For decades, policy makers have struggled to improve care and control costs for medically complex and socially vulnerable populations, particularly individuals dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Dual-eligible beneficiaries experience high rates of chronic illness, disability, and unmet social needs, and they account for a disproportionate share of Medicare and Medicaid spending. Despite sustained efforts to shift payment from volume to value, performance-based models have often yielded uneven results among providers serving these populations. In Medicare’s Accountable Care Organization (ACO) programs, organizations caring for higher proportions of racial and ethnic minority beneficiaries and socially vulnerable patients have faced greater challenges achieving savings and sustaining participation. These patterns highlight a central dilemma in value-based payment: without careful risk adjustment and benchmarking, models designed to reward quality of care and efficiency may disadvantage providers serving communities with concentrated social risk.

Burnout and decreased well-being among primary care physicians threaten workforce sustainability and health outcomes. Understanding how primary care physician burnout and its mitigators differ across countries could inform policy changes, but evidence is limited. Using 2012–22 survey data from primary care physicians in the United States and nine other high-income countries, we found that shares reporting stress rose across countries. By 2022, the US had one of the highest shares of primary care physicians reporting burnout (44 percent). Switzerland (18 percent) and the Netherlands (12 percent) had the lowest shares reporting burnout, alongside higher shares with satisfaction and lower shares with stress. Across countries, female physicians had higher odds of burnout, whereas workplace factors—including satisfaction with income and administrative workload—and better care quality were associated with reduced odds of burnout. Efforts to reduce burnout should address disparities by sex and should include systemic supports including quality initiatives, flexible work, and arrangements for patient cross-coverage; in-depth cross-national learning could reveal additional strategies.

For more than two decades, debates about why US health care spending is so high have been shaped by the insight articulated by Gerard Anderson, Uwe Reinhardt, and Peter Hussey: that the United States does not use more health care than other high-income countries but pays much higher prices for it. The original “It’s the Prices, Stupid” argument was fundamentally about price levels, not price growth. That central insight remains as true today as when it was first articulated: across services, drugs, and inputs, the United States consistently pays substantially higher prices than its peers for comparable services, drugs, and inputs.