California – California’s health care system has landed just outside the national top 10 in MoneyGeek’s 2026 Best States for Health Care analysis, a ranking that shows a familiar split in the nation’s largest state: people tend to live healthier lives there, but getting care is not equally easy everywhere.
The new report, updated June 4, places California 11th overall with a final score of 71.6 out of 100, putting it firmly in the upper tier among all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
The strength of California’s showing comes from outcomes. MoneyGeek gave the state a 90.5 score in that pillar, far higher than its access score of 50.8 and ahead of many states that finished near it overall. The state also scored 73.7 on cost, giving it a balanced enough profile to stay close to the top 10 even with weaker marks on care availability.
The clearest sign of California’s advantage is mortality. Its all-cause mortality rate was listed at 644.6 deaths per 100,000 residents, the fourth-lowest figure in the country. Only Hawaii, New York and New Jersey performed better on that measure. For a state with a vast and diverse population, that result is one of the biggest reasons California rises above many competitors in the national table.
MoneyGeek’s ranking is not built on one number. The analysis weighs three pillars equally: outcomes, costs and access. Those pillars are based on 14 metrics, including mortality, life expectancy, obesity, smoking, ACA premiums, health spending, insurance coverage, hospital beds, primary care provider density and primary care shortage areas. The data sources include CDC WONDER, KFF, the Census, the American Hospital Association, HRSA and other validated datasets.
That wider framework helps explain why California did not break into the top 10 despite its strong health results. Access pulled it down. In practical terms, the score points to a state where the broad health picture is strong, but the system still has pressure points. Large urban centers can support deep medical networks and public health capacity, yet uneven provider distribution and underserved areas remain part of the challenge.
The states ahead of California show how narrow the difference can be near the top. Hawaii ranked first with a score of 87.6, followed by New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., Minnesota, New Jersey, Washington, Colorado, Rhode Island and North Dakota. California came next, close enough to be among the national leaders, but still marked by the gap between excellent outcomes and middling access.
The contrast becomes clearer when California is compared with Oregon, Michigan and Georgia. Oregon ranked 15th with a final score of 67.2, including 71.2 in outcomes, 73.9 in cost and 56.4 in access. That makes Oregon somewhat stronger than California on access and nearly equal on cost, but well behind California on outcomes.
Michigan ranked 22nd with a score of 62.1. Its access score, 64.2, was better than California’s, but its outcomes score was far lower at 52.6. Georgia, meanwhile, finished near the bottom at 45th overall, with a final score of 36.9 and an especially weak access score of 23.4. The report also listed Georgia’s uninsured rate at 12%, second-highest in the country after Texas.
Nationally, the report shows deep divides. A child born in Hawaii can expect to live 79.9 years, compared with 70.9 years in Mississippi. ACA silver benchmark premiums ranged from $477 in Maryland to $1,223 in Vermont. MoneyGeek also found that high spending does not automatically produce strong overall performance, noting that West Virginia spends heavily but ranked 50th overall.
For California, the message is not simple praise and not a warning bell either. It is something more useful: a mixed but strong report card. The state is producing some of the best broad health outcomes in the country, especially on mortality. But the access score shows that the next step is not only helping people live longer. It is making sure more Californians can reach the care that helps make those outcomes possible.