Mexico’s Health Is a U.S. Strategic Interest: A healthier Mexico strengthens North America.

Pablo Castañeda, MD

There is a familiar way to talk about healthcare in Mexico, and it usually begins with failure. Hospitals are saturated. The public sector is underfunded. Patients wait too long. Families pay out of pocket. Private care is unequal. Reforms come and go, usually with a new acronym and the same old promise that this time access will finally be universal.

Prefer to listen?
Audio essay · narrated version of this insight.

Mexico’s Health Is a U.S....

All of that is true enough, but it is not the whole story. In fact, it may not even be the most useful one.

The more interesting question is not why Mexico’s healthcare system struggles; it is why Mexico, of all countries, has not yet turned its advantages into a better healthcare model. Mexico does have advantages. It has geography. It has scale. It has medical talent. It has private capital. It has large public institutions. It has a young and still-growing workforce. It has industrial momentum. It has proximity to the United States, the largest and most expensive healthcare economy in the world. And it has a population that already moves every day among public care, private care, cash-based medicine, employer-based solutions, family advice, pharmacy clinics, and cross-border opinion.

That is the contradiction. Mexico does not lack ingredients. It lacks organization.

I say this as someone who left Mexico, trained in the United Kingdom, and built much of my academic and surgical career in the United States, first in New York and later in Texas. I have seen the NHS from the inside. I have seen the extraordinary power of American academic medicine. I have seen elite private hospitals in Mexico that rival serious international centers. I have also seen public Mexican physicians do heroic work with too little support, too much demand, and too few ways to make the system around them behave rationally.

No health system gets to be smug. The United States has astonishing medical care, but it is expensive, fragmented, and often brutal to navigate. The NHS has a moral clarity I still admire, but access suffers when capacity lags behind demand. Mexico has its own pathology: it has the talent and the need, but it still asks families to solve too much on their own.

That is where the opportunity begins.

Mexico occupies a geopolitical position that most countries would envy. It shares a border with the United States, but that sentence understates the relationship. The two countries are not separate economic stories. They are linked through labor, manufacturing, agriculture, migration, remittances, supply chains, energy, family networks, education, travel, language, and culture. Nearshoring is often framed as a manufacturing story, but it is also a human story. Factories require workers. Workers have families. Families need care. Industrial corridors eventually need medical corridors. If Mexico is going to matter more to North American production, Mexican healthcare will also matter more to North American productivity.

This is where the healthcare argument becomes larger than healthcare itself. The United States has benefited for decades from having Mexico next door: a younger workforce, industrial complementarity, geographic depth, lower-cost production capacity, and a population tied to the U.S. economy in ways that are not always visible from Washington or New York. But a workforce is not an abstraction. It is made of bodies. It is made of pregnancies, injuries, chronic disease, trauma, diabetes, hypertension, mental health, musculoskeletal pain, disability, and aging parents. If the Mexican workforce becomes sicker, delayed, untreated, or financially crushed by avoidable healthcare spending, the North American production story weakens.

That is the part the United States needs to understand. Mexico’s health is not only Mexico’s issue. It is a U.S. strategic interest.

A healthy Mexico supports a more resilient North America. A sick Mexico does the opposite. If nearshoring is to be more than a slogan, the health of the Mexican worker, the Mexican family, and the Mexican healthcare system must matter to American companies, policymakers, insurers, and health systems. The U.S. cannot speak seriously about supply-chain security, border stability, manufacturing resilience, and North American competitiveness while treating Mexican healthcare as a domestic Mexican footnote.

Geography matters. Demography matters. Proximity matters. The United States needs Mexico more than many Americans admit, and Mexico needs the United States, but not as a model to copy. That distinction is important. Copying American healthcare would be a catastrophic lack of imagination. The American system is powerful, innovative, and scientifically dominant, but it is also bloated, administratively costly, and often hostile to patients. Mexico should study it carefully, borrow selectively, and avoid much of its cost logic.

Mexico’s opportunity is not to become a cheaper version of the United States but to become a smarter version of itself.

That requires starting with an uncomfortable observation. Mexico has spent decades debating coverage, but coverage is not care. Seguro Popular, INSABI, IMSS-Bienestar, and now the renewed promise of a more universal health service all belong to a long political effort to answer a moral question: who has the right to care? That question matters. A civilized society cannot ignore it. But the bedside question is different. Can a sick person actually reach the right place at the right time with the right information before delay turns a manageable problem into a dangerous one?

That is the real test. A card does not treat pneumonia. A registry does not operate on a fractured hip. A constitutional promise does not staff an operating room, interpret an MRI, supply medication, or move a child with cancer to the right team before the disease advances. Affiliation is not the same as access. Access is harder. Access requires staff, beds, imaging, medicines, records, transportation, referrals, accountability, and judgment.

This is where Mexico still struggles. Not in the poetry of reform, but in the mechanics of movement.

The country is large enough that poor design becomes destiny. Mexico is not a boutique healthcare market. It is a nation of more than 130 million people, where births, trauma, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, pregnancy, disability, aging, surgery, rehabilitation, and chronic illness occur at the national scale. A weak referral pathway is not a minor inconvenience when millions depend on it. A missing medication is not an isolated failure when families begin buying privately what the public pathway was supposed to provide. Repeated studies are not merely waste when capacity is already tight. A late diagnosis is not only a clinical tragedy; it is evidence that the system failed before the right doctor ever saw the patient.

Anyone who has worked in Mexican medicine knows the scene. A family waits. A patient pays. A mother tells the story again. Someone carries imaging on a phone. Someone asks a cousin where to go. Someone pays for one private consultation but cannot afford the treatment pathway. Someone enters a public clinic, then a pharmacy clinic, then a private lab, then a specialist’s office, and then tries to return to the public system with loose papers and hope.

That is not a healthcare pathway. It is a maze.

The private sector is often misunderstood in this discussion. People outside Mexico hear “private healthcare” and imagine a well-insured patient walking into a modern hospital with seamless access. That exists, and at its best, private medicine in Mexico can be excellent. It can be technically strong, fast, and personal, and, in some ways, more humane than many American institutions. But that is not what private care means for most Mexicans.

Private care in Mexico is not a single thing. It is a set of layers. At the top are sophisticated hospitals, leading specialists, premium facilities, and patients with the ability to pay. In the middle are regional private hospitals serving industrial cities, middle-class families, and local employers. Below that is a vast cash-based layer of pharmacy-adjacent consultations, small clinics, labs, imaging centers, emergency deposits, and partial solutions.

Families move between these layers constantly. Sometimes they do so by choice. Often, they do so because the public route did not move quickly, clearly, or reliably enough. That distinction matters. Private spending in Mexico is not always driven by consumer preference. Sometimes it is a distress signal, the sound a system makes when the official pathway fails.

The public systems, for their part, carry the moral weight of Mexican healthcare. They serve the majority. They absorb poverty, late-stage disease, trauma, pregnancy, disability, chronic illness, and social complexity. They train physicians. They preserve national memory. IMSS remains one of the country's great organizing structures. When IMSS works, Mexico works better. When IMSS saturates, everything downstream feels it: longer emergency room waits, longer specialty wait times, increased private cash spending, employer frustration, and patient distrust.

The problem is that a public mission does not automatically create operational discipline. A system can be morally essential and structurally strained at the same time. That is the Mexican reality. IMSS, ISSSTE, IMSS-Bienestar, state systems, national institutes, military and naval systems, Pemex, employers, insurers, private hospitals, pharmacies, labs, and family networks all form part of the real healthcare map. But for the patient, this is not one map. It is a federation of doors.

People adapt. Doctors call friends. Families carry out studies. Nurses quietly solve problems. Administrators bend rules. Patients pay privately when the public route stalls. Employers create parallel solutions. Insurers negotiate. Hospitals improvise. The system continues because people work around it.

But workarounds are not strategy. They are warning lights.

This is where I think the usual public-versus-private debate becomes too crude. Mexico needs the public sector. It also needs the private sector. It needs insurers, employers, universities, public hospitals, private hospitals, and cross-border partnerships. But none of them matter much if patients cannot move intelligently between them. The issue is not whether Mexico should be public or private. The issue is whether Mexico can build a usable system from the hybrid reality that already exists.

That is the controversial lesson I have learned after seeing Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the United States from within medicine: Mexico should stop pretending that all access is equal. Universalism matters, but pretending that every facility can do everything harms patients. It creates a quiet cruelty. It wastes time, obscures risk, and shifts the burden from institutions to families.

Some care should be close to home: vaccines, prenatal care, diabetes follow-up, hypertension management, medication refills, basic rehabilitation, simple imaging, low-acuity pediatrics, and first-line evaluation. Other care must be concentrated: pediatric oncology, complex congenital disease, high-risk pregnancy, major trauma, neonatal intensive care, severe infection, complex spine surgery, rare disease, advanced imaging interpretation, and major reconstructive surgery.

That is not elitism. It is safety.

The real equity question is not whether every town has every service. That sounds noble, but it is false. The real equity question is whether every patient can access the appropriate level of care before delay causes harm. That is a harder promise, but it is the only one worth making.

Mexico’s threats are structural. Demand will keep rising. Institutional churn will keep creating confusion if reforms change names without changing operations. Uneven capacity will keep sending patients to the wrong level of care. Household finances will remain exposed when public pathways fail. Private-sector fragmentation will produce more options without necessarily producing better navigation. Trust will erode when patients wait, pay, repeat their story, and still do not know where to go.

The threat level is high, not because Mexico lacks talent, but because the pressure is real and the design is behind.

And yet, that is exactly why the opportunity is so large. Mexico has the rare combination of scale, need, capability, and underdesigned flow. In an overbuilt system, improvement is expensive and marginal. In an underdesigned system, the right redesign can yield large gains quickly. Better referral logic. Better specialty concentration. Better employer pathways. Better use of private diagnostic capacity. Better public-private coordination. Better chronic disease programs. Better surgical pathways. Better rehabilitation networks. Better data on where patients get stuck. Better cross-border second opinions. Better navigation for families already living in a hybrid system.

This is not about importing American healthcare. It is about building a Mexican model that accepts Mexican reality.

The United States will matter in this model, but not as a master plan. It will matter as a market, a neighbor, a training partner, a technology source, a pressure point, and a source of demand. Cross-border medicine should not be reduced to medical tourism. That term is too narrow. The bigger opportunity is cross-border health infrastructure: second opinions, employer pathways, specialty networks, rehabilitation, surgical planning, chronic disease management, imaging review, quality systems, referral relationships, and international patient navigation. Done poorly, this can deepen inequality. When done well, it can generate revenue, training, standards, and institutional relationships that strengthen care within Mexico.

Private hospitals also have a choice. They can compete on buildings, lobbies, and prestige, or they can compete on whether care is easier to access, safer to navigate, and more predictable to complete. A beautiful hospital that most of the country cannot access is not a national solution. It is an asset. A valuable one, but still only an asset. The strategic question is how to make that asset matter beyond its walls.

Public systems face a parallel challenge. They do not need another speech about the mission. They need capacity maps, referral rules, records that move, waiting-time data that matter, and metrics that show whether patients reached the right care. A consultation count does not tell you whether care worked. A surgery count does not tell you whether the right patients were operated on. A waiting list does not tell you who is deteriorating. A coverage percentage does not tell you whether the patient reached care.

Mexico needs better questions. Where is the delay? Where is the duplication? Where is the avoidable cost? Where is the unnecessary referral? Where is the missed diagnosis? Where is the family paying for something the system was supposed to provide? Where is the clinician wasting time because the pathway failed before the visit even began?

These are not abstract questions. They are the anatomy of reform.

I care about this because I have seen both Mexicos. I have seen the Mexico where a child receives extraordinary care from excellent surgeons, careful anesthesia, thoughtful nursing, and a family able to absorb the cost. I have also seen the Mexico where a family arrives late because the referral was delayed, the money ran out, the diagnosis was not explained, or the first doctor did not know where to send them.

I have also seen enough of the United States and the United Kingdom to know that no country has solved this. The American system can save a life with astonishing sophistication, only to bury the same family in cost and bureaucracy. The NHS can defend care as a public good and still leave people waiting when capacity fails. Mexico can produce world-class physicians and still leave families coordinating their own care with cash, contacts, and persistence.

So the useful question is not which system is best. That question is too simple. The useful question is what Mexico can build from where it actually stands.

My answer is that Mexico can build a serious North American healthcare platform because it has the ingredients: population, talent, geography, private capacity, public need, employer demand, U.S. proximity, and enough pressure to make change unavoidable. But it cannot get there by confusing coverage with care, by confusing private medicine with elite medicine, by counting buildings instead of capability, by importing American waste, or by asking families to coordinate their own way through a maze.

Mexico’s healthcare problem is bigger than healthcare. It is a national productivity problem, a household finance problem, an employer problem, a public-sector credibility problem, a private-sector strategy problem, and a U.S.-Mexico integration problem.

That is why the opportunity is also bigger than healthcare.

Mexico is protected by geography, but geography does not organize care. Mexico has talent, but talent does not automatically create access. Mexico has private hospitals, but hospitals do not automatically create pathways. Mexico has a public obligation, but obligation does not automatically create operational reality. And the United States, if it is honest about its own future, should want Mexico to solve this. A healthier Mexico is not a charitable wish. It is part of North American resilience.

The next stage is not another slogan. It is execution. Mexico needs to turn scale into systems, talent into access, private capacity into usable pathways, public obligation into operational discipline, and proximity to the United States into a strategic advantage.

Mexico does not need to become the United States. It needs to become the best version of itself: a large, capable, hybrid, North American healthcare platform that understands how its patients live, pay, wait, choose, travel, and seek help.

Coverage is the promise.

Flow is the proof.