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.
The healthcare industry is still licking its wounds from $1 trillion in federal funding cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) signed into law July 4.
Adding insult to injury, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services issued a 913-page proposed rule last Tuesday that includes unwelcome changes especially troublesome for hospitals i.e. adoption of site neutral payments, expansion of hospital price transparency requirements, reduction of inpatient-only services, acceleration of hospital 340B discount repayment obligations and more.
The combination of the two is bad news for healthcare overall and hospitals especially: the timing is precarious:
Economic uncertainty: Economists believe a recession is less likely but uncertainty about tariffs, fear about rising inflation, labor market volatility a housing market slowdown and speculation about interest rates have capital markets anxious. Healthcare is capital intense: the impact of the two in tandem with economic uncertainty is unsettling.
Consumer spending fragility: Consumer spending is holding steady for the time being but housing equity values are dropping, rents are increasing, student loan obligations suspended during Covid are now re-activated, prices for hospital and physicians are increasing faster than other necessities and inflation ticked up slightly last month. Consumer out-of-pocket spending for healthcare products and services is directly impacted by purchases in every category.
Heightened payer pressures: Insurers and employers are expecting double-digit increases for premiums and health benefits next year blaming their higher costs on hospitals and drugs, OBBBA-induced insurance coverage lapses and systemic lack of cost-accountability. For insurers, already reeling from 2023-2024 financial reversals, forecasts are dire. Payers will heighten pressure on healthcare providers—especially hospitals and specialists—as a result.
Why healthcare appears to have borne the brunt of the funding cuts in the OBBBA is speculative:
Might a case have been made for cuts in other departments? Might healthcare programs other than Medicaid have been ripe for “waste, fraud and abuse” driven cuts? Might technology-driven administrative costs reductions across the expanse of federal and state government been more effective than DOGE- blunt experimentation?
Healthcare is 18% of the GDP and 28% of total federal spending: that leaves room for cuts in other industries.
Why hospitals, along with nursing homes and public health programs, are likely to bear the lion’s share of OBBBA’ cut fallout and CMS’ proposed rule disruptions is equally vexing. Might the high-profile successes of some not-for-profit hospital operators have drawn attention? Might Congress have been attentive to IRS Form 990 filings for NFP operators and quarterly earnings of investor-owned systems and assume hospital finances are OK? Might advocacy efforts to maintain the status quo with facility fees, 340B drug discounts, executive compensation et al been overshadowed by concerns about consolidation-induced cost increases and disregard for affordability? Hospital emergency rooms in rural and urban communities, nursing homes, public health programs and many physicians will be adversely impacted by the OBBBA cuts: the impact will vary by state. What’s not clear is how much.
My take:
Having read both the OBBBA and CMS proposed rules and observed reactions from industry, two things are clear to me:
The antipathy toward the healthcare industry among the public and in Congress played a key role in passage of the OBBBA and regulatory changes likely to follow.
Polls show three-fourths of likely voters want to see transformational change to healthcare and two-thirds think the industry is more concerned with its profit over their care: these views lend to hostile regulatory changes. The public and the majority of elected officials think the industry prioritizes protection of the status quo over obligations to serve communities and the greater good.
The result: winners and losers in each sector, lack of continuity and interoperability, runaway costs and poor outcomes.
No sector in healthcare stands as the surrogate for the health and wellbeing of the population. There are well-intended players in each sector who seek the moral high ground for healthcare, but their boards and leaders put short-term sustainability above long-term systemness and purpose. That void needs to be filled.
The timing of these changes is predictably political.
Most of the lower-cost initiatives in both the OBBBA changes and CMS proposals carry obligations to commence in 2026—in time for the November 2026 mid-term campaigns. Most of the results, including costs and savings, will not be known before 2028 or after. They’re geared toward voters inclined to think healthcare is systemically fraudulent, wasteful and self-serving.
And they’re just the start: officials across the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Commerce, Labor and Veterans Affairs will add to the lists.
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.
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.”
Whether they owe providers directly or carry the financial burden in long-term loans and credit card bills, an estimated 41 percent of Americans hold some form of medical debt.
“Medical debt is not inevitable. Rather, it is the product of decades of dysfunctional health-care policy, a market-oriented insurance system, and a patchwork of safety net programs with notable gaps,” writes Stephen Nuñez, Roosevelt’s director of stratification economics, in a new brief.
Health-care policy permeates every stage of American life—whether it’s students applying for Medicaid, workers struggling to find insurance coverage between jobs, or the elderly signing up for Medicare—and the scale of the resulting debt crisis is massive. But these problems are also solvable.
“Biden administration efforts over the past several years have shown that our health-care system can be strengthened to extend insurance to millions more working-class people and help millions more upgrade their insurance coverage with better plans, at incrementally small costs,” Nuñez explains. “But the Trump administration is now poised not only to undo these steps but to enact savage cuts to federal health-care spending that will supercharge the medical debt crisis and together leave millions of people, disproportionately Black and Hispanic, uninsured and underinsured.”
Ultimately, a crisis created by policy choices must also be solved by policy choices:
In 2025, Congress should protect Medicaid and the American Rescue Plan tax credits.
In upcoming state legislative sessions, the 10 states withholding federal Medicaid funds from their residents should expand coverage as stipulated in the Affordable Care Act.
In the coming years, the federal government should implement a comprehensive plan to close the gaps in the American health insurance system.
As Donald Trump begins his second term, America’s healthcare system is in crisis: medical costs are skyrocketing, life expectancy has stagnated, and burnout runs rampant among healthcare workers.
These problems are likely to become worse now that Trump has handed the federal budget over to Elon Musk. The world’s richest man now co-heads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a non-government entity tasked with slashing $500 billion in “wasteful” spending.
The harsh reality is that Musk’s mission can’t succeed without gutting healthcare access and coverage for millions of Americans.
Deleting dollars from American healthcare
Since Trump’s first term, the country’s economic outlook has worsened significantly. In 2016, the national debt was $19 trillion, with $430 billion allocated to annual interest payments. By 2024, the debt had nearly doubled to $36 trillion, requiring $882 billion in debt service—12% of federal spending that is legally untouchable.
Add to that another 50% of government expenditures that Trump has deemed politically off-limits: Social Security ($1.35 trillion), Medicare ($848 billion) and Defense ($1.13 trillion). That leaves just $2.6 trillion—less than 40% of the $6.75 trillion federal budget—available for cuts.
In a recent op-ed, Musk and DOGE co-chair Vivek Ramaswamy proposed eliminating expired or misused funds for programs like Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood, but these examples account for less than $3 billion total—not even 1% of their target.
This shortfall will require Musk to cut billions in government healthcare spending. But where will he find it?
With Medicare off limits to DOGE, the options for major reductions are extremely limited. Big-ticket healthcare items like the $300 billion in tax-deductibility for employer-sponsored health insurance and $120 billion in expired health programs for veterans will prove politically untouchable. One will raise taxes for 160 million working families and the latter will leave veterans without essential medical care.
This means DOGE will have to attack Medicaid and the ACA health exchanges. Here’s how 20 million people will likely lose coverage as a result.
1. Reduced ACA exchange funding
Since its enactment in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has provided premium subsidies to Americans earning 100% to 400% of the federal poverty level. For lower-income families, the ACA also offers Cost Sharing Reductions, which help offset deductibles and co-payments that fund 30% of total medical costs per enrollee. Without CSRs, a family of four earning $40,000 could face deductibles as high as $5,000 before their insurance benefits apply.
If Congress allows CSR payments to expire in 2026, federal spending would decrease by approximately $35 billion annually. If that happens, the Congressional Budget Office expects 7 million individuals to drop out of the exchanges. Worse, without affordable coverage alternatives, 4 million families would lose their health insurance altogether.
2. Slashing Medicaid coverage and tightening eligibility
Medicaid currently provides healthcare for over 90 million low-income Americans, including children, seniors and individuals with disabilities. To meet DOGE’s $500 billion goal, several cost-cutting strategies appear likely:
Reversing Medicaid expansion: The ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility to those earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, reducing the uninsured rate from 16% to 8%. Undoing this expansion would strip coverage from millions in the 40 states that adopted the program.
Imposing work requirements: Proponents argue this could encourage employment, but most Medicaid recipients already work for employers that don’t provide insurance. In reality, work requirements primarily create bureaucratic barriers that disqualify millions of eligible individuals, reducing program costs at the expense of coverage.
Switching to block grants: Unlike the current Medicaid system, which adjusts funding based on need, less-expensive block grants would provide states with fixed allocations. This will, however, force them to cut services and reduce enrollment.
Medicaid currently costs $800 billion annually, with the federal government covering 70%. Reducing enrollment by 10% (9 million people) could save over $50 billion annually, while a 20% reduction (18 million people) could save $100 billion.
Either outcome would devastate families by eliminating access to vital services including prenatal care, vaccinations, chronic disease management and nursing home care. As states are forced to absorb the financial burden, they’ll likely cut education budgets and reduce infrastructure investments.
The first 100 days
The numbers don’t lie: Musk and DOGE could slash Medicaid funding and ACA subsidies to achieve much of their $500 billion target. But the human cost of this approach would be staggering.
Fortunately, there are alternative solutions that would reduce spending without sacrificing quality. Shifting provider payments in ways that reward better outcomes rather than higher volumes, capping drug prices at levels comparable to peer nations, and leveraging generative AI to improve chronic disease management could all drive down costs while preserving access to care.
These strategies address the root causes of high medical spending, including chronic diseases that, if better managed, could prevent 30-50% of heart attacks, strokes, cancers, and kidney failures according to CDC estimates.
Yet, in their pursuit of immediate budgetary cuts, Musk and DOGE have omitted these kinds of reform options. As a result, the health of millions of Americans is at major risk.
After UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, left, was killed and Anthem released a controversial anesthesia policy, people shared their stories of insurance woes. (UnitedHealth Group via AP, Getty)
On Wednesday, Brian Thompson, the chief executive of UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot in midtown Manhattan in what police are calling a “pre-meditated, preplanned, targeted attack.” Days before, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield said in a note to providers that it would limit anesthesia coverage in some states if a surgery or procedure exceeded a set time limit (the policy, set to go into effect in February, was swiftly reversed following an uproar).
Americans receive coverage through their employers, government programs like Medicaid or Medicare or by purchasing it themselves — often at a high cost. Even when an individual is covered by insurance, medical coverage can be expensive, with co-pays, deductibles and premiums adding up. Going to an out-of-network provider for care (which can be done unintentionally, for example if you are taken by ambulance to a hospital) can lead to exorbitant bills.
And most people don’t push back — a study found that only 0.1% of denied claims under the Affordable Care Act, a law designed to make health insurance more affordable and prevent coverage denials for pre-existing conditions, are formally appealed. This leaves many people paying out of pocket for care they thought was covered — or skipping treatment altogether.
That is to say nothing of the emotional labor of navigating the complex system. With Thompson’s killing and the Anthem policy, there’s been widespread response with a similar through line: a pervasive contempt for the state of health insurance in the United States. The most illustrative reactions, though are the personal ones, the tales of denied claims, battles with insurance agents, delayed care, filing for bankruptcy and more.
‘We sat in the hospital for three days’
Jessica Alfano, a content creator who goes by @monetizationmom, shared her story on TikTok about battling an insurance company while her one-year-old child was in the hospital with a brain tumor. When her daughter needed to have emergency surgery at a different hospital was outside their home state, UnitedHealthcare allegedly refused to approve the transfer via ambulance to New York City. She also couldn’t drive her daughter to the hospital as the insurance company told them they would not cover her at the next hospital if they left the hospital by their own will and did not arrive by ambulance. “I vividly remember being on the phone with UnitedHealthcare for days and days — nine months pregnant about to give birth alone — while my other baby was sitting in a hospital room,” she said.
While pregnant, Allie, who posts on TikTok as @theseaowl44, went to the hospital in “excruciating pain,” she said in a video. After initially being sent home by a doctor who said she was having pain from a urinary tract infection and the baby sitting on her bladder, she returned to the hospital to learn she was suffering from appendicitis. She was sent to a bigger hospital in St. Louis, where she had emergency surgery. Her son survived the surgery but died the next day after she delivered him.
About 45 minutes later, Allie suffered a pulmonary embolism and had to have an emergency dilation and curettage (D&C) to remove the placenta, nearly dying in the process. It was after all of this that she learned she had been sent to a hospital that was out of network. “We ended up with a bill from the hospital that was more than what we paid for the home that we live in, and it was going to take probably, I don’t know, 20 to 30 years to pay off this hospital bill,” Allie said. “We opted to have to file bankruptcy, but not before I exhausted every appeal with [insurance company] Cigna — I wrote letters, I spilled my heart out, I talked on the phone, I explained our situation and our story, thinking surely someone would understand this was not my fault.
On the third and final appeal, because they only allow you three, Cigna’s appeal physician told me, point blank, it was my fault that when I was dying from a ruptured appendix in the ER, that I didn’t check and make sure that the hospital I was being sent to by ambulance was in my insurance network.”
Hundreds of similar stories are being told, but the comments section on these videos paints a picture in itself. “I wear leg braces and walk with crutches as a paraplegic and they tried to deny my new leg braces and only approve me a wheelchair. They wanted to take my ability to WALK away,” commented TikToker @ChickWithSticks.
“Perfectly healthy pregnancy, until it wasn’t,” TikToker Meagan Pitts shared. “NICU stay was covered by my insurance, the neonatologist group contracted by the NICU: Denied. I’m sorry, what?”
Another wrote that her son was born with a congenital heart defect and needed open heart surgery. “My husband changed jobs & we switched to UHC,” she wrote. “They DENIED my son’s cath lab intervention!”
‘The most stressful time of my life’
One Redditor, @Sweet_Nature_7015, wrote that they struggled with UnitedHealthcare when they and their husband were in a “terrible car accident” that was the other driver’s fault. Since United Healthcare only covered two days in the hospital, the Redditor wrote that the case manager tried to find a way to “kick him out of the hospital” — but since their husband was in a coma, he was unable to be discharged safely. “The stress of being told — your health insurance isn’t covering this anymore, we have to discharge your husband — while he’s in a freaking coma and on a ventilator, etc, rediculous [sic],” they wrote. “I have to sign some papers to give up all of my husband’s benefits via his job – which included his life insurance that he had paid into, so we lost that. This allowed him to be covered by Medicaid. I can’t even put into words how much stress UHC caused on top of my husband (and my) health issues in the most stressful time of my life.”
The kicker, they wrote, was that years later the couple was awarded a court settlement from the other driver in the accident — and “UHC rolled up to the court and took the entire settlement money as their payment for those two days in the hospital they had paid for.”
‘I’m one of the lucky ones’
On the same thread, Redditor @sebastorio wrote that they went to the emergency room for an eye injury, which their doctor said could have resulted in a loss of sight. “UHC denied my claim, and I paid $1,400 out of pocket,” they said. “I’m one of the lucky ones. Can’t imagine how people would feel if that happened for critical or life-saving care.”
‘Constant stream of hostile collection calls’
Redditor @colonelcatsup opened up about their experience with insurance while having a baby, writing that they went into premature labor while insured under one company but that at midnight, their insurance switched to United Healthcare. “I gave birth in the morning. My daughter was two months early and was in the NICU for weeks so the bill was over $80,000 and United refused to pay it, saying it wasn’t their responsibility,” they wrote. “In addition to dealing with a premature baby, I had a constant stream of hostile collection calls and mail from the hospital for 18 months. My credit took a hit.”
Eventually, their employer hired an attorney to fight UHC, and the insurance company eventually paid. “I will never forgive them for the added stress hanging over me for the first year and a half of my child’s life,” they wrote.
‘Debt or death’
On Substack, on which she posted an excerpt from her Instagram, author Bess Kalb also recounted her experience with health insurance coverage when she was bleeding during her pregnancy and was asked by an EMT what insurance she had before deciding whether they would go to the nearest hospital. When her husband said to take Kalb to the hospital, despite not knowing the insurance implications, their bill was more than $10,000.https://www.instagram.com/p/DDNphXCp3Qu/embed/captioned/?cr=1&v=12
“The private insurance industry forces millions of Americans to choose between debt or death,” Kalb wrote. “Often, ghoulishly, the outcome is both. If I were worried about an ambulance out of coverage, I would have waited at home or waited in traffic for an hour to cross Los Angeles to get to my doctor’s office and sat in the waiting room bleeding out and perhaps would not be here to write this, and neither would my son.”
Health policy and politics are inextricably linked. Policy is about what the government can do to shift the financing, delivery, and quality of health care, so who controls the government has the power to shape those policies.
Elections, therefore, always have consequences for the direction of health policy – who is the president and in control of the executive branch, which party has the majority in the House and the Senate with the ability to steer legislation, and who has control in state houses. When political power in Washington is divided, legislating on health care often comes to a standstill, though the president still has significant discretion over health policy through administrative actions. And, stalemates at the federal level often spur greater action by states.
Health care issues often, but not always, play a dominant role in political campaigns. Health care is a personal issue, so it often resonates with voters. The affordability of health care, in particular, is typically a top concern for voters, along with other pocketbook issues, And, at 17% of the economy, health care has many industry stakeholders who seek influence through lobbying and campaign contributions. At the same time, individual policy issues are rarely decisive in elections.
Health “reform” – a somewhat squishy term generally understood to mean proposals that significantly transform the financing, coverage, and delivery of health care – has a long history of playing a major role in elections.
Harry Truman campaigned on universal health insurance in 1948, but his plan went nowhere in the face of opposition from the American Medical Association and other groups. While falling short of universal coverage, the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 under Lyndon Johnson dramatically reduced the number of uninsured people. President Johnson signed the Medicare and Medicaid legislation at the Truman Library in Missouri, with Truman himself looking on.
Later, Bill Clinton campaigned on health reform in 1992, and proposed the sweeping Health Security Act in the first year of his presidency. That plan went down to defeat in Congress amidst opposition from nearly all segments of the health care industry, and the controversy over it has been cited by many as a factor in Democrats losing control of both the House and the Senate in the 1994 midterm elections.
For many years after the defeat of the Clinton health plan, Democrats were hesitant to push major health reforms. Then, in the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama campaigned once again on health reform, and proposed a plan that eventually became the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA ultimately passed Congress in 2010 with only Democratic votes, after many twists and turns in the legislative process. The major provisions of the ACA were not slated to take effect until 2014, and opposition quickly galvanized against the requirement to have insurance or pay a tax penalty (the “individual mandate”) and in response to criticism that the legislation contained so-called “death panels” (which it did not). Republicans took control of the House and gained a substantial number of seats in the Senate during the 2010 midterm elections, fueled partly by opposition to the ACA.
The ACA took full effect in 2014, with millions gaining coverage, but more people viewed the law unfavorably than favorably, and repeal became a rallying cry for Republicans in the 2016 campaign. Following the election of Donald Trump, there was a high profile effort to repeal the law, which was ultimately defeated following a public backlash. The ACA repeal debate was a good example of the trade-offs inherent in all health policies. Republicans sought to reduce federal spending and regulation, but the result would have been fewer people covered and weakened protections for people with pre-existing conditions. KFF polling showed that the ACA repeal effort led to increased public support for the law, which persists today.
The 2024 election presents the unusual occurrence of two candidates – current vice president Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump – who have already served in the White House and have detailed records for comparison, as explained in this JAMA column. With President Joe Biden dropping out of the campaign, Harris inherits the record of the current administration, but has also begun to lay out an agenda of her own.
While Trump failed as president to repeal the ACA, his administration did make significant changes to it, including repealing the individual mandate penalty, reducing federal funding for consumer assistance (navigators) by 84% and outreach by 90%, and expanding short-term insurance plans that can exclude coverage of preexisting conditions.
In a strange policy twist, the Trump administration ended payments to ACA insurers to compensate them for a requirement to provide reduced cost sharing for low-income patients, with Trump saying it would cause Obamacare to be “dead” and “gone.” But, insurers responded by increasing premiums, which in turn increased federal premium subsidies and federal spending, likely strengthening the ACA.
In the 2024 campaign, Trump has vowed several times to try again to repeal and replace the ACA, though not necessarily using those words, saying instead he would create a plan with “much better health care.”
Although the Trump administration never issued a detailed plan to replace the ACA, Trump’s budget proposals as president included plans to convert the ACA into a block grant to states, cap federal funding for Medicaid, and allow states to relax the ACA’s rules protecting people with preexisting conditions. Those plans, if enacted, would have reduced federal funding for health care by about $1 trillion over a decade.
In contrast, the Biden-Harris administration has reinvigorated the ACA by restoring funding for consumer assistance and outreach and by increasing premium subsidies to make coverage more affordable, resulting in record enrollment in ACA Marketplace plans and historically low uninsured rates. The increased premium subsidies are currently slated to expire at the end of 2025, so the next president will be instrumental in determining whether they get extended. Harris has vowed to extend the subsidies, while Trump has been silent on the issue.
The health care issue most likely to figure prominently in the general election is abortion rights, with sharp contrasts between the presidential candidates and the potential to affect voter turnout. In all the states where voters have been asked to weigh in directly on abortion so far (California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, and Vermont), abortion rights have been upheld.
Trump paved the way for the US Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade by appointing judges and justices opposed to abortion rights. Trump recently said, “for 54 years they were trying to get Roe v Wade terminated, and I did it and I’m proud to have done it.” During the current campaign, Trump has said that abortion policy should now be left to the states.
As president, Trump had also cut off family planning funding to Planned Parenthood and other clinics that provide or refer for abortion services, but this policy was reversed by the Biden-Harris administration.
Harris supports codifying into federal the abortion access protections in Roe v Wade.
Addressing the High Price of Prescription Drugs and Health Care Services
Trump has often spotlighted the high price of prescription drugs, criticizing both the pharmaceutical industry and pharmacy benefit managers. Although he kept the issue of drug prices on the political agenda as president, in the end, his administration accomplished little to contain them.
The Trump administration created a demonstration program, capping monthly co-pays for insulin for some Medicare beneficiaries at $35. Late in his presidency, his administration issued a rule to tie Medicare reimbursement of certain physician-administered drugs to the prices paid in other countries, but it was blocked by the courts and never implemented. The Trump administration also issued regulations paving the way for states to import lower-priced drugs from Canada. The Biden-Harris administration has followed through on that idea and recently approved Florida’s plan to buy drugs from Canada, though barriers still remain to making it work in practice.
With Harris casting the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, far-reaching legislation that requires the federal government to negotiate the prices of certain drugs in Medicare, which was previously banned. The law also guarantees a $35 co-pay cap for insulin for all Medicare beneficiaries, and caps out-of-pocket retail drug costs for the first time in Medicare. Harris supports accelerating drug price negotiation to apply to more drugs, as well as extending the $35 cap on insulin copays and the cap on out-of-pocket drug costs to everyone outside of Medicare.
How Trump would approach drug price negotiations if elected is unclear. Trump supported federal negotiation of drug prices during his 2016 campaign, but he did not pursue the idea as president and opposed a Democratic price negotiation plan. During the current campaign, Trump said he “will tell big pharma that we will only pay the best price they offer to foreign nations,” claiming that he was the “only president in modern times who ever took on big pharma.”
Beyond drug prices, the Trump administration issued regulations requiring hospitals and health insurers to be transparent about prices, a policy that is still in place and attracts bipartisan support.
Ultimately, irrespective of the issues that get debated during the campaign, the outcome of the 2024 election – who controls the White House and Congress – will have significant implications for the future direction of health care, as is almost always the case.
However, even with changes in party control of the federal government, only incremental movement to the left or the right is the norm. Sweeping changes in health policy, such as the creation of Medicare and Medicaid or passage of the ACA, are rare in the U.S. political system. Similarly, Medicare for All, which would even more fundamentally transform the financing and coverage of health care, faces long odds, particularly in the current political environment. This is the case even though most of the public favors Medicare for All, though attitudes shift significantly after hearing messages about its potential impacts.
Importantly, it’s politically difficult to take benefits away from people once they have them. That, and the fact that seniors are a strong voting bloc, has been why Social Security and Medicare have been considered political “third rails.” The ACA and Medicaid do not have quite the same sacrosanct status, but they may be close.
HENRY KOTULA 