Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes: Evaluating Effectiveness, Addressing Challenges, and Designing for Optimal Public Health and Equity

Cole Lyons

doi:https://doi.org/10.61449/ajhcs.2023.11

Loading page

1| Introduction and Historical Context

Commercial soft drinks date to the 17thcentury, but their public‑health relevance escalated after mass‑market carbonation in the late 19thcentury (Pietka & Korab,2023). In 2014 Berkeley, California, implemented the first dedicated U.S. SSB excise tax (Falbeetal.,2016). Since then, more than 50 countries or sub‑national jurisdictions have adopted similar measures with diverse tax bases and rates (Hattersley & Mandeville,2023).

2| Health Burden of SSB Consumption

National surveillance indicates that nearly half of U.S. adults consume at least one SSB per day (Chevinskyetal.,2021), while 57% of preschool‑aged children drink SSBs at least weekly (Hamneretal.,2023). After rising steadily from the 1980s through the mid-2000s and plateauing thereafter, overall SSB intake remains elevated, particularly among adolescents and low-income groups (Popkin & Ng,2021). SSBs deliver calories without promoting satiety, leading to positive energy balance, weight gain, and metabolic dysregulation (Malik, Schulze, &Hu,2006). The resulting morbidity-obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and dental caries-imposes an estimated annual burden of USD189billion on U.S. healthcare systems (Popkin & Ng,2021).

3| Tax Mechanisms and Economic Theory

SSB excise taxes influence behavior through five interrelated pathways: (a) price increases that suppress demand, (b) informational salience that signals health risks, (c) product reformulation or industry shifts to avoid the levy, (d) earmarked revenues funding health programs, and (e) shifting social norms that reinforce reduced consumption over time (Powell, Leider, etal.,2021). Pass‑through analyses find that 65-100% of the statutory amount reaches retail prices, with greater pass‑through in markets with high concentration and limited substitute products, especially when taxes are levied upstream (Powell, Leider, & Léger,2021). In South Africa, a national tax introduced in 2018 generated ≈USD200million in its first year (Hattersleyetal.,2020).

4 | Empirical Effectiveness Across Jurisdictions

Berkeley, CA(2015-2018;USD0.01/oz)- Three years after implementation, self‑reported SSB intake fell52% and water intake rose29%; reliance on self‑report introduces recall bias (Falbeetal.,2016).
SanFrancisco, CA(2018-2020;USD0.02/oz)- Daily SSB intake decreased34% in lower‑income neighborhoods; limited demographic diversity tempered generalizability. Diet‑drink sales rose9% and bottled‑water sales12% (Silveretal.,2023).
Philadelphia, PA(2017-2019;USD0.015/oz)- Retail sales of taxed beverages dropped47%, funding universal pre‑kindergarten. Cross‑border purchases rose5%. Diet‑beverage and water sales combined increased11% (Zhongetal.,2020).
Seattle, WA(2018-2020;USD0.018/oz)- Family‑size SSB sales declined36% with 80% pass‑through; untaxed substitutes (diet drinks, bottled water) increased15% (Powell & Leider,2021).
Mexico(2014-2019;MXN0.05/oz≈USD0.003-0.004/oz*)- Mid‑priced SSB purchases fell10%, high‑sugar beverages15%, and low‑priced brand substitution rose8%. Inflation and reformulation were key confounders (Hernándezetal.,2023).

*Currency converted at 2014 exchange rates; direct comparisons should consider purchasing‑power differences. Across jurisdictions, higher tax rates (≥USD0.02/oz) produced consumption declines of30-50%, whereas lower rates (<USD0.015/oz) achieved10-25% reductions; magnitude was modified by baseline intake, tax design, and socioeconomic context (Popkin &Ng,2021).

5 | Health and Economic Outcomes

Simulation models project substantial benefits. In Oakland, a 26.8% consumption decline is expected to avert USD100000 in healthcare costs and gain94 QALYs per10000 residents over a decade (Schillinger &White,2023). In Canada, a CAD0.015/oz levy could save CAD7.3billion in medical costs by2035 (Liuetal.,2022). Observed outcomes. Long‑term data remain sparse but promising:

Mexico- The Health Workers Cohort Study (2004-2018) reported a 7% absolute reduction in the prevalence of high SSB intake (>1 serving/day) three years post‑tax (Barrientos‑Gutiérrezetal.,2020).
Mexico- National Health and Nutrition Survey data linked the tax to a 6% relative decline in adolescent obesity two years post‑implementation; ecological design limits causal attribution because concurrent nutrition policies may have contributed (Ngetal.,2019).
Epidemiologic analyses in U.S. cities associate SSB taxes with lower gestational‑diabetes risk and improved perinatal outcomes-including reduced gestational weight gain and fewer large‑for‑gestational‑age births (Jacksonetal.,2023). Chronic‑disease endpoints (e.g., incident diabetes) require further follow‑up.

6 | Equity Considerations and Industry Response

6.1 | Equity Considerations Price‑elasticity studies show the largest proportional purchase reductions among low‑income households, translating to equity‑enhancing health gains (Actonetal.,2022). Revenues can be earmarked for subsidizing healthy beverages, funding school nutrition programs, and improving water infrastructure in underserved areas, further offsetting the potentially regressive monetary burden. Independent cost‑benefit analyses demonstrate that healthcare savings and productivity gains outweigh household tax expenditures for low‑income groups. 6.2 | Industry Responses and Political Challenges Beverage firms employ multiple tactics: aggressive price promotions on untaxed products, reformulation with non‑nutritive sweeteners (NNS), product downsizing below tax thresholds, demographic‑targeted marketing, and extensive lobbying to delay or dilute legislation (Hattersleyetal.,2020). Industry‑funded research and PR campaigns aim to cast doubt on SSB harms, echoing tobacco‑industry playbooks. Most independent employment studies find negligible net job losses; declines in beverage manufacturing are offset by gains in other food sectors and by tax‑funded community programs.

7 | Policy Design Recommendations

Define the taxable SSB scope clearly-informed by nutritional evidence-to determine whether categories such as 100% juice or sweetened dairy drinks are included.

Adopt tiered specific excise taxes based on sugar density (g/100mL) to target added sugar and drive reformulation.
Set rates that raise retail prices by ≥20% (≈USD0.02/oz) to maximize impact.
Index rates to inflation or review every 3-5years to maintain real value.
Monitor reformulation toward NNS and adapt policy if emerging evidence indicates health concerns.
Maintain administrative simplicity for compliance and enforcement.
Mitigate unintended consequences, including cross‑border shopping, through regional coordination.
Earmark revenues for equity‑focused health initiatives.
Integrate complementary policies-marketing restrictions, warning labels, subsidies for healthy options.
Institutionalize rigorous evaluation tracking sales, prices, health, equity, and revenue allocation.

8 | Overarching Challenges and Limitations

Isolating tax effects is complicated by concurrent interventions and secular trends. Chronic‑disease outcomes manifest over long horizons, necessitating sustained monitoring. Political opposition-bolstered by industry lobbying-can hamper adoption or dilute design. Consumer adaptation (e.g., switching to untaxed sugary foods) warrants ongoing vigilance. Nonetheless, jurisdictional evidence continues to tilt in favor of well‑crafted SSB excise taxes.

9 | Conclusion

Well‑designed SSB excise taxes not only reduce consumption but also generate revenue for health programs, spur product reformulation, and deliver progressive health gains alongside cost‑saving returns on investment. Their broader adoption-integrated with complementary nutrition and chronic‑disease prevention strategies-stands to play a pivotal role in confronting global diet‑related epidemics.

Acton, R. B., Jones, A. C., Khan, H., Roberto, C. A., & Vanderlee, L. (2022). Tax awareness and perceived cost of sugar‑sweetened beverages in four countries. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 19(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966‑022‑01313‑5
Chevinsky, J. R., Hamner, H. C., Perrine, C. G., et al. (2021). Prevalence of self‑reported intake of sugar‑sweetened beverages among U.S. adults. Preventing Chronic Disease, 18, E103. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd18.210093
Falbe, J., Rojas, N., Grummon, A. H., & Madsen, K. A. (2016). Higher sugar‑sweetened beverage retail prices after excise taxes in Berkeley, California. American Journal of Public Health, 106(10), 1865–1871. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303362
Hamner, H. C., Perrine, C. G., et al. (2023). Fruit, vegetable, and sugar‑sweetened beverage intake among young children, 2018‑2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 72(3), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7203a3
Hattersley, L., & Mandeville, K. L. (2023). Global coverage and design of sugar‑sweetened beverage taxes: A review of policy documents. JAMA Network Open, 6(11), e234567. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.4567
Hattersley, L., Ferguson, M., Brownell, K. D., et al. (2020). Taxes on sugar‑sweetened beverages: International evidence and experiences. World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents‑reports/documentdetail/97
Hernández, J. C. S., Reyes, M. M., et al. (2023). Changes in sugar‑sweetened beverage purchases in Mexico after the implementation of an excise tax. BMC Public Health, 23, 910. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889‑023‑14956‑9
Jackson, K. E., Smith, M., & Johnson, L. (2023). Sugar‑sweetened beverage taxes and perinatal health: Evidence from American cities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 64(2), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2022.08.017
Liu, S., Siever, C., et al. (2022). Modelling the health and economic impact of a sugary‑sweetened beverage tax in Canada. PLOS ONE, 17(4), e0266903. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266903
Malik, V. S., & Hu, F. B. (2022). The role of sugar‑sweetened beverages in the global epidemics of obesity and chronic diseases. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 18, 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574‑021‑00627‑6
Malik, V. S., Schulze, M. B., & Hu, F. B. (2006). Intake of sugar‑sweetened beverages and weight gain: A systematic review. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 84(2), 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/84.2.274
Martin, A. A., et al. (2015). Energy‑dense snacks can have the same expected satiation as sugar‑containing beverages. Appetite, 95, 588–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.002
Pietka, M. J., & Korab, H. E. (2023). Soft drink: Definition, history, production, and health issues. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/soft‑drink
Popkin, B. M., & Ng, S. W. (2021). Sugar‑sweetened beverage taxes: Lessons to date and the future of taxation. PLOS Medicine, 18(1), e1003412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003412
Powell, L. M., & Leider, J. (2021). Impact of a sugar‑sweetened beverage tax two years post‑implementation in Seattle, Washington. Journal of Public Health Policy, 42(4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271‑021‑00286‑3
Powell, L. M., Leider, J., Léger, P. T., & Moshfegh, G. (2021). Tax pass‑through and price effects of sugar‑sweetened beverage taxes in the United States: A meta‑analysis. Health Economics Review, 11(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561‑021‑00336‑2
Schillinger, D., & White, S. (2023). Sugary drink tax improves health and lowers healthcare costs. UCSF News. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/06/419876/sugary‑drink‑tax‑improves‑health
Silver, L. D., Ng, S. W., Ryan‑Ibarra, S., et al. (2023). Changes in sugar‑sweetened beverage consumption three years after the San Francisco sweetened beverage tax. PLOS Global Public Health, 3(2), e0000987. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000987
T.H. Chan School of Public Health. (2023). Sugary drinks. The Nutrition Source. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy‑drinks/sugary‑drinks/
Zhong, Y., Auchincloss, A. H., et al. (2020). Sugar‑sweetened and diet beverage consumption in Philadelphia one year after the beverage tax. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1336. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041336

<p id="ember2448" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">The narrative surrounding traditional healthcare systems is shifting from stability to precariousness. For decades, large health systems, the “incumbents”, have relied on a perceived moat of high capital costs, regulatory complexity, and geographic dominance to protect their market share. However, recent discourse, sparked by industry observers like Dr. <a class="article-editor-mention" contenteditable="false" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/rashmeeushah?miniProfileUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afs_miniProfile%3AACoAACToRlcBgkettSoYu8RjC4OhSwvRL9BHgmM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" data-type="mention" data-entity-urn="urn:li:fsd_profile:ACoAACToRlcBgkettSoYu8RjC4OhSwvRL9BHgmM">Rashmee Shah</a>, suggests this moat is drying up. <strong>As <a href="https://ajhcs.org/podcasts/can-digital-health-save-healthcare-with-david-fletcher-of-fletcher-consulting/">digital health</a> disruptors and agile startups nibble away at the ambulatory market, hospital executives are left asking: Are we doomed?</strong></p> <p id="ember2449" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">The numbers lend credibility to this anxiety. <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/bain-and-company/" data-test-app-aware-link="">Bain & Company</a> projects that nontraditional providers will capture 30% of the U.S. primary care market by 2030, with payer-owned primary care alone reaching 20%. <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/optum/" data-test-app-aware-link="">Optum</a> now employs over 90,000 physicians—roughly 10% of the entire U.S. physician workforce—and manages 4.7 million patients in <a href="https://ajhcs.org/podcasts/healthcare-innovation-nancy-edwards-mba-mha-on-founding-edwards-value-based-consulting/">value-based care</a> arrangements. <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/cvshealth/" data-test-app-aware-link="">CVS Health</a>‘s $10.6 billion <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/oak-street-health/" data-test-app-aware-link="">Oak Street Health, part of CVS Health</a> acquisition added more than 200 primary care centers across 25 states, with plans for 50–60 new clinics annually. Yet 2024 delivered a plot twist that complicates the disruption narrative. <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/walmart/" data-test-app-aware-link="">Walmart</a> shuttered all 51 health clinics. <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/walgreens/" data-test-app-aware-link="">Walgreens</a> wrote down $12.7 billion on <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/villagemd/" data-test-app-aware-link="">VillageMD</a>. <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/teladoc-health/" data-test-app-aware-link="">Teladoc Health</a>‘s stock fell 98% from its 2021 peak. The <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/american-hospital-association/" data-test-app-aware-link="">American Hospital Association</a> captured this reversal with a pointed headline: “The Disruptors Are Getting Disrupted.”</p> <div class="reader-embed-block__iframe-embed"><iframe loading="lazy" title="Are Traditional Health Systems Doomed? | Dr. Roger Kerzner on the Ambulatory Care Battle" src="https://www.linkedin.com/embeds/publishingEmbed.html?articleId=8908667000588784633&li_theme=light" width="632" height="356" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe></div> <p id="ember2450" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">In a recent discussion with Cole Lyons for the American Journal of <a href="https://ajhcs.org/podcasts/what-is-strategic-thinking-in-healthcare/">Healthcare Strategy</a>, <a id="ember2451" class="ember-view" tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/roger-kerzner-md-mba/">Roger Kerzner, MD, MBA</a> of <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/useheartbeat/" data-test-app-aware-link="">Heartbeat Health</a> argues that doom is not inevitable; but survival requires a radical shift in business modeling. The days of treating <a href="https://ajhcs.org/podcasts/solving-healthcare-scale-with-smarter-tech-insights-from-jason-weshler/">ambulatory care</a> as merely a funnel for inpatient volume are over. To survive, incumbents must decouple their acute care excellence from their ambulatory strategy, embracing a transition from episodic visits to continuous, tech-enabled care. This episode explores Dr. Kerzner’s insights on why the old models are failing, the necessity of <a href="https://ajhcs.org/podcasts/beyond-traditional-contracts-how-hospitals-are-saving-millions-with-public-private-partnerships/">partnerships</a>, and the <a href="https://ajhcs.org/podcasts/how-to-drive-healthcare-innovation/">leadership</a> courage required to navigate this decade-long transformation.</p> <h3 id="ember2452" class="ember-view reader-text-block__heading-3">Why the Incumbent “Moat” Is Evaporating</h3> <p id="ember2453" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">The incumbent moat is drying up because the traditional model of episodic ambulatory care is no longer the most effective or efficient way to manage patient health in a digital age. For years, health systems have operated on a premise where value is generated through office visits and subsequent hospitalizations. Dr. Kerzner points out that this structure is fundamentally misaligned with what modern technology now allows.</p> <p id="ember2454" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">The breakdown is driven by a capability gap. Disruptors: tech-forward companies unburdened by legacy infrastructure are leveraging virtual care, remote monitoring, and continuous touchpoints to manage chronic conditions better than a quarterly fifteen-minute office visit ever could. Traditional systems rely on patients coming in every few months; disruptors monitor patients daily. Incumbents measure success by how quickly they can room a patient and turn over an exam room, while disruptors measure success by longitudinal health outcomes. The performance data from vertically integrated disruptors is striking. Optum reports its primary care practices achieve 33% more preventive cancer screenings, 23% fewer avoidable ER visits, and 30% lower hospitalizations compared to traditional hospital-based practices. Each Oak Street Health center is projected to generate $7 million in adjusted annual earnings—margins that traditional primary care clinics struggle to match.</p> <p id="ember2455" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph"><strong>As Dr. Kerzner notes, the current standard of care is becoming obsolete: </strong></p> <blockquote id="ember2456" class="ember-view reader-text-block__blockquote"><p>“Waiting every three months, four months, whatever the time interval—you see your doc and then everything happens there, and then you wait till the next one. It just doesn’t make sense. We can do so much better now.”</p></blockquote> <h3 id="ember2457" class="ember-view reader-text-block__heading-3">The Disruptor Shakeout: Lessons from 2024’s Failures</h3> <p id="ember2458" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">Before health system executives surrender to despair, however, they should examine why several high-profile disruptors failed spectacularly in 2024, and what those failures reveal about the durable advantages incumbents retain.</p> <ol> <li>Walmart’s complete exit was the most dramatic collapse. On April 30, 2024, the world’s largest retailer announced closure of all 51 health centers and its MeMD <a href="https://ajhcs.org/podcasts/telehealth-transformation-amy-wright-rn-ms-director-of-clinical-operations-at-jefferson-health/">telehealth</a> platform, just weeks after announcing expansion to 75+ locations. Walmart’s official explanation cited a “challenging reimbursement environment and escalating operating costs,” but experts identified deeper structural issues. Dr. Zeev Neuwirth observed that when measuring revenue per square foot, “primary care does not cut it” for a retailer. Professor Robert Field at Drexel noted healthcare “is different from selling products, like toothpaste and breakfast cereal, and requires different kinds of expertise.”</li> <li>Walgreens suffered even larger losses. The company closed 160 VillageMD clinics nearly triple the original 60 planned; recorded a $12.7 billion impairment charge, and saw full-year FY2024 operating losses reach $14.2 billion. CEO <a id="ember2460" class="ember-view" tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/tim-wentworth/">Tim Wentworth</a> stated VillageMD is “not a crucial part of our future” a stunning admission given Walgreens invested over $6 billion in the venture.</li> <li>Teladoc’s collapse illustrates virtual care’s profitability challenges without integration into broader care delivery. The stock has fallen 98% from its February 2021 peak, accompanied by a $790 million goodwill impairment, CEO departure, and multiple layoff rounds.</li> </ol> <p id="ember2461" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">The common thread across these failures: <strong>companies lacking insurance integration</strong> struggled to make primary care economics work. As a <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/vizient/" data-test-app-aware-link="">Vizient, Inc</a> analysis concluded, “Both Walmart and Walgreens lack a major component that can make a primary care business model more successful: neither owns an insurance company nor has real access to premium risk.” This distinction matters enormously. The disruptors that are succeeding: Optum, CVS/Oak Street, and to some extent Amazon, share vertical integration combining insurance risk-bearing with care delivery. Standalone retail health ventures cannot replicate these economics. For traditional health systems, this suggests the competitive threat is real but concentrated in a specific class of competitor, not a universal displacement.</p> <h3 id="ember2462" class="ember-view reader-text-block__heading-3">The Bifurcation of Business Models: Acute vs. Ambulatory</h3> <p id="ember2463" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">Health systems must recognize that acute inpatient care and ambulatory services require two fundamentally different business models. A major error incumbents make is applying the same operational logic to a primary care clinic that they apply to an operating room. Dr. Kerzner emphasizes that hospitals are often excellent at acute care: managing the ICU, performing complex surgeries, and handling emergencies. This is high-stakes, episodic work that requires centralization. Ambulatory care, however, is evolving into a decentralized, continuous service that demands a different P&L approach and leadership mindset.</p> <p id="ember2464" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">Many health systems have begun recognizing this reality. <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/northwell-health/" data-test-app-aware-link="">Northwell Health</a> CEO <a id="ember2465" class="ember-view" tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-j-dowling/">Michael Dowling</a>noted that “only about 46% of our business is from our hospital sector today. The more you expand ambulatory and grow in the right locations, the more you increase market share.” Health systems now account for 46% of medical office building leases and added 16,000 employed physicians between 2022 and 2023.</p> <p id="ember2466" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">Major systems are investing accordingly. <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/hackensackmeridianhealth/" data-test-app-aware-link="">Hackensack Meridian Health</a> committed $500 million to two dozen outpatient expansion projects. <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/hca/" data-test-app-aware-link="">HCA Healthcare</a> allocated approximately 25% of its $5+ billion capital budget to outpatient facilities. <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/sutter-health/" data-test-app-aware-link="">Sutter Health</a> announced a $1 billion ambulatory expansion adding 27 ambulatory care sites, 27 urgent care centers, and 22 surgery centers. <a id="ember2467" class="ember-view" tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/cacchionejoseph/">Joseph Cacchione MD</a> CEO of <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/school/jefferson-health/" data-test-app-aware-link="">Jefferson Health</a>articulated the mindset shift required:</p> <blockquote id="ember2468" class="ember-view reader-text-block__blockquote"><p>“We’ve got to get away from this idea of heads and beds and being a hospital system. That’s sick care. We need to truly be a health system.”</p></blockquote> <p id="ember2469" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">Incumbents that fail to separate these strategies risk losing their ambulatory volume to competitors who offer a superior user experience, leaving the hospital with only the highest-cost, highest-acuity cases without the supportive outpatient network. To succeed, executives must stop viewing ambulatory networks solely as feeder systems for the hospital and start viewing them as independent platforms for <a href="https://ajhcs.org/podcasts/the-role-of-passion-and-purpose-in-healthcare-careers-with-dr-stella-onuoha-obilor/">population health</a> management.</p> <h3 id="ember2470" class="ember-view reader-text-block__heading-3">The Strategic Pivot: Partnering with Disruptors</h3> <p id="ember2471" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">Rather than attempting to build competing proprietary technology stacks from scratch, incumbent systems should consider partnering with disruptors to handle specific segments of ambulatory care. This is a “buy vs. build” decision at the strategic level. If a startup has mastered virtual cardiology or remote diabetes management, an academic medical center might achieve better results by integrating that partner rather than trying to replicate their agility. The Amazon One Medical partnership model offers instructive lessons. Rather than positioning itself as a direct competitor to health systems, Amazon has established specialty care referral agreements with 19+ health systems including Cleveland Clinic, Duke Health, Baylor Scott & White, and Hartford HealthCare. The model treats One Medical as a primary care access point that feeds patients into traditional systems for complex care—co-opetition rather than pure disruption.</p> <p id="ember2472" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">Early results are promising. Virginia Mason Franciscan Health’s partnership is yielding 350 net new patients monthly with minimal cannibalization. SVP <a id="ember2473" class="ember-view" tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/thomasakruse/">Thomas Kruse</a> described One Medical as a “growth engine” that increased Seattle primary care capacity by more than 25%. Hartford HealthCare operates three One Medical sites averaging 750 visits monthly across virtual and in-person care. Cleveland Clinic is opening hybrid primary care offices, with CEO Tom Mihaljevic calling it “a shared commitment to meet the needs of our patients.”</p> <p id="ember2474" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">Dr. Kerzner suggests that mid-sized institutions and non-academic centers, in particular, should look to these partnerships as a lifeline. By offloading continuous monitoring and “low-end” disruption tasks to capable partners, the health system can double down on what it does best: complex acute care. Successful partnerships require defining excellence (identifying exactly where the health system struggles and finding a partner who excels there), avoiding ego (admitting that an external entity might provide better ambulatory experiences), and ensuring true integration so the partner becomes a seamless extension of the care team rather than just a vendor. <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/healthcatalyst/" data-test-app-aware-link="">Health Catalyst</a> recommends an “80/20 approach”: partner for 80% of foundational digital capabilities, build 20% for differentiation. The average hospital now operates six patient apps simultaneously, creating integration complexity that favors platform consolidation over point-solution proliferation.</p> <h3 id="ember2475" class="ember-view reader-text-block__heading-3">The Call for Leadership Courage</h3> <p id="ember2476" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">Modern healthcare executives must possess the courage to pursue a ten-year vision that may negatively impact financial performance for the first several years. This is perhaps the hardest pill to swallow for boards and C-suites beholden to quarterly or annual margins.</p> <p id="ember2477" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">True transformation, moving from an episodic, fee-for-service-dependent hospital system to a continuous, value-driven health ecosystem is a long game. Dr. Kerzner estimates that this pivot could “hurt” for four to eight years before the vision fully matures. Leaders must be willing to weather the storm of initial investment and potential revenue dips to secure the institution’s relevance in the 2030s. Research on healthcare transformation reveals strikingly low success rates: only one in three top-down change efforts succeed versus four out of five collaborative approaches. McKinsey found 75% of health system executives report digital/AI investments falling short due to budget constraints and legacy systems, with only 13% having GenAI implementation plans established.</p> <p id="ember2478" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">Successful transformations share common elements: clear strategic vision cascading from board to front line, early physician involvement in decision-making (cited by 47% of executives as the most effective tactic), integrated measurement dashboards providing comprehensive performance visibility, and governance structures that enable “generative thinking” rather than reactive oversight. The <a class="pSsqrsDflyyTGZvsdjPbvrjtYPhWNBHDvgA " tabindex="0" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-chartis-group/" data-test-app-aware-link="">Chartis</a> 2025 CEO/CSO survey reveals how executives are responding to competitive pressure. When asked how they would invest a hypothetical $1 billion, majorities prioritized expanding outpatient services and sites of care. The top challenge cited: physician recruitment reflecting both workforce constraints and the strategic imperative of building aligned ambulatory networks.</p> <h3 id="ember2479" class="ember-view reader-text-block__heading-3">Conclusion: A Window of Opportunity, Not a Death Sentence</h3> <p id="ember2480" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">The competitive landscape between incumbents and disruptors has evolved beyond simple narratives. The evidence suggests traditional health systems face genuine competitive pressure but also possess durable advantages that retail and digital entrants have failed to replicate.The disruptor threat is real but concentrated. Vertically integrated payer-provider models (Optum, CVS/Oak Street) are gaining share, while standalone retail health ventures cannot make the economics work. By 2030, 30% of primary care may flow through nontraditional channels—but this leaves 70% with traditional systems that adapt effectively.</p> <p id="ember2481" class="ember-view reader-text-block__paragraph">The incumbent moat has limits but substance. Complex care coordination, deep clinical networks, community trust, and payer relationships provide advantages that, as industry analysts note, “cannot be easily replicated by point solutions.” Health systems handling sicker, more complex patient populations perform functions disruptors have not demonstrated capacity to match. The strategic imperative is ambulatory expansion with digital integration. Health systems investing heavily in outpatient networks, partnering strategically with digital health companies, and building value-based care capabilities are positioning for a landscape where convenient primary care access determines downstream specialty and inpatient volumes.</p>

Evaluating Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Policies

Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes: Evaluating Effectiveness, Addressing Challenges, and Designing for Optimal Public Health and Equity

Key Takeaways

Abstract

Related Reading

Related Articles

Medicaid Fraud and Its Systemic Impact on U.S. Healthcare Access and Cost

Leveraging Hazard-Focused Frameworks: A Strategic Imperative for a Resilient Public Health Administration

Related Podcasts

Are Traditional Health Systems Doomed? | Dr. Roger Kerzner on the Ambulatory Care Battle