A new nationwide study ranking the Best and Worst States to Be Sick has revealed some surprising results, showing that even states with advanced healthcare systems can struggle when it comes to safety, cost, and efficiency.
Behind the rankings lies a clear message: hospital design, safety standards, and infrastructure investment are just as important as medical expertise when it comes to recovery outcomes.
Contact Lead Glass Pro to improve your hospital’s safety
What the Study Looked At (Methodology)
The report analysed every U.S. state based on key healthcare factors, including:
-
Hospital beds per 1,000 people
-
Average ER wait times
-
The average cost of a hospital stay
-
The percentage of hospitals with an “A” safety rating (Spring 2025)
Together, these indicators paint a picture of how well-prepared each state is to handle illness, and how safe you’d feel as a patient there.
The Worst (and Best) States to Be Sick In
The study compared all 50 U.S. states to reveal where patients are most and least likely to receive timely, affordable, and safe medical care. The results highlight clear regional differences, with some states excelling in accessibility and infrastructure while others face challenges around wait times and hospital safety standards.
Before diving into the full breakdown, here’s how the nation looks at a glance:
The title ‘The Best And Worst States To Get Sick In’ sits at the top of a map of the United States. Some states are highlighted to show the best and worst states to be sick in. The best states are: Mississippi, South Dakota, Montana, Oklahoma, and Kansas. The worst states are: Maryland, Vermont, New Mexico, Massachusetts, and Washington. A study by LeadGlassPro.com.
The 5 Worst States to Be Sick In
|
State |
Beds Per 1,000 |
ER Wait (min) |
Cost of Stay |
% A-Rated Hospitals |
Score (out of 10) |
|
Maryland |
1.81 |
346.5 |
$3,688 |
31.70% |
7.94 |
|
Vermont |
2.02 |
278 |
$2,935 |
0.00% |
7.77 |
|
New Mexico |
1.66 |
213.5 |
$3,414 |
5.60% |
7.43 |
|
Massachusetts |
2.22 |
279.5 |
$3,645 |
27.30% |
7.02 |
|
Washington |
1.57 |
191.5 |
$4,076 |
27.10% |
6.84 |
It may come as a surprise that states like Maryland and Massachusetts, both known for strong healthcare systems, rank among the worst places to be sick.
Despite their world-class hospitals, these states face challenges such as:
-
Long ER wait times (up to nearly six hours in some cases)
-
High inpatient costs (above $3,600 per day)
-
Relatively few A-rated facilities compared to their peers
These findings suggest that efficiency, infrastructure, and safety investment have as much impact on patient experience as access to advanced treatment.
The 5 Best States to Be Sick In
|
State |
Beds Per 1,000 |
ER Wait (min) |
Cost of Stay |
% A-Rated Hospitals |
Score (out of 10) |
|
Mississippi |
3.87 |
164.5 |
$1,032 |
24.30% |
2.70 |
|
South Dakota |
4.45 |
125.5 |
$1,747 |
10.00% |
2.93 |
|
Montana |
3.24 |
149.5 |
$2,183 |
33.30% |
3.47 |
|
Oklahoma |
2.75 |
156 |
$2,391 |
31.70% |
4.13 |
|
Kansas |
3.1 |
153 |
$2,511 |
23.30% |
4.27 |
At the other end of the scale, more rural states like Mississippi, Montana, and South Dakota rank among the best places to be sick, not necessarily because they’re home to elite hospitals, but because they perform well on speed, accessibility, and available capacity.
Patients in these states tend to:
-
Access beds more quickly
-
Experience shorter ER waits
-
Face lower average treatment costs
While their safety ratings may still lag behind, their infrastructure efficiency and availability give them an advantage when it comes to overall care experience.
Why Facility Design Plays a Hidden Role
Numbers tell part of the story, but the design of the hospital itself tells the rest.
Every year, healthcare contractors, architects, and medical suppliers work behind the scenes to create safer clinical environments. From lead-lined walls and windows in radiology to fire-rated glass and radiation-proof doors, the materials that shape a hospital are vital for both staff and patient safety.
Poorly designed or outdated facilities often:
-
Struggle with radiation containment and safety compliance
-
Fail inspections, delaying upgrades or patient throughput
-
Increase the risk of exposure or contamination in high-risk zones
Hospitals that invest in modern materials and infrastructure, like those supplied by Lead Glass Pro, are better positioned to maintain safety ratings and improve patient outcomes over time.
The Infrastructure-Safety Connection
The percentage of “A-rated” hospitals in this dataset strongly correlates with how much states invest in facility maintenance and compliance upgrades.
Those with higher safety scores are often the ones regularly updating their construction materials to meet modern NCRP and ANSI standards.
This is where manufacturers like Lead Glass Pro play a critical role, ensuring healthcare contractors have access to high-quality, American-made radiation protection products that meet or exceed federal specifications.
Whether it’s a single imaging suite or an entire hospital renovation, every project contributes to safer, more efficient healthcare delivery.
Building a Safer Future for American Healthcare
The results of this study may surprise some, but they highlight a crucial truth: Healthcare quality isn’t just about who treats you, but where you’re treated.
As the U.S. healthcare landscape evolves, the focus must shift toward long-term safety, compliance, and infrastructure investment.
Modern hospitals aren’t built on capacity alone; they’re built on trust, protection, and precision, all underpinned by reliable materials and rigorous standards.
At Lead Glass Pro, we’re proud to help hospitals, clinics, and contractors nationwide protect both staff and patients with products that meet the highest standards of radiation safety and durability.
Ready to improve your facility’s safety and compliance?Explore our full range of radiation-shielding glass, doors, and drywall, manufactured in the U.S. for precision and performance. |