The Hidden Barrier to U.S. Healthcare Reform and What the World Teaches Us About Designing Care

Ponderings of a Healthtech Founder

By Luis Cisneros, CEO | Serelora

In 1995, Taiwan did something remarkable. After years of careful study, the island nation launched a universal healthcare system that borrowed liberally from models around the world while remaining stubbornly pragmatic about what would actually work for Taiwanese citizens. The architects of the National Health Insurance program studied Germany’s social insurance, Canada’s single-payer framework, Japan’s fee schedules, Switzerland’s managed competition, and even the American Medicare system. They took what worked, discarded what did not, and built something new.

The result has been nothing short of transformative. Within a single year, coverage expanded from roughly 57 percent of the population to 97 percent, eventually reaching 99.9 percent of residents by 2023.¹ Today, nearly every citizen carries a smart card linked to a unified digital database, enabling seamless billing, rapid record-sharing, and dramatically reduced administrative friction.² Patients can see any doctor or visit any hospital without prior authorization, referral requirements, or the byzantine permissioning rituals that define American healthcare. Public satisfaction with the system now exceeds 90 percent.³ Taiwan spends just 6.2 percent of GDP on healthcare compared to America’s 17.3 percent, yet achieves better outcomes on virtually every metric that matters.⁴ Life expectancy is higher at 81 years versus 77.⁵ Infant mortality is lower at 4.3 per 1,000 live births versus 5.4.⁶ Preventable deaths are rarer.

Taiwan’s success is often invoked in American healthcare debates as evidence that single-payer systems can work. But this framing misses the more profound lesson. Taiwan did not succeed because it adopted any particular ideology about healthcare financing. It succeeded because it treated healthcare as a systems engineering problem rather than a political football. The reformers asked a simple question that American policymakers seem incapable of asking themselves. What actually works? Then they built the answer.

Yet as inspiring as Taiwan’s story is, it would be a mistake to imagine that America could simply copy the Taiwanese model and achieve the same results. The United States is not Taiwan. It is not even close. And the reasons why matter enormously for understanding what kind of reform might actually be possible in this country.

America Is Not Just Large. It Is Epistemically Fragmented

The standard objections to applying Taiwan’s lessons to the United States tend to focus on scale and political structure. America is vastly larger, with over three hundred million people spread across fifty states, each with its own regulatory apparatus, political culture, and healthcare markets. The federal system creates veto points that Taiwan’s unitary government simply does not face. These are real obstacles. But they are not the deepest ones.

The more fundamental barrier is what we might call America’s volatility of interpretation around health itself. This is not simply a matter of political disagreement about policy. It goes deeper, to the very semantics of what health means and how care should be sought and delivered.

Consider the diversity of perspectives that exist within American borders. In some communities, preventive care is seen as essential wisdom. In others, it is viewed with suspicion, associated with intrusive government programs or dismissed in favor of folk remedies and family traditions. Mental health can be understood as a legitimate medical concern requiring professional treatment, or it can be framed as a spiritual problem, a moral failing, or simply a sign of weakness. Chronic disease management means one thing to a college-educated professional with employer-sponsored insurance and something quite different to a recent immigrant working working three jobs without a primary care physician.

This is the peculiar genius and curse of American pluralism. We have managed to create a nation where the very definition of “being healthy” varies not just by ZIP code but by the side of the street you happen to live on. It is as though we built a country specifically designed to resist standardization, then wondered why our healthcare system refuses to behave like a system at all.

This diversity is not merely cultural. It is shaped by socioeconomic position, educational attainment, religious belief, historical trauma, and the lived experience of systemic discrimination. Below certain income and education thresholds, trust in medical institutions erodes, and interpretations of health become more volatile, more tied to immediate survival than to long-term wellness. People who have been failed by institutions do not easily trust those same institutions with their bodies.

The United States is arguably the only wealthy nation where the meaning of health varies so dramatically not just state to state but neighborhood to neighborhood. European countries often cited as diverse tend to exhibit regional variation, but they generally share a baseline cultural understanding of healthcare as a public good. America has no such consensus. Its melting pot character, which in many ways represents a great national strength, creates epistemic fragmentation that renders top-down healthcare reform extraordinarily difficult.

Taiwan could standardize its system rapidly because it could assume a relatively shared understanding of what healthcare was for and how citizens would engage with it. America cannot make that assumption. Any reform that ignores this reality is likely to fail, not because the policy is wrong in principle, but because it will be adopted unevenly, resisted unpredictably, and interpreted differently depending on who is receiving care.

What Venezuela Teaches About Building and Losing Medical Systems

If Taiwan illustrates the possibility of intentional healthcare design, Venezuela provides a cautionary tale about how even well-functioning systems can collapse when the political and economic foundations beneath them crumble.

Before the turn of the millennium, Venezuela’s healthcare system was widely regarded as one of the best in Latin America. The country had achieved remarkable public health victories, most notably the near-elimination of malaria under the leadership of Dr. Arnoldo Gabaldón (My father Dr. Gino Cisneros directly working in campaigns created by Dr. Gabaldón deep in the Amazonian rainforests with respects to other neo-tropical diseases), whose national spraying campaign using DDT became a model for disease eradication worldwide.⁷ By 1961, malaria had been wiped out from 68 percent of Venezuelan territory.⁸ The mortality rate from the disease dropped from 164 deaths per 100,000 people in 1936 to effectively zero by 1962.⁹

This was accomplished through a mixed system that combined private delivery with broad insurance coverage. Most Venezuelans had access to care through social security institutes, employer-based coverage, or public programs. Hospitals were well-equipped. Medical training was rigorous. The infrastructure supported both acute care and public health surveillance. Venezuela’s oil wealth during the 1970s funded substantial investments in health facilities, and the country had the highest per capita GDP in Latin America during that decade, along with the highest growth rate and lowest inequality in the region.¹⁰

Then it fell apart. The economic collapse that began in the 1980s and accelerated catastrophically after 1999 hollowed out the medical system from within. Hospital functionality dropped to just 44 percent of capacity by 2015 according to Human Rights Watch assessments.¹¹ Doctors fled the country in droves, with the Venezuelan Medical Federation reporting that 15,000 physicians had abandoned the public health system by mid-2015 alone.¹² Diseases that had been conquered decades earlier came roaring back. By 2019, malaria cases had increased by 1,200 percent compared to the year 2000 according to the World Health Organization’s World Malaria Report.¹³ Venezuela now accounts for 73 percent of all malaria deaths on the continent, despite being a country that once led the world in eradication efforts.¹⁴ Maternal mortality surged 65 percent in a single year. Infant mortality climbed 30 percent. Diphtheria, once thought eliminated, returned.¹⁵

The lesson here is worth pausing over. Venezuela did not fail because it had the wrong ideology about healthcare financing. It failed because the society around its healthcare system disintegrated. You cannot maintain medical infrastructure when hyperinflation makes your currency worthless and your best doctors are now driving Ubers in Miami.

What emerged in the vacuum was what can only be called a shadow system of healthcare, a fragmented, informal network of communal support, cross-border clinics in Colombia, black-market medications, and desperate improvisation. People found ways to access care because they had to, but these solutions bore no resemblance to a functioning medical system.

Venezuela’s collapse demonstrates several important truths. First, healthcare systems do not exist in isolation from political and economic stability. No matter how well-designed, they cannot survive if the society around them disintegrates. Second, the achievements of one generation are not automatically inherited by the next. Gains must be actively maintained, or they will be lost. Third, and perhaps most importantly for American observers, the Venezuelan case shows that it is entirely possible to have private healthcare delivery with broad public access. The two are not inherently opposed. What destroyed Venezuelan medicine was not its hybrid structure but rather the political and economic catastrophe that consumed the country’s institutions wholesale.

India’s Diaspora-Driven Healthcare Expansion

While Venezuela was losing its medical infrastructure, India was slowly building its own, and doing so through a mechanism that receives far too little attention in global health discussions. The Indian diaspora, one of the largest in the world at over 35.4 million people living abroad according to the Ministry of External Affairs’ 2023 report, has become a significant driver of healthcare development in their ancestral communities.¹⁶

India faces healthcare challenges that dwarf those of most wealthy nations. Nearly 65 percent of the population lives in rural areas where access to quality care remains severely limited.¹⁷ Only 46 percent of rural Indians live within five kilometers of a health facility.¹⁸ Physician shortages are endemic. A vast proportion of healthcare spending comes from out-of-pocket payments, leaving the poor especially vulnerable to catastrophic medical expenses.

The formal public health system, anchored by Primary Health Centers and Community Health Centers, struggles with chronic understaffing and inadequate resources. Data from the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare show that 8 percent of these centers have no doctors at all, 39 percent lack laboratory technicians, and 18 percent operate without pharmacists.¹⁹ The gap between need and capacity is enormous.

Into this breach have stepped the Non-Resident Indians, particularly those who emigrated in the 1980s and 1990s, built successful careers abroad, and now seek to invest in their home communities. Many of these emigrants are themselves physicians or healthcare professionals whose children have followed them into medicine. They are funding polyclinics, diagnostic centers, and small hospitals in second and third-tier cities and in rural villages that the government healthcare system has struggled to reach.

This phenomenon is visible in places like Dharmaj, a village in Gujarat now referred to as the “Model NRI Village” where diaspora contributions have funded solar panels, modern roads, smart classrooms, and robust healthcare facilities.²⁰ Similar patterns are emerging across the country, with NRI investment supplementing public sector efforts and filling gaps that government programs cannot address quickly enough. According to the India Brand Equity Foundation, hospitals attracted $1.5 billion in foreign direct investment in FY23 alone, accounting for 50 percent of all healthcare FDI.²¹

The government has responded with its own ambitious initiatives. The Ayushman Bharat program, launched in 2018, aims to achieve universal health coverage through a network of over 150,000 Health and Wellness Centers and a health insurance scheme covering 500 million vulnerable citizens.²² Early assessments suggest the program has already reduced out-of-pocket spending significantly for enrolled populations, with savings estimated in the hundreds of billions of rupees.²³

The Indian model is neither planned nor coordinated. It is sprawling, distributed, and chaotic. But it is growing. The lesson it offers is that healthcare infrastructure can be bootstrapped from below when the public sector lacks capacity, provided there are motivated actors with resources and emotional connections to communities in need. It also suggests that healthcare does not require cultural uniformity. India is among the most diverse nations on earth, yet its diaspora-driven expansion respects local variation, integrating traditional medicine like Ayurveda alongside modern allopathic care.

China’s Technological Leapfrog

If India represents organic, bottom-up healthcare development, China exemplifies what happens when a powerful central government commits to technological transformation in medicine.

China has made artificial intelligence and digital health national priorities, backed by investment projections exceeding 1.4 trillion dollars by 2030 according to McKinsey Global Institute analysis.²⁴ The most dramatic manifestation of this commitment is the emergence of AI-powered medical systems, culminating in the development of “Agent Hospital” by researchers at Tsinghua University. This virtual medical facility operates with 14 AI agents acting as physicians across 21 medical specialties, capable of diagnosing, treating, and managing up to 10,000 virtual patients per day.²⁵

The AI doctors in this system have achieved a 93.06 percent accuracy rate on questions from the United States Medical Licensing Examination, rivaling and in some cases exceeding human physician performance.²⁶ They can simulate empathy, adjust their communication for different patient populations, and continuously improve through reinforcement learning and real-time feedback. The system processes patient histories, laboratory results, and imaging with computational speed that no human physician could match.

Beyond the experimental realm, China is already deploying AI-assisted diagnostics across the country. The DeepSeek AI system, an open-source medical language model, has been embedded in the intranets of more than 260 hospitals spanning 93.5 percent of China’s provinces according to company deployment reports.²⁷ Remote robotic surgeries have been successfully conducted from distances of over 5,000 kilometers at Fudan University’s Eye & ENT Hospital, demonstrating sub-millimeter precision and reducing surgical times by nearly 30 percent.²⁸ By mid-2025, AI hospital deployments had expanded to over 100 sites across major urban centers.²⁹

There is something simultaneously thrilling and terrifying about watching a country decide that the solution to physician shortages is to simply build more physicians out of software. It is the healthcare equivalent of answering “we can’t find enough bus drivers” with “have you considered autonomous vehicles?” The audacity alone is instructive.

China’s approach addresses a fundamental constraint that many nations face, including the United States. There are simply not enough physicians to meet demand, particularly in rural and underserved areas. Urban hospitals in China are chronically overcrowded, while rural populations often lack access to specialists entirely. AI systems offer a potential bridge, augmenting human providers in high-density urban centers while extending diagnostic capabilities to regions where specialist access would otherwise be impossible.

The Chinese model carries its own risks and limitations. Equity concerns persist, with urban-rural disparities remaining substantial despite technological investment. Data from China’s National Bureau of Statistics indicates rural healthcare spending remains at roughly 40 percent of urban levels.³⁰ Questions about data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the appropriate role of human oversight are only beginning to be addressed. And centralized approaches that work in China may not translate easily to more pluralistic political systems.

But the core insight is valid. Healthcare can be leapfrogged through technology when there is sufficient capital, coordination, and political will. Nations that cannot train enough physicians in the near term can potentially compensate through technological augmentation. This matters for the United States, which faces its own physician shortages, particularly in primary care and in rural communities.

Africa’s Modular Innovation Under Constraint

Perhaps the most underappreciated laboratory for healthcare innovation is not in wealthy nations at all but in Africa, where resource constraints have forced the development of modular, adaptive care delivery systems that challenge conventional assumptions about what healthcare infrastructure must look like.

Africa faces healthcare challenges of a magnitude that would overwhelm systems designed around Western hospital-centric models. According to WHO Africa Region data, only 1.3 healthcare workers per 1,000 people serve the continent, well below the World Health Organization’s minimum threshold of 4.5.³¹ Physical infrastructure is sparse, with low hospital-to-patient ratios and unreliable electricity in many facilities. International donors have historically focused on vertical disease programs targeting specific conditions like HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, creating fragmented systems that miss the opportunity for integrated primary care.

Yet within these constraints, remarkable innovations have emerged. Mobile health clinics deployed in countries like Malawi, Kenya, and Zimbabwe bring primary care directly to communities that would otherwise have no access. Research published in Public Health Action found that in Malawi, these clinics conducted over 300,000 patient visits, treating malaria, respiratory infections, and gastrointestinal conditions while providing HIV testing and counseling, operating on 99 percent of planned days and effectively reaching populations that fixed facilities cannot serve.³²

Community health workers form the backbone of care delivery across much of the continent. The African Union has committed to deploying two million community health workers across member states, recognizing their role as the critical link between communities and formal healthcare structures according to Africa CDC workshop proceedings.³³ These workers are trained to handle a broad range of services, from health promotion and disease prevention to screening and basic treatment. They integrate into existing community structures, building trust and cultural competence that outside providers would struggle to achieve.

Digital technology has been layered onto these human networks. SMS-based systems in countries like Uganda, documented by GSMA, provide real-time information on medicine inventory at clinics, ensuring that rural patients who travel long distances find their medications in stock.³⁴ Telehealth platforms reach patients who lack internet access through voice and text services. Mobile training applications like Kenya’s M-JALI platform have equipped thousands of community health workers with updated clinical protocols and decision support tools according to Health Policy Watch reporting.³⁵

The African model demonstrates something that wealthy nations often forget. Healthcare does not require massive centralized infrastructure to be effective. Modular systems designed around community networks, mobile delivery, and appropriate technology can achieve remarkable results under severe resource constraints. The key is building trust within communities, adapting to local conditions, and prioritizing access over architectural grandeur.

Richard Bohmer’s research on healthcare delivery in resource-limited settings, published in his book Designing Care, highlights these lessons.³⁶ The organizations that succeed in such environments emphasize coordination over scale, modularity over uniformity, and community integration over institutional authority. These principles have profound implications for the United States, where many communities face healthcare deserts that rival developing world conditions even as neighboring areas enjoy world-class facilities.

If Africa can deliver primary care through solar-powered mobile clinics in villages without electricity, one wonders what exactly prevents the richest nation in history from ensuring that a patient’s medical records can travel the 3.2 miles from their cardiologist’s office to their primary care physician without being faxed in 2025.

El Salvador’s Reconstruction and the Role of Community

El Salvador offers a different kind of lesson, one about rebuilding healthcare systems after catastrophic disruption and about the role that community organization can play in driving reform — a dynamic that has evolved dramatically under recent leadership, where top-down security gains have intersected with persistent economic vulnerabilities to reshape well-being and care delivery.

During the 1970s and into the civil war that erupted in 1980, El Salvador ranked among the five least healthy countries in the world according to research by Ugalde and colleagues published in the British Medical Journal.³⁷ The physician-to-patient ratio was the lowest in Latin America. Eighty percent of rural peasants had no potable water. Sixty percent had no access to health services. When the civil war began, the government slashed the health budget by 50 percent and withdrew services from many regions entirely according to analysis from the University of Washington START Center.³⁸ Life expectancy, already dismal at 56 years, dropped to 50.7 years. Child mortality rates were catastrophic at 87 per 1,000, and malnutrition affected three out of four children as documented in the International Journal for Equity in Health.³⁹

The peace accords that ended the conflict in 1992 created an opening for reconstruction, but meaningful healthcare reform did not arrive until the leftist FMLN party won its first presidential election in 2009. The new government launched a comprehensive health reform built on lessons learned from both the war experience and from studying successful primary care models in Brazil, Paraguay, Cuba, and Spain, as analyzed by political scientist Christopher Clark in Latin American Politics and Society.⁴⁰

The reform sent 481 community healthcare teams to permanent placements throughout the country, prioritizing the poorest municipalities first according to Ministry of Health records.⁴¹ Fees for procedures that had previously been charged, ostensibly as “voluntary” contributions, were eliminated. Access to the public system expanded dramatically. According to World Bank assessment, births in health facilities increased by 20 percent in the poorest municipalities.⁴² Neonatal units were equipped. Infrastructure investments modernized over 51 primary care hospitals and 30 secondary and tertiary hospitals.⁴³ Maternal mortality decreased from 50.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2011 to 48 by 2015 according to World Bank Development Indicators.⁴⁴

What made El Salvador’s reform distinctive was the role of community organization. During the civil war, communities in rebel-controlled areas had developed their own health systems when the government withdrew services. They trained lay health workers, created mobile clinics, and established decision-making structures through general assemblies and coordinated sector meetings as documented by medical anthropologist Sandy Smith-Nonini in her book Healing the Body Politic.⁴⁵ These organizational capacities did not disappear after the war. They became the foundation for the National Health Forum, a civil society alliance present in 12 of 14 departments that advocated for comprehensive reform and participated actively in its implementation.⁴⁶

El Salvador demonstrates that healthcare systems can be rebuilt after even severe disruption, but only if there are organized communities capable of both demanding reform and participating in its execution. Trust in institutions, once destroyed, cannot be recreated through policy alone. It must be rebuilt through engagement, participation, and demonstrated responsiveness to community needs. This principle has been tested anew under President Nayib Bukele, who assumed office in 2019 and has pursued a bold, centralized agenda that has transformed the country’s security landscape while exposing tensions in economic sustainability and social equity.

Bukele’s administration has prioritized aggressive anti-gang measures, declaring a state of emergency in 2022 that facilitated mass arrests and dismantled major criminal networks like MS-13 and Barrio 18. Homicides plummeted from 2,398 in 2019 to just 114 in 2024, yielding the lowest murder rate in El Salvador’s history and fostering a profound sense of safety that has rippled into everyday well-being.⁷⁵ Communities once paralyzed by extortion and violence now report calmer streets and renewed economic activity in poor neighborhoods, where residents can access markets, schools, and clinics without fear — a direct boon to preventive care and community health initiatives rooted in the post-war era.⁷⁶ Yet this security dividend has come at a steep human cost: over 85,000 arrests, often without due process, have swelled the prison population to more than 107,000 — nearly 2 percent of Salvadorans — with reports of torture, incommunicado detention, and at least 430 deaths in custody by mid-2025, eroding civil liberties and creating a climate of fear that stifles community advocacy.⁷⁷

Economically, Bukele’s policies have yielded mixed results that underscore the fragility of health gains amid broader well-being challenges. GDP growth slowed from 2.5 percent in 2019 to 2.6 percent in 2024, hampered by fiscal adjustments, natural disasters, and a public debt burden reaching 88.9 percent of GDP.⁷⁸ Poverty rose from 26.8 percent in 2019 to 30.3 percent in 2023, with incomes for the poorest households falling 10 percent, particularly in rural areas, exacerbated by food inflation and declining remittances.⁷⁹ These strains have pressured healthcare affordability, even as the administration modernizes the Integrated National Health System through technological leapfrogs. In November 2025, Bukele launched DoctorSV, an AI-powered app enabling free video consultations, electronic prescriptions, and home delivery of medications and lab tests (including X-rays and ultrasounds) via partnerships with Google Cloud and over 350 pharmacies ; initially targeting ages 18–30 before nationwide rollout.⁸⁰ Complementing this, a $120 million World Bank-funded Improving Health Care in El Salvador Project (PROMAS), approved in March 2025, spans five years to bolster primary care infrastructure, digital transformation, supply chains, and training, with a focus on vulnerable groups like women, children, rural residents, and Indigenous Peoples.⁸¹ A February 2025 budget reform further increased health spending, though a proposed $91 million cut in the overall 2025 allocation highlights ongoing fiscal trade-offs.⁸²

These developments illustrate how Bukele’s top-down security focus has unlocked community potential for health engagement — safer environments enable the participation that fueled earlier reforms — but economic stagnation risks unraveling these advances, as poverty deepens barriers to care and strains public resources. The Salvadoran Medical Association has cautioned that digital tools like DoctorSV, while innovative, cannot substitute for addressing staff shortages, rural inequities, and supply gaps without robust community integration and universal access, including for those without devices or internet.⁸³ For American reformers, El Salvador under Bukele reinforces that well-being hinges on balancing security with economic vitality; without the latter, even the most responsive health systems falter, demanding ongoing community vigilance to hold leaders accountable.

Australia’s Hybrid Model and Its Contradictions

Australia presents yet another variation, a hybrid system that combines universal public insurance with a substantial private sector and that achieves generally good outcomes while generating its own set of contradictions worth examining closely, particularly for Americans who imagine that simply adding a public option would solve everything.

The Australian system rests on Medicare, a universal public insurance program established in 1984 after years of political struggle as documented in Parliament of Australia background briefs.⁴⁷ Medicare provides free public hospital care and subsidizes physician services, pharmaceuticals, and diagnostic imaging. All Australian citizens, permanent residents, and those from countries with reciprocal agreements are eligible. The system is funded through general taxation supplemented by a Medicare levy of 2 percent of taxable income according to Australian Taxation Office guidelines.⁴⁸

Layered on top of Medicare is a robust private insurance sector. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that approximately 45 to 55 percent of Australians carry private coverage, which provides access to private hospitals, choice of physician, shorter wait times for elective procedures, and coverage for services that Medicare does not fully cover, including dental care and physiotherapy.⁴⁹ The government encourages private insurance through tax rebates for purchasers and tax penalties for higher earners who do not carry coverage.

By design, the public and private systems are meant to work together, with private insurance taking pressure off the busier public system. The structure echoes American employer-sponsored insurance in some ways, but with crucial differences. Government sets prices for drugs, treatments, and other expenses. There are caps on cost-sharing and safety nets for high out-of-pocket costs as outlined by the Commonwealth Fund’s international health system profiles.⁵⁰ The rebate system means the government subsidizes private insurance directly, spending over $6 billion annually according to Canadian physician and healthcare analyst Dr. Robert Bell, creating incentives that do not exist in the American market.⁵¹

Australians can choose whether to be treated as public or private patients, and many exercise both options depending on circumstances. The hybrid structure has produced generally good results. Australians live longer than Americans at 83 years versus 77, are healthier, see their doctors more frequently, and die of preventable diseases less often according to PBS NewsHour’s comparative reporting.⁵² They achieve these outcomes while spending roughly half what the United States spends per person, with more hospital beds per capita at 3.8 per 1,000 versus America’s 2.7, more physicians at 3.5 per 1,000 versus 2.6, and more nurses at 11.5 per 1,000 versus 9.5 based on OECD Health Statistics.⁵³

Yet, the Australian model also reveals the tensions inherent in hybrid systems that Americans would do well to study before assuming hybridity is a magic solution. Private hospitals focus on elective procedures and serve wealthier populations in urban areas, leaving rural and remote communities dependent on an underfunded public system. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has documented that rural wait times can run 50 percent longer than urban areas for certain procedures.⁵⁴ Indigenous Australians, who have suffered decades of discrimination, experience health outcomes far worse than the general population, with life expectancies 8 to 11 years shorter on average according to research from the Lowitja Institute.⁵⁵

The fundamental policy incoherence is instructive. Stephen Duckett, Director of the Health Program at Grattan Institute and Honorary Professor at the University of Melbourne, has noted in Healthcare Policy that there has been “no coherence or consistency in the rhetoric about the roles of the two systems,” with policymakers variously suggesting that private care substitutes for public care, complements it, or that Medicare is alternately a universal scheme or a residual one.⁵⁶ Duckett concludes that this ambiguity creates what he calls “an incoherent mess” in which neither system functions optimally and the billions spent subsidizing private insurance could arguably be better invested in strengthening the public system or addressing equity gaps.⁵⁷

The Australian experience suggests that hybrid systems can work but require careful management to prevent the private sector from undermining the public one. Without coherent policy guidance about the relationship between public and private care, the result is a system that achieves decent outcomes overall while perpetuating disparities and leaving its fundamental logic undefined. America, with its gift for taking any policy incoherence and amplifying it tenfold through fifty state legislatures and several hundred insurance companies, might want to take notes.

The American Problem Is Information, Not Ideology

What lessons can the United States draw from this global tour of healthcare systems? Not, I would argue, the lesson that we should simply adopt any particular model wholesale. Taiwan’s size and cohesion enabled rapid implementation. Venezuela’s collapse warns against political instability more than it advocates any particular healthcare structure. India’s diaspora-driven expansion reflects conditions that cannot be replicated through policy. China’s technological leapfrog requires centralized coordination that American federalism makes difficult. Africa’s modular innovation responds to resource constraints that wealthy nations do not face. El Salvador’s reconstruction built on organizational capacities forged through civil war. Australia’s hybrid system produces tensions that American politics would likely intensify.

The deeper lesson is about information. The American healthcare system does not primarily suffer from wrong ideology or insufficient resources. It suffers from a breakdown in information flow that prevents coordination, creates redundancy, and leaves patients falling through cracks that should not exist.

Consider how the American system evolved. Hospitals were originally designed for acute care, treating infectious diseases and trauma. They centralized patients, and in doing so, they centralized patient information. Legal and regulatory frameworks developed to protect that information, first from abuse and later from liability. HIPAA and related privacy protections were built to safeguard individuals, but in practice they have become institutional shields that lock data within organizational silos.

This made sense when healthcare was primarily acute. Patients came in, were treated, and left. Their information stayed with the institution that treated them. But healthcare has fundamentally changed. Chronic disease now dominates the landscape. According to CDC data from the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, over 60 percent of American adults live with conditions like diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, or other ailments that require ongoing management, not one-time interventions.⁵⁸ These patients see multiple providers across multiple settings over extended periods. Their care requires coordination, which requires information to flow freely among everyone involved in their treatment.

But the information does not flow. It sits trapped in hospital EHRs, insurance claims databases, specialist portals, and paper files in primary care offices. Patients who should have their complete medical history available to every provider they see instead find themselves repeating the same information, undergoing redundant tests, and experiencing delays while their records are faxed, mailed, or manually reentered into new systems. Research by McKinsey & Company found that up to 27 percent of hospital errors stem from data silos, costing healthcare organizations an estimated $20 million annually per organization in rework and delays.⁵⁹ A Health Affairs survey found that more than 60 percent of healthcare executives identify data fragmentation as the primary barrier to effective analytics and care coordination.⁶⁰

The sicker a patient becomes, the more providers they see, and the more their information fragments across disconnected systems. This creates what might be called the care transfer paradox. The patients who need coordination most are the least likely to receive it because their complexity scatters their data across more institutional boundaries.

We have, in effect, built the world’s most expensive healthcare system and then ensured that the left hand cannot know what the right hand is doing. It is the organizational equivalent of hiring a symphony orchestra, giving each musician noise-canceling headphones, and wondering why the concert sounds like chaos.

Taiwan solved this problem by creating a unified digital infrastructure from the beginning. Every citizen carries a smart card linked to a centralized database. Information flows seamlessly because the system was designed to enable flow. The MediCloud system, launched in 2015 by the National Health Insurance Administration, integrates medical information across all contracted providers, allowing access to 12 types of patient records including imaging, treatment history, and vaccination records.⁶¹ The United States built its healthcare system before digital technology existed, layered regulations designed to protect paper records onto digital systems, and created incentives for institutions to hoard rather than share information.

The solution is not to copy Taiwan’s single-payer structure. It is to build the informational rails that would enable coordination regardless of payment mechanism. This means national standards for patient identity, interoperable record systems, and consent architectures that allow patients to direct their information to those who need it. It means unbundling the legitimate privacy protections of HIPAA from the institutional risk-avoidance behavior that currently prevents information sharing. It means treating health data not as property to be guarded but as connective tissue that enables care — a principle that is already taking root in domestic innovations emerging from the very fractures of our fragmented system, where ambulatory and preventive care models are pioneering the fluid data exchanges essential for true coordination.

Domestic Innovations: The Rise of Direct Primary Care Polyclinics and Their Role in Reimagining Information Flows

The insurance-driven fragmentation of American healthcare has long exacerbated disparities between hospital-based acute care and the outpatient, preventive, and procedural services that dominate everyday medical needs, accounting for over 90 percent of encounters, according to analyses from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.⁶² This disconnect has stifled innovation in non-hospital settings, where administrative burdens from prior authorizations, claim denials, and siloed billing deter providers from expanding services. Yet, in response, a wave of large-scale Direct Primary Care (DPC) practices has emerged, leveraging value-based contracting to function as commercially privatized Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). These entities bypass traditional insurers by contracting directly with employers, aligning incentives around outcomes rather than volume and delivering comprehensive care at predictable costs.⁶³ As noted in a 2025 guide from the Physicians Advocacy Institute, DPC arrangements with large employers often cover total care costs for employee populations, fostering preventive focus and reducing reliance on fee-for-service fragmentation.⁶⁴

What makes these large DPCs particularly noteworthy is their evolution into multi-specialty polyclinics — overlooked relics of early 20th-century healthcare design, now revitalized as scalable, physician-owned hubs for integrated care. Unlike traditional single-provider DPCs, these polyclinics house primary care alongside specialties like dermatology, orthopedics, and mental health, enabling on-site minor procedures, elective surgeries, and interventions coded under HCPCS Level II (e.g., J-codes for injections and non-invasive therapies) without hospital involvement.⁶⁵ They sidestep longstanding corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) prohibitions, which in states like California and Texas bar physicians from owning hospitals but permit clinic ownership, allowing doctor-led entities to capture a substantial share of care delivery.⁶⁶ A 2025 Milbank Memorial Fund report highlights how management services organizations (MSOs) further enable this by handling non-clinical operations, preserving physician control while scaling to serve thousands.⁶⁷ Well-structured polyclinics thus provide more comprehensive outpatient care than many standalone facilities or even hospitals for routine needs, underscoring that most care — chronic management, diagnostics, and low-acuity procedures — occurs ambulatorily, not inpatient.⁶⁸

Exemplars abound. Plum Health DPC in Michigan, a membership-based model charging $49 monthly, has expanded beyond primary care to include in-office minor surgical procedures like suturing and biopsies, alongside discounted labs and imaging, serving urban underserved populations without insurance billing.⁶⁹ Larger networks, such as Everside Health with over 385 centers across 34 states, partner directly with employers for value-based primary and specialty care, incorporating on-site orthopedics and behavioral health to handle elective procedures like joint injections and skin lesion removals.⁷⁰ Similarly, platforms like Hint Health facilitate employer-direct DPC contracts that integrate surgical networks for ambulatory electives, such as cataract or hernia repairs, performed in physician-owned facilities outside hospital billing streams.⁷¹ These models not only reduce costs — often by 20–40 percent through avoided administrative overhead — but also demonstrate polyclinics’ potential to consolidate care under one roof, minimizing the handoffs that perpetuate information silos.

This resurgence aligns seamlessly with the informational reforms needed for chronic care coordination. Large DPCs and polyclinics are at the vanguard of advocating for EHR overhauls, demanding interoperable platforms that enable real-time data sharing across specialties and with external providers. The shift to value-based care, as detailed in a 2024 Medical Economics analysis, necessitates EHR enhancements for population health analytics, automated referrals, and seamless billing flows… capabilities these models are piloting through direct employer integrations.⁷² At the 2025 DPC Summit, discussions centered on EHR transitions to reduce clinician workload by 30 percent via AI-driven documentation and cross-practice data exchange, addressing the “battle of the EHRs” that plagues fragmented systems.⁷³ Startups like Nodesian are collaborating with these institutions to build consent-based information architectures that treat data as fluid connective tissue, facilitating secure flows between polyclinic silos and broader networks without HIPAA’s institutional barriers.⁷⁴ In essence, these innovations are not mere workarounds but proofs of concept for an ambulatory-first ecosystem where information enables, rather than impedes, care, paving the way for the broader adaptive mesh that can weave together America’s diverse healthcare fabric without unraveling its pluralistic threads.

Toward an Adaptive Mesh

The United States cannot reset its healthcare system the way Taiwan did. The political fragmentation, institutional entrenchment, and epistemic volatility that characterize American society make comprehensive reform extraordinarily difficult. But difficulty is not impossibility.

What becomes possible when we understand the American problem as one of information architecture rather than ideological commitment? We can pursue modular reforms that create shared rails even without shared structures. We can standardize the data layer while allowing diverse approaches to payment, delivery, and benefit design. We can build infrastructure that adapts to the volatility of interpretation that defines American healthcare rather than demanding a uniformity that will never come.

This is the lesson that Taiwan, Venezuela, India, China, Africa, El Salvador, and Australia all offer in different ways. Healthcare systems reflect national character. They succeed when they are designed with clear-eyed understanding of the conditions they must address. They fail when they assume uniformity that does not exist or ignore the foundations upon which they rest.

The United States has built one of the most resource-rich healthcare arsenals in the world and then paralyzed it by fragmenting the information that would allow it to function. We argue endlessly about who should pay while the machinery stays broken regardless of payment source. We debate ideology while patients wait for faxes.

Taiwan did not fund healthcare. It engineered the rails. The United States can do the same, not through a single grand reform but through cumulative changes that create the informational infrastructure coordination requires. Standardize patient identity. Mandate interoperability. Build consent systems that enable sharing without sacrificing privacy. Remove permissioning layers that exist to protect institutions rather than patients.

The future of American healthcare is not a single system. It is an adaptive mesh that accommodates our diversity while enabling the coordination that chronic care demands. Building it requires acknowledging what global experience teaches. The barrier is not resources. It is not ideology. It is the flow of information, and that is something we can fix.

…Or we can just continue faxing medical records between buildings that share a parking lot.

References

1 Cheng, T.M. (2015). “Reflections on the 20th Anniversary of Taiwan’s Single-Payer National Health Insurance System.” Health Affairs, 34(3), 502–510.

2 Li, Y.C., et al. (2015). “Building a national electronic medical record exchange system — experiences in Taiwan.” Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 121(1), 14–20.

3 National Health Insurance Administration, Taiwan. (2024). “Public Satisfaction Survey Results 2020–2024.” Ministry of Health and Welfare.

4 OECD Health Statistics. (2024). “Health Expenditure and Financing.” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

5 World Bank. (2024). “Life Expectancy at Birth, Total (Years).” World Development Indicators.

6 World Bank. (2024). “Mortality Rate, Infant (Per 1,000 Live Births).” World Development Indicators.

7 Litsios, S. (1998). “Arnoldo Gabaldón’s Independent Path for Malaria Control and Public Health in the Tropics.” Parassitologia, 40, 231–238.

8 Gabaldón, A., & Berti, A.L. (1954). “The First Large Area in the Tropical Zone to Report Malaria Eradication: North-Central Venezuela.” American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 3, 793–807.

9 Gabaldón, A. (1983). “Malaria Eradication in Venezuela: Doctrine, Practice, and Achievements After Twenty Years.” American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 32, 203–211.

10 Rodriguez, J.A. (2017). “The Roots of Venezuela’s Failing State.” Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective, Ohio State University.

11 Human Rights Watch. (2015). “Venezuela: Health Care in Crisis.” HRW Report, August 2015.

12 Venezuelan Medical Federation. (2015). “Public Health Workforce Assessment 2015.” Press Release, May 2015.

13 World Health Organization. (2020). “World Malaria Report 2020.” WHO, Geneva.

14 Grillet, M.E., et al. (2021). “Malaria in Venezuela: Gabaldón’s Legacy Scattered to the Winds.” The Lancet Global Health, 9(5), e584-e585.

15 Ministry of Health, Venezuela. (2017). “Epidemiological Bulletin 2016.” Subsequently removed from publication; data reported by Associated Press, May 2017.

16 Ministry of External Affairs, India. (2023). “Population of Overseas Indians.” Annual Report to Parliament.

17 National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5). (2021). Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.

18 Rural Health Statistics 2021–2022. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.

19 Karan, A., et al. (2019). “Health Care in Rural India: A Lack Between Need and Feed.” Indian Journal of Community Medicine, 44(1), 23–26.

20 ANI News. (2024). “Gujarat’s Dharmaj Village Redefines Rural Prosperity with Global NRI Support.” December 10, 2024.

21 India Brand Equity Foundation. (2024). “Foreign Investors in Love with Indian Hospitals.” IBEF Healthcare Report.

22 Ayushman Bharat Mission. (2024). “Health and Wellness Centers Progress Report.” National Health Authority, Government of India.

23 National Health Authority. (2025). “Ayushman Bharat Impact Assessment 2024–2025.” Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

24 McKinsey Global Institute. (2024). “China’s AI Investment Outlook Through 2030.” McKinsey & Company.

25 Liu, Y., et al. (2024). “Agent Hospital: A Virtual Hospital Powered by Large Language Models.” Tsinghua University Institute for AI Industry Research.

26 Global Times. (2024). “China’s First AI Hospital Town Debuts.” May 2024.

27 DeepSeek AI. (2025). “Deployment Report: Medical LLM Implementation Across Chinese Healthcare.” Company Technical Report.

28 Fudan University Eye & ENT Hospital. (2024). “First Remote Non-Invasive AI-Powered Surgery Completion Report.” Hospital Press Release.

29 MedTech World. (2025). “China’s AI Hospital Expansion: Mid-Year Assessment.” Industry Report.

30 National Bureau of Statistics, China. (2024). “Urban-Rural Healthcare Expenditure Gap Analysis.” Statistical Yearbook.

31 WHO Africa Region. (2024). “Health Workforce Status Report.” World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa.

32 Bemah, P., et al. (2015). “Bringing Care to the Community: Expanding Access to Health Care in Rural Malawi Through Mobile Health Clinics.” Public Health Action, 5(2), 110–116.

33 Africa CDC. (2024). “Africa’s Pursuit of Cost-Effective Community Health Worker Services.” Workshop Report, Accra, Ghana, August 2024.

34 GSMA. (2024). “Mobile Technology for Health: Case Studies from Sub-Saharan Africa.” Mobile for Development Report.

35 Health Policy Watch. (2024). “Powering Africa’s Health Future: Innovation and Infrastructure in Primary Care.” November 2024.

36 Bohmer, R.M.J. (2009). Designing Care: Aligning the Nature and Management of Health Care. Harvard Business Press.

37 Ugalde, A., et al. (2000). “The Health Costs of War: Can They Be Measured? Lessons from El Salvador.” British Medical Journal, 321, 1369–1371.

38 University of Washington START Center. (2021). “Territorial Community Teams in El Salvador.” Policy Analysis Report.

39 Heidari, S., et al. (2020). “The Role of Social Movements in Strengthening Health Systems: The Experience of the National Health Forum in El Salvador.” International Journal for Equity in Health, 19, Article 49.

40 Clark, C. (2015). “The New Left and Health Care Reform in El Salvador.” Latin American Politics and Society, 57(4), 117–138.

41 Ministerio de Salud de El Salvador. (2014). “Reforma de Salud: Informe de Avances 2009–2014.” Government Report.

42 World Bank. (2019). “Renovating the Public Health Care System in El Salvador.” Results Brief, April 25, 2019.

43 World Bank. (2019). “El Salvador Health System Strengthening Project: Implementation Completion Report.”

44 World Bank Development Indicators. (2016). “Maternal Mortality Ratio — El Salvador.” Data Catalog.

45 Smith-Nonini, S. (2010). Healing the Body Politic: El Salvador’s Popular Struggle for Health Rights from Civil War to Neoliberal Peace. Rutgers University Press.

46 National Health Forum El Salvador. (2020). “Community Participation in Health System Governance.” Organizational Report, available at fnssv.com.

47 Biggs, A. (2016). “Medicare — Background Brief.” Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Library.

48 Australian Taxation Office. (2024). “Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge.” Tax Guidelines.

49 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024). “Private Health Insurance Coverage.” National Health Survey.

50 Commonwealth Fund. (2024). “International Health Care System Profiles: Australia.” Country Profile.

51 Bell, R. (2019). “Does Hybrid Health Care Improve Public Health Services? Lessons Learned from Australia.” drbobbell.com, Healthcare Policy Analysis.

52 PBS NewsHour. (2020). “What the U.S. Can Learn from Australia’s Hybrid Health Care System.” Broadcast Report, January 2020.

53 OECD Health Statistics. (2024). “Health Care Resources: Hospital Beds and Health Workers.” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

54 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2024). “Rural and Remote Health Access Report.” AIHW, Canberra.

55 Lowitja Institute. (2024). “Close the Gap Campaign: Indigenous Health Outcomes Report.” Melbourne.

56 Duckett, S., & Nemet, K. (2019). “Commentary: The Consequences of Private Involvement in Healthcare — The Australian Experience.” Healthcare Policy, 15(SP), 7–12.

57 Duckett, S. (2019). “Public-Private Mix in Australian Healthcare.” Grattan Institute Analysis.

58 CDC. (2024). “Chronic Diseases in America.” National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

59 Sahni, N.R., et al. (2021). “Administrative Simplification: How to Save a Quarter-Trillion Dollars in U.S. Healthcare.” McKinsey & Company, October 2021.

60 Health Affairs. (2023). “Healthcare Executive Survey on Data Integration Barriers.” Health Affairs Research Brief.

61 National Health Insurance Administration, Taiwan. (2024). “MediCloud System: Technical Overview and Utilization Statistics.” Ministry of Health and Welfare.

62 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2024). “Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project: National Inpatient Sample Overview.” AHRQ Statistical Brief.

63 FTI Consulting. (2022). “Direct-to-Employer Contracting Has Arrived.” Insights Article.

64 Physicians Advocacy Institute. (2025). “Guide to Value-Based Contracting.” PAI Report.

65 Plum Health DPC. (2024). “Direct Primary Care Services Overview.” Company Website.

66 Rooke-Ley, H., Reddy, M., Mehta, N., & Sewak, Y. (2025). “The Corporate Backdoor to Medicine: How MSOs Are Reshaping Physician Practices.” Milbank Memorial Fund Policy Brief.

67 Rooke-Ley, H., Reddy, M., Mehta, N., & Sewak, Y. (2025). “The Corporate Backdoor to Medicine: How MSOs Are Reshaping Physician Practices.” Milbank Memorial Fund Policy Brief.

68 American Medical Association. (2024). “Ambulatory Care Trends in U.S. Healthcare Delivery.” AMA Research.

69 Detroit Free Press. (2019). “These Detroit Doctors Help People with No Insurance, High Deductibles.” August 6, 2019.

70 Marathon Health. (2023). “Everside Health Acquires Direct Primary Care Provider R-Health.” Press Release.

71 Hint Health. (2024). “Hint Connect: A Curated Network for DPC Practices.” Company Website.

72 Medical Economics. (2024). “Shift to Value-Based Care Brings New Desires for EHR Capabilities.” February 6, 2024.

73 My DPC Story Podcast. (2025). “Battle of the EHRs at the 2025 DPC Summit.” YouTube Episode, August 3, 2025.

74 Nodesian. (2025). “Advancing Interoperable Flows in DPC Networks.” Company White Paper.

75 Foreign Affairs. (2025). “Does the Bukele Model Have a Future?” Foreign Affairs.

76 Ibid.

77 Human Rights Watch. (2025). “World Report 2025: El Salvador.” Human Rights Watch.

78 Peoples Dispatch. (2025). “One more year of Bukele: tough on crime, struggling with poverty.” June 5, 2025.

79 Ibid.

80 UPI. (2025). “El Salvador launches unprecedented primary health care access system.” November 18, 2025.

81 World Bank. (2025). “World Bank to Strengthen Health Care in El Salvador.” Press Release, March 19, 2025.

82 P4H Network. (2025). “Budget reform increases resources for health in El Salvador.” May 5, 2025.

83 UPI. (2025). “El Salvador launches unprecedented primary health care access system.” November 18, 2025.