top of page
Search

The Insurance Paradox: Why does the U.S. Pay More for Less


Whenever people talk about health care in the United States, “insurance” shows up right away. You’d think insurance would be the safety net that keeps someone from choosing between medical care and groceries, but in practice it too often acts like a maze. The U.S. spends more on health care than almost any peer nation (well over 10% higher than comparable countries) and yet outcomes like life expectancy and maternal mortality lag behind many of them [1]. So how do we end up paying so much and getting so little?


One big problem is that the U.S. simply does not have universal coverage. Countries such as Canada, the U.K., and Germany pool risk across whole populations; in the U.S. we rely on a patchwork of employer plans, private insurers, and separate public programs like Medicare and Medicaid. That patchwork leaves large sections of the population vulnerable: recent polling shows that more than a third of adults report skipping or delaying needed care because of cost in the past year [2]. That isn’t a technicality; it’s the lived experience that drives people to the ER or to worse outcomes down the line.


The patchwork also creates insane administrative overhead. Hospitals and clinics spend huge sums negotiating with dozens of insurers, coding encounters, and fighting prior authorizations. A widely cited analysis comparing the U.S. and Canada found administrative spending in the U.S. amounted to roughly one-third of total health spending, far more than in single-payer systems, and that this gap largely reflects the inefficiency of a many-payer market [3]. Money spent on paperwork is money not spent on nurses, beds, community health, or prevention.


Another feature that locks this system in place is the fact that, in America, insurance is usually tied to employment. Employer-sponsored health insurance started as a labor policy experiment in the mid 1900s and eventually became the norm, but tying insurance to jobs makes coverage fragile; switch jobs and you might lose it or get a worse plan. Employer plans also vary widely in generosity, which makes health protection feel like an employee benefit rather than a social good, something other countries avoid through universal schemes [4].


Price is another big driver. Unlike most nations that negotiate national or regulated prices for procedures and facility fees, the U.S. lets hospitals, insurers, and drug companies set and bargain prices more freely. Comparative analyses show that U.S. prices for many common services are markedly higher than those in other countries [5]. Prescription drugs tell the same story. Recent analysis from the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research corporation, shows U.S. manufacturer gross prices for many drugs were multiple times higher than prices in other high-income nations, even after common adjustments [6]. Those higher prices feed back into premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket spending.


And even when you have insurance, the protection can be thin. High-deductible health plans are widespread; by one common measure nearly a third of covered workers were enrolled in a high-deductible plan in 2023, meaning patients are on the hook for sizable costs before insurance really kicks in [4]. For people with chronic disease, these costs add up fast and can mean skipping medication or tests that prevent worse problems later.


The system’s worst effects fall on the most vulnerable. States that chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act leave millions in a “coverage gap,” with about 1.4 million people estimated to be stuck between state rules and federal subsidy thresholds [7]. Uninsured and underinsured people are far more likely to delay care, to present with advanced disease, and to end up in medical debt.


The U.S. system, with its mix of private insurance, employer coverage, and public programs, spends more on administration and charges higher prices, which trickle down to patients through premiums and out-of-pocket costs. By contrast, countries with universal coverage or stronger price regulation generally spend less and face fewer access barriers [1,8]. These differences help explain why Americans often encounter medical debt or skipped care at higher rates than people in other wealthy nations.


Understanding those contrasts doesn’t provide an easy solution, but it does give context. When people talk about U.S. health insurance feeling complicated, expensive, or unpredictable, those feelings connect directly to the way the system is organized. Looking at other models helps show that things could be arranged differently and may guide the U.S. towards an improved healthcare system. 


Reviewed By: Jack Ringel

Designed By: Grey Dugdale


References:

[1] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2023). Health at a Glance 2023: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2023/11/health-at-a-glance-2023_e04f8239/full-report.html.


[2] Kaiser Family Foundation. (2025). Americans’ challenges with health care costs. https://www.kff.org/health-costs/americans-challenges-with-health-care-costs/.


[3] Himmelstein, D. U., Campbell, T., & Woolhandler, S. (2020). Health care administrative costs in the United States and Canada, 2017. Annals of Internal Medicine, 172(2), 134–142. https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-2818.


[4] Kaiser Family Foundation. (2023). 2023 Employer Health Benefits Survey (Annual Survey). https://www.kff.org/health-costs/report/2023-employer-health-benefits-survey/.


[5] Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) / International Federation of Health Plans (iFHP). (2017). International comparisons of health care prices from the 2017 iFHP survey. https://healthcostinstitute.org/hcci-originals-dropdown/all-hcci-reports/international-comparisons-of-health-care-prices-2017-ifhp-survey.


[6] Mulcahy, A. W., Schwam, D., & Lovejoy, S. L. (2024). International prescription drug price comparisons: Estimates using 2022 data (RAND RRA788-3). RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA788-3.html.


[7] Kaiser Family Foundation. (2025). How many uninsured are in the coverage gap and how many could be eligible if all states adopted the Medicaid expansion? https://www.kff.org/medicaid/how-many-uninsured-are-in-the-coverage-gap-and-how-many-could-be-eligible-if-all-states-adopted-the-medicaid-expansion/.


[8] Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker. (2025). How does cost affect access to healthcare? https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/cost-affect-access-care/.

 
 
 

What if Superman was not able to afford the antidote to Kryptonite? What if Achilles could not pay for the surgery to repair his own heel? What if a vampire didn’t have enough money to buy a cloak to shade him from the sun?


For these fictional characters, finances are never the enemy, their struggles are always against their foes. But in the real world, people depend on life saving medication and devices that are not always affordable. For someone with a severe allergy, that tool is an EpiPen. For someone with diabetes, it is insulin. These are not luxuries or enhancements, they are lifelines. Yet, access to them is often shaped by patents, pricing, and policy that can put them out of reach.


When someone with a severe allergy is exposed to an allergen, they can undergo a severe immune response called anaphylaxis. Symptoms include hives, low blood pressure, and even swelling of the throat that can make breathing impossible. Epinephrine, the active drug in EpiPens and other auto injectors, works to counteract these symptoms by opening airways, reducing swelling, and raising blood pressure [1]. The drug itself is inexpensive and costs about $5 per milligram, and in a standard autoinjector there is 0.3 milligrams of epinephrine [2]. According to Food Allergy Research and Education (FARE), manufacturing an EpiPen two-pack costs about $8. [3]. Yet, depending on one’s pharmacy and insurance coverage, patients often pay between $320 and $750 for the same product.


For people with diabetes, insulin is just as essential. Without it, severe complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis and organ failure can occur. Insulin works by allowing glucose to enter cells, lowering blood sugar levels and preventing these dangerous outcomes [4]. The drug itself is cheap, as a vial of insulin can be manufactured for about $5 to $10 [5]. However, the retail price in the United States is far higher. A vial of insulin can cost as much as $300 without insurance [6]. While recent reforms like the Inflation Reduction Act have capped insulin costs for Medicare patients at $35 per month, many still face unmanageable prices [7].


EpiPens and insulin are just a few examples of high priced medicines that are cheap to produce. This difference between the low cost of production and the high price at retail raises ethical questions. If these medications are necessary for survival, why should pharmaceutical companies be permitted to price them like other free market goods?


Possible answers lie in patents, funding research, middlemen, and insurance companies. In the United States, pharmaceutical companies are granted patents that give them years of exclusive market prices without competition from generics. Companies often justify high costs by pointing to investment in research and development. Studies have shown, however, that research spending often is not correlated with the market price of a drug [8]. 


Instead, Els Toreele argues that drug companies charge so much due to patent monopolies [9]. These monopolies use systems like “evergreening,” where small modifications to existing drugs prolong exclusivity periods [10]. This can delay the creation of cheaper generic alternatives from other companies. 


Beyond patents, the price of medicines is also affected by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), insurance companies, and rebates. PBMs are middlemen that negotiate with drug manufacturers for insurance companies. In these negotiations, manufacturers often agree to pay rebates (a discount) for favorable placement for their drugs. Ideally, this system would lower the price of drugs. According to Harvard Health, however, these rebates usually do not reduce what patients pay [8]. Instead, manufacturers may raise the price of the drug to make up for the cost of the rebate, raising the consumer price. 


Pharmaceutical companies continue to argue that high prices are needed to fund innovation,  while critics point out the vast disparity between production costs and retail prices. The challenge lies in finding a balance between supporting innovation and ensuring access. Recent reforms in the United States, such as capping insulin costs for Medicare patients, show efforts to address the problem. But prices remain much higher in the United States than in countries where governments play a stronger role in negotiations and price caps. The central question remains: How can society reward innovation while keeping life-saving medication in reach for those who need it the most?


Reviewed By: Alec Vazquez-Kanhere

Designed By: Ariha Mehta


References:

Allergy & Asthma Network. (n.d.). What is epinephrine? https://allergyasthmanetwork.org/anaphylaxis/what-is-epinephrine/.


Harvard Health Publishing. (2016, October 12). A way to lower the cost of EpiPens. Harvard Medical School. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/way-lower-cost-epipens-2016101210460.


Food Allergy Research & Education. (2023, July 20). FARE endorses Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost’s EpiPen Act. https://www.foodallergy.org/media-room/fare-endorses-rep-maxwell-alejandro-frosts-d-fl-10-epipen-act.


Cleveland Clinic. (2022, August 11). Insulin: What it is, function & types. Cleveland Clinic. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/22601-insulin.


Yale School of Medicine. (2019, April 3). The price of insulin: A Q&A with Kasia Lipska. Yale Medicine News. https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/the-price-of-insulin-a-qanda-with-kasia-lipska/.


Miller, K. (2022, October 6). Insulin prices: Pumps, pens, syringes. Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/health/type-2-diabetes/insulin-prices-pumps-pens-syringes#insulin-pricing.


American Diabetes Association. (2023). Affordable insulin initiatives. https://diabetes.org/tools-resources/affordable-insulin.


Greene, J. A., & Riggs, K. R. (2023). Why do prescription drugs cost so much? Annals of Internal Medicine, 176(2), 271–272. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10836477/).


Harvard Health Publishing. (2024, January 18). Why do your prescription drugs cost so much? Harvard Medical School. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/why-do-your-prescription-drugs-cost-so-much-202401183007.


Kapczynski, A., & Park, C. (2013). Polymaking under uncertainty: Evergreening and drug patents. PLoS Medicine, 10(1), e1001389. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3680578/.

 
 
 
  • Pranav Kannan
  • May 9, 2025
  • 3 min read

Medical research in the United States is funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH) to drive advancements of diagnostics, treatments, and preventative measures (AP News, 2025). The current government budget proposal eliminates 40% of NIH funding to institutions -- dropping the value from $48.5 billion to $27.3 billion (AP News, 2025). This action delays current studies and undermines access to research across universities and patients (NPR, 2025a; NPR, 2025b). Moreover, the funding freeze violates the bioethical principles of justice, beneficence, non‑maleficence, and autonomy by restricting resources, harming patient populations, and reducing academic exploration (Nature, 2025; Science, 2025).


The NIH is the largest public funder of medical research globally, however, the freeze on February 7, 2025 led to a capping of all indirect costs at 15% -- a significant decrease from the 28% average (National Institutes of Health [NIH], 2025). Though the NIH states that this was necessary to ensure that proper grants got funding, institutions were forced to relocate their own resource costs to direct research spending (American Progress, 2025). Universities need indirect costs to maintain labs, libraries and important facilities -- if funding plummets, the nation will reduce its research capacity and slow scientific discovery for novel medical cures (Association of American Medical Colleges [AAMC], 2025; AP News, 2025). 


By allocating research funding, the NIH increases fair access to resources that drive innovation nationwide, also known as distributive justice. Cutting funding forces institutions with smaller endowments to manage their own funding, widening the inequalities between affluent research institutions across the nation (AAMC, 2025).


The principle of beneficence means that medical research should benefit the people. NIH funded research underscores new discoveries and novel policy measures. Delays will impact humans’ ability to fight disease and prevent well-being. Abrupt funding freezes will harm scientific talent -- since grants are vanishing, young scientists might leave academia and slow discovery creating more harm for research. 


Finally, academic freedom and institutional autonomy are stifled when political priorities determine what receives resources. This undermines the ability to research based on scientific merit rather than political favorability. Scientists lose academic freedom and patients lose impactful, effective care. 


Current Policy Recommendations:

  • Restore the NIH Budget to the same level as 2024. Congress should fight cuts and approve more funding for the NIH, as backed by the AAMC and over 400 reputable organizations (AAMC, 2025).

  • Establish an Independent Ethics Review Panel. Create a bipartisan, neutral body to evaluate budget proposals through ethical frameworks, ensuring decisions align with principles of justice, beneficence, and non‑maleficence, and autonomy (Nature, 2025).

  • Enhance Transparency and Stakeholder Engagement. Open discussions with researchers, university leaders, to decide and communicate on policy changes before major funding shifts (Politico, 2025).


Restoring the NIH funding to proper levels will reaffirm the US commitment of justice, beneficence, non‑maleficence, and autonomy in biomedical research. Moreover, this will ensure that medical discoveries will translate effectively from lab to patients -- regardless if a scientist is from a wealthy institution or a patient's socioeconomic status (AAMC, 2025; NIH, 2025).


Reviewed By: Aman Maredia

Designed By: Nancy Chen


References:

AP News. (2025, April 16). The draft budget plan proposes deep cuts across federal health programs. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/70ae99161321f0b779e2e56d8d2db304


Association of American Medical Colleges. (2025, February). AAMC statement on drastic cuts to NIH‑funded research. Association of American Medical Colleges. 


Association of American Universities. (2025, April). AAU signs an ad hoc statement recommending increased funding for NIH in FY 26. Association of American Universities. https://www.aau.edu/key-issues/aau-signs-ad-hoc-statement-recommending-increased-funding-nih-fy26


Axios. (2025a, April 18). NIH halts key LGBTQ+ HIV studies, citing mission conflict. Axios. https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2025/04/18/nih-cuts-hiv-research-lgbtq-health


Axios. (2025b, April 14). Trump's NIH cuts could cost Hillsborough $57 million. Axios. https://www.axios.com/local/tampa-bay/2025/04/14/trumps-nih-cuts-cost-hillsborough-57-million


National Institutes of Health. (2025, February 7). Supplemental guidance to the 2024 NIH grants policy statement: Indirect cost rates (NOT‑OD‑25‑068). National Institutes of Health. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-068.html


Nature. (2025). How Trump 2.0 is slashing NIH‑backed research — in charts. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01099-8


NPR. (2025, February 22). NIH funding freeze stalls $1.5 billion in medical research grant funding. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/02/22/nx-s1-5305276/trump-nih-funding-freeze-medical-research


NPR. (2025, February 23). Medical researchers brace for ripple effects from cuts in NIH funding. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/02/23/nx-s1-5290142/medical-researchers-brace-for-ripple-effects-from-cuts-in-nih-funding


Politico. (2025, April 16). The Trump administration mulls sharp funding cuts at health agencies. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/16/trump-administration-mulls-sharp-funding-cuts-at-health-agencies-00294781


Science. (2025). Devastating cuts to NIH grants by Trump's team put on hold by US judges. Science. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00436-1

 
 
 

DMEJ

   Duke Medical Ethics Journal   

bottom of page