The Hospital Cost Crisis: How Washington Banned Cheaper Care

You've been told American healthcare is expensive because of greedy insurers, pharma profits, or the cost of innovation. That story is incomplete to the point of being misleading.

The largest single driver of US healthcare spending isn't drug companies — it's hospitals. And hospital prices haven't merely risen; they've grown roughly 3x faster than overall inflation since 2000. No sector does that for two decades by accident.

In this episode, Dan McCoy MD breaks down the three federal policy choices that designed America's hospital pricing crisis:

• ACA Section 6001 — the 2010 ban on new physician-owned hospitals, the one competitor proven to be roughly a third cheaper. $2.2B in planned development killed; 75 hospitals never built.
• Certificate of Need laws — still active in 41 states, letting incumbent hospitals veto their own competition.
• Site-specific Medicare payment — paying hospitals 2–3x what it pays a physician office for the identical service.

Add a starved FTC (~13 challenges out of ~561 hospital mergers from 2010–2015) and you get the result: ~97% of metro areas with highly concentrated inpatient markets, and prices that rise 15–30% higher than competitive ones.

It isn't a mystery. It's a mechanism.

If you run a health plan, here's the takeaway: your hospital costs are set by market structure, not market forces — and the policy landscape (site-neutral reform, Certificate of Need repeal) is finally starting to shift.

📺 Watch the video version: https://youtu.be/aWtOw8PxHTU

📝 Full research sources, all 12 cited studies, and a bonus analysis of the political economy of hospital lobbying — on the Substack

Subscribe so you don't miss the next episode.

This episode is for educational and informational purposes and is not medical, legal, or financial advice.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Here's something that should make you furious. You've been told repeatedly that American healthcare is expensive because of greedy insurance companies or pharmaceutical profits, or simply the cost of innovation. That's a lovely story. It's also incomplete to the point of being misleading. The largest driver of U.S. healthcare spending isn't drug companies, it's hospitals. And hospital prices haven't just risen, they've grown roughly three times faster than overall inflation since 2000. No major sector of the economy looks like that for long without something deeper going on. What nobody wants to tell you is that this didn't happen by accident. It happened by design. And the designers were in Washington. To understand why your healthcare costs keep rising, you need to understand what happened in 2010 and what was supposed to happen versus what actually happened. The Affordable Care Act promised to bend the cost curve. That sounds reasonable, but buried in that 2000-page law was Section 6001, which effectively banned new physician-owned hospitals and froze expansion of existing ones. The justification was preventing self-referral, doctors sending patients to facilities that they owned. The reality was protecting large hospital systems from competition. Before the ban, physician-owned hospitals had grown from fewer than 70 facilities in the early 2000s to roughly 250 by 2010. They were growing because they offered something different. A nationwide analysis in Jamma Network Open found that for many common procedures, physician-owned hospitals' prices were on the order of one-third lower than nearby traditional hospitals for the same service. That growth stopped on March 23rd, 2010. More than $2.2 billion in planned hospital development was, for lack of a better word, terminated. 75 new hospitals never built. And the large systems that lobbied for this provision, they've been consolidating ever since. The conventional wisdom on hospital costs goes something like this. Healthcare is just inherently expensive. Technology is expensive. Specialists are expensive. Sick people are expensive. And the system, it's doing its best. And if you look at the hospital lobbying, you'll hear about the cost of caring, how they're barely breaking even treating Medicare or Medicaid patients, and how they provide charity care and how they anchor communities. There's some truth here. Hospitals do provide essential services. Rural hospitals in particular face genuine challenges. But here's what the surface story misses. If hospitals were genuinely struggling with thin margins and rising costs, you'd expect to see price competition, efficiency gains, innovation to reduce cost. Instead, we've seen on the order of a thousand hospital mergers since 2000 among roughly 5,000 U.S. hospitals. The result? By the early 2020s, about 97% of metropolitan areas had what antitrust agencies call highly concentrated inpatient hospital markets. In plain English, in almost every metro area, one or two systems dominate the inpatient market. And uncompetitive markets lead hospitals to increase prices 15 to 30%. The pattern here is not a struggling industry trying to survive. It's an industry that has figured out how to avoid competition altogether. Let me walk you through the specific mechanisms that make hospital pricing immune to market discipline. First, certificate of need laws. Forty-one states still require government permission before a new hospital or surgical center can open. These laws were supposed to prevent wasteful duplication. What they actually do is let incumbent hospitals block competitors. The research on this is almost comically clear. States with certificate of need laws have meaningfully fewer hospitals per person, roughly 30% fewer hospitals per 100,000 residents, than states without them, and patients in those states spend more on care. When states roll back certificate of need requirements for surgical centers, you see large jumps in the number of facilities, including in rural areas, without triggering waves of hospital failures. One economic model found that unhealthy individuals in certificate of need states spend around 10 to 15% more on health care than those in non-certificate of need states. The Federal Trade Commission concluded back in 1988 that these laws increase cost, but 41 states keep them anyway. One might wonder who benefits from that. Second, site-specific payment. Medicare routinely pays hospitals well over double, sometimes close to triple what it pays physician offices for the exact same service. For a basic evaluation visit, the hospital rate can be more than twice as high. For chemotherapy infusion, it can be even higher. Same drug, same nurse, same patient, just a different building and a billing code. This isn't a market phenomenon, it's a policy choice, and it creates a predictable incentive. Hospitals buy up independent physician practices, convert them to hospital outpatient departments, and collect the higher rate. Independent analysis and the Congressional Budget Office estimate that site neutral payment reform, paying the same rate regardless of site of service, could save well over $100 billion over 10 years. The money is sitting there, the policy fix is obvious, but hospital lobbyists have blocked it for years. Third, the physician-owned hospital ban. I mentioned Section 6001 earlier, and let me give you the numbers. From 2010 to 2015, there were hundreds of hospital mergers, on the order of 500 plus deals. During that same period, the Federal Trade Commission took action to block only a handful, barely a dozen. Meanwhile, physician employment by hospitals jumped from 28% in 2010 to 44% by 2016. The hospitals that would have competed on price, they were banned. The physicians who would have owned them employed by the systems they would have competed against. This is what passes for healthcare reform in Washington. Now I should acknowledge that this story has complications. Hospital systems argue, sometimes correctly, that consolidation can improve care coordination, that scale creates efficiency, that rural hospitals need support. Some of this is true. Integration can reduce duplicative testing, larger systems can spread fixed costs. There are genuine cases where mergers made sense. But the weight of evidence points the other way. A major RAND analysis and multiple large studies find that when hospital markets get more concentrated, prices for private payers go up sharply, with little or no improvement in quality or outcomes. The FTC's own retrospective work shows merged hospitals often charging 40 to 50% more than similar hospitals that didn't merge. And recent research on cross-market mergers, where a system in one city buys a hospital in another, finds price increases on the order of 10 to 15% over the following years. And here's where it gets really interesting. One study looked at hospital mergers from 2010 to 2015 and estimated that roughly one in five of those deals show clear red flags for harming competition and raising prices. The agency challenged about 1% of them. The FTC doesn't lack the authority, it lacks the resources. And some state laws explicitly shield hospital mergers from federal antitrust review entirely. There's a fascinating angle in the political economy of hospital lobbying. I'm not going to get into that here. I'll put that in the Substack post for this episode. But the short version is this hospital systems spend about $100 million annually on federal lobbying alone. That buys a lot of statutory protection. Meanwhile, since the ACAS Physician-owned hospital ban, more than 140 rural hospitals have closed. The facilities that might have competed with large systems, that might have offered lower prices, that might have served those communities, they couldn't be built. If you're an employer, here's what this means for your health plan. First, understand that your hospital costs are largely determined by market structure, not market forces. If you're in a metro area with one dominant system, which is most metro areas, your negotiating leverage is frankly minimal. The carrier isn't hiding a better deal, the deal doesn't really exist. Second, look at where your spend actually goes. Hospital services are the largest component of employer health spending. Size-specific pricing means you may be paying hospital rates for services that could be delivered in physician offices or ambulatory surgery centers at a fraction of the cost. Third, push for price transparency. The hospital price transparency rule has been in effect since 2021, but compliance is still spotty and the data is still hard to use. The employers who are serious about this are building analytic capabilities or hiring consultants who have them to identify where they're overpaying. Finally, watch the policy space. Site neutral payment reform has growing bipartisan support. Certificate of need law repeal is gaining momentum. Georgia and Tennessee made reforms in 2024, and New York loosened requirements in 2025. These changes could meanfully affect your cost in coming years. Employers who understand the policy landscape will be better positioned when it shifts. The hospital cost crisis isn't a mystery, it's a mechanism. Government policies ban the competitors that would have offered lower prices. They require permission slips to open new facilities. They pay double or triple for identical services based purely on where they're performed, and they've starved the enforcement agency that might have blocked in a competitive mergers. The result is exactly what you'd expect. An industry where prices rise far faster than inflation, where almost every metro market is highly concentrated, and where the entities that benefit have the resources to ensure it stays that way. The question isn't whether hospitals provide essential services, they do. The question is whether the regulatory architecture around them serves patients and employers or whether it serves incumbent systems. I know where the evidence points, but reasonable people can disagree. If you found this useful, hit subscribe so you don't miss future episodes. The research sources and additional analysis are on my Substack and the links in the description.