When survival is priced, dignity becomes negotiable
The Final Bill
The final bill does not arrive in an envelope.
It arrives quietly—after the diagnosis, after the delay, after the denial, after the bargain is struck between what is needed and what is affordable. It arrives when survival becomes a calculation and health is no longer assumed, but negotiated.
This is the moment modern medicine rarely names.
Across systems and continents, disease has become the most honest mirror of political economy. According to global health expenditure data, societies now spend more on health than at any point in history, yet millions continue to experience illness as financial catastrophe rather than clinical event (World Health Organization, 2023; World Bank, 2023). The contradiction is not accidental. It is structural.
We have built systems that excel at innovation while rationing access to its fruits.
The Promise That Was Repurposed
Medicine was once imagined as a shared promise—that illness would summon care, not judgment; that vulnerability would trigger protection, not pricing. That promise has not disappeared. It has been repurposed.
Insurance converted care into risk management.
Pharmaceutical markets transformed treatment into intellectual property.
Digital health turned bodies into data streams.
Cures became financial events.
Each step was justified as efficiency, sustainability, and progress. Each step moved medicine further from its original ethic: that the sick are owed care simply because they are human.
Coverage Without Care
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, financial protection in health remains uneven even in high-income countries, with cost-related barriers to care persisting despite widespread coverage (OECD, 2022; OECD, 2023). The data are clear: insurance expansion does not automatically translate into access, and innovation does not guarantee equity.
Coverage has become a credential.
Care remains conditional.
The result is a world where health outcomes increasingly track income, geography, and social position—where the ability to survive serious illness depends less on medical need than on financial resilience.
The Normalization of Harm
The ethical failure of this system is not subtle.
Households are still driven into poverty by medical costs. Patients delay treatment until disease progresses. Clinicians ration care informally, forced to consider affordability alongside diagnosis. These patterns are not anomalies; they are predictable outcomes of systems that prioritize financial solvency over human continuity (Commonwealth Fund, 2023; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2024).
What is striking is not that such outcomes occur, but that they are tolerated.
Suffering has been normalized as collateral damage.
Evidence Without Action
Global comparisons sharpen the indictment.
Countries that treat healthcare as a public good—coordinated, regulated, and insulated from extreme market volatility—consistently achieve better outcomes at lower cost (OECD, 2023). Those that rely heavily on market mediation experience higher spending, greater inequality, and poorer financial protection.
The evidence has been stable for years.
The resistance to change has been stronger.
As political analyses of health reform repeatedly show, the persistence of inequitable systems is less about uncertainty and more about power—about who benefits from complexity and who bears its cost (McWilliams, 2019; Berwick, 2023).
Innovation Without Justice
Digital systems promised to democratize care.
They accelerated surveillance.
Cures promised to end disease.
They exposed affordability limits.
Research promised inclusion.
It often exported risk.
What binds these failures is not malice, but misalignment. Health systems reward what is profitable, not what is protective. They measure success in margins and market share rather than in the absence of preventable suffering.
When incentives drift, ethics follow.
Read also: Diseases That Pay: The Global Health Economy—Part 7
The Most Dangerous Illusion
The most dangerous illusion of modern healthcare is not technological optimism.
It is moral complacency.
We are told the system is imperfect but improving, complex but necessary, unequal but inevitable. Yet inequality is not a side effect of health systems. It is designed into them when access is filtered through price, data, and market logic.
As Emanuel and colleagues have argued, health systems reflect collective choices about what societies value and whom they protect (Emanuel et al., 2020). When care is conditional, it signals that some lives are more affordable to save than others.
That is not an economic truth.
It is a moral one.
The Question That Remains
The question confronting modern medicine is therefore not whether we can innovate further. We can. Nor is it whether costs will continue to rise. They will.
The question is simpler and more unsettling:
Do we still believe that being human entitles one to care?
If the answer is yes, then systems must change. Not incrementally, not rhetorically, but structurally—toward financing models that prioritize access, toward regulation that constrains excess, toward public investment that treats health as infrastructure rather than commodity.
If the answer is no, then honesty demands we stop speaking the language of compassion while practicing the logic of exclusion.
What Rehumanization Would Require
A rehumanized health system would not eliminate markets.
It would subordinate them.
It would treat prevention as investment, not expense.
It would price medicines according to social value, not maximal tolerance.
It would design digital tools around dignity, not extraction.
It would ensure that cures heal bodies without bankrupting lives.
These are not utopian ideals.
They are policy choices.
Democracy’s Final Test
In the end, disease has become democracy’s most revealing test.
It exposes whose lives are buffered by systems and whose are left to absorb shock. It reveals whether solidarity is real or rhetorical. It shows, with brutal clarity, whether progress is shared or selectively distributed.
The question is no longer who gets sick.
The question is who can afford to survive, and what that says about the societies we have built.
Until that question is answered differently, the cost of being human will remain unpaid, carried quietly by those with the least power to refuse it.
Professor MarkAnthony Ujunwa Nze is an internationally acclaimed investigative journalist, public intellectual, and global governance analyst whose work shapes contemporary thinking at the intersection of health and social care management, media, law, and policy. Renowned for his incisive commentary and structural insight, he brings rigorous scholarship to questions of justice, power, and institutional integrity.
Based in New York, he serves as a full tenured professor and Academic Director at the New York Center for Advanced Research (NYCAR), where he leads high-impact research in governance innovation, strategic leadership, and geopolitical risk. He also oversees NYCAR’s free Health & Social Care professional certification programs, accessible worldwide at:
👉 https://www.newyorkresearch.org/professional-certification/
Professor Nze remains a defining voice in advancing ethical leadership and democratic accountability across global systems.
Selected Sources
Berwick, D. M. (2023). Salve lucre: The existential threat of greed in US health care. JAMA, 329(8), 629–630.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.0846
Commonwealth Fund. (2023). Income disparities in the affordability of health services across high-income countries.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org
Emanuel, E. J., et al. (2020). Understanding the U.S. health care system. JAMA, 323(1), 21–22.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.18660
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2024). Employer health benefits survey.
https://www.kff.org
McWilliams, J. M. (2019). Cost containment and the politics of health care. Health Affairs, 38(9), 1411–1418.
https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00502
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2022). Health insurance coverage and financial protection. OECD Publishing.
https://www.oecd.org/health
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). Health at a glance 2023: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/health_glance-2023-en
World Bank. (2023). Universal health coverage global monitoring report 2023. World Bank.
https://www.worldbank.org
World Health Organization. (2023). Global health expenditure database. WHO.
https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/health-financing
World Health Organization. (2022). Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health. WHO.
https://www.who.int
Essien, U. R., et al. (2022). Cost-sharing reform for improved health care equity. JAMA Health Forum.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.27999
Perry, T., & Bernasek, A. (2024). Profits over care? Corporate capitalism and health outcomes. Social Science & Medicine.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.1168518
Sharon, T. (2020). Blind-sided by privacy? Digital health and power. Ethics and Information Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09547-x
Morley, J., et al. (2020). The ethics of AI in health care. Social Science & Medicine, 260, 113172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113172
Zeitouni, J. F. (2025). Is pursuing profit commensurate with providing good health care? AMA Journal of Ethics.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org
