On September 15, I attended Semafor's Future of Health Forum at Gallup, which brought together leaders from healthcare, business and policy to discuss how innovation can make healthcare more accessible, affordable and transparent.
Two senators, two very different approaches
What I found especially interesting was how differently the two senators approached the same topic. While Sen. Andy Kim focused on expanding access to care, Sen. Bill Cassidy framed the issue mainly around costs and transparency.
Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) spoke first. He presented his MediKids proposal, which would guarantee health coverage for every American under 26. The bill would automatically enroll children in Medicaid's early screening and preventive care programs at birth. Kim's argument is simple: healthier kids become healthier adults, so investing early pays off later. He insisted that the bill is not just a messaging exercise but something meant to pass, and he sees it as part of a larger Democratic healthcare package. To me, it was clear that this is a genuine concern for him. I see the proposal as a step in the right direction toward making healthcare more accessible, especially for children, who cannot make these decisions for themselves.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, took a very different approach. He focused mainly on price transparency, arguing that healthcare is one of the few things where you don't know the cost when you walk in the door. He acknowledged that most personal bankruptcies in the U.S. are caused by unaffordable medical bills. From my perspective, however, his focus seemed to be more on businesses than on individuals. When the conversation turned to uninsured children, he said that they are not covered either because their parents did not sign them up or because they are in the country illegally. I found that comment unnecessary. It may be true that many uninsured children could technically be enrolled, but experiencing the U.S. healthcare system firsthand for the first time, I have seen how expensive it can be. Not everyone has the financial means to afford health insurance. Rather than placing blame, I believe the focus should be on supporting those in need, especially children, who do not have a voice of their own.
Walmart: a business approach to accessibility
Walmart's chief medical officer, Dr. Emily Aaronson, spoke about a six-month pilot program at six locations, in which pharmacists will act as health advisors, particularly on diabetes, weight management and maternal health. Patients can book appointments, or pharmacists can offer support directly, since they already answer many health questions. The goal is to reach communities without other access to care, and Walmart sees affordability as its key strength.
While I think this is a step in the right direction toward more accessible healthcare, the approach left a lot of questions unanswered. I am not convinced that pharmacists are fully qualified for this role, and I do not think the program addresses the root of the problem. How can quality be ensured if the advice does not come from doctors? It also struck me as somewhat contradictory for a company that sells many unhealthy food products to offer health coaching at the same time. That may be a little unfair, but pharmacists are not dietitians, and making healthcare more accessible should never come at the expense of its quality. appreciate the intention to make a difference, especially in underserved communities, but instead of focusing on sales and then treating the consequences, I would have liked to hear more about prevention, for example how stricter food quality standards could stop health problems from developing in the first place.
A personal story
The final session that stayed with me featured Amber Guild, incoming CEO of Susan G. Komen. Guild is a breast cancer survivor herself and noted that one in eight women will develop the disease. In her view, the sense of urgency around the issue has been lost, and she placed strong emphasis on both the risks and the lack of access to prevention. Younger women are increasingly diagnosed at later stages, and Black women are 40% more likely to die of breast cancer than white women. She also pointed out that 30% of U.S. counties do not have a mammography machine, which means that many women in poorer areas do not even have access to screening.
I kept asking myself whether this is a question of equity, of access, of culture, or a mix of all of the above. I come from a culture where women see a gynecologist regularly as part of routine healthcare from puberty onward. Seeing how differently women's health is approached here was striking to me. From my perspective, the conversation about women's health in the U.S. seems to circle more around sexuality than around what matters most, being safe and healthy. Raising awareness is important, but the issue goes far beyond that. Free regular check-ups and access to the necessary equipment should not be an idea for the future, but the norm.
My takeaway
Across all the panels, one theme kept coming back, cost and access. Whether the conversation was about children's coverage, pharmacists or breast cancer screening, new ideas only make a difference if people can actually reach the care they need.