In consumer products, there’s a well-known concept called Planned Obsolescence—designing products to wear out so people have to keep buying replacements.
But what’s the equivalent in healthcare?
A growing number of critics point to something similar:
Perpetual Care Systems
Healthcare models that prioritize ongoing treatment over definitive cures.
What Is “Perpetual Care”?
Perpetual Care isn’t about doctors intentionally withholding cures.
It’s about system-level incentives that lean toward:
- Managing chronic conditions
- Prescribing long-term medications
- Requiring recurring visits and treatments
- Sustaining lifetime patient engagement
In this model, healthcare becomes less about ending disease and more about controlling it.
You could also describe it as:
- Maintenance Medicine
- Chronic Care Economics
- Subscription Healthcare
Different names—same core concern:
The system may function best when patients remain patients.
Why This Happens (System Incentives)
Modern healthcare systems are complex, but several structural factors play a role:
1. Chronic Diseases Dominate
Many of today’s biggest health challenges—diabetes, heart disease, neurodegeneration—are long-term conditions that are difficult to fully cure.
2. Risk and Regulation
Developing a cure is:
- Expensive
- Time-consuming
- High-risk
Treatments that manage symptoms are often easier to bring to market.
3. Payment Structures
In many systems:
- Providers are reimbursed per visit or procedure
- Pharmaceutical revenue depends on continued use
This can unintentionally favor ongoing care over one-time solutions.
Public Frustration and Activism
Because of these dynamics, frustration is growing.
You see it in:
- Online communities are questioning why cures feel “out of reach.”
- Patients burdened by lifelong treatment costs
- Advocacy groups pushing for more funding for cures
- Calls for transparency in pricing and research
Some activists argue that:
Healthcare should prioritize eliminating disease, not just managing it.
This has led to demands for:
- More funding for curative research
- Greater public oversight of healthcare systems
- Policies that reward breakthroughs, not just maintenance
- Access to experimental and innovative treatments (within safety limits)
The Longevity Movement’s Role
The longevity field amplifies this conversation.
Instead of asking:
“How do we manage aging?”
It asks:
“How do we solve it?”
Longevity advocates push for:
- Treating aging as a condition to be addressed
- Investing in regenerative medicine
- Expanding research into cellular repair
- Reframing healthcare toward prevention and reversal
This shifts the entire goal of medicine from maintenance → transformation.
Real-World Complexity (Important Balance)
It’s important to stay grounded:
- Not all diseases currently have cures
- Many treatments genuinely improve and save lives
- Doctors and researchers largely aim to help patients, not exploit them
The issue is less about individuals—and more about how systems are structured.
What Could Change the System
If people want to move away from “Perpetual Care,” several ideas are gaining traction:
Incentivizing Cures
- Prize funding for breakthrough treatments
- Government buyouts of successful cures for public access
Expanding Access
- Broader healthcare coverage
- Lower barriers to preventative care
Supporting Open Science
- Shared research data
- Collaborative global efforts
Aligning Profit With Outcomes
- Rewarding patient recovery, not just treatment volume
Final Thought
The comparison to Planned Obsolescence raises a difficult question:
Should healthcare function like a system of ongoing consumption—or a system that aims to make itself less necessary?
Longevity, cure-based research, and public pressure are all pushing toward a future where medicine doesn’t just manage decline, but actively works to end it.
Whether that future arrives depends not just on science—but on the systems we build around it.
