A Misguided Mission in Delaware
Governor Matt Meyer of Delaware is sounding the alarm on healthcare, demanding we 'attract, grow, and retain' doctors and nurses to serve the state’s needs. His heart might be in the right place, but his plan reeks of the same tired, big-government playbook that’s been failing Americans for decades. Instead of unleashing the power of free markets to address workforce shortages and improve care, Meyer’s vision leans on bureaucratic expansion and vague promises of 'equity.' It’s a recipe for bloated costs and stifled innovation, and Delawareans deserve better.
The governor’s call to action hinges on expanding access, particularly for underserved communities. Noble? Sure. But the approach—doubling down on government-driven solutions—ignores the root causes of healthcare woes. Workforce shortages aren’t new, and they won’t be fixed by throwing more taxpayer dollars at the problem or mandating feel-good initiatives. The data backs this up: the U.S. faces a projected shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036 and nearly 300,000 nurses by 2027. These aren’t gaps you close with rhetoric or red tape.
Meyer’s focus on underserved areas sounds compassionate, but it sidesteps the reality that government programs, from Medicare to Medicaid, have long overpromised and underdelivered. The Affordable Care Act, for instance, flooded the system with new patients but didn’t account for the lack of providers to treat them. Result? Longer wait times, strained hospitals, and rural clinics closing at alarming rates. Delaware’s plan risks repeating these mistakes, dressing up old failures in new buzzwords.
What’s worse, the governor’s push for 'equity' reeks of ideological overreach. Instead of focusing on practical solutions—like cutting regulations that choke small practices or incentivizing private investment in rural hospitals—Meyer’s administration seems more interested in checking boxes for political optics. Americans want results, not platitudes.
The Free Market Fix
The solution to Delaware’s healthcare crisis lies in unleashing the free market, not shackling it with more government control. Deregulation is the first step. Overbearing licensing requirements and scope-of-practice laws prevent nurse practitioners and physician assistants from filling gaps in underserved areas. Loosen these restrictions, and you’d see a surge of qualified professionals stepping up to meet demand. States like Texas and Florida have already experimented with this, with promising results.
Private investment is another untapped powerhouse. Hospitals and clinics in rural Delaware could thrive if given tax incentives to attract private capital. Look at the success of telehealth, which exploded when COVID forced regulators to loosen their grip. By 2025, telehealth has become a lifeline for 83 million Americans in healthcare deserts. Why? Because private companies, not government mandates, drove the innovation. Meyer’s plan barely nods to this potential, instead leaning on federal handouts and top-down programs.
Workforce retention is another area where the private sector shines. Hospitals that offer competitive pay, flexible schedules, and robust mentorship programs keep nurses and doctors longer than those bogged down by union rules or government-mandated quotas. Data shows that tailored professional development and recognition programs cut turnover rates significantly. Yet Delaware’s approach seems more focused on expanding public programs than empowering private employers to innovate.
Historical evidence supports this. The Hill-Burton Act of 1946, which funded hospital construction, worked best when it partnered with local communities and private entities, not when it bowed to federal overreach. Contrast that with the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, which left states like Delaware grappling with provider shortages and budget strains. The lesson? Government sets the stage, but markets deliver the results.
The Equity Trap
Meyer’s emphasis on 'equity' for underserved communities, while well-intentioned, falls into a familiar trap: prioritizing ideology over outcomes. Federal programs like Medicaid have reduced uninsurance rates, but 10 states still opt out of expansion, leaving 1.5 million in a coverage gap. Why? Because governors know the cost—both fiscal and operational—often outweighs the benefits. Delaware’s push for culturally competent care sounds nice, but it risks diverting resources from tangible fixes like building more rural clinics or training more providers.
Worse, the focus on equity often comes with strings attached. Recent rollbacks of federal DEI programs, championed by the current administration, reflect a growing skepticism of policies that prioritize identity over merit. Project 2025’s proposal to eliminate diversity mandates in health professions education is a step in the right direction. Why? Because patients don’t care about a doctor’s background—they want someone who’s skilled and available. Meyer’s plan, by contrast, seems poised to double down on these divisive frameworks, alienating providers and taxpayers alike.
A Better Path Forward
Delaware can chart a different course, one that puts patients and providers first. Start by slashing red tape: streamline licensing, expand telehealth permanently, and let nurse practitioners operate independently. Next, offer tax breaks to attract private investment in rural hospitals and clinics. The Red Cross’s Community Adaptation Program and OnMed CareStations prove that innovative, community-driven solutions work when bureaucracy gets out of the way.
Finally, trust the market to retain talent. Competitive salaries, flexible hours, and private-sector mentorship programs will keep doctors and nurses in Delaware far better than any government mandate. The evidence is clear: states that embrace deregulation and private innovation see better outcomes, from shorter wait times to healthier communities. Delaware has a chance to lead, but only if it rejects the tired dogma of big-government solutions.