Prescribed Death: How American Healthcare Became a Business Model for Human Suffering
Nearly everyone who has interacted with the American healthcare system has a story: the unexplained $800 charge for a routine blood test, an insurance denial that defies medical logic, or an ambulance bill that somehow costs more than the emergency room visit. These experiences feel personal, almost intimate in their cruelty. Instead of questioning the system, we often blame ourselves for not reading the fine print, for choosing the “wrong” insurance plan, for resorting to an out-of-network provider in a moment of crisis.
I once tried to do everything “right.” I read the fine print, stayed in-network, and followed all the insurance requirements. And still, when I sought treatment for my chronic pain, UnitedHealthcare sent me a denial letter that looked—in both tone and reasoning—as though it had been drafted by a preschooler with a box of crayons. The official reason for the denial was that I did not have “head cancer.” That was the standard I was being measured against. It was the moment I understood that no amount of personal responsibility could make a system this irrational behave rationally.
We are encouraged to be better healthcare “consumers,” to shop around for procedures, to negotiate bills as though we were purchasing discretionary goods rather than seeking medical treatment for conditions that could be life-threatening. This consumerist framing pervades the discussion surrounding American healthcare, implying that medical care operates like any other market where informed buyers simply choose among competing sellers. However, it does not, and pretending it does only shifts the responsibility away from the system and onto the patient. The United States spends nearly 20% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on healthcare—more than $4.5 trillion annually, approximately twice the per capita spending of other developed nations. Yet for all this expenditure, Americans experience worse health outcomes than citizens of countries spending half as much. We have lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, greater prevalence of chronic disease, and more preventable deaths than our peer nations.
The Health System Tracker, a collaboration between the Peterson Center on Health and the Kaiser Family Foundation that provides comprehensive data on U.S. healthcare spending and performance, offers clear evidence of this disparity. According to their 2023 analysis, the U.S. spent over $13,000 per person on healthcare, compared to around $7,000 in Germany, $6,500 in France, and $5,500 in the United Kingdom—all countries that provide universal coverage and achieve better health outcomes. These statistics lay bare the uncomfortable truth that the American healthcare system, or maybe more accurately, the American healthcare economy, has been deliberately engineered to prioritize profit over patients. Every dollar we spend beyond what other nations pay does not vanish into thin air; it becomes profit for hospital executives, pharmaceutical shareholders, and insurance company investors.
This is systematic extraction—a healthcare system structured around principles radically incompatible with its stated mission of healing the sick. Markets depend on informed, empowered consumers, which is why they work for many goods and products in other industries, but healthcare strips patients of those conditions entirely. They lack the expertise to evaluate treatment options independently. They cannot know in advance what care will cost. Most crucially, the “product” being sold—relief from suffering, survival itself—creates desperate buyers willing to pay anything to receive assistance. These conditions generate what economists call “market failure,” though the term understates the severity. Healthcare in America does not fail to function as a market; rather, it functions as a particularly exploitative market that systematically extracts wealth from the vulnerable. The healthcare industry has historically exploited patients with remarkable consistency and sophistication. Hospital systems have consolidated into regional monopolies that face little competitive pressure. Private equity firms have acquired physician practices, emergency rooms, and entire hospital chains, imposing profit-maximization strategies that compromise patient care. Pharmaceutical companies have manipulated patent systems, colluded to maintain high prices, and marketed dangerous drugs with impunity. Insurance companies have developed ever-more-sophisticated techniques for denying coverage while collecting premiums. At every level, the industry has favored financial gain over patient welfare, turning human vulnerability itself into a business model. This transformation did not happen by accident.
The American healthcare system we inhabit today reflects decades of calculated policy choices, regulatory capture, and corporate consolidation. The Center for American Progress, a public policy research and advocacy organization, has extensively documented the pharmaceutical industry’s influence on the political system. In their 2020 report, “Big Pharma Reaps Profits by Hurting Everyday Americans,” researchers at the Center found that pharmaceutical companies spent over $378 million on lobbying in 2022 — more than defense contractors — to protect profit margins that often exceed 20% even as patients ration insulin and other life-saving medications. Meanwhile, private equity involvement in healthcare has exploded in ways that completely reshape medical care delivery. A 2023 study published in the Stanford Law Review titled “Private Equity and the Corporatization of Health Care” documents that these firms have acquired healthcare assets worth over one trillion dollars in recent years. These firms operate with a consistent playbook: purchase healthcare providers, increase billing, reduce staffing, maximize revenue, extract profits, and then move on, often leaving bankrupted facilities and devastated communities in their wake. The human costs are staggering, exceeding financial strain and extending into the daily realities of pain, fear, and loss. Medical debt is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in America. Patients delay necessary care because they cannot afford co-pays or deductibles. People die from rationing insulin, from avoiding emergency rooms despite cardiac arrest symptoms, and from choosing between medications and rent. Inequality.org, a program of the Institute of Policy Studies that tracks economic inequality and its consequences through research and data analysis, has documented the lethal impact of America’s profit-driven healthcare system. According to their analysis, nearly 45,000 Americans die annually due to lack of health insurance — roughly 123 people per day who would be alive if they lived in any other developed nation with universal healthcare coverage. These deaths are not natural or inevitable; they are the outcome of policymakers refusing to guarantee the care that would have kept them alive. Behind each number is a human life cut short by a system that treats survival as a commodity.
Yet despite this mounting evidence of systemic dysfunction, mainstream healthcare journalism remains trapped in an echo chamber of narratives that obscure rather than state the root causes. We read exposés about pharmaceutical price gouging and insurance companies denying life-saving treatments, yet each story is presented as a shocking anomaly rather than standard operating procedure. The coverage follows what author Alain de Botton called the “Watergate Paradigm”: identify the villains and document their wrongdoing, call for accountability through criminal prosecution, then move on to the next scandal. This approach generates outrage but rarely highlights the structural forces that make such conduct not just possible but also profitable.
In 21st-century American healthcare, patient harm is not accidental but the predictable, and in many cases, inevitable, result of a system structured around profit maximization, corporate consolidation, and systematically weakened oversight. The system works perfectly as designed, and understanding this requires examining the incentive structures, payment loopholes, ownership patterns, regulatory failures, and market dynamics that ensure healthcare functions as a tool for revenue.
Journalists Elisabeth Rosenthal and Gerald Posner have both documented different dimensions of medical corruption. Rosenthal’s 2017 book, “An American Sickness: How Healthcare Became Big Business and How You Can Take it Back,” is a detailed assessment spanning every healthcare sector, from hospitals and insurance companies to pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical device makers. Posner’s 2020 work, “Pharma: Greed, Lies, and the Poisoning of America,” is a historical investigation into the pharmaceutical industry that traces how profit imperatives overrode medical considerations in drug development and marketing. Yet despite their differing approaches, their investigations converge on a single, damning conclusion about how American healthcare was methodically reconfigured for economic exploitation at the expense of patient welfare. Together, their work constitutes some of the finest journalism on the U.S. medical system, producing work that humanizes those affected, identifies underlying flaws often sidelined by legacy media, and challenges the public to confront uncomfortable truths about the institutions they may have trusted — and indeed, rely on.
An American Sickness
Rosenthal’s “An American Sickness” examines how market forces have corrupted every sector of the U.S. medical system. As a physician who had previously worked as a reporter and columnist for The New York Times before becoming editor in chief at Kaiser Health News, she combines medical expertise with rigorous reporting to publish what amounts to a diagnostic assessment of a diseased infrastructure. “In the past quarter century,” she writes, “the American medical system has stopped focusing on health or even science. Instead, it attends more or less single-mindedly to its own profits.” Healthcare purposefully reformed itself to handle “illness and wellness as just another object of commerce: Revenue generation. Supply chain optimization. Minimization of tax liability. Innovative business modeling. Things sold. Services rendered. Bills to be paid.” She diagnoses the disease itself — the profit motive that now governs medical practice.
The Ten Rules: Decoding the Healthcare Economy
After documenting countless cases of healthcare malpractice, Rosenthal distills her findings into ten economic rules governing what she calls “the dysfunctional medical market.” These rules she outlines explain why costs rise while access declines, why competition fails to lower prices, and why patients remain trapped despite recognizing the system’s failures.
The ten rules are:
1. More treatment is always better. Default to the most expensive option.
2. A lifetime of treatment is preferable to a cure.
3. Amenities and marketing matter more than good care.
4. As technologies age, prices can rise rather than fall.
5. There is no free choice. Patients are stuck. And they are stuck buying American.
6. More competitors vying for business does not mean better prices; it can drive prices up, not down.
7. Economies of scale do not translate to lower prices. With their market power, big providers can simply demand more.
8. There is no such thing as a fixed price for a procedure or test. And the uninsured pay the highest price of all.
9. There are no standards for billing. There is money to be made in billing for anything and everything.
10. Prices will rise to whatever the market will bear.
These rules serve as an operating manual for extraction by valuing revenue over recovery. Take the second rule’s implications for pharmaceutical development. A curative treatment yields a single transaction; a chronic condition requiring daily medication produces decades of revenue. When companies allocate research budgets, Rule two shapes those decisions more powerfully than any stated mission about patient care. The first rule intensifies this distortion because when multiple treatment options exist, the system gravitates toward the most expensive plan. When I was a minor seeking psychiatric care, my doctor prescribed me antipsychotics after a single 45-minute session. He wrote me a prescription for olanzapine, also known as Zyprexa, and explained, “We are giving you this medication. Take it daily with food. There is, however, another medication that will work better to alleviate your current symptoms, but you are not covered. If the Zyprexa does not work, you must take another medication after that for the insurance company to approve the medication we believe will work best for you.” He paused and handed me the pharmacy script. “So, for right now, take those pills. If you do not see any improvement, call us, and we will send out a new script for a new medication, and if that fails, then we can get you on the right track to proper treatment.”
This practice is known as step therapy, often referred to as “fail first.” The National Organization for Rare Disorders defines step therapy as “a utilization management practice where insurers (public or private) require patients to try one or more alternative medications before they can access the treatment originally recommended by their doctor.” Step therapy is intended to control healthcare costs and is increasingly applied with little regard for individual medical histories or vital treatment needs, as determined by the patient’s physician, increasing the risk of patients experiencing harmful side effects.
I was 16 years old. I thought it would be ridiculous to question a University of Pennsylvania graduate with an MD. Over the two months, I gained 60 pounds and ended up in outpatient treatment because I had been medicated for a very serious condition that I do not have, not because of a misdiagnosis, but because health insurance protocols required cycling through cheaper, ineffective drugs before approving appropriate treatment. Looking back now, I find it quite ironic that he told me to take the pills with food, as if individual care about my digestive comfort mattered when the treatment plan itself was controlled entirely by insurance protocols rather than my medical needs. The system defaulted to the most expensive path: multiple medications, outpatient treatment, management of severe side effects, all to avoid covering the appropriate medication from the start. And in this case, it is truly ironic considering it was a misdiagnosis from the beginning. I felt robbed—clinical effectiveness became secondary, and like many other minors in the U.S., I was abandoned by the healthcare system. I was a victim of Rules one and two.
The sixth and seventh rules expose how healthcare markets function opposite to standard economic assumptions. More competition should mean lower prices—that is just basic supply and demand. But when hospitals consolidate into regional powerhouses controlling entire markets, they do not compete on price. They wield their monopoly position to extract higher payments from insurers and patients alike. Rosenthal’s concept of “market power” strips away all economic jargon to reveal how hospitals charge more precisely because patients have no alternatives. Those in need will go anywhere the ambulance takes them, and all the networks know it. The eighth rule is a perverse reversal of market logic. Insurance companies leverage bulk purchasing power to negotiate steep discounts, while uninsured patients are charged full rates that can be exponentially higher for identical services. Healthcare makes its most vulnerable customers subsidize its relationships with elite purchasers, actively preying on those least able to afford care. And Rule ten explains why: prices rise to whatever level people will pay to avoid suffering or death. For medical emergencies and chronic conditions, people will pay almost anything. Rosenthal grounds these principles in concrete examples that show how capitalist values corrupt medical decision-making. In her analysis of how the system evolved, she describes how “as money became the metric of good medicine, everyone wanted more and cared less about their original mission. The descent happened sector by sector.”
This transformation occurred gradually across decades. According to PBS’s Healthcare Crisis History timeline, at the start of the 1950s, national healthcare expenditures represented just 4.5% of the Gross National Product (GNP). By the late 1970s, the system entered a “crisis,” with costs “escalating rapidly, partially due to unexpectedly high Medicate expenditures, rapid inflation in the economy, expansion of hospital expenses and profits, and changes in medical care including greater use of technology, medications, and conservative approaches to treatment.” This accelerated in the 1980s as “corporations begin to integrate the hospital system (previously a decentralized structure), enter many other healthcare-related businesses, and consolidate control. Overall, there is a shift toward privatization and corporatization of healthcare.” By the 1990s, healthcare costs were rising “at double the rate of inflation,” and the 2000s saw costs continuing their upward trajectory while “changing demographics of the workplace lead many to believe the employer-based system of insurance cannot last.”[16] Today’s healthcare economy is a result of deliberate policy choices ad corporate strategies implemented systematically over half a century.
The Illusion of Market Solutions
For decades, healthcare officials have promoted “market solutions,” which are the tactical application of market-based principles and mechanisms like competition, consumerism, and transparency, aimed at enhancing efficiency, innovation, and patient-centricity within a regulated system tailored to mitigate market failures and ensure equitable access to quality care. In “An American Sickness,” Rosenthal shows why none of these strategies can succeed. She quotes economist Adam Smith, who “spoke of an ‘invisible hand’ with respect to income distribution. But in American healthcare, there is a different type of invisible hand at work: it is on the till.” While Smith argued that self-interested individuals in competitive markets inadvertently promote social welfare — private vice guided toward public virtue by an “invisible hand” — Rosenthal reveals the deeper truth of how healthcare markets are self-interested actors who simply extract wealth. There is no invisible hand supposedly guiding them, one that aligns profit-seeking with public health benefits, is nowhere to be found; instead, financial incentives reward those who can most effectively monetize illness and vulnerability. Rosenthal identifies multiple culprits behind why market competition is not a viable solution to the American healthcare system. Patients lack medical expertise and often face emergencies that preclude comparison shopping. Unlike typical markets where competitive dynamics drive down prices and improve quality, healthcare has moved in the opposite direction. Hospital consolidation has created regional monopolies, while employment-based insurance eliminates individual choice. Even when patients attempt to make cost-conscious decisions, prices remain deliberately opaque; many cannot learn costs until after receiving treatment. The power imbalance between desperate patients and healthcare providers exacerbates administrative constraints, making genuine bargaining impossible. As Rosenthal observes, “the rules governing the delivery of healthcare in the United States have grown out of the market’s design.”
Big Pharma
Posner’s “Pharma” complements Rosenthal’s analysis by providing a historical investigation of the pharmaceutical industry. His work moves beyond the “Watergate Paradigm” by documenting how healthcare crises do not stem from individual corruption, but from a market arrangement that makes harmful behavior economically rational and often legally sanctioned, investigating how profit imperatives shape outcomes at every level of drug development, marketing, and distribution.
The Origins of Pharmaceutical Marketing and Data Collection
Three brothers from Brooklyn, N.Y. — Raymond, Mortimer, and Arthur Sackler — transformed American healthcare by reframing drug development not as a scientific endeavor, but a business built on persuasion and market capture. Sons of immigrant parents, all three became physicians in the 1930s and 1940s. Arthur, the eldest and most ambitious, worked as a psychiatrist at Creedmoor Psychiatric Hospital while simultaneously building what would become a pharmaceutical advertising empire. Raymond and Mortimer took a slightly different path, focusing on drug manufacturing. In 1952, they purchased Purdue Frederick Company, a small N.Y.-based pharmaceutical manufacturer. Under their management, Purdue Frederick became the family’s vehicle for applying Arthur’s marketing innovations to their own drug products, transforming a modest operation into a profitable enterprise that would eventually mass-produce OxyContin.
Arthur recognized what his competitors had not: marketing pharmaceuticals could generate as much profit as manufacturing them. Initially, he worked at the McAdams advertising firm, which devoted itself exclusively to pharmaceuticals, rivaling another firm, L.W. Frohlich. The founder of the McAdams firm, William Douglas McAdams, had built a respected agency, but by the time Arthur joined, the operation had grown stagnant. Arthur eventually bought the McAdams firm in 1942, a time when the pharmaceutical industry was booming with the “Wonder Drug” wave — the flood of new medications, particularly antibiotics like penicillin and sulfa drugs, that emerged from European and American research and transformed previously fatal diseases into treatable conditions. As new drugs entered the market, like any other business, pharmaceutical companies needed aggressive advertising campaigns to convince doctors to prescribe their products over competitors’ nearly identical formulas. In this expanding market, the company with the most effective advertising rhetoric, not necessarily the best drug, would dominate the industry. Under Arthur’s control, the McAdams agency pioneered new techniques for targeting physicians, manipulating prescribing patterns, and disguising commercial promotion as medical education. When Arthur died in 1987, his younger brothers and their children applied his methods with devastating efficiency. The marketing playbook Arthur created became the blueprint for the most lethal drug campaign in American history.
One of Arthur Sackler’s most momentous contributions was the creation of a sophisticated data collection system that enabled pharmaceutical companies to monitor physician prescribing trends with remarkable precision. Arthur worked with Bill Frohlich, the founder of the L.W. Frohlich agency, a competitor of the McAdams firm, to establish International Marketing Service (IMS), an American company that “collects comprehensive set of healthcare information around the world, including sales, prescription and promotional data, medical claims, electronic medical records, to deliver information and insights on approximately 90% of the world’s pharmaceuticals.” Posner writes how in its early days, “even though Frohlich promised that all patient data would be anonymized, most doctors resisted sharing information about which drugs they prescribed and for what ailments.” However, Arthur had a different solution, he “suggested doctors and pharmacists might be more cooperative if Frohlich couched the requests under the guise that sharing information would help pharmaceutical companies develop better drugs.” This reframing worked, and the lie scaled. What began as deceiving individual pharmacists became an industry-wide system of physician surveillance masked as quality treatment. The American Medical Association became complicit in this system, “cooperating by licensing the dispensing information in its ‘Physician Masterfile,’” which comprised of more than half of the nation’s physicians. By the time Purdue launched OxyContin in 1996, IMS had grown into a sophisticated surveillance network that identified exactly which doctors to pressure and how hard to push their product.
Market-Driven Drug Development: Chronic Pain as Profit Opportunity
Posner documents how the American healthcare system’s market-first approach meant companies evaluated potential drugs based on the size of patient populations, duration of treatment required, and how high prices could go, rather than the urgency of the medical need. Chronic pain is an ideal market opportunity. Posner explains, “However, there was one common complaint — chronic pain — that affected tens of millions of Americans and had stymied companies searching for an effective treatment.” The challenge was more commercial than medical. Effective pain medications already existed. “Morphine, oxycodone, hydrocodone, and other opiates were effective pain relievers. They were listed, however, on the Controlled Substances Act because they had a notorious reputation for addiction.” The question was now whether they could overcome regulatory and professional resistance to widespread opioid prescribing. Their solution, as Posner explains, was that companies needed to reshape medical understanding of addiction risk and pain management to expand markets for drugs that were profitable but dangerous.
The Opioid Marketing Campaign
In 1991, the Sackler family began constructing Purdue Pharma, which the Drug Enforcement Administration would later describe as “the most aggressive campaign for an opioid in U.S. history.” Posner documents how “the marketing and sales were split between Purdue Pharma Inc. and Purdue Pharma LP, another company the Sacklers created in 1990.” Additionally, “they incorporated PF Laboratories as the manufacturer” and “assigned key patents on the pills’ enhanced extended-release coating to their Swiss-based Mundipharma AG” for “asset protection and tax mitigation.” Richard Sackler later admitted in a deposition that “while the corporate structure was indecipherable to outsiders, at times even he found it ‘confusing and complex.’” When asked basic questions about the structure, Richard “could not recall whether the directors of the many companies were the same or different” and “could not even provide a guess as to how many Sackler-owned companies existed.” This complex arrangement served three main purposes: it protected assets from liability, minimized taxes, and concealed the family’s direct role in making marketing decisions. What remained clear, Posner notes, was that “a privately held and family-controlled drug company of Purdue’s size was increasingly rare” as the industry consolidated through mergers and acquisitions. Richard Sackler assured the family “it was a worthwhile investment” because “OxyContin held the promise for all their dreams.”
In a March 1995 strategy session, sales representatives were instructed to promote OxyContin as the industry’s long-awaited miracle pain reliever, a narcotic analgesic with longer-lasting benefits and fewer risks than any of its predecessors. They used flashy charts claiming the drug’s coating made it impossible for addicts to get the rush they craved and told physicians that the odds of addiction were much less than 1%. However, there was a problem with those charts. “The data downplaying the odds of addiction had been skewed. Worse, the company approved it, although its own clinical trials demonstrated that for some patients up to 40% of oxycodone was released into the bloodstream in the first hour or two. That was fast enough to cause a high, and for some resulted in a crash that required another pill to feel better.” Purdue’s compensation structure drove aggressive marketing. Unlike most pharmaceutical companies that paid representatives based on prescription numbers, “for OxyContin the sales force’s compensation was based on the dollar amount of the prescriptions dispensed.” Internal memos made the financial incentives explicit. One memo assured the detail team that “A pot of gold awaits you ‘Over the Rainbow.’” Two months later, another was titled: “$ It’s Bonus Time in the Neighborhood!”
Pushing Higher Doses: The Economics of Escalation
Posner reveals that Purdue’s most profitable strategy involved pushing patients toward higher doses regardless of medical necessity. The economics were compelling. While “Purdue’s production costs across the board were virtually the same since oxycodone, the active ingredient, was cheap to manufacture,” the company “charged more for each higher strength.” The profit margins on higher doses were extraordinary. “On average, a bottle of 20 mg pills costs twice as much as the 10 mg variety. Eighty milligrams were about seven times more expensive than the low-dose.” Posner documents the revenue implications: “If a patient took 20 mg pills twice a week, internal documents put Purdue’s profit at less than $40. The same patient, prescribed 80 mg pills twice a week, returned over $200 to the company, a 450% increase (that profit exceeded $600 a bottle in another five years).” Purdue created campaigns specifically to drive dose escalation. The company launched an initiative called “Individualize the Dose” to help “the detail team push the strongest doses.” Sales representatives told physicians that “instead of starting patients on low strengths to see if that worked, it was best to start on a medium to higher dose. That way, the drug would relieve pain faster and allow the patient to stop using it quicker.” When doctors reported patients were not getting twelve hours of relief, “sales representatives assured doctors that higher doses would make the drug last longer.” Critically, “the detail team had been instructed not to ever suggest more than twice-a-day dosing. Purdue feared that would be the fastest way for the company to run afoul of the FDA. And insurance companies and hospitals that had agreed to cover OxyContin had done so on the basis that it was a twelve-hour drug.” Representatives claimed that “the higher-dose pills were no more likely to cause addiction,” but “that was not true. Internal documents later revealed that Purdue’s detail team knew that stronger doses carried a much higher likelihood of dependence, addiction, even respiratory suppression that could be lethal.” Purdue simultaneously pushed for longer treatment durations. “Sales reps told doctors that a common error was putting patients on the drug for too short a period since that resulted in a rebound in pain.” The financial incentives were clear: “A patient given 80 mg pills twice a day brought Purdue $200 profit. The company earned $11,000 if that patient stayed on the drug for a year.” Yet “internal correspondence reveals that patients were 30 times more likely to die of an overdose if they took OxyContin for three months, 46 times more likely after six to eleven months, and 51 times more likely to die if they remained on OxyContin more than a year.”
Regulatory Failures and Corporate Immunity
Posner details coordinated regulatory failures that enabled Purdue’s marketing campaign. “All the aggressive promotion took place without any public objection from the FDA.” While “pharmaceutical companies are required to submit all promotional material to the agency before using it,” the responsible office was “understaffed and overwhelmed. Thirty-nine employees oversaw some 35,000 promotional items annually.” When the FDA finally acted, the consequences were minimal. “In the case of OxyContin, the FDA would not issue a complaint to Purdue for two years, and when it finally did so, it was about a video distributed to doctors that had not been sent first to the agency. Purdue claimed it was an oversight and submitted it. The FDA did not review that video for another four years, at which time it ordered it withdrawn for minimizing the risks of OxyContin and overstating its benefits. There was no penalty for Purdue having made the false claims, just a promise not to do it again.” This pattern — regulators approving drugs then taking pharmaceutical company positions — created obvious conflicts of interest and undermined public trust in regulatory oversight. Despite Purdue and three of its executives pleading guilty to criminal charges in 2007, the company persisted in its aggressive marketing tactics with minimal repercussions. According to Posner, Purdue allegedly failed to uphold its commitments to the federal government, neglecting to report risky prescribers and instead choosing to intensify its deceptive OxyContin marketing and sales efforts to maximize drug sales at the highest dosages for as long as possible. As one plaintiff’s attorney argued in court filings, eight members of a single-family controlled Purdue Pharma through majority ownership of its board, giving them unprecedented power to determine how addictive narcotics were marketed and sold. Because the company was privately held, the Sacklers faced no external oversight as they hired hundreds of workers to execute aggressive sales strategies, fired those who did not sell enough drugs, and systematically pushed patients onto opioids at higher doses for longer periods than ever before. The family extracted billions of dollars in profits while their marketing decisions contributed directly to widespread addiction, overdose, and death, affecting millions of lives. Their private ownership meant no external oversight as they transformed pain management into a profit-extraction system that killed thousands.
Profit or Patients: Can America Have Both?
American healthcare kills by design. The system that will spend $5.6 trillion in 2025 — projected to reach $8.6 trillion in 2033 — kills around 45,000 people annually from lack of insurance. The system is far from broken; it is working exactly as intended, just not for patients. Elisabeth Rosenthal’s “An American Sickness: How Healthcare Became Big Business and How You Can Take it Back,” and Gerald Posner’s “Pharma: Greed, Lies, and the Poisoning of America,” expose the industry, documenting how every sector, from hospitals to insurance companies to pharmaceutical manufactures, have been restructured to treat human suffering as a business opportunity, to enrich those who control it while abandoning those who depend on it.
Genuine reform requires rejecting healthcare as a commodity, reconfiguring payment systems to reward outcomes rather than procedures, guaranteeing universal coverage that eliminates profit from insurance, regulating pharmaceutical pricing, prohibiting private equity ownership of medical facilities, and ensuring accountability to hold executives personally liable for decisions causing patient harm. The alternative is accepting that healthcare will continue killing tens of thousands annually for profit, that families will continue choosing between bankruptcy and necessary care, that in less than ten years, healthcare will consume over one-fifth of the entire American economy while delivering worse outcomes than nations spending half as much. If nothing changes, pharmaceutical companies will turn to Arthur Sackler’s playbook to market the next dangerous drug, private equity firms will gut the next rural hospitals, and insurance companies will develop the next generation of denial algorithms. Understanding this reality — grasping that profit extraction forms the nucleus of American healthcare’s design while patient harm is merely its byproduct — is a prerequisite for imagining the reform required to build a healthcare system that heals rather than one that kills by design.
Works Cited
AFFHP: Health Care Consolidation: Background, Consequences, and Policy Levers.” 2024. Alliance for Fair Health Pricing. January 10, 2024. https://allianceforfairhealthpricing.org/publications/healthcareconsolidationreport/.
Atlanta Journal Constitution. 2022. “Lack of Insurance to Blame for Almost 45,000 Deaths: Study.” PNHP. September 17, 2022. https://pnhp.org/news/lack-of-insurance-to-blame-for-almost-45000-deaths-study/.
Fuse Brown, Erin C. Testimony of Erin C. Fuse Brown, J.D., M.P.H., June 5, 2024. https://cahpr.sph.brown.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Erin Fuse Brown Testimony before Senate Judiciary Committee_6.3.24 (1).pdf.
Fuse Brown, Erin C., and Mark A. Hall. “Private Equity and the Corporatization of Health Care.” Stanford Law Review, June 21, 2024. https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/private-equity-and-the-corporatization-of-health-care/.
“How Much Is Health Spending Expected to Grow? - Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker.” 2025. Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker. 2025. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/how-much-is-health-spending-expected-to-grow/#Total%20health%20spending.
Patrick Radden Keefe. 2021. Empire of Pain : The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty. New York: Doubleday.
2025. Mbi-Deepdives.com. 2025. https://www.mbi-deepdives.com/iqv/.
Meller, Abbey, and Hauwa Ahmed. 2019. “How Big Pharma Reaps Profits While Hurting Everyday Americans.” Center for American Progress. August 30, 2019. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/big-pharma-reaps-profits-hurting-everyday-americans/.
PBS. 2000. “PBS- Healthcare Crisis: Healthcare Timeline.” Pbs.org. 2000. https://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm.
“Posts by Maadmin | Medical Advertising Hall of Fame.” 2015. Medical Advertising Hall of Fame. 2015. https://www.mahf.com/author/maadmin..
Rooke-Ley, Hayden. Medicare Advantage and vertical consolidation in health ..., April 2024. https://www.economicliberties.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Medicare-Advantage-AELP.pdf.
Rosenthal, Elisabeth. 2017. An American Sickness : How Healthcare Became Big Business and How You Can Take It Back. New York: Penguin Press.
“Sick Profits: How Profit-Driven Healthcare Is Bad for Our Financial and Physical Health.” 2025. Inequality.org. October 29, 2025. https://inequality.org/article/profit-driven-healthcare-is-bad/.
“Step Therapy (Fail First) - National Organization for Rare Disorders.” 2025. National Organization for Rare Disorders. January 28, 2025. https://rarediseases.org/policy-issues/step-therapy-fail-first/.
Sustainability Directory. 2025. “Market Driven Healthcare → Term.” Fashion → Sustainability Directory. April 10, 2025. https://fashion.sustainability-directory.com/term/market-driven-healthcare/.
Twitter, Emma Wager, Emma Wager Twitter, Matt McGough, Shameek Rakshit, and Cynthia Cox Twitter. “How Does Health Spending in the U.S. Compare to Other Countries?” Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, April 9, 2025.https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#GDP%20per%20capita%20and%20health%20consumption%20spending%20per%20capita,%20U.S.%20dollars,%202023%20(current%20prices%20and%20PPP%20adjusted)%C2%A0.
