is eroding, as they are being asked to cover a much larger share of their initial medical costs through higher deductibles.

The product is simultaneously becoming more expensive and less effective at its core function of providing financial security.

This is a logical outcome of a system where insurers, facing rising healthcare delivery costs, protect their profitability by not only increasing the price of their product (premiums) but also by shifting a greater portion of the risk back onto the consumer (deductibles).

This “hollowing out” of the insurance product is a primary driver of the affordability crisis and the phenomenon of medical debt, even among the insured.

The Crisis of Medical Debt: The Insured Are Not Immune

One of the most damaging myths about the U.S. healthcare system is that having insurance provides a shield against financial hardship.

The data unequivocally proves this to be false.

Despite record-low uninsured rates achieved under the Affordable Care Act, medical debt remains a pervasive national crisis.

A 2024 survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that a staggering 44% of American adults carry medical debt.⁴⁵

An earlier report found that 41% of working-age Americans—an estimated 72 million people—either had problems paying medical bills or were actively paying off accumulated medical debt.⁴⁶

Crucially, this is not a problem confined to the uninsured.

The concept of being underinsured has become central to understanding modern healthcare affordability.

An individual is considered underinsured if their out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles, are so high relative to their income that their health plan fails to provide adequate financial protection from medical expenses.⁴⁶

The 2024 Commonwealth Fund survey revealed that nearly a quarter (23%) of all insured adults fall into this category.⁴⁷

The primary source of this inadequate coverage is not the individual marketplace, but the workplace: two-thirds (66%) of underinsured Americans receive their coverage through an employer.⁴⁷

The consequences are stark.

Underinsured individuals are more than twice as likely to face medical bill problems and debt as those with adequate coverage.⁴⁶

This financial toxicity has a direct impact on healthcare providers.

In a stunning reversal of historical norms, insured patients now account for the majority (53%) of the bad debt that hospitals and medical practices are forced to write off, which amounted to an estimated $17.4 billion in 2023.⁴⁵

The Shock of Surprise Billing and the No Surprises Act

For years, one of the most acute and anxiety-inducing manifestations of the disconnect between insurance and healthcare was the surprise medical bill.

This phenomenon typically occurs when a patient, believing they are receiving care within their plan’s network, is unknowingly treated by an out-of-network provider.⁴⁸

Common scenarios include receiving care at an in-network hospital but being treated by an out-of-network emergency room physician, anesthesiologist, or radiologist, or being transported by an out-of-network ambulance.²⁷

The out-of-network provider would then balance bill the patient for the difference between their full charge and the insurer’s payment, leading to unexpected and often exorbitant bills.

This was not a rare occurrence.

Before legislative reform, an estimated 1 in 5 emergency room visits resulted in a surprise medical bill.⁴⁹

The issue became a top financial worry for Americans, with two-thirds of adults expressing concern about being able to afford such bills.⁴⁸

In response to widespread public outcry, Congress passed the bipartisan No Surprises Act (NSA), which took effect on January 1, 2022.

The law provides federal protection against surprise billing for most emergency services, for non-emergency services provided by out-of-network clinicians at in-network facilities, and for services from out-of-network air ambulance providers.²⁵

Instead of the patient being billed, the law establishes an Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) process for providers and insurers to negotiate payment.

The law has had a significant positive impact, preventing an estimated 10 million surprise medical bills from reaching patients in just the first nine months of 2023.⁵⁰

However, the NSA is facing ongoing challenges.

It has been the target of multiple lawsuits from provider groups seeking to weaken its provisions.⁴⁹

Furthermore, the IDR process is being used at a rate far exceeding initial estimates.

Federal agencies projected about 17,000 claims would go through the IDR process annually; in reality, nearly 335,000 disputes were initiated in less than a year.⁵⁰

This suggests that some providers may be leveraging the arbitration process in an attempt to secure higher payments than they would have otherwise, potentially undermining the law’s long-term goal of controlling costs.⁵⁰

Section 5: The Insured but Unprotected: Debunking Myths and Confronting Consumer Realities

The chasm between the promise of health insurance and the reality of accessing affordable healthcare is vast, populated by a series of pervasive myths and harsh consumer realities.

For millions of Americans, being “covered” does not mean they are protected from the financial or administrative burdens of the healthcare system.

This section deconstructs common misconceptions and examines the consequences of a system where the business interests of insurance can conflict with the health interests of patients.

Common Misconceptions vs. Contractual Reality

The complexity of health insurance has fostered a number of dangerous myths.

Acting on these misconceptions can lead to unexpected denials of care and severe financial hardship.

• Myth: The cheapest premium is the cheapest plan.
• Reality: This is one of the most common and costly mistakes consumers make. A low monthly premium is often the hallmark of a High-Deductible Health Plan (HDHP).⁴ While attractive to healthy individuals who anticipate few medical needs, these plans can be financially devastating if an unexpected illness or accident occurs. A consumer might save a few hundred dollars a year on premiums, only to be faced with an upfront, out-of-pocket cost of several thousand dollars to meet their deductible before their insurance provides any significant payment.²⁹ For individuals with chronic conditions requiring regular medication and doctor visits, a plan with a higher premium but lower cost-sharing may result in far less total spending over the course of a year.²⁹
• Myth: My insurance covers anything my doctor says is necessary.
• Reality: A physician’s medical judgment does not automatically trigger insurance coverage. Health plans reserve the right to apply their own internal criteria to determine if a service or treatment is “medically necessary” according to their policy terms.²⁷ This is the entire premise behind the prior authorization process. A doctor can order a test or prescribe a medication, only for the insurer to deny coverage, forcing the patient and provider to either appeal the decision or find an alternative treatment that the plan will cover.
• Myth: I can see any doctor or go to any hospital.
• Reality: As detailed in Section 2, most modern health plans are built around provider networks. With the exception of true emergencies, going to an out-of-network doctor or hospital will result in drastically higher costs or, in the case of HMO and EPO plans, no coverage at all.²¹ A particularly insidious version of this myth is the belief that all providers working within an in-network hospital are also in-network. This is frequently untrue; specialists like anesthesiologists, radiologists, and pathologists often have separate contracts (or no contract) with insurers and can bill separately, a practice that was a major source of surprise bills before the No Surprises Act.²⁷
• Myth: Having insurance means I don’t have to worry about healthcare costs.
• Reality: For a growing number of Americans, this could not be further from the truth. The prevalence of high-deductible plans means that many insured individuals are effectively paying for all of their routine medical care out-of-pocket until they spend thousands of dollars.⁶ One analysis noted that over half of all health insurance holders have a deductible exceeding $1,000.⁶ This reality gives rise to the “functionally uninsured,” a concept explored below.

The Affordability Gap and Its Consequences

The high cost of both insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses creates a significant affordability gap, even for those with coverage.

The consequences of this gap are not merely financial; they have a direct and detrimental impact on public health.

Polling data from KFF reveals that just under half of all U.S. adults (44%) report finding it “very” or “somewhat difficult” to afford their healthcare costs.⁵⁴

This is not a problem limited to the poor or uninsured; a substantial

42% of adults who have health insurance coverage report the same difficulty.⁵⁴

When care is unaffordable, people are forced to make difficult choices.

The most common response is to simply not get the care they need.

About one-third (36%) of all adults have skipped or postponed getting health care they needed in the past year because of the cost.⁵⁴

While this figure is alarmingly high for the population as a whole, it is catastrophic for the uninsured, 75% of whom report forgoing needed care due to cost.⁵⁴

This avoidance of care is not a benign financial decision; it leads to demonstrably worse health outcomes.

Nearly one in five adults (18%) who skipped or delayed care report that their health condition got worse as a result.⁵⁴

The Institute of Medicine has estimated that thousands of Americans die prematurely each year simply because they lack the health coverage needed to access timely care.⁵⁵

The combination of high premiums, high deductibles, and complex cost-sharing rules has effectively created a large and growing class of Americans who are “functionally uninsured.” These are individuals who diligently pay their monthly insurance premiums but whose deductibles and copayments are so high that they cannot afford to access routine or non-emergency care.

They possess an insurance card, so they are not counted in official statistics of the uninsured.

However, their behavior—avoiding necessary medical care due to cost—is identical to that of someone with no insurance at all.

Their policy provides protection only against a true financial catastrophe (an event that would cause them to meet their high out-of-pocket maximum), but it fails to facilitate the use of day-to-day healthcare.

This is a critical, hidden crisis in American healthcare.

Policy discussions that focus exclusively on the headline “uninsured rate” miss this massive population of insured individuals who still face prohibitive financial barriers to care, suggesting that simply expanding coverage with high-deductible plans is not a panacea and may even exacerbate the problem of medical debt.

The Business of Insurance: Profit vs. Patient Health

To understand why these realities persist, it is essential to analyze the fundamental business model of commercial health insurance.

For-profit insurance companies are publicly traded or privately owned businesses with a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.

Their primary goal, like any other business, is to generate profit.⁶

This objective is not inherently nefarious, but it does create a structural tension with the goal of promoting patient health.

From an insurer’s financial perspective, a patient is not just a person in need of care but a “risk that must be managed using algorithms and legal maneuvers”.⁶

The premiums collected represent revenue, while the payments made for medical claims represent costs.

To maximize profit, an insurer must either increase revenue (raise premiums) or decrease costs (pay fewer claims).

This business logic explains the industry’s reliance on cost-control tactics like prior authorization, narrow networks, and claim denials, which may appear counterintuitive or obstructive from a purely clinical perspective.

Author Jay Feinman’s book,

Delay, Deny, Defend, is cited as a summary of common insurance industry strategies used across sectors to minimize payouts and enhance profitability at the expense of policyholders.⁶

This does not mean that insurers never have their members’ best interests in mind; many plans offer wellness programs and preventative care benefits because a healthier population can be less costly in the long R.N.³

However, it does mean that when a conflict arises between the cost of a patient’s care and the company’s bottom line, the financial incentive structure is clear.

This creates a fundamentally adversarial element in the relationship, where the consumer’s health interests may not always align with the insurer’s financial interests.

Section 6: Synthesis and Strategic Recommendations

The preceding analysis has deconstructed the complex and often adversarial relationship between healthcare delivery and health insurance financing in the United States.

The evidence reveals a system defined by a foundational disconnect, where the administrative and financial logic of insurance frequently overrides the clinical needs of patients.

This final section synthesizes these findings and proposes targeted, evidence-based recommendations for key stakeholders to begin bridging this critical divide.

The Illusion of Coverage: Synthesizing the Central Argument

The U.S. healthcare system is built upon the fundamental schism between healthcare as a human service and health insurance as a financial product.

While these two concepts are inextricably linked, their goals are often in direct conflict.

The delivery of healthcare aims to maximize well-being, an activity that inherently incurs cost.

The business of commercial health insurance aims to manage financial risk and maximize profit, an activity that incentivizes minimizing cost.

This report has demonstrated that the primary features of the insurance system—complex cost-sharing, restrictive provider networks, and administrative hurdles like prior authorization—are not bugs but are, in fact, features designed to execute this risk-management function.

The consequence of this design is a system where the term “coverage” has become an illusion for millions of Americans.

It promises access to care but delivers that access through a gauntlet of financial tripwires and administrative barriers.

This leads to the central paradox of American healthcare: a nation that spends more per capita than any other on health is simultaneously plagued by widespread medical debt, delayed and forgone care due to cost, and profound financial anxiety, even among those who are insured.

The system creates a large and growing population of the “functionally uninsured”—individuals who pay for a policy but cannot afford the out-of-pocket costs to actually use it.

The result is a landscape where being “covered” no longer guarantees affordable, timely, or unencumbered access to medical care.

Pathways to Systemic Improvement: Recommendations for Stakeholders

Addressing these deep-seated structural problems requires a multi-faceted approach involving policymakers, employers, and consumers.

The following recommendations are derived from the evidence presented in this report and are aimed at increasing transparency, simplifying administration, and improving the affordability of care.

For Policymakers:

• Strengthen and Expand the No Surprises Act: The NSA has been a landmark success in protecting consumers from some of the most egregious forms of surprise billing.⁵⁰ However, it faces threats from litigation and potential misuse of its dispute resolution process.⁴⁹ Policymakers must vigorously defend the law in court and consider regulatory adjustments to address the skyrocketing use of the IDR process, ensuring it functions as a fair arbitration mechanism and not a tool for providers to drive up costs.
• Reform and Standardize Prior Authorization: The evidence of harm from prior authorization delays is undeniable.³⁹ Federal and state policymakers should enact reforms that mandate standardized, electronic prior authorization processes to reduce administrative waste. Legislation should also require real-time decisions for routinely approved services and create “gold card” programs that exempt physicians with a proven history of high approval rates from cumbersome review processes, freeing them to focus on patient care.³⁹
• Simplify and Standardize Plan Design: The bewildering complexity of insurance plans prevents consumers from making informed choices and undermines market competition. Policymakers should explore legislation to standardize cost-sharing structures. For example, mandating a single, global deductible that includes both medical and pharmacy expenses, or standardizing the presentation of plans on public exchanges (beyond the metal tiers) could dramatically improve consumer understanding and price transparency.

For Employers and Benefits Directors:

• Prioritize “Value” Over “Cost”: In selecting health plans, employers should shift their focus from choosing the option with the lowest monthly premium to selecting plans that provide the greatest overall value and financial protection for employees. This means prioritizing plans with lower, more manageable deductibles and predictable copayments, even if they come with slightly higher premiums. This strategy can reduce the risk of creating a “functionally uninsured” workforce, where employees are covered on paper but avoid necessary care, leading to lower productivity and worse long-term health outcomes.
• Enhance Employee Education and Support: Employers must invest in robust, year-round education programs that go far beyond standard open enrollment packets. These programs should actively teach employees how to navigate their specific plan, including how to verify provider network status, read an Explanation of Benefits (EOB), understand their appeal rights, and effectively use financial tools like Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Providing access to benefits navigation services can also be a high-impact investment.

For Consumers:

• Become a Proactive Navigator: In the current system, passive participation is financially perilous. Consumers must become active managers of their own care and coverage. This means always verifying the network status of every single provider—including the facility, the primary doctor, the specialists, the lab, and the anesthesiologist—before receiving any non-emergency care.²² This can be done by calling the insurance company directly or using the provider directory on their website, and then cross-referencing by calling the provider’s office.
• Understand and Exercise Your Appeal Rights: A denial of a claim or a prior authorization request from an insurer is not necessarily the final word. Patients have a legal right to appeal these decisions.²⁷ Understanding the appeals process outlined in their plan documents and persistently pursuing an appeal for medically necessary care can often lead to a reversal of the initial denial.
• Question Every Bill: Medical billing errors are common.⁵⁶ Consumers should never pay a medical bill without first scrutinizing it and comparing it to the Explanation of Benefits (EOB) provided by their insurer. They should challenge any charges that seem incorrect, are for services they did not receive, or were for services they believed were covered. Contacting both the provider’s billing office and the insurance company is a critical step in resolving discrepancies.

Works cited

1. www.bbgbroker.com, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.bbgbroker.com/healthcare-vs-health-insurance/#:~:text=Healthcare%20and%20health%20insurance%20are,provides%20coverage%20for%20medical%20services.
2. Healthcare vs. Health Insurance: The Differences – Business Benefits Group, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.bbgbroker.com/healthcare-vs-health-insurance/
3. Health Insurance Basics | CMS, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cms.gov/files/document/nsa-health-insurance-basics.pdf
4. In-depth Analysis: Health Plan Vs. Healthcare Insurance | Decent, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.decent.com/blog/in-depth-analysis-health-plan-vs-healthcare-insurance
5. Health Insurance 101 | UnitedHealthcare Student Resources, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.uhcsr.com/insurance101
6. The Myths and Realities of Healthcare Insurance: Why You Might Be Paying More Than You Should, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.stlcch.com/blog/myths-and-realities-of-health-insurance
7. Difference Between Health Insurance and Medical Insurance – Niva Bupa, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.nivabupa.com/health-insurance-articles/difference-between-health-insurance-and-medical-insurance.html
8. Healthcare Management vs. Healthcare Administration | NU – National University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.nu.edu/blog/healthcare-management-vs-healthcare-administration/
9. Medical and Health Services Managers : Occupational Outlook Handbook, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/medical-and-health-services-managers.htm
10. Healthcare Administration vs. Healthcare Management: What’s the Difference?, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.concorde.edu/blog/healthcare-administration-vs-healthcare-management-whats-difference
11. Comparing Healthcare Management vs. Healthcare Administration | University of Phoenix, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.phoenix.edu/blog/healthcare-management-vs-healthcare-administration.html
12. Health Services Administration vs. Health Care Administration | Concorde Career Colleges, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.concorde.edu/blog/health-services-administration-vs-health-care-administration
13. Healthcare Management vs. Administration: Key Differences – Herzing University, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.herzing.edu/difference/healthcare-management-vs-administration
14. No Surprises: Health insurance terms you should know | CMS, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cms.gov/files/document/nosurpriseactfactsheet-health-insurance-terms-you-should-know508c.pdf
15. Premiums, Deductibles, Coinsurance & Copays Explained | Aetna, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.aetna.com/health-guide/explaining-premiums-deductibles-coinsurance-and-copays.html
16. Deductible vs. Out-of-Pocket Maximum – MetLife, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.metlife.com/stories/benefits/deductible-vs-out-of-pocket-maximum/
17. FAQs • What is the difference between a deductible, copay, c – Mayfield Heights, accessed August 12, 2025, https://mayfieldheightsohio.gov/FAQ.aspx?QID=196
18. Copay, coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximum | UnitedHealthcare, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.uhc.com/understanding-health-insurance/understanding-health-insurance-costs/types-of-health-insurance-costs/copay-coinsurance-and-out-of-pocket-maximum
19. Coinsurance – Glossary | HealthCare.gov, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/co-insurance/
20. Health care coverage guide – Texas Department of Insurance, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.tdi.texas.gov/pubs/consumer/cb005.html
21. What You Should Know About Provider Networks – CMS, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cms.gov/marketplace/outreach-and-education/what-you-should-know-provider-networks.pdf
22. Understanding “In-Network” and “Out-of-Network” Providers | Renown Health, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.renown.org/blog/in-vs-out-of-network
23. Network & Out-of-Network Care – Aetna | Benefits, Coverage & Costs, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.aetna.com/individuals-families/using-your-aetna-benefits/network-out-of-network-care.html
24. Difference Between In Network and Out of Network | BCBSM, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.bcbsm.com/individuals/help/how-health-insurance-works/difference-in-network-out-of-network/
25. Frequently Asked Questions: In-Network vs. Out-of-Network Providers – Maryland Insurance Administration, accessed August 12, 2025, https://insurance.maryland.gov/consumer/documents/publications/assignmentofbenefitsfaq.pdf
26. In-network vs. out-of-network coverage: What are the differences? – HealthPartners, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.healthpartners.com/blog/in-network-vs-out-of-network/
27. Top 10 health insurance myths … – Division of Financial Regulation, accessed August 12, 2025, https://dfr.oregon.gov/insure/health/understand/pages/top-10-health-insurance-myths.aspx
28. New Survey Reveals 57% of Americans Have Been Surprised by a Medical Bill | NORC at the University of Chicago, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.norc.org/research/library/new-survey-reveals-57–of-americans-have-been-surprised-by-a-med.html
29. 6 Health Insurance Myths, Explained – Harvard Pilgrim Health Care – HaPi Guide, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.harvardpilgrim.org/hapiguide/6-health-insurance-myths/
30. Types of Plans – California Department of Managed Health Care, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.dmhc.ca.gov/HealthCareinCalifornia/TypesofPlans.aspx
31. What is a healthcare referral? – Healthinsurance.org, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.healthinsurance.org/glossary/healthcare-referral/
32. Referral – Glossary | HealthCare.gov, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/referral/
33. Insurance and Referral Guidelines | BIDMC of Boston, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.bidmc.org/centers-and-departments/general-medicine-primary-care/healthcare-associates-hca/insurance-and-managed-care-guidelines
34. What Does In-Network vs. Out-of-Network Mean? | AdventHealth Primary Care+, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.adventhealth.com/primary-care-plus/blog/what-does-network-vs-out-network-mean
35. Preauthorization – Glossary | HealthCare.gov, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/preauthorization/
36. content.naic.org, accessed August 12, 2025, https://content.naic.org/article/what-prior-authorization#:~:text=Prior%20authorization%20requires%20your%20doctor,’t%20need%20prior%20authorization.)
37. What Is Prior Authorization? – NAIC, accessed August 12, 2025, https://content.naic.org/article/what-prior-authorization
38. Prior authorization – Glossary | HealthCare.gov, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/prior-authorization/
39. What is prior authorization? | American Medical Association, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/prior-authorization/what-prior-authorization
40. What doctors wish patients knew about prior authorization | American Medical Association, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/prior-authorization/what-doctors-wish-patients-knew-about-prior-authorization
41. Mirror, Mirror 2024: A Portrait of the Failing U.S. Health System – Commonwealth Fund, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024
42. National Spending on Hospital Care – Key Facts About Hospitals – KFF, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/key-facts-about-hospitals/?entry=national-hospital-spending-national-spending-on-hospital-care
43. Section 1: Cost of Health Insurance – 10480 – KFF, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2024-section-1-cost-of-health-insurance/
44. 2024 Employer Health Benefits Survey – KFF, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2024-summary-of-findings/
45. Commonwealth Fund Health Insurance Survey Shows One Out of Four Americans is Underinsured – Dark Daily, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.darkdaily.com/2024/12/16/commonwealth-fund-health-insurance-survey-shows-one-out-of-four-americans-is-underinsured/
46. Survey: 79 Million Americans Have Problems with Medical Bills or Debt | Commonwealth Fund, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletter-article/survey-79-million-americans-have-problems-medical-bills-or-debt
47. NEW SURVEY: Nearly 1 of 4 Adults with Health Coverage Struggle …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/press-release/2024/new-survey-nearly-1-4-adults-health-coverage-struggle-high-out-pocket-costs-and
48. Data Note: Public Worries About And Experience With Surprise …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/health-costs/poll-finding/data-note-public-worries-about-and-experience-with-surprise-medical-bills/
49. Cracking the Code on Surprise Medical Bills Pt 1: The No Surprises Act Explained, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.familiesusa.org/resources/cracking-the-code-on-surprise-medical-bills-pt-1-the-no-surprises-act-explained/
50. New Survey Shows No Surprises Act Continues to Protect Millions of… – AHIP, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.ahip.org/news/press-releases/new-survey-shows-no-surprises-act-continues-to-protect-millions-of-americans-from-surprise-medical-bills
51. Health insurance myths debunked: Separating fact from fiction – HealthBird, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.healthbird.com/blog/health-insurance-myths-debunked-separating-fact-from-fiction
52. Common misconceptions about health insurance, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.wpshealth.com/blog/?p=common-misconceptions-about-health-insurance
53. Not the Last Word: Surprise Medical Bills are Hardly Charitable – PMC, accessed August 12, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7491885/
54. Americans’ Challenges with Health Care Costs | KFF, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/americans-challenges-with-health-care-costs/
55. Myths About the Uninsured | KFF, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/myths-about-the-uninsured-fact-sheet.pdf
56. NEW RESEARCH: Insured, Working-Age Americans Face Widespread Medical Billing Errors; Coverage Denials for Doctor-Recommended Care | Commonwealth Fund, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/press-release/2024/new-research-insured-working-age-americans-face-widespread-medical-billing