One US state named the worst for health hare in the country, new study finds
- Replies 0
A newly released national report is painting a stark picture of health care inequality across the United States.
The Commonwealth Fund’s 2025 State Health System Performance Scorecard ranks all 50 states, revealing dramatic gaps in health outcomes depending on where Americans live.
With 50 separate indicators including life expectancy, hospital use, and avoidable deaths, the report underscores how geography continues to shape access to lifesaving care.
The results expose troubling disparities that experts say are baked into state policy and infrastructure.
Massachusetts ranked first overall, offering the most robust health care access and the lowest avoidable mortality rates nationwide.
Close behind were Hawaii, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia, each scoring high in preventive services, chronic disease management, and timely treatment.
These regions benefit from strong policy commitments to health equity, Medicaid expansion, and public investment in care infrastructure.
The report suggests that these decisions translate directly to longer lives and better outcomes.
Mississippi, however, was named the worst state for health care in America. Also ranking near the bottom were Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and West Virginia—states that consistently showed elevated rates of premature deaths and poorer access to essential care.
According to the data, someone living in West Virginia is more than twice as likely to die from an avoidable cause as someone in Massachusetts.
In these states, limited insurance coverage, underfunded systems, and chronic provider shortages continue to drag down outcomes.
Read also: Still confused by Medicare? Let’s clear up 10 common myths seniors should know
The study also highlights deep and persistent racial disparities. In 42 states, the avoidable death rate for Black Americans was at least double that of the racial group with the lowest mortality, indicating widespread systemic failure to provide equitable care.
These gaps persist even in states with otherwise strong overall rankings, showing that health inequity is a national, not just regional, issue.
Researchers point to the compounding effects of economic inequality, environmental stressors, and discriminatory policy structures.
Read also: Medicare price talks progress quietly as government targets costly prescriptions
Medicaid expansion did have a measurable effect, but the authors focused more on its real-world consequences—such as surviving a heart attack, managing diabetes, or receiving regular cancer screenings.
In low-performing states, delays in diagnosis and lack of follow-up care can quickly escalate into life-threatening conditions.
The report urges lawmakers to see these metrics not as abstract data but as indicators of lived experience. Where a person lives, the study makes clear, still determines whether they live.
Read next: Are you at risk? What federal program cuts could mean for asthma sufferers
Should health care quality be this dependent on your ZIP code? Is enough being done to close the deadly gaps between states like Massachusetts and Mississippi? Share your thoughts in the comments—we want to hear your take on this national health crisis.
The Commonwealth Fund’s 2025 State Health System Performance Scorecard ranks all 50 states, revealing dramatic gaps in health outcomes depending on where Americans live.
With 50 separate indicators including life expectancy, hospital use, and avoidable deaths, the report underscores how geography continues to shape access to lifesaving care.
The results expose troubling disparities that experts say are baked into state policy and infrastructure.
Massachusetts ranked first overall, offering the most robust health care access and the lowest avoidable mortality rates nationwide.
Close behind were Hawaii, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia, each scoring high in preventive services, chronic disease management, and timely treatment.
These regions benefit from strong policy commitments to health equity, Medicaid expansion, and public investment in care infrastructure.
The report suggests that these decisions translate directly to longer lives and better outcomes.
One US state named the worst for health hare in the country. Image source: Hush Naidoo Jade Photography / Unsplash
Mississippi, however, was named the worst state for health care in America. Also ranking near the bottom were Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and West Virginia—states that consistently showed elevated rates of premature deaths and poorer access to essential care.
According to the data, someone living in West Virginia is more than twice as likely to die from an avoidable cause as someone in Massachusetts.
In these states, limited insurance coverage, underfunded systems, and chronic provider shortages continue to drag down outcomes.
Read also: Still confused by Medicare? Let’s clear up 10 common myths seniors should know
The study also highlights deep and persistent racial disparities. In 42 states, the avoidable death rate for Black Americans was at least double that of the racial group with the lowest mortality, indicating widespread systemic failure to provide equitable care.
These gaps persist even in states with otherwise strong overall rankings, showing that health inequity is a national, not just regional, issue.
Researchers point to the compounding effects of economic inequality, environmental stressors, and discriminatory policy structures.
Read also: Medicare price talks progress quietly as government targets costly prescriptions
Medicaid expansion did have a measurable effect, but the authors focused more on its real-world consequences—such as surviving a heart attack, managing diabetes, or receiving regular cancer screenings.
In low-performing states, delays in diagnosis and lack of follow-up care can quickly escalate into life-threatening conditions.
The report urges lawmakers to see these metrics not as abstract data but as indicators of lived experience. Where a person lives, the study makes clear, still determines whether they live.
Read next: Are you at risk? What federal program cuts could mean for asthma sufferers
