Hospitals and health systems across the country are telling some Medicare and Medicaid patients that they can’t schedule telehealth appointments due to the federal government’s shutdown, now heading into its second week. That’s because Medicare reimbursement for telehealth expired on September 30, leaving health systems with the choice of pausing such visits or keeping them going in hopes of retroactive reimbursement after the shutdown ends.
Reimbursement for the Hospital at Home program, which allows patients to receive care without being admitted to a hospital, also lapsed with the shutdown. That led to providers scrambling to discharge patients under the program or admit them to a hospital. Mayo Clinic, for example, had to move around 30 patients from their homes in Arizona, Florida and Wisconsin to its facilities.
At issue in the government shutdown is healthcare, specifically tax credits for middle- and lower-income Americans that enable them to afford health insurance on the federal exchanges set up by the Affordable Care Act. Democrats want to extend those tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year, while Republicans want to reopen the government first and then negotiate about the tax credits in a final budget.
The impasse has prevented the Senate from overcoming a filibuster, despite a Republican majority. Around 24 million Americans get their health insurance through the ACA, and the loss of tax credits will cause their premiums to rise an average of 75%–and as high as 90% in rural areas–and likely cause at least 4 million people to lose coverage entirely.
The government’s closure has reverberated through its operations in healthcare. The Department of Health and Human Services has furloughed some 41% of its staff, making it harder to run oversight operations. CDC’s lack of staff will hinder surveillance of public health threats. And FDA won’t accept any new drug applications until funding is restored.
When the government might reopen remains unclear. Most shutdowns are relatively brief, but the longest one, which lasted 35 days, came during Donald Trump’s first term. Senate majority leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., have both said they won’t negotiate with Democrats, and the House won’t meet again until October 14.Bettors on Polymarket currently expect it to last until at least October 15. Pressure on Congress will increase after that date because there won’t be funds available to pay active military members.
Since the murder of UnitedHealth executive Brian Thompson in New York City December 4, 2024, attention to health insurers has heightened. National media coverage has been brutal. Polls have chronicled the public’s disdain for rising premiums and increased denials. Hospitals and physicians have amped-up campaigns against prior authorization and inadequate reimbursement. For many health insurers, no news is a good news day. Here’s ChatGPT’s reply to how insurers are depicted:
“Media coverage of US health insurers focuses heavily on the challenges consumers face due to high costs, coverage denials, and complicated policies, often portraying insurers as profit-driven entities that hinder care access. Investigations reveal insurers using technology to deny claims and push for denials during prior authorization, while other reports highlight market concentration and the increasing influence of large companies like UnitedHealth Group and Centene. Media also covers the marketing efforts of insurers, particularly for Medicare Advantage plans, and public frustration with the industry. “
In some ways, it’s understandable. Insurance, by definition, is a bet, especially in healthcare. Private policyholders—individuals and employers– bet the premiums they pay pooled with others will cover the cost of a condition or accident that requires medical care. In the 1960’s, federal and state government made the same bet on behalf of seniors (Medicare) and lower-income or disabled kids and adults (Medicaid). But they’re bets.
But the rub is this: what healthcare products and services costs and their prices are hard to predict and closely-guarded secrets in an industry that declares itself the world’s best. Claims data—one source of tracking utilization—is nearly impossible to access even for employers who cover the majority of U.S. population (56%).
Spending for U.S. healthcare is forecast to increase 54% through 2033 from $5.6 trillion to $8.6 trillion— the result of higher costs for prescription drugs and hospital stays, medical inflation, technology, increased utilization (demand) and administrative costs (overhead). Insurers negotiate rates for these, add their margin and pass them thru to their customers—individuals, employers and government agencies. It’s all done behind the scenes.
The public’s working knowledge of how the health system operates, how it performs and what key players in the ecosystem do is negligible. For most, personal experience with the system is their context. We understand our personal healthiness if so inclined or fortunate to have a continuous primary care relationship. We understand our medications if they solve a problem or don’t. We understand our hospitals if we or a family member use them or occasionally visit, and we understand our insurance when we enroll choosing from affordable options that include the doctors and hospitals we like and when we’re denied services or billed for what insurance doesn’t cover.
Today, corporate names like UnitedHealth Group, Humana, Cigna, Elevance, CVS Aetna and Centene are the health insurance industry’s big brands, corralling more than 60% of the industry’s private and government enrollment with the rest divided among 1,149 smaller players. Today, the public’s perception of health insurers is negative: most consider insurance a necessary evil with data showing it’s no guarantee against financial ruin. Today, it’s an expensive employee benefit for employers who are looking for alternative options for workforce stability. And only 56% of enrollees trust their health insurer to do what’s best for them.
Ours is a flawed system that’s not sustainable: insurers are part of that problem. It’s premised on dependence:patients depend on providers to define their diagnosis and deliver the treatments/therapeutics and enrollees depend on insurers to handle the logistics of how much they get paid and when. At the point of service, patients pay co-pays and after the fact, get an “explanation of benefits” along with additional out of pocket obligations. Hospitals and physicians fight insurers about what’s reasonable and customary compensation, and patients unable to out-of-pocket obligations are handed off to “revenue cycle specialists” for collection. Wow. Great system! Mark it up, pass it thru and let the chips fall where they may—all under the presumed oversight of state insurance commissioners who are tasked to protect the public’s interests.
Do insurers deserve the animosity they’re facing from employers, hospitals, physicians and their enrollees? Yes, but certainly some more than others. Facts are facts:
Since 2020, health insurance premium costs have increased 2-4 times faster than household necessities and wages for the average household. Affordability is an issue.
Denials have increased.
Enrollee trust and satisfaction with insurers has plummeted.
And industry profits since 2023 have taken a hit due to post-pandemic pent-up demand, pricey drugs including in-demand GLP-1’s for obesity and increased negotiation leverage by consolidated health systems.
Most Americans think not having health insurance is a bigger risk than going without. But most also think healthcare is fundamental right and the government should guarantee access through universal coverage.
Having private insurance is not the issue: having insurance that ensures access to doctors and hospitals when needed reliably and affordably is their unmet need.
In the weeks ahead, employers will update their employee health benefits options for next year while facing 9-15% higher costs for their coverage. States will decide how they’ll implement work requirements in their Medicaid programs and assess the extent of lost coverage for millions. Insurers who sponsor market place plans suspended by the Big Beautiful Bill will raise their individual premiums hikes 20-70% for the 16 million who are losing their subsidies.
Medicare Advantage (Medicare Part C) insurers will skinny-down the supplements in their offerings and raise premiums alongside Part D increases, And, every insurer will inventory markets served and product portfolio profitability to determine investment opportunities or exit strategies. That’s the calculus every insurer applies every year, adjusting as conditions dictate.
Most private insurers pay little attention to the 8% of Americans who have no coverage; those inclined tend to be smaller community-based plans often associated with hospitals or provider organizations.
Most are concerned about continuity of care for their enrollees: they know 12% had a lapse in their coverage last year, 23% are under-insured and 43% missed a scheduled appointment or treatment due to out-of-pocket costs involved.
And all are concerned about the long-term financial viability of the entire health insurance sector: margins have plummeted since 2020 from 3.1% to 0.8%%, medical loss ratio’s have increased from 98.2% in 2023 to 100.1% last year, premiums increase grew 5.9% while hospital and medical expenses grew $8.9% and so on. The bigger players have residual capital to diversify and grow; others don’t.
Criticism of the health insurance industry is justified for the most part but the rest of the story is key. The U.S. system is broken and everyone knows it. But health insurers are not alone in bearing responsibility for its failure though their role is significant.
The urgent need is for a roadmap to a system of health where the healthiness and well-being of the entire population is true north to its ambition. It’s a system that’s comprehensive, connected, cost-effective and affordable. Protecting turf between sectors, blame and shame rhetoric and perpetuation of public ignorance are non-starters.
PS: Two important events last week weigh heavily on U.S. healthcare’s future:
In Verona, WI, the Epic User Group Meeting showcased the company’s plans for AI featuring 3 new generative AI tools — Emmie for patients, Art for clinicians and Penny for revenue cycle management. Per KLAS, the private company grew its market share to 42% of acute care hospitals and 55% of acute care beds at the end of 2024.
In Jackson Hole, WY, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s annual economic symposium where Fed Chair Jay Powell signaled a likely interest rate cut in its September 16-17 meeting and changes to how the central bank will assess employment status going forward.
Healthcare is labor intense, capital intense and 26% of federal spending in the FY 2026 proposed budget. The Fed through its monetary policies has the power and obligation to foster economic stability. Epic is one of a handful of companies that has the potential to transform the U.S. health system. Transformation of the health system is essential to its sustainability and necessary to the U.S. economic stability since healthcare is 18% of the country’s GDP and its biggest private employer.
When Congress passed pandemic-era enhancements to Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium subsidies in 2021, it wasn’t just a policy tweak — it was a lifeline. But unless lawmakers act, those subsidies will vanish on January 1, 2026.
According to KFF, the average ACA enrollee could see premiums spike 75% overnight. For many, that will mean a choice between things like their health coverage and rent or food. The Congressional Budget Office estimates more than 4.2 million people could lose coverage over the next decade as a result. Below is where the expired subsidies will hurt the hardest:
1. Young adults… and their parents’ wallets
Young people who’ve aged out of their parents’ plans and buy coverage through the ACA marketplaces will see some of the steepest jumps.
If they decide to forgo coverage, as KFF Health News warns: The so-called “‘insurance cliff’ at age 26 can send young adults tumbling into being uninsured.”
The ACA is the only real option for many small-business owners, freelancers and gig workers. These are the folks that conservatives say we should encourage to build and grow their own businesses who make up the backbone of Main Street. Losing the enhanced subsidies means many will face premiums hundreds of dollars higher per month. Some will be forced to close shop and turn to jobs at out-of-town corporations flush enough to afford to offer subsidized coverage to their workers, a direct hit to local economies.
3. States already in crisis
States aren’t in a position to plug the gap.Politico reports that California, Colorado, Maryland, Washington, and others are scrambling to soften the blow, but even the most ambitious state-level plans can’t replace hundreds of millions in lost federal funding.
And this comes right after Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that will hit hospitals, clinics and low-income communities. In Washington state alone, officials expect premiums to jump 75% when the subsidies expire, with one in four marketplace enrollees dropping coverage. That means more uninsured patients showing up in ERs, less preventive care, and more strain on already struggling rural hospitals.
4. (Already) disappearing alternatives to Big Insurance
The ACA marketplaces aren’t just a safety net for individuals but also home to smaller non-profit and regional health plans that give Americans an alternative to the “Big 7” Wall Street-run insurance conglomerates. These community-rooted plans are already facing financial headwinds from shrinking enrollment and Medicaid funding cuts. When premiums spike in 2026, many could lose enough members to be forced out of the market entirely.
And here’s the real danger: The Big 7 can weather this storm. Their huge market capitalizations, government contracts, pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) divisions and sprawling care delivery businesses give them insulation from ACA marketplace losses. In fact, they may see this as an opportunity to buy up the smaller competitors that fail, which would further consolidate their dominance over our health care system. Or they could just decide to flee the ACA marketplace entirely because the population will skewer sicker and older, creating a death spiral that the big insurers will not want to touch. What little consumer choice exists outside the big corporate insurers could vanish, and even that could disappear.
5. <65 year olds
Perhaps the most vulnerable group will be Americans in their 50s and early 60s who lose their jobs or retire early (often not by choice) and find themselves too young for Medicare but facing incredibly high premiums on the individual market. Under ACA rules, insurers can charge older enrollees up to three times more than younger adults for the same coverage. The enhanced subsidies have been the only thing keeping many of these premiums within reach.
Take those subsidies away, and a 60-year-old who loses employer coverage could see their monthly premium shoot into four figures. For those living off severance, savings or reduced income, choosing to gamble with their health and wait it out until 65 may be the only option.
Congress knows the stakes. Will they act?
Making the subsidies permanent would cost $383 billion over 10 years, which would be a political hurdle for a Congress intent on deep budget cuts. But the cost of inaction is far higher, both in human and economic terms. These subsidies have kept coverage affordable for millions, fueled small business growth, and stabilized state health systems during one of the most turbulent economic periods in recent memory. Without them, the hit to many folks could be a Frazier-level K.O.
But let’s face it — what I’m advocating for isn’t perfect either. The prospect of extending these subsidies raises a question: Should taxpayers be footing the bill for health insurance premiums when insurance corporations are reporting tens of billions in annual profits and paying hefty dividends to shareholders?
The short answer, for now, unfortunately, is yes. Because this is the deck we’ve been dealt and we can’t let Americans fall into medical debt, lose their homes – or their lives. Extending the ACA subsidies is not pretty. But for Americans, it’s just a bob and weave.
People who buy health insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are set to see a median premium increase of 18 percent, more than double last year’s 7 percent median proposed increase, according to an analysis of preliminary filings by KFF.
The proposed rates are preliminary and could change before being finalized in late summer. The analysis includes proposed rate changes from 312 insurers in all 50 states and DC.
It’s the largest rate change insurers have requested since 2018, the last time that policy uncertainty contributed to sharp premium increases. On average, ACA marketplace insurers are raising premiums by about 20 percent in 2026, KFF found.
Insurers said they wanted higher premiums to cover rising health care costs, like hospitalizations and physician care, as well as prescription drug costs. Tariffs on imported goods could play a role in rising medical costs, but insurers said there was a lot of uncertainty around implementation, and not many insurers were citing tariffs as a reason for higher rates.
But they are adding in higher increases due to changes being made by the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress. For instance, the majority of insurers said they are taking into account the potential expiration of enhanced premium tax credits.
Those subsidies, put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic, are set to expire at the end of the year, and there are few signs that Republicans are interested in tackling the issue at all.
If Congress takes no action, premiums for subsidized enrollees are projected to increase by over 75 percent starting in January 2026, according to KFF.
But some states are pushing back.
Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) on Wednesday called on the state’s insurance commissioner to disapprove the proposed increases from Centene and Blue Cross Blue Shield. The companies filed increases of up to 54 percent and 25.5 percent, respectively, she said.
“Arkansas’ Insurance Commissioner is required to disapprove of proposed rate increases if they are excessive or discriminatory, and these are both,” Huckabee Sanders said in a statement.
“I’m calling on my Commissioner to follow the law, reject these insane rate increases, and protect Arkansans.”
Medicaid cuts have received the lion’s share of attention from critics of Republicans’ sweeping tax cuts legislation, but the GOP’s decision not to extend enhanced ObamaCare subsidies could have a much more immediate impact ahead of next year’s midterms.
Extra subsidies put in place during the coronavirus pandemic are set to expire at the end of the year, and there are few signs Republicans are interested in tackling the issue at all.
To date, only Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) have spoken publicly about wanting to extend them.
The absence of an extension in the “big, beautiful bill” was especially notable given the sweeping changes the legislation makes to the health care system, and it gives Democrats an easy message: If Republicans in Congress let the subsidies expire at the end of the year, premiums will spike, and millions of people across the country could lose health insurance.
In a statement released last month as the House was debating its version of the bill, House and Senate Democratic health leaders pointed out what they said was GOP hypocrisy.
“Their bill extends hundreds of tax policies that expire at the end of the year. The omission of this policy will cause millions of Americans to lose their health insurance and will raise premiums on 24 million Americans,” wrote Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Richard Neal (D-Mass.) and House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.).
“The Republican failure to stop this premium spike is a policy choice, and it needs to be recognized as such.”
More than 24 million Americans are enrolled in the insurance marketplace this year, and about 90 percent — more than 22 million people — are receiving enhanced subsidies.
“All of those folks will experience quite large out-of-pocket premium increases,” said Ellen Montz, who helped run the federal ObamaCare exchanges under the Biden administration and is now a managing director with Manatt Health.
“When premiums become less affordable, you have this kind of self-fulfilling prophecy where the youngest and the healthiest people drop out of the marketplace, and then premiums become even less affordable in the next year,” Montz said.
The subsidies have been an extremely important driver of ObamaCare enrollment. Experts say if they were to expire, those gains would be erased.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 4.2 million people are projected to lose insurance by 2034 if the subsidies aren’t renewed.
Combined with changes to Medicaid in the new tax cut law, at least 17 million Americans could be uninsured in the next decade.
The enhanced subsidies increase financial help to make health insurance plans more affordable. Eligible applicants can use the credit to lower insurance premium costs upfront or claim the tax break when filing their return.
Premiums are expected to increase by more than 75 percent on average, with people in some states seeing their payments more than double, according to health research group KFF.
Devon Trolley, executive director of Pennie, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchange in Pennsylvania, said she expects at least a 30 percent drop in enrollment if the subsidies expire.
The state starts ramping up its open enrollment infrastructure in mid-August, she said, so time is running short for Congress to act.
“The only vehicle left for funding the tax credits, if they were to extend them, would be the government funding bill with a deadline of September 30, which we really see as the last possible chance for Congress to do anything,” Trolley said.
Trolley said three-quarters of enrollees in the state’s exchange have never purchased coverage without the enhanced tax credits in place.
“They don’t know sort of a prior life of when the coverage was 82 percent more expensive. And we are very concerned this is going to come as a huge sticker shock to people, and that is going to significantly erode enrollment,” Trolley said.
The enhanced subsidies were first put into effect during the height of the coronavirus pandemic as part of former President Biden’s 2021 economic recovery law and then extended as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.
The CBO said permanently extending the subsidies would cost $358 billion over the next 10 years.
Republicans have balked at the cost. They argue the credits hide the true cost of the health law and subsidize Americans who don’t need the help. They also argue the subsidies have been a driver of fraudulent enrollment by unscrupulous brokers seeking high commissions.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, last year said Congress should reject extending the subsidies.
The Republican Study Committee’s 2025 fiscal budget said the subsidies “only perpetuate a never-ending cycle of rising premiums and federal bailouts — with taxpayers forced to foot the bill.”
But since 2020, enrollment in the Affordable Care Act marketplace has grown faster in the states won by President Trump in 2024, primarily rural Southern red states that haven’t expanded Medicaid. Explaining to millions of Americans why their health insurance premiums are suddenly too expensive for them to afford could be politically unpopular for Republicans.
According to a recent KFF survey, 45 percent of Americans who buy their own health insurance through the ACA exchanges identify as Republican or lean Republican. Three in 10 said they identify as “Make America Great Again” supporters.
“So much of that growth has just been a handful of Southern red states … Texas, Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas,” said Cynthia Cox, vice president at KFF and director of the firm’s ACA program. “That’s where I think we’re going to see a lot more people being uninsured.”
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a key Affordable Care Act requirement that insurance companies cover certain preventative measures recommended by an expert panel.
Justices upheld the constitutionality of the provision in a 6-3 decision and protected access to preventative care for about 150 million Americans.
The justices found that the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has the power to appoint and fire members of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF).
The cases started when a small business in Texas and some individuals filed a lawsuit against the panel’s recommendation that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PreP) for HIV be included as a preventative care service.
They argued that covering PreP went against their religious beliefs and would “encourage homosexual behavior, intravenous drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.”
The plaintiffs further argued that the USPSTF mandates are unconstitutional because panel members are “inferior officers” who are not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate.
While the panel is independent, they said that since their decisions impact millions of people members should be confirmed.
A U.S. district judge in 2023 ruled that all preventative-care coverage imposed since the ACA was signed into law areinvalid and a federal appeals court judge ruled in agreement last year.
The Biden administration appealed the rulings to the Supreme Court, and the Trump administration chose to defend the law despite its long history of disparaging Obamacare.
Though public health groups celebrated the ruling Friday, some noted another potential outcome.
“While this is a foundational victory for patients, patients have reason to be concerned that the decision reaffirms the ability of the HHS secretary, including our current one, to control the membership and recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force that determines which preventive services are covered,” Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, said in a statement.
“We must be vigilant to ensure Secretary Kennedy does not undo coverage of preventive services by taking actions such as his recent firing of qualified health experts from the CDC’s independent vaccine advisory committee and replacing them with his personal allies.”
Nearly 12 million people would lose their health insurance under President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” an erosion of the social safety net that would lead to more unmanaged chronic illnesses, higher medical debt and overcrowding of hospital emergency departments.
Why it matters:
The changes in the Senate version of the bill could wipe out most of the health coverage gains made under the Affordable Care Act and slash state support for Medicaid and SNAP.
“We are going back to a place of a lot of uncompensated care and a lot of patchwork systems for people to get care,” said Ellen Montz, a managing director at Manatt Health who oversaw the ACA federal marketplace during the Biden administration.
The big picture:
The stakes are huge for low-income and working-class Americans who depend on Medicaid and subsidized ACA coverage.
Without health coverage, more people with diabetes, heart disease, asthma and other chronic conditions will likely go without checkups and medication to keep their ailments in check.
Those who try to keep up with care after losing insurance will pay more out of pocket, driving up medical debt and increasing the risk of eviction, food insecurity and depleted savings.
Uninsured patients have worse cancer survival outcomes and are less likely to get prenatal care. Medicaid also is a major payer of behavioral health counseling and crisis intervention.
Much of the coverage losses from the bill will come from new Medicaid work reporting requirements, congressional scorekeepers predict. Work rules generally will have to be implemented for coverage starting in 2027, but could be earlier or later depending on the state.
Past experiments with Medicaid work rules show that many eligible people fall through the cracks verifying they’ve met the requirements or navigating new state bureaucracies.
Often, people don’t find out they’ve lost coverage until they try to fill a prescription or see their doctor. States typically provide written notices, but contacts can be out of date.
Nearly 1 in 3 adults who were disenrolled from Medicaid after the COVID pandemic found out they no longer had health insurance only when they tried to access care, per a KFF survey.
Zoom out:
The Medicaid and ACA changes will also affect people who keep their coverage.
The anticipated drop-off in preventive care means the uninsured will be more likely to go to the emergency room when they get sick. That could further crowd already bursting ERs, resulting in even longer wait times.
Changes to ACA markets in the bill, along with the impending expiration of enhanced premium subsidies, may drive healthier people to drop out, Montz said, skewing the risk pool and driving up premiums for remaining enrollees.
States will likely have to make further cuts to their safety-net programs if the bill passes in order to keep state budgets functioning with less federal Medicaid funding.
The other side:
The White House and GOP proponents of the bill say the health care changes will fight fraud, waste and abuse, and argue that coverage loss projections are overblown.
Conservative health care thinkers also posit that there isn’t strong enough evidence that public health insurance improves health.
Reality check:
Not all insurance is created equally, and many people with health coverage still struggle to access care. But the bill’s impact would take the focus off ways to improve the health system, Montz said.
“This is taking us catastrophically backward, where we don’t get to think about the things that we should be thinking about how to best keep people healthy,” she said.
The bottom line:
The changes will unfold against a backdrop of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s purported focus on preventive care and ending chronic illness in the U.S.
But American health care is an insurance-based system, said Manatt Health’s Patricia Boozang. Coverage is what unlocks access.
Scrapping millions of people’s health coverage “seems inconsistent with the goal of making America healthier,” she said.
he House GOP’s emerging megabill includes significant changes to health care, some of which are long overdue, such as tighter restrictions on the provider taxes which states use to shift Medicaid costs onto the federal budget. But the legislation’s effect on the number of uninsured individuals is likely to get the most attention. Projections showing there will be a sizeable increase are causing internal divisions and creating political risks.
The basic problem for the party remains as it was in 2017 during the failed attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is that there is no agreement among its leaders on an overall direction to guide the changes they advance. It is probably too late to develop such a plan for this year’s legislative debate, but it remains necessary if GOP officeholders ever want to have more lasting influence on the workings of the overall system.
The Democratic party has long rallied around an organizing principle for the changes it seeks. The ultimate goal is a universal public utility model with everyone covered. There are differences among leading party members over the specific routes to this destination but not on the direction of travel. The party wants to strongly regulate the entire sector, including insurance and the providers of services, and most especially with respect to the prices they charge. The suppliers would be entirely dependent on government-set rates for their revenue. In return, they would get paid just enough to stay open and face less pressure to compete based on efficiency. A single-payer plan is consistent with the party’s goals, but so too would be an extension of Medicare’s fees to the commercial market.
Republicans have nothing similar to rally around. In the megabill, the goal is to slow the growth of public subsidization of insurance enrollment and promote work, with the savings devoted to a lower level of taxation. It is a fiscal exercise and not a plan to reform American health care.
It also leaves the party exposed to criticism. If the federal government pulls back support without bringing down total costs, then someone else has to pay for the care provided to patients, or else some care might have to be curtailed. Predictably, as analyses emerge showing the GOP bill will produce these effects, the political blowback has been building.
Republicans should consider what can be done to bring down costs across-the-board so that all purchasers get financial relief. There are several targets available.
Stronger Price Competition.
The first Trump administration pushed for transparent pricing in health care, which was an important step. However, for the market to work, consumers need to be far more engaged and incentivized to opt for lower-priced options. To promote stronger competition, the federal government should require providers of high-volume services to disclose their prices based on standardized bundles, and then also require insurers to let consumers migrate to lower-priced suppliers and keep the savings.
Competitive Bidding.
In Medicare and Medicaid, there is too much reliance on regulated rates and not enough on competitive bidding. Both programs should use bidding to establish the rates that the government will pay for services whenever that is a possibility. For instance, Medicare could require competitive bidding for high-volume services such as laboratory testing and imaging, and then use the submitted prices to build a preferred network of providers.Further, competitive bidding should be used to set rates for Medicare Advantage plans and, in time, to establish a level playing field of competition with the traditional program. Some of the savings from these reforms could be used to provide catastrophic insurance protection as a feature of the entire program, and not just in MA.
More Enrollment in Job-Based Insurance.
Republicans should drop their ambivalence toward insurance enrollment. The balance of the empirical evidence backs the importance of staying in coverage to a person’s health status. Moreover, the public does not want large numbers of uninsured again. To lessen the burden on Medicaid and to promote work, Republicans should look to help low-wage workers secure employer-sponsored insurance (ESI). Redirecting a portion of the tax subsidy for this insurance from high-wage to low-wage workers could induce some individuals out of Medicaid and Affordable Care Act plans and into ESI.
The GOP is right that surging costs for Medicare and Medicaid are a fiscal threat, but if their solutions push more financial risk onto individual consumers and patients, the backlash might hasten changes that Democrats have long sought.
The CBO projects that 10.9 million more people would be uninsured under President Trump’s sweeping budget bill — mostly from the way it would overhaul Medicaid, including new work requirements.
Why it matters:
That would amount to major coverage losses that are certain to fuel Democratic attacks on the measure, and put new pressure on vulnerable Republicans heading into the midterm election cycle, Peter Sullivan wrote first on Pro.
By the numbers:
The CBO on Wednesday projected that 7.8 million more people would be uninsured due to the Medicaid changes, with the rest likely due to Affordable Care Act marketplace changes, including new barriers to signing up that are aimed at fighting fraud.
The estimate includes 1.4 million people without verified citizenship “or satisfactory immigration status,” a reference to undocumented immigrants that some states opt to cover with non-federal dollars in their Medicaid programs.
The CBO was responding to a request from congressional Democrats about the number of uninsured people stemming from the package the House passed last month.
Republicans say the changes would ensure that Medicaid is targeted at beneficiaries deserving of coverage, and that taxpayer money should not be spent on healthy adults who are choosing not to work.
Opponents say people who are working will be caught up in the red tape from the changes and could still lose coverage.
The CBO also said another 5.1 million would become uninsured if Congress opts to let Affordable Care Act premium tax credit subsidies expire next year.
The GOP’s reconciliation bill, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (yes, it’s actually called that), is a cruel exercise in slashing benefits for the poor, the elderly, and the sick to free up fiscal space for yet more tax cuts for the rich. Compounding the harm, these benefit cuts are nowhere near enough to pay for the bill’s tax cuts for the wealthy.
Central to this effort are massive cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces that, as I argued in my recent paper, will exacerbate our ongoing medical debt crisis.
The GOP reconciliation package that the Senate and House recently agreed to instructed the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees spending on health-care programs including Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), to identify up to $880 billion in savings over the next 10 years.
Under the rules of the budget reconciliation process, Republicans need to offset any tax cuts they wish to make permanent with an equal dollar value in cuts to spending so as to remain deficit neutral. Trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthier therefore necessitate trillions of dollars in cuts to spending that fall mostly on the social safety net.
Although they did not quite reach that target, the committee still returned a proposed package of deep cuts and changes to Medicaid and to the ACA marketplaces that would reduce federal medical spending by at least $715 billion over 10 years, with about $625 billion in reduced Medicaid spending.1
After public backlash, Republicans seem to have backed off some of their most radical plans for Medicaid (at least for now—one of the challenges of taking health care from people is that it’s terrible politics, so the precise details of the cuts are likely to remain a moving target until the bill passes).
But all options they are close to settling on would still do horrific damage to the well-being of working-class families.
This includes requiring all Medicaid recipients above the federal poverty line to “cost share” by paying (larger) premiums and copayments,2 cutting federal matching to states that provide public health insurance coverage to undocumented and perhaps documented immigrants (on their own dime), and imposing harsh work requirements on “able-bodied adults without dependent children.” This latter provision will cut federal Medicaid spending by roughly $300 billion over 10 years even though the vast majority (92 percent) of nondisabled, non-elderly adult Medicaid recipients are already working, studying full time, or serving as caregivers. This is because work requirements create burdensome reporting requirements to demonstrate compliance that will cause Medicaid recipients who are already employed to lose their insurance as well—blaming the victim for losing their health care, in essence.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the reconciliation bill would decrease Medicaid enrollment by 10.3 million in 2034(the end of the reconciliation bill budget window).
According to this same analysis, most of these individuals would not obtain other insurance (e.g., through an employer) and would thus become uninsured.
When combined with the bill’s changes to the ACA marketplace and the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits—a wildly successful policy that was introduced as part of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and one that Republicans have shown no inclination to extend—this would result in an additional 13.7 million uninsured individuals in 2034, a 30 percent increase, according to KFF estimates.
Republicans seem hell-bent on undoing the remarkable progress made in the 15 years since the passage of the ACA in reducing the non-elderly uninsured rate from 17.8 percent in 2010 to roughly 9.5 percent today (plus ça change).
But we’ve seen less focus on how this will affect the problem of underinsurance.
Republicans’ Medicaid cost-sharing requirements, the changes they have proposed to the ACA marketplaces, and their determination to let the ARPA premium tax credit enhancements expire will also worsen the problem of underinsurance, an area where we have made considerably less progress.
Taken together, this will worsen the ongoing medical crisis because medical debt is driven by uninsurance and underinsurance.
Medical debt is, unlike in most other countries, and despite the successes of the ACA, a major problem in the United States. KFF found that 20 million adults (almost 1 in 12) owed “significant” medical debt to a health-care provider.3 This number rises when we consider a more expansive definition of medical debt including credit card balances and bank loans used to pay medical providers. Under that definition, an estimated 41 percent of American adults (~107 million people) carried some form of medical debt and 24 percent of American adults (~62 million people) had medical debt that was past due or that they were unable to pay. Among those with medical debt using this more expansive definition, nearly half (44 percent) reported owing at least $2,500, and about one in eight (12 percent) said they owe $10,000 or more. The poor, the sick, the middle-aged, and Black and Hispanic individuals disproportionately bear the brunt of this problem.
The crisis of medical debt and underinsurance is so widely recognized by Americans that a state attorney general candidate can go viral just by talking about the reality of a GoFundMe health-care system millions of Americans face.
The consequences of all this debt are dire—and reflect a health-care system that heals people physically but leaves many permanently scared financially. In 2022, medical debt (using the narrow definition) made up an estimated 58 percent of all debts that had gone to collections, and 62 percent of bankruptcies were attributed in part to medical debt. Medical debt also damages credit scores, leading to a wide variety of negative impacts on financial well-being that can follow families for years.
A poor credit score means that families may be unable to obtain a mortgage or a car loan or may end up paying much higher interest rates.
Credit scores are commonly used by landlords to screen tenants and by employers as part of a background check during the hiring process. Even for those who manage to maintain their credit after taking on medical debt, there are real costs. For those with limited income and assets, debt service may displace spending on food, clothing, and other essentials, leading to material hardship. It can make savings impossible and limit economic mobility.
Medical debt is a problem largely generated by poor policy decisions including, as I argue in my paper, prioritizing and incentivizing health insurance coverage through the private market rather than through Medicaid and Medicare, which offer comprehensive coverage more cheaply. The problem would rapidly disappear if we could extend comprehensive health insurance coverage to the millions of uninsured and underinsured people who live with the constant risk that a sudden medical event could ruin their finances and constrain their futures.
But rather than fix the problem, the GOP plans to throw millions off Medicaid and saddle those who remain with higher costs and more limited coverage. The results of these poor policy decisions will be more sickness, more debt, and higher costs for everyone in exchange for on-paper “savings.” And all this in service of tax cuts for the wealthy they haven’t even bothered to justify.
If you ask Eleanor
“If the old people cannot afford their medical care under their own Social Security allowances, then the burden is going to fall on their children who are in their earning years. This will mean that just at the time when these children who may be having young children of their own and needing medical care, a young couple will also have to consider shouldering the burden for parents as well. This is not fair, and leads to both the children and the older people not getting full coverage, since both will try to shave a little off their needs in order not to make the burden impossible to carry.”
HENRY KOTULA 