Methodology

For the rankings, MoneyGeek scored all 50 states and the District of Columbia across three equally weighted pillars: outcomes, cost, and access.

In total, MoneyGeek used 14 metrics to score each state and Washington, D.C. For outcomes, the metrics were:

• All-cause mortality
• Infant mortality
• Diabetes mortality
• Life expectancy
• Adult obesity
• Adult smoking

For cost, the metrics used were:

• Affordable Care Act (ACA) premiums for 2026
• Commonwealth Fund performance index
• Health spending as a percentage of GDP
• Per capita health spending

For access, the metrics used were:

•  Insurance coverage
• Hospital beds per 1,000 residents
• Primary care providers per 100,000 residents
• Primary care shortage areas percent need met

The best (and worst) states for healthcare

MoneyGeek found that the following states were the 10 best states for healthcare:

1.       Hawaii

2.       New Hampshire

3.       Massachusetts

4.       District of Columbia

5.       Minnesota

6.       New Jersey

7.       Washington

8.       Colorado

9.       Rhode Island

10.   North Dakota

Meanwhile, MoneyGeek found that the following states were the 10 worst states for healthcare:

51. Alaska

50. West Virginia

49. Mississippi

48. Oklahoma

47. Arkansas

46. Texas

45. Georgia

44. Tennessee

43. Wyoming

42. Alabama

"For some, it is the distance or lack of transportation required to get to a health care provider. Areas with regular inclement weather (frequent snow and ice storms, frequent flooding) could affect someone's ability to access health care," Brigman said. "A lack of financial resources and specialty health care services in an area would affect someone's access to health care. With limited access to health care, for whatever reason, you could see a decrease in desired outcomes in certain geographic locations."

Tinglong Dai, a professor of business at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, said that health outcome and access disparities across states is largely due to "uneven distribution of healthcare resources," including the availability of highly skilled health professionals.

"States vary widely in their economic health and investment in public health initiatives, which in turn affects their ability to support a robust health system. In addition, the emphasis placed on healthcare and population health by state leadership can lead to differences in policy, funding and community engagement that further contribute to the observed geographic variation in health outcomes," Dai said. "But what's often overlooked is that healthcare providers can't do everything independently. The drivers of health outcomes are often beyond the control of providers. Broad policies that affect people's lifestyles often have a greater impact on health outcomes and access."