The confidence of Americans in the overall health system decreases – but experts think that it can be rebuilt.
Public confidence in the American health system increased from 71.5% in 2020 to 40.1% in 2024, according to recent research from Johns Hopkins University. There are also various studies showing that feelings of distrust increase particularly quickly in marginalized communities due to long -standing disparities in the results of access and treatment, aggravated by discrimination experiences and historical injustices such as medical experimentation.
While confidence in the health system is growing, experts say that reconstruction will force payers and suppliers to prioritize empathy, transparency and personalized communication.
What factors influence patient confidence?
Public confidence in the overall American health system is decreasing – but most of the reasons why people quote for distrust do not have to do with providers, according to research published last week by AMF Media Group and Medical Group Management Association (MGMA).
The report is based on the responses to the survey of 2,400 American adults in a wide variety of socioeconomic environments. When asked what had weakened their confidence in the health system in the past five years, respondents have identified the influence of insurers, pharmaceutical companies and government as the main contributors to the decline in trust. In particular, the Pandemic and Vaccinale Covid-19 efficiency has not been commonly cited as factors in the decline in confidence, despite the general attention that these problems have received in recent years.
When asked what could improve confidence, respondents cited cultural relative as an important factor, which is particularly true for black and Hispanic patients.
Regarding patient confidence, providers are taken in the reticle, said Andrew Swanson, MGMA income director.
They are seated at the intersection of patients, insurers and pharmaceutical companies – and often absorb patients’ frustration concerning costs and the lack of coverage transparency, even if they do not control these systems, said Swanson.
He noted that the MGMA recently held a meeting with around 50 supplier leaders on how to solve this problem. Some executives have suggested that hospitals and medical offices are starting to have more open and honest dialogues with patients on how it can be uncertain and difficult for them to navigate their care trips, he said.
“We have to give them advice and advice, but we cannot tell them what to do. We need patience. I think what health care organizations must really have is that they will have these conversations, whether they want to have them or not. They do not manage the insurance company, so it is not their business to tell insurers what to do or to tell patients what they come about about their interactions with insurance, but they must be a survey table for patients to do insurance.
Overall, survey data have shown that patients want care providers who are empathetic and take the time to treat them as an individual, he added.
The days of the providers being so busy, they can sometimes be unintentionally cold or insensitive. For example, patient portals now give people instant access to their laboratory or imaging results, Swanson said. In some cases, the patient can access these files before having the chance to speak to them with his doctor, which could cause unnecessary distress and a decomposition of confidence.
“We don’t want to be transparent. We want to give people their information, but they must receive it with care, empathy and well -informed voice so that they understand the results they get,” said Swanson.
Support for cultural and linguistic diversity is also crucial, he said.
The training in cultural awareness is not sufficient, warned Swanson. Providers need practical resources – such as bedside translation services and visual reminders published in rooms – to help them communicate with sensitivity with various patient populations, especially during loaded clinical days, he explained.
How can health leaders better understand the erosion of confidence
It is difficult to improve the confidence of patients without reliable means of measuring it, said Mark Lomax, CEO of the PEP Health Health Start-up. The measure allows suppliers to determine when and where confidence is crumbling so that they can then take immediate measures to rebuild it, he pointed out.
Last week, PEP launched its “trust score” – a real -time metric that quantifies trust by using AI to analyze the comments of patients on the Internet. The tool analyzes 40 million comments from unlined patients of sources such as social media, online criticism and patient forums – representing around 1 in 9 Americans, said Lomax.
Unlike traditional surveys, which can be slow and generally have low response rates, the trust score draws from real and not filtered feedback from patients, he noted.
The startup has based the score on academic research, in particular the “Rise” confidence model, which includes logic, authenticity and emotional connection as its main pillars. Lomax said that confidence disappears if one of these elements breaks down.
PEP’s objective was to codify confidence by using these concepts with AI natural language treatment.
The company’s AI analyzes the engines and the trust indicators, noted Lomax. Drivers are specific qualities that patients mention about their providers in their comments, such as kindness or active listening. Indicators are observable behaviors of patients who occur due to confidence, such as patient retention or gratitude. Patients can reveal this kind of behavior by writing them as “I have seen Dr. X for five years” or “I’m so happy that Dr. X has taken the time to answer all my questions,” said Lomax.
All these factors are mapped on a dashboard, forming a “real-time 3D image of confidence,” he said.
The dashboard of the PEP confidence score – which can be used by providers and payers – analyzes confidence between health systems, service lines, geographic regions and time. The scores are on a 1 to 5 scale, with 3 as a neutral point. A score less than 3 means more negative than positive feeling.
PEP’s internal analysis determined that a drop in confidence in a point can lead to more than $ 12 million in annual income lost for a large health system.
A Deloitte study also revealed that suppliers with higher patient experience scores operated better than those with lower scores. More specifically, hospitals that patients were “excellent” had an average margin of 4.7%, compared to 1.8% for hospitals with low ratings.
Lomax stressed that the PEP tool is customizable. Users can adapt their dashboards to display data by geography, compare their peers or analyze confidence in specific clinical fields.
For example, ECU Health in North Carolina worked with PEP to develop a trust dashboard by the market area, motivated by Julie Kennedy Oehlert, director of experience of the health system. The ECU is one of the few American health systems that pilot the trust scoring, said Lomax.
“Confidence is the basis of the relationship between health care and those they serve. When confidence is present in the relationship, patients adhere to treatment plans, are looking for medical care if necessary and have frank conversations with their care team that is vital for their health planning,” said Ouhlert in a press release. “This confidence also feeds the passion and the purpose of those who provide care, isolating against professional exhaustion.”
She also noted that the trust score consists less in adding another metric for suppliers and more on the realization of a deeper understanding of relationships with patients, who play an important role in the overall health results.
How more effective communication can help stimulate confidence
Effective communication is a key element of the puzzle for providers and payers who seek to improve the confidence levels of patients and members, noted Bob Farrell, CEO of the Mpulse health care commitment platform.
“We see progressive organizations doing a better job to repair confidence or establish new confidence by using digital engagement techniques to provide literacy, tailor-made contact points and details throughout a patient’s health course to help them feel like the plan or supplier understands what they are going through,” he said.
Americans are increasingly wanting to be participants active in their health care, said Farrell. They have more tools and information at their disposal than ever – but it generally comes from sources such as social media and chatppt, not their health plan or supplier.
Farrell noted that health care organizations have the possibility of using data analysis and AI to determine the best way to engage with patients or specific members according to their health and demographic profiles.
“If you are a 72-year-old man who suffers from diabetes and who has had two falls in the past 24 months, you will have a very different profile from a 32-year-old woman who is dealing with prenatal problems and early childhood. You have to commit properly with these people,” he noted.
Personalization helps strengthen confidence because it helps people feel more understood, said Farrell. When payers or providers apply the same approach to very different populations, it may seem abrasive and impersonal, he explained.
When awareness is personalized, engagement rates improve considerably, sometimes going from low figures to the beach 20 to 30%, Farrell said.
He also highlighted the importance of providing content that reflects the daily digital user experiences, such as Instagram style video delivery, saying that this can improve receptivity.
To rebuild trust, health leaders must recognize that patients do not want laboratory results and factual responses – they want to feel seen, heard and supported for some of the most difficult moments in life. Experts agree that to ensure that patients feel in this way, suppliers and payers must use a human approach focused on empathy and tailor -made communication.
Photo: Porcorex, Getty Images
