“Value-based care” in UnitedHealth’s Optum division apparently means fewer doctors for fatter margins.
UnitedHealth Group announced last week that it plans to cut thousands of doctors from its network, a move CEO Stephen Hemsley said will increase profits for the country’s richest health care conglomerate.
UnitedHealth assembled a network of nearly 90,000 physicians across the country as it bought hundreds of physician practices, began managing the Medicaid program in many states and became the biggest Medicare Advantage company. It also owns one of the nation’s largest pharmacy benefit managers, Optum Rx.
Of those 90,000 doctors, the company says fewer than 10,000 are currently directly employed by UnitedHealth. The company has been gobbling up a broad range of medical facilities in recent years, buying or creating nearly 2,700 subsidiaries and gaining direct control or affiliation with 10% of doctors working in the U.S. in the process.
The announcement by Hemsley came during a third-quarter earnings call with investors last week, when UnitedHealth announced it made $4.3 billion in profit in the last three months by generating revenues of $113 billion.
Read more here on how they did that. Spoiler alert: It involves raising health care premiums and collecting billions more from the Medicare Trust Fund and seniors.
Hemsley said the company’s health care services division, Optum Health, needed to consolidate its physician rolls to improve its bottom line.
He passed questions about how that will be done to Optum’s CEO Patrick Conway, who said too many doctors in the network weren’t aligned with UnitedHealth’s business model, which he called “value-based care.”
“We are moving to employed or contractually dedicated physicians wherever possible,” Conway said.
Overseeing an empire that offers health insurance, pharmacy benefits and doctors who provide care and write prescriptions, UnitedHealth has become America’s third-richest company behind Walmart and Amazon. There are 29.9 million Americans enrolled in UnitedHealthcare’s commercial plans, 8.4 million in its Medicare Advantage plans and 7.5 million in state-run Medicaid programs.
In 2024, the company brought in more than $400 billion in revenue, according to its financial filings.
Americans’ health care premiums are expected to rise drastically in 2026 after climbing as much as 6% on average this year compared to 2024.
UnitedHealth’s decision to remove doctors from networks means that many of its patients will have to find new, in-network physicians unless they change their insurers.
UnitedHealth isn’t alone in taking steps to trim its medical expenses to boost its bottom line. Both CVS Health, which owns Aetna, the PBM CVS Caremark and more than 9,000 retail pharmacies, and Cigna, which owns the PBM Express Scripts, also told investors they are implementing plans to improve earnings next year.
CVS Health is just behind UnitedHealth at No. 5 on the country’s Fortune 500 list, bringing in nearly $373 billion in revenue last year. Cigna is 13th with $247 billion in revenue.
The U.S. health system’s future is uncertain but outside forces will define its direction.
9 structural changes appear necessary to a transformed system of health that’s affordable, comprehensive and effective.
Last week, I had a 27-hour stay in a hospital emergency room waiting for an open bed and a morning at the food pantry loading boxes in anticipation of a possible SNAP program suspension surge. It wasn’t the week I expected. So much for plans!
Such is the case for health insurance coverage for millions in the U.S. as the federal government shutdown enters Week 6. Democrats are holding out for continuation of Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance subsidies that enable 22 million to “buy” insurance cheaper, and Republicans are holding out for federal spending cuts reflected in the One Big Beautiful Act (July 2025) that included almost a trillion reduction in Medicaid appropriations thru 2036.
ACA subsidies at the heart of the shutdown successfully expanded coverage in tandem with Medicaid expansion but added to its costs and set in motion corporatization and consolidation in every sector of the health system. The pandemic exposed the structural divide between public health programs and local health systems, and insurance premium increases and prior authorization protocols precipitated hostility toward insurers and blame games between hospitals, insurers and drug companies for perpetual cost increases.
Having mediated discussions between the White House and industry trade groups as part of the ACA’s design (2009), I witnessed first hand the process of its development into law, the underlying assumptions on which it is based and the politics before and after its passage in March 2010. Its hanging chads were obvious. Its implementation stalled. Its potential to lower costs and improve quality never realized. It was a Plan disabled by special interests that rightly exploited its flaws and political brinksmanship that divided the country. But more fundamentally, it has failed to lower costs and improve affordability because it failed to integrate outside considerations—private capital, employers, technologies, clinical innovations and consumer finances—in its calculus.
Sixteen years later, healthcare is once again the eye of the economic storm. Insiders blame inconsistent regulatory enforcement and lack of adequate funding as root causes. Outsiders blame lack of cost controls. consolidation and disregard for affordability. Thus, while attention to subsidized insurance coverage and SNAP benefits might temporarily calm public waters, they’re not the solution.
All parties and all sides seem to agree the health system broken. For example, in my trustee surveys before planning sessions with Boards of health systems, medical groups and insurers, the finding is clear:
92% says the future of the U.S. health system in 7-10 years is fundamentally changed and not repeat of its past.
84% say their organizations are not prepared because short-term issues limit their ability to long-term planning.
Republicans think market forces will fix it. Democrats think federal policy will fix it. The public thinks it’s become Big Business that puts its interests before theirs. And the industry’s trade groups—AMA, AHA, AHIP, PhRMA, Adame, APHA, et al—face intense pressure from members adversely impacted by unwanted regulatory policies.
Few enjoy the luxury of long-term planning. That doesn’t excuse the need to address it. If a clear path to the system’s future is not built, incrementalism will enable its inevitable insolvency and forced re-construction.
What’s the solution? When comparing the U.S. health system to high performing systems in other high-income countries, these findings jump out:
All spend less on healthcare services and more on social services than the U.S.
All include government and privately-owned operators
All fund their systems primarily through a combination of federal appropriations and private payments by employers and citizens.
All pursue clinical standardization based on evidence.
All are dealing with funding constraints as their governments address competing priorities.
All are transitioning from episodic to chronic health as their populations age and healthiness erodes.
All are focused on workforce modernization and technologic innovations to lower costs and reduce demand for specialty services.
All enable private investment in their systems to increase competition and stimulate innovation.
All facilitate local/regional regulatory oversight to address distinctions in demand and resources.
All face with growing public dissatisfaction.
All are expensive to operate.
No system is perfect. None offers a copy-paste solution for U.S. taxpayers. And even if one seemed dramatically better, it would be a generational surge rooted in futility that welcome it.
What’s the answer? At the risk of oversimplicity, the future seems most likely built on these 9 structural changes:
Integrate social services (public health) with delivery.
Create comprehensive primary and preventive health gatekeeping inclusive of physical and behavioral health, nutrition, prophylactic dentistry and consumer education.
Rationalize specialty services and therapies to high value providers.
Incentivize responsible health behaviors across the entire population.
Increase private capital investments in healthcare.
Modernize the workforce.
Fund the system strategically.
Define and disclose affordability, quality and value systemically.
Facilitate technology-enabled self-care.
This will not happen quickly nor result from current momentum: the inertia of the status quo leans substantially toward protectionism not because it’s unaware. The risks are high. And while the majority of Americans are frustrated by its performance, there’s no referent to which look as a better mousetrap.
I anticipated last week would be pretty uneventful. It wasn’t. My Plan didn’t work out due, in part, to circumstances I didn’t foresee or control.
Healthcare’s the same. Outside forces seen or not will impact its future dramatically. Plans have to be made though Black Swans like the pandemic are inevitable. But long-term planning built on plausible bets are necessary to every healthcare organization’s future.
America’s health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system.
– Walter Cronkite
Healthcare policy in America is too short-sighted and vulnerable to party-politics. We need a system that’s built to last.
As open enrollment through the ACA marketplace begins November 1, millions of Americans will soon discover their health insurance rates going up in 2026 as the direct result of ACA tax subsidies expiring because party politicians in charge of the Senate refuse to budge. If you know how much your rates will be increasing in 2026, please share so I can see the impact that this inaction will have on regular folks.
Career politicians like my opponent Mike Rounds aren’t willing to stray from the party line to make sure Americans and their families get affordable healthcare, and in the process they are causing innumerable harm to not just those Americans on ACA, but also all the furloughed federal employees and families on SNAP. Something needs to change.
As an Independent candidate who supports pragmatic solutions, I will not claim my proposals are the best or only choices, but I will claim just about anything will be overall less expensive and more effective than the status quo. The bottom line is that our dysfunctional politics have us fighting over half-measure solutions to today’s problems instead of complete solutions to tomorrow’s.
Overhauling American healthcare is a complex challenge, but that cannot let it deter us. Americans deserve access to affordable, quality care. According to a KFF analysis, healthcare accounted for 27% of federal spending in fiscal year 2024. The U.S. spends far more per person on healthcare than any of the other 37 members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Despite spending nearly twice as much per person as similar wealthy countries, we still rank poorly on key health outcomes.
America does, however, hold a commanding lead in medical debt, accounting for between 50% and 66% of annual personal bankruptcies. Other wealthy countries clearly understand better how to set up a healthcare system that is both less expensive and produces the same or better outcomes.
Considering the immense costs and mediocre outcomes, I am reminded of the famous observation from Dr. Amos Wilson: “If you want to understand any problem in America, you need to look at who profits from that problem, not at who suffers from that problem.” Having done so, I support an incremental reinvention of the American healthcare system that doesn’t just solve immediate problems such as premium hikes, expiring ACA subsidies, or Medicare cuts, but also secures a stable and healthy future for the American people.
My plan for America’s healthcare system has three basic steps, ensuring folks can get the care they need, now and in the future.
Stage 1: Fixing the Supply Side: Regulate Healthcare Companies, Lower Drug Prices, & Encourage Preventive Care
The healthcare industry (from insurers to providers) is a functional monopoly, especially at the local/regional level, similar to electric, gas, and telecommunications companies. It deserves to be treated the same way. Drawing from how the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (and similar entities in other states) regulate utility companies to ensure that they provide “reliable service” and “reasonable rates,” creating a regulatory framework for healthcare companies (including insurers) is a good first step in adapting our current system into one that considers the needs of regular folks. Providers shouldn’t have to butt heads with insurers to provide the services that patients need, so creating a more transparent and regulated system would benefit every level of the process.
Pharmaceutical companies have the highest profit margins in the healthcare industry. According to a RAND report, Americans pay 278% higher prescription drug prices than similar countries where the government negotiates drug pricing. The common-sense solution is for the federal government to negotiate pricing for all drugs. Doing so will yield much greater savings for both the government and consumers.
To offset reduced pharmaceutical company profits and also help more consumers, the U.S. should negotiate a treaty with the European Union and other G7 countries to establish a pharmaceutical common market based on uniform drug development/approval standards enabling the elimination of trade barriers for drugs.
RFK Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda includes multiple nonsensical proposals that are likely to do the opposite, but there are a handful of beneficial ideas. A MAHA focus on preventive care that strengthens primary care, expands access to screenings, and incentivizes healthy lifestyles will lower long-term healthcare spending the same way that keeping up routine maintenance on your car prevents big repair bills in the future.
Investing in community health centers, mobile clinics, and telehealth services will make preventive care more accessible, particularly in underserved rural and urban areas. Similarly, reducing reliance on highly processed foods and ensuring government nutrition assistance programs incentivize and enable healthy foods would also pay dividends.
Many states approve the rates that insurers charge consumers, but these rates increase as the base cost of providing healthcare services increases. Holding healthcare companies, providers and insurers alike, to uniform standards and making information transparently available for comparison will remove the various pressures driving up the cost of care, keeping rates down for consumers.
Stage 2: Fixing the Demand Side: Create a Public Option, Streamline Administration, Increase Residency Slots
Profits are up 230% for the top 5 health insurance companies since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was adopted, while family premiums have also skyrocketed. While I think it was a step in the right direction to provide folks with healthcare, it isn’t a viable permanent solution. Creating a broadly available public option would enable Americans to buy into a health insurance plan administered by the government.
A public option like this wouldn’t have a profit motive, so it would be able to offer lower-cost plans, creating a baseline for other companies to compete with. Increased competition would drive down premiums and improve quality of service across the market, even amongst private for-profit insurers.
Technology can also help lower costs by reducing the complicated bureaucracy healthcare administrators must navigate. Healthcare providers currently spend enormous time and money dealing with insurance paperwork, eligibility verification, and billing disputes. Universally interoperable electronic health records (EHRs) and streamlined billing systems would significantly reduce costs. Uniform standards for these processes and better technology infrastructure would free up providers’ time to focus more on patient care.
By 2036, the U.S. is projected to need 86,000 more physicians than it will have. The primary cause of the growing shortage is a 1997 law freezing federal support for Medicare-funded residency positions. Limiting the number of doctors in training also fosters misallocation of training slots across the country, creating a mismatch between where they train and where they are needed most. Correcting this self-inflicted shortage is essential to maximizing access.
On the subject of innovative approaches to providing healthcare, fee-for-service payment models reward volume over value, encouraging unnecessary tests and procedures. Transitioning to value-based care, where providers are paid based on patient outcomes, can lead to better health outcomes at a lower cost. Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), bundled payments, and capitation models (in which providers receive a fixed fee per patient for a specific time period regardless of services delivered) have shown promise in reducing spending while maintaining or improving quality.
Stage 3: Use The Foundation To Build a Better System
While I believe that our leaders today should be looking towards the future with long-lasting solutions rather than scrambling for band-aid policies, I also know that we shouldn’t put the cart before the horse. I believe that Stages 1 and 2 lay the foundation for a healthier America and a more streamlined healthcare system. Stage 3 of my plan is geared towards keeping our options open for the future of American healthcare.
All OECD countries with lower per-person healthcare spending provide universal or near-universal coverage to their citizens. Various universal healthcare systems seem to be an effective way to improve access and reduce systemic costs. In particular, I think that looking to our allies such as Canada (with a single-payer system) and Germany (with a multi-payer system) would be a good place to start. In both systems, the government negotiates prices directly with providers and pharmaceutical companies, leading to significant cost savings for consumers.
Conclusion
In summary, the American healthcare system doesn’t suffer from a lack of resources but rather anti-competitive profit-seeking, inefficiency, and a lack of imagination. Creative solutions lie in addressing the supply and demand side of the healthcare industry, continuously blending technological innovation, community-based delivery, and incentivizing healthier living.
No single policy will fix the U.S. healthcare system overnight, but a combination of reforms can dramatically improve access and lower costs. Providing a public option is a foundational step that keeps options open for other innovations. In tandem, reforms such as drug price negotiation, investment in preventive care, value-based payments, and administrative simplification can deliver a more efficient and equitable healthcare system. Political will and public support are crucial, but the long-term benefits for individuals, businesses, and the broader economy make these changes not only possible but necessary.
The path forward is not and cannot be a purely partisan choice of public versus private. It must be guided solely by a simple question: What is most effective at making healthcare cheaper, faster, and more accessible for everyone? At this point, I believe a robust public option is essential, but I remain unsure whether a single-payer or a refined version of a multi-payer universal system is warranted. I’m keeping an open mind.
I am sure that Washington politicians shouldn’t be screwing over regular Americans by making their healthcare inaccessible or more expensive. As South Dakota’s Independent senator, I would be empowered to break through party-first politics to make sure people always come first.
The American healthcare is complicated, so this article leans on the longer side to try and do it justice. Thank you for reading.
For four years, people buying health care on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace have benefited from government subsidies that made their plans more inexpensive, and thus more accessible.
Now, those subsidies have become a key point of contention between Democrats and Republicans in a government shutdown that went into effect on Oct. 1 after both sides failed to reach a deal.
Democrats want Congress to extend the enhanced premium tax credits first added in 2021; without an extension, the tax credits expire at the end of 2025 and experts say premium prices could double in 2026.
“They know they’re screwed if this debate turns into one about healthcare. And guess what? That’s just what we’re doing. We are making this debate a debate on healthcare,” said U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, hours before the government shut down.
Republicans say that Democrats want to extend free health care for unauthorized immigrants, a talking point that is not true but that has nevertheless been repeated many times by GOP politicians. (Democrats want to reverse health policy changes that the GOP’s tax law enacted, including limits to federal funding for health care for “lawfully present” immigrants.)
Neither side appears ready to budge, which means that as of right now, people who buy health care on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace are about to be in for some sticker shock. Monthly out-of-pocketcosts are set to jump as much as 75% for 2026 because of the disappearance of federal subsidies and higher rates from insurers.
“Most enrollees are going to be facing a double whammy of both higher insurance bills and losing the subsidies that lower much of the cost,” says Matt McGough, a policy analyst at KFF for the Program on the ACA and the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker.
KFF recently calculated that the median rate increase proposed by insurers is 18%, more than double last year’s 7% median proposed increase. But the actual blow to patients is going to be much higher. That’s because enhancements to premium tax credits are set to expire at the end of 2025.
Around 93% of marketplace enrollees—19.3 million people—received the enhanced premium tax credits, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, saving them $700 yearly on average. For some people, the tax credits meant that they wouldn’t have to pay an insurance premium if they chose certain plans. For others, it meant getting hundreds of dollars off a health plan they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to afford.
Premium tax credits helped people afford plans on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces between 2014 and 2021. Then, in 2021, enhancements to those premium tax credits went into effect with the American Rescue Plan. Before 2021, premium tax credits were only available to people making between 100-400% of the federal poverty limit—so between $25,8200 and $103,280 for a family of three in 2025. The enhanced tax credits were expanded to households with incomes over 400% of the federal poverty limit, and were also made more generous for everyone. That wide range meant they subsidized coverage for people who otherwise would not have gotten any break on their premiums.
The enhancements to the premium tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of 2025, significantly boosted enrollment in Affordable Care Act marketplace plans. More than 20 million people enrolled in marketplace coverage in 2024, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, up from 11.2 million in February 2021, before the enhancements to the tax credits.
With costs being lowered by half, individuals and families decided, ‘OK, maybe this is financially worthwhile,’” says McGough. “Whereas previously, they thought that they didn’t utilize that much health care, so it wasn’t worth it to purchase health care on the marketplaces.”
Why insurers want to increase rates
Every year, health insurers submit filings to state regulators that detail how much they need to change rates for their ACA-regulated health plans. KFF analyzed 312 insurers across 50 states and the District of Columbia; they found that insurers are requesting the largest rate changes since 2018.
They are requesting the median 18% increase for a few reasons, including rising health care costs, tariffs, and the expiration of the premium tax credit enhancements, KFF found. Health care costs have been rising for years, but insurers say that the cost of medical care is up about 8% from last year. They say that tariffs may put upward pressure on the costs of pharmaceuticals and that growing demand for GLP-1 drugs such as Ozempic and Wegovy is driving up their expenses.
Worker shortages are also driving health care costs up, according to the KFF analysis. It also found that consolidation among health care providers was leading to higher prices because those providers had more market power.
Everyone’s bottom line could be affected
When they went into effect, the enhanced premium tax credits pushed some people into the marketplace who might otherwise have been uncertain about whether to get health insurance. The tax credits were graduated so that people with the lowest incomes got the most help, but they also reached people with slightly higher incomes.
Many people don’t know that those enhancements to the premium tax credits are going away, says Jennifer Sullivan, director of health coverage access for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Her organization has been talking to people across the country about how they may be affected if Congress does not extend the enhancements, and has found that even increases of $100 or $200 a month may be enough to force some people out of the marketplace.
“It’s a huge increase in anyone’s budget, particularly at a time when groceries are up and the cost of housing is up and so is everything else,” Sullivan says.
There are other reasons the ACA marketplace may see fewer enrollees, she says. A handful of policies passed by Congress require more verification to enroll in ACA plans and cut immigrant eligibility, for example.
Fewer enrollees are bad news for everyone else. The people who are likely to drop coverage are those who don’t need it for lifesaving treatment or medicine. That means the pool of people who are still covered by ACA plans will be sicker and more expensive to care for.
“The people who are left are statistically more likely to be people with higher health care needs,” says Sullivan, with CBPP. “Those are the folks that are going to jump through extra hoops, whether it’s more paperwork or higher premiums or higher out-of-pocket costs, because they absolutely know they need the coverage.”
There are other society-wide effects to people dropping their health insurance coverage. Many uninsured people end up in emergency rooms for care because that’s their only option, and sometimes, they can’t pay. That increases the cost of health care for everyone else, says Sullivan.
Amy Bielawski, 60, is one of the people who is going to look at her options when rates for marketplace plans are listed in October and decide whether or not to enroll. Bielawski, an entrepreneur and entertainer who performs belly dancing at parties, has spent much of her life without health care.
She finally signed up for an ACA plan in 2019, and was able to go to a doctor and diagnose her hypothyroidism and uterine fibroids. Last year, because of the enhanced premium tax credits, she paid $0 a month in premiums—which will almost certainly go up.
“I’m afraid, I’m very afraid,” says Bielawski, who lives in Georgia. “I can’t wrap my head around it because there are so many things that can go wrong with my health.”
Where politicians stand now
Addressing this uncertainty is one key reason the Affordable Care Act passed in the first place in 2010. It has dramatically improved health coverage for Americans; nearly 50 million people, or one in seven U.S. residents, have been covered by health insurance plans through ACA marketplaces since they first launched in late 2013.
But it has also faced numerous challenges, and Republicans have long said that weakening or revamping the law is a high priority.
It’s unclear if the hassle of a government shutdown will make them change their tune. In September, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, said he was open to addressing the expiration of the subsidies, but that he did not want to tie any of those policy changes to government funding measures. Sen. Mike Rounds, also a Republican of South Dakota, has suggested a one-year extension to the subsidies, after which the tax credits return to pre-pandemic levels.
Many Republicans appear determined to end the subsidies eventually, and their insistence on scaling back spending on health care policy seems to be having an impact.
Sullivan, with the CBPP, says that the changes to the Affordable Care Act and looming cuts to Medicaid have the potential to dramatically reduce the number of people able to afford regular medical care in the country. These cuts come at a time when key indicators like infant mortality rates and life expectancy rates are worsening.
“We are seeing a real weakening of that safety net that we spent the last 10-15 years fortifying,” she says.
After a long career as a nurse, Lisa Bower, now 61, retired, started working as a part-time nanny, and, in 2021, realized she needed health insurance. The Illinois resident took to the Internet to sign up for a plan on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace.
But something went wrong and she somehow ended up on another website that looked a lot like a health insurance marketplace. She entered her phone number and soon started getting calls and texts from people who wanted to help her get health insurance.
Within a few minutes, she was registered for a plan that she thought was ACA-compliant. But Bower had instead signed up for what’s called a fixed indemnity plan, which is not actually health insurance and which just pays a small amount for covered services. She didn’t realize that she didn’t have proper health insurance until the fall of 2025, when her son was looking for a tax form that proved she had marketplace insurance and, unable to find it, started digging into her health care paperwork.
Over three years, he found, she’d paid about $16,000 to the fixed indemnity company while receiving very little benefit. During this time, she’d paid out of pocket for costs like doctor’s appointments and medications. Had she gotten an ACA-compliant plan, she probably wouldn’t have had to pay much in premiums at all, her son says, because her low income would have qualified her for subsidies.
“I did think at the time that it was less painful to sign up than I thought it would be,” says Bower. “I just chose what I thought was a cheap plan and didn’t think much about it.”
Bower’s son, Jack, says that Illinois’s real health care marketplace found evidence of Lisa starting to sign up in 2021, but says that she did not complete the application. Instead, he guesses, she got lured away by Google ads and ended up somewhere else.
“I think she holds a third of the blame, and another third of the blame goes to this company that knowingly does this marketing to get people to pay for things they don’t actually want,” Jack says. “But the other third of the blame goes to our health care system, which is so complicated that companies just thrive in the confusion and an astute person can’t make heads or tails of it.”
The Bowers’ experience is not particularly unusual. Confusion about navigating insurance writ large and the Affordable Care Act marketplace in particular has led many people to end up with plans that they think are health insurance which in fact are not health insurance. They mistakenly click away from healthcare.gov, the website where people are supposed to sign up for ACA-compliant plans, and end up on a site with a misleading name that may provide them with an ACA-compliant plan but also might not.
Experts are predicting that this will happen to a larger degree when ACA open enrollment begins in most states on November 1. Because Congress did not extend enhanced premium tax credits, prices for ACA plans are going up an average of 75%. This may spur more people to search for less expensive plans and end up with something that is not health insurance, whether they know it or not.
“There’s no question that more people will end up with these kinds of plans if the premium tax credits are not extended,” says Claire Heyison, senior policy analyst for health insurance and marketplace policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research and policy institute.
Under the Affordable Care Act, health insurance must cover 10 essential benefits, including outpatient services, emergency services, maternity and newborn care, behavioral health treatment, prescription drugs, and pediatric services. But if people stray from the ACA marketplace, they can end up with plans that don’t cover some—or any—of these essential health benefits. People may end up with short-term plans that don’t last for a full year, or with the type of fixed indemnity plan that Bower got. Others may end up in health care sharing ministries, in which people pitch in for other peoples’ medical costs, but which sometimes do not cover preexisting conditions.
These non-insurance products “have increasingly been marketed in ways that make them look similar to health insurance,” Heyison says. To stir further confusion, some even deploy common insurance terms like PPO (preferred provider organization) or co-pay in their terms and conditions. But people will pay a price for using them, Heyison says, because they can charge higher premiums than ACA-compliant plans, deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, impose annual or lifetime limits on coverage, and exclude benefits like prescription drug coverage or maternity care.
Often, the websites where people end up buying non-ACA compliant insurance have the names and logos of insurers on them. Sometimes, they are lead-generation sites—like the one Lisa Bower mistakenly visited—that ask for a person’s name and phone number and then share that information with brokers who get a commission for signing up people for plans, whether they are health insurance or not.
“This can definitely happen if someone starts Googling and clicks on the first thing they see,” says Louise Norris, health policy analyst at healthinsurance.org, an independent site providing information about insurance plans. “People might not realize that what they’re seeing isn’t real health insurance.”
These mistakes are enabled by a legal gray area in which websites can imply that they can help people sign up for health insurance and then actually sign them up for something else. Brokers, who often work for particular health insurance companies, can often sign people up for both ACA-compliant plans and non-ACA compliant plans. But they typically get more money signing up someone for a non-ACA compliant plan than an ACA-compliant plan, says Heyison.
Non-ACA compliant plans can spend more on administration costs like brokers and marketing because they aren’t regulated in the same way as ACA-compliant plans and have more cash to spare.
Health insurance is complicated, and brokers exist to help walk people through the process of signing up for health insurance. But they sometimes don’t have consumers’ best interest at heart, says Emma Freer, senior policy analyst for the American Economic Liberties Project. “It’s just very predatory because people clearly want information and guidance,” she says, “but many middlemen are incentivized to operate with their own financial interest in mind, not the consumer’s.”
There has been some legal action against companies who have represented what they’re selling as health insurance, even though it’s not. In May 2025, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania charged four businessmen and two companies with conspiracy and wire fraud offenses, alleging they had executed a national telemarketing fraud scheme in which they collected tens of millions of dollars by “systematically deceiving and misleading consumers seeking health insurance through bait-and-switch sales tactics.” And in August 2025, two companies agreed to pay a total of $145 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they deceived consumers into purchasing health care plans that did not provide the comprehensive coverage that was promised.
But because many of these companies are actually offering products that are legal—they just aren’t comprehensive health insurance—it can usually be difficult for people to recover any money, or to even get out of the plans. People who discover they signed up for the wrong plan during their state’s open enrollment period should still be able to cancel the plan and sign up for real health insurance, says Heyison, of CBPP. But those who don’t find out for months—or years—that they signed up for non-ACA compliant plans may have a harder time.
“It is definitely a situation where people need to pay close attention now, because in most cases you don’t get a do-over,” says Norris, of healthinsurance.org.
Brandon A., a 27-year-old Maryland resident, didn’t have a lot of experience signing up for health insurance because he’d been in the military and gotten health insurance there. When he went to research plans on the ACA marketplace in mid-October, he searched online for Maryland Health Connection, the state’s marketplace, but ended up on marylandhealthcoverage.org instead.
After entering his zip code and some personal information like his social security number, he got a quote for a plan. He also started getting bombarded with texts and phone calls from people who wanted to sign him up for health insurance. He chose a plan that was just a $300 deposit and $100 a month afterwards. After a few days, and checking with some friends, something seemed off to him, so he called the company back to cancel. They argued with him, telling him it was “the best healthcare nationwide,” he says, but eventually allowed him to cancel the plan.
In retrospect, Brandon, who didn’t want his last name used because he’s embarrassed about his error, saw that in the website’s fine print at the very bottom, in very small text, it says it is not a federal or state health insurance marketplace. “It seems too easy for these sites to pose as real marketplaces,” he says.
Marylandhealthcoverage.org is operated by NextGen Leads, a lead-generation site that collects the information of people looking for health insurance and then charges companies for that information. It has more than 100 complaints on the Better Business Bureau of San Diego, where the company’s website says it is based. Many of the people filing these complaints say that they thought they were signing up for marketplace health insurance in states like Maryland and Georgia, entered their personal information on a site owned by NextGen Leads—often with a domain name ending in .org— and then got spammed with hundreds of calls and texts from people trying to sell them health insurance products. “Their fraudulent website to mimic a health marketplace for [redacted] resulted in selling my information where now I received so many calls from spammers that I literally can not use my phone due to the insane amount of calls,” one person wrote, in January 2025. The company did not reply to TIME’s request for comment.
Experts recommend that people who are stuck in plans that they didn’t mean to buy contact their state insurance commissioner to report the problem. They should also contact a health care navigator or assister—federally funded individuals who exist solely to provide unbiased information—to see if they might qualify to sign up for a comprehensive health insurance plan through a special enrollment period because of a qualifying life event.
Navigators and assisters are also helpful for those seeking new insurance, rather than engaging with brokers. Healthcare.gov is the best place for people to sign up for health insurance who want to do it on their own. Though about 20 states run their own marketplaces that use a different URL, healthcare.gov will direct them to the state marketplaces. It can also direct them to local assisters and navigators.
Signing up for a plan on the true ACA marketplace should not lead consumers to get bombarded with texts or calls—if this happens to you, it probably means you ended up on a lead-generation site instead of on the real marketplace.
Heyison, of CBPP, recommends that consumers never rely on verbal promises that someone selling health insurance gives over the phone, they should instead ask for the plan documents. They should avoid companies offering an upfront gift for signing up, and ones that say that a certain price will only last a few days. Consumers should also spend a few days researching a plan, rather than buying the first thing they see, Heyison says. They should be looking for a plan on healthcare.gov and one that is ACA-compliant.
Some states are attempting to further regulate brokers and non-ACA compliant plans, Heyison says. In California, for instance, agents and brokers are required to assess people for Medicaid and the ACA’s premium tax credit because they enroll them in health care sharing ministries, which could save them money by signing them up for government health insurance instead of a product that is not health insurance. And some states, including California, Illinois, and Massachusetts, prohibit the underwriting of short-term health insurance coverage, making it nearly impossible to sell non-ACA compliant plans in those states.
But most other states haven’t taken action, leaving people like Lisa Bower out of luck. Her son Jack tried to call the company that issued her indemnity plan and get a refund, but he knows he likely has no legal recourse. She should have read the paperwork more closely, they both admit. This year, they’re ready for open enrollment—and are determined not to look anywhere but healthcare.gov, the official Affordable Care Act marketplace.
The Trump administration has made a flurry of recent moves aimed at lowering the cost of prescription drugs, including cutting deals with some of America’s top drugmakers and launching a new website to help consumers shop for the best available prices. We recently asked 10 experts — including health economists, drug policy scholars and industry insiders — to evaluate the likely impact of those maneuvers. Their verdict: Most are unlikely to deliver substantive savings, at least based on what we know today.
So, we followed up: If those moves won’t work, what could the administration do that would make a meaningful dent in America’s drug spending?
Here are three key ideas from the experts:
1. Expand Medicare’s new power to directly negotiate prices with drugmakers.
Compared to Trump’s recent ad hoc approach to cutting confidential deals with individual drug companies, some experts say building on Medicare’s new power to negotiate could offer a more sweeping, and potentially lasting, path to savings.
For example, Trump’s team could use the price negotiations to seek steeper discounts than the Biden administration did. Federal officials could also establish a more transparent and predictable formula for future negotiations — similar to the approaches used by other nations — and publish that framework so private insurance plans could use it to drive better deals with drugmakers, too.
Finally, the White House could urge lawmakers to loosen some of the limits Democrats in Congress placed on this power when they passed the law back in 2022. Medicare can currently only negotiate the price of drugs that have been on the market for at least several years — often after the medicines have already made drug companies billions of dollars.
Ideally, said Vanderbilt professor Stacie Dusetzina, “you would negotiate a value-based price at the time a product arrives on the market” — that’s what nations like France and England do.
2. Identify and fix policies that encourage wasteful spending on medicines.
“There are policies within everything — from the tax code to Medicare and Medicaid to health insurance regulations — that are driving up drug prices in this country,” said Michael Cannon, who directs health policy studies at the Cato Institute.
One example Cannon sees as wasteful: the formula that Medicare uses to pay for drugs administered by doctors, such as chemotherapy infusions. Those doctors typically get paid 106% of the price of whichever medicine they prescribe, creating a potential incentive to choose those that are most expensive — even in cases where cheaper alternatives might be available.
And that, according to Cannon, is just the tip of the “policy failure” iceberg.
The Trump administration is taking early steps to reform at least one federal drug-pricing policy, known as 340B, which lets some hospitals and clinics purchase drugs at a discount. More than $60 billion a year now flow through this program, whose growth has exploded in recent years. But researchers, auditors and lawmakers like Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy have questioned where all of that money is going and whether it’s making medicines affordable for as many patients as it should.
3. Speed up access to cheaper generic drugs.
Generic drugs — cheaper, copycat versions of brand-name medicines — can slash costs for patients and insurers by as much as 80% once they come to market. But this price-plunging competition often takes more than a decade to arrive.
That’s, in part, because drug companies have found a host of ways to game the U.S. patent system to protect and prolong their monopolies. Law professor Rachel Sachs at Washington University in St. Louis suggested Trump not only close those loopholes, but also make its own creative use of patents.
Federal officials could, for example, invoke an obscure law known as Section 1498, she said. That provision allows the U.S. government to effectively infringe on a patent to buy or make on the cheap certain medicines that meet an extraordinary need of the country. Sachs suggested that the drug semaglutide — the active ingredient in Ozempic, Wegovy and several other weight-loss medicines — might make for an ideal target.
“The statutory authority is already there for them to do it,” Sachs said. “It’s not clear to me why they haven’t.”
Semaglutide, which earned drugmakers more than $20 billion last year alone, will otherwise remain under patent in the U.S. until early next decade.
The Trump administration issued an executive order back in April signaling at least a high level of interest in some of these ideas — and a host of others, too. On the other hand, Trump and Congressional Republicans have made moves this year that have weakened some of these potential cost-cutting tools, such as Medicare’s power to negotiate drug prices. A key provision of July’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ for example, shielded more medicines from those negotiations, eroding the government’s potential savings by nearly $9 billion over the next decade.
We should all get a better read soon on just how interested this administration is in cutting prices: Federal officials are expected to announce the results of their latest round of Medicare negotiations by the end of November.
We learned yesterday that the average cost of a family health insurance policy through an employer reached nearly $27,000 this year, 6% higher than what it cost in 2024. As if that weren’t alarming enough, researchers are predicting that the total likely will soar toward $30,000 next year because of rising medical costs and the unrelenting pressure insurers are under from Wall Street to increase their profits. Small businesses will be hit the hardest.
Despite repeated assurances from insurers that we can count on them to hold down the cost of health care – and consequently the premiums they charge – there are now many years of evidence – from researchers like KFF, which tracks annual changes in employer-sponsored coverage – that they have not and cannot deliver on their promises.
Nevertheless, Big Insurance is doing just fine financially as they force America’s employers and workers to shell out increasingly absurd amounts of money for policies that actually cover less than they did ten years ago. A health insurance policy today is generally less valuable than it was a decade ago because families have to spend more and more money out of their own pockets every year before their coverage kicks in. In addition, they are far more likely to be notified that their insurers will not cover the care their doctors say they need.
When you look at KFF’s reports over time, you’ll see that the cost of a family policy has increased 60% since 2014 when it cost an average of $16,834. That is a rate of increase much higher than general inflation and also higher than medical inflation.
Not only has the total cost of an employer-sponsored plan skyrocketed, so has the share of premiums workers must pay. This year, employers deducted an average of $6,850 from their workers’ paychecks for family coverage, up from $4,823 in 2014, a 42% increase.
And as premiums have risen, so has the amount of money workers and their dependents are required to spend out of their pockets in deductibles, copayments and coinsurance. The Affordable Care Act, to its credit, instituted a cap on out-of-pocket expenses in 2014, but that cap has been increasing annually along with premiums. (The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services sets the out-of-pocket max every year, pegging it to the average increase in premiums.)
In 2014 the out-of-pocket cap for a family policy was $12,700. Next year, it will rise to $21,200 – a 67% increase. And keep in mind that the cap only applies to in-network care. If you go out of your insurer’s network or take a medication not covered under your policy, you can be on the hook for hundreds or thousands more. While most employer-sponsored plans have caps that are considerably lower, many individuals and families reach the legal max every year.
Meanwhile, the seven biggest for-profit health insurers have made hundreds of billions in profits since 2014 as they have jacked up premiums and out-of-pocket requirements and erected numerous barriers, including the aggressive use of prior authorization, that make it more difficult for Americans to get the care and medications they need. Collectively, those seven companies made $71.3 billion in profits last year alone. That was up slightly from $70.7 billion in 2023. Insurers said their 2024 profits were somewhat depressed because more of their health plan enrollees went to the doctor and picked up their prescriptions last year. Investors were furious that insurers couldn’t keep that from happening, as you’ll see in the charts below. Many of them sold some or all of their shares, sending insurers’ stock prices down. But overall, the stock prices of the big insurance conglomerates have increased steadily over the years as we and our employers have had to spend more for policies that cover less.
For example, UnitedHealth Group, the biggest of the seven, saw its stock price increase 483% between 2014 and 2024 – from $85.31 a share on Dec. 31, 2014, to $497.02 on Dec. 31, 2024. Most of the other companies saw similar growth in their shares over that time period.
By contrast, the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased 139% (from $17,823.07 to $42,544.22), and the S&P 500 increased 186% (from $2,058.90 to $5,881.63) during the same period.
Back to those premiums and out-of-pocket requirements. While the KFF numbers pertain to employer-sponsored coverage, people who have to buy health insurance on their own – mostly through the ACA (Obamacare) marketplace – have experienced similar increases. Most Americans who buy their insurance there could not possibly afford it if not for subsidies provided by the federal government on a sliding scale, which is based on income. The most generous subsidies have been available since 2014 to people with income up to 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL). During the pandemic, Congress expanded – or “enhanced” – the subsidies to make them available to people with incomes up to 400% of FPL. Those enhanced subsidies are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Whether to let them expire or extend them is at the center of the ongoing government shutdown. Most Democrats are insisting they be extended while most Republicans want them to end. It’s important to note that the federal money goes to insurance companies, not to people enrolled in their health plans.
If the enhanced subsidies do end, millions of Americans who get their health insurance through the ACA marketplace will drop their coverage because the premiums will be unaffordable for them and their families. In Pennsylvania where I live, premiums for policies bought on the state’s insurance exchange are expected to increase 102% next year because of the anticipated end of the subsidies and premium inflation.
More than 24 million Americans now get their coverage through the ACA marketplace, primarily because their employers cannot offer health insurance as an employee benefit anymore. Over the past several years, a growing number of small businesses have stopped offering subsidized coverage to their workers because of the expense. Just slightly more than half of U.S. businesses are still in the game. The rest simply can’t afford the premiums. Small businesses can expect an average increase of 11% next year with some of them facing increases of 32%.
It is becoming more clear every passing year that the U.S. has one of the most insidious ways of rationing care. It is rationed based on a person’s ability to pay far more than on a person’s need for care. And among those most disadvantaged by the current system are hard-working low- and middle-income Americans with chronic conditions and those who suddenly get sick or injured.
While the Affordable Care Act prohibited insurers from charging people with pre-existing conditions more than healthier people, insurers have figured out a back door way to discriminate against them: by making them pay hundreds or thousands of dollars out of their own pockets every year – in addition to their premiums – and also by refusing to cover treatments and medications their doctors say they need.
Now you know why Big Insurance is doing so well while the rest of us are getting
Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) — in collaboration with Johns Hopkins University researchers — just released a report titled “No Real Choices: How Medicare Advantage Fails Seniors of Color”. It confirms that the handover of public programs like Medicare Advantage (MA) to Big Insurance doesn’t close racial, ethnic and economic health gaps — it deepens them.
Read Physician for a National Health Program’s report, No Real Choices: How Medicare Advantage Fails Seniors of Color, here.
PNHP’s researchers found that communities of color are being steered into MA plans not because they’re better — but because they’re cheaper upfront. This dynamic, dubbed the “Gap Trap,” means that affordability is driving people into coverage that often denies care, delays treatment and locks them into narrow networks.
“Medicare Advantage squanders billions, harms seniors and exacerbates racial inequities,” Dr. Diljeet K. Singh, gynecologic oncologist and president of Physicians for a National Health Program, said. “Americans need universal health Care which removes profit-motivated conflicts of interest, abolishes co-pays and deductibles, ends prior authorization burdens and guarantees protection from medical bankruptcy.”
HEALTH CARE un-covered is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Medicare Advantage is the health care equivalent of the subprime mortgage crisis — except the fine print here is costing Americans’ lives and depleting the Medicare Trust Fund.
The equity illusion
When Big Insurance boasts about “diverse” enrollment in MA, this report reminds us: “Diversity” is often just a buzzword used for PR reasons and has nothing to do with seniors receiving the care they deserve — especially when it is used as cover for a business model that profits from inequity.
Black, Hispanic and Asian/Asian-American beneficiaries are disproportionately concentrated in MA plans that score lowest on quality ratings, while white beneficiaries are more likely to live in counties served by higher-quality plans.
One study found that MA prior authorization requests were denied 23% of the time for Black seniors vs. 15% for their white counterparts.
Despite industry claims to the contrary, racial and ethnic health disparities in the United States are not being reduced by Medicare Advantage.
Studies show that Black enrollees are more likely than white enrollees to choose a 5-star MA plan when offered one. They’re just not offered them as often.
Racial minority enrollees in MA suffer from worse clinical outcomes and face barriers accessing best quality care because of restrictive networks and misaligned financial incentives. Black MA enrollees experience higher rates of hospital readmission compared to their white peers.
The MA paperwork burden isdriving doctors out of practice, worsening access for everyone — but especially in already underserved communities.
MA’s restrictive payment practices aren’t just harming patients — they’re pushing hospitals, especially those serving rural and minority communities, toward the edge of closure. Under-payment or delay of claims by MA insurers causes cascading financial harm in these vulnerable systems.
The big picture
As a reminder, even with the racial and ethnic issues aside, Medicare Advantage already severely restricts seniors’ access to providers, imposes unnecessary prior authorization hurdles that often result in deadly delays and denials — and cost taxpayers at least$84 billionmoreeach year than original Medicare. Meanwhile, original, traditional Medicare does not even have networks; almost all doctors participate and few treatments are subject to prior authorization.
PNHP’s report shows that despite insurers’ endless “health equity” pledges and glossy diversity campaigns, MA remains a rigged game that leaves millions of seniors — disproportionately people of color — with worse access, inferior care and fewer real choices.
Big Insurance’s MA plans are shaped by the same market incentives that have long rewarded exclusion and sorting risk, and – if history tells us anything – sorting has always leaned on racial dimensions. As the report sums it up:
“Regardless of the reasons, any system that traps and harms people — particularly in ways that map onto centuries of racial injustice — cannot be a solution to health inequity.”
In a recent blog post, Looming Government Shutdown? A Brief Overview of Expiring Federal Authorizations, the Rockefeller Institute of Government detailed the health care policies and programs requiring an extension and, in some cases, funding by Congress. For over two weeks now, failure to reach agreement on a Continuing Resolution (CR) to keep the federal government fully funded has resulted in a temporary federal shutdown.
The debate is both highly nuanced and politically charged. It involves multiple healthcare issues. The House passed a CR (sometimes also referred to as an extender) that would largely continue current funding levels through November 21, 2025, but with some new spending items, such as additional funding for congressional member security. Thus far, the Senate majority has not had the votes to pass the extender.
Under Senate rules, 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster. This necessitates at least seven Democratic senators to vote with the Republican majority for passage. Only three Democratic senators and one Independent have voted in favor of the House-passed extender to date, and one Republican did not vote with the majority. This leaves the current vote count at 56 out of the necessary 60 votes.
The Democrats are seeking an amendment to the Republican supported CR, which would fund the government through October 31, 2025. At the core of the current dispute, the Democratic minority is seeking, among other things, in its proposed amendments: (1) restorations of the health care cuts in the recently passed HR1—also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), and (2) permanent extension of federal funding not included in HR1 for enhanced subsidies—known as advance premium tax credits (APTC). APTCs provide additional federal funding to lower the cost of health insurance coverage purchased through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces. These enhanced APTC subsidies were initially authorized during the COVID pandemic and are set to expire at the end of 2025, unless extended. In essence, the disagreement is over the health care cuts HR1 made, which were followed by more restrictive regulations governing the purchase of health insurance coverage, and whether Congress will continue COVID-era enhanced subsidies.
Additionally, while not included in the broader media coverage, the Rockefeller Institute has previously highlighted October 1, 2025, as the scheduled implementation date for reductions to Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments. DSH provides federal funds to hospitals that serve a high number of low-income and uninsured patients to help cover their uncompensated care costs.1 Language delaying the cuts to DSH is in both the Republicans’ CR as well as the Democrats’ proposal.
Restoration of HR1 Cuts
Prior work by the Institute, as well as other commentators, has detailed the funding cuts and other changes included in HR1 and through federal regulation, and their adverse impacts on New York’s $300 billion healthcare economy.
The Democratic minority in the Senate is seeking restorations for all of the health provisions changed in HR1. Of the Democrats’ proposed restorations, three specific areas that have been the subject of the Republican majority’s criticism include proposals relating to the financing of healthcare for certain non-citizens (both lawfully residing and illegally residing). The proposals or restorations include: (1) permitting particular lawfully residing immigrants (persons residing under color of law, or “PRUCOL”) to purchase health insurance on the official ACA marketplace, who were excluded in HR1; (2) reversing the narrowed definition of PRUCOL in HR1; and (3) restoring the federal matching share of emergency Medicaid funding which was reduced in HR1.
These issues have been subject to oversimplification in public and political discourse. Prior Rockefeller Institute of Government writings have clearly detailed these programs and who is or is not eligible. At the core of the issue, with limited exception relating to the percentage of federal funding for emergency Medicaid,2 federal funds have always been prohibited from funding coverage for those who are not lawfully residing in New York or other states. However, HR 1 also significantly reduced federal funding for both emergency care, which is provided to undocumented persons during a life-threatening emergency, and for lawfully residing residents, like refugees and asylees, that was previously authorized.3
New York estimates the changes to the definition and eligibility for the tax credits in HR1, and the enhanced subsidy expiration that was not extended in HR1, would result in a loss of over $7.5 billion in funding to New York’s healthcare economy, beginning January 1, 2026. In particular, the change in HR1 removing certain immigrants from eligibility for APTC reduces available federal funding to the State. As a result of these changes, on September 10, 2025, New York made a request to terminate the Section 1332 State Innovation Waiver and return to the Basic Health Program, risking coverage for approximately 450,000 New Yorkers with incomes between 200 and 250 percent of the poverty limit who, as a result of the loss of funding will have to purchase coverage on the exchange, obtain coverage through their employer or become uninsured. The comment period for the notice concluded on October 10, 2025, and anticipated submission to CMS was scheduled for October 15, 2025.
Some portion of the restoration of HR1 cuts that are being proposed may, however, go to undocumented immigrants with respect to emergency Medicaid funding. Medicaid pays a share of the financing of emergency Medicaid services for persons with life-threatening or organ-threatening conditions—this was the case both before and after HR1. HR1 continues to fund emergency Medicaid, but reduces the federal share from 90 percent to 50 percent for certain adults.
According to New York State Department of Health data provided to the Empire Center for Public Policy, a think tank, as of March 2024, there are 480,000 noncitizens enrolled in the emergency Medicaid program. These are largely undocumented immigrants who are otherwise not eligible for Medicaid or the Essential Plan as a qualified alien, PRUCOL, or through any other program. Absent emergency Medicaid federal funding, however, hospitals would still be required to provide care in emergent situations under the Federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA ) without federal money to reimburse those hospitals for that care. EMTALA was a bipartisan bill that was signed by President Regan back in 1986. Among other things, EMTALA protects everyone—primarily US citizens—who need immediate emergency care by requiring hospitals to treat patients whether they have proof of identity or insurance, or not.
The debate in Washington over restoring cuts passed in HR1 may not be resolved in a CR. Despite the potential impacts on federal funding to New York associated with the currently passed CR in the House and, therein, maintaining HR1’s changes and funding cuts, there are other important elements that, if excluded from an agreement, would add to the impact of HR1 reductions.
This post summarizes two important issues that are of significant financial impact to New York, which could be important elements of a potential bipartisan compromise solution.
In addition to restoration of the health care cuts in HR1, a second key issue in the current federal shutdown relates to programs with significant financial impact to New York that were not addressed in HR1: continued funding for Enhanced Advance Premium Tax Credits (APTC), as well as extension of the Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) funding at current levels. A permanent extension of the enhanced APTCs was included in the Democrat minority CR, and both parties included an extension of current DSH funding in their respective proposals.
Enhanced APTC
Enhanced APTC federal funds are used to lower health insurance premium costs for qualified health plan (QHP) coverage purchased through ACA health marketplaces. The extension of enhanced APTC, which was not addressed in HR1, relates to enhanced subsidies for purchasing qualified health plan (QHP) coverage. Existing subsidies for those not enrolled in Medicaid, Medicare, or other coverage that provide financial assistance beyond what was authorized under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are set to expire on December 31, 2025.
The enhanced APTC subsidies were initially authorized during COVID-19 in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and extended in the Inflation Reduction Act.4 Not only were the enhanced subsidies for purchasing health insurance coverage increased (for those who were already receiving a subsidy) through advance premium tax credits, but eligibility for subsidies was expanded to include those above 400 percent of the federal poverty limit ($62,600 for an individual and $128,600 for a family of four in 2025).
The extension of the enhanced APTC was neither included in HR1, nor was it included in the Republican’s continuing resolution. As a result, it has been less widely publicized component of the current healthcare debate in Washington than the proposals to restore reductions in funding for non-citizen care, in the Democrat version of the CR.
At present, it remains unclear if the COVID-era enhanced premium tax credits will be renewed by Congress. The CR proposed by the Congressional majority only provides continued funding of existing programs through November 21st and would not solve the subsidy cliff (a sudden and steep increase in premiums for those purchasing coverage in the individual or small group market) before open enrollment begins on November 1st. Despite the fact that this issue remains open in the federal funding debate, there has been strong public support as of late for extending enhanced APTC. Of those polled by the Kaiser Family Foundation between September 23 and September 29, 2025, 78 percent of respondents indicated Congress should extend the enhanced tax credits (92 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of independents and 59 percent of Republicans).
Moreover, in mid-late September, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK), who voted against the CR, proposed a two-year extension in efforts to reach agreement on the potential shutdown, and news outlets reported5 that Republican senators were working on legislation that would extend the subsidies. At present, it appears Senator Murkowski is the only sponsor of her bill (S. 2824), which would extend the subsidies for two years. There is also currently proposed legislation, the Bipartisan Premium Tax Credit Extension Act (H.R. 5145), which would extend the enhanced subsidies for one year, through December 31, 2026. As of October 9th, 2025, there are 27 bipartisan House co-sponsors, including three members of the New York Congressional Delegation sponsoring the bill: Representatives Suozzi (D, NY-3), Lawler (R, NY-17), LaLota (R, NY-1).
Absent legislative action, it is estimated by the Kaiser Foundation that the cost to purchase health insurance in the individual market could increase by over 75 percent nationally due to the subsidy expiration.
While New York and other states would be impacted, the enhanced subsidies have the greatest direct impact in the 10 remaining non-Medicaid expansion states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.6 These states account for 79 house majority votes (out of 106 associated with the 10 states in total).
Moreover, there are particular and significant portions of the population within and outside of these states that would be greatly impacted. According to Kaiser, nationally, “more than a quarter of farmers, ranchers, and agricultural managers had individual market health insurance coverage (the vast majority of which is purchased with a tax credit through the ACA Marketplaces). About half (48%) of working-age adults with individual market coverage are either employed by a small business with fewer than 25 workers, self-employed entrepreneurs, or small business owners. Middle-income people who would lose tax credits altogether are disproportionately early and pre-retirees, small business owners, and rural residents.
And while the ACA Marketplaces have doubled in size nationally since these enhanced tax credits became available, more than half of that growth is concentrated in Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina.”7
DSH Funding
Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments are federal payments to hospitals that serve a high number of low-income and uninsured patients to help cover their uncompensated care costs. These payments are a critical form of financial assistance for “safety-net” hospitals, helping them remain financially stable and continue providing essential services to vulnerable populations. Federal law requires states to make these payments to qualifying hospitals, but there are overall and state-specific limits on the total amount of funding available.
Funding for the DSH program was set to expire on or about October 1, 2025. Extension of the DSH program was not included in HR1. As discussed below, the impact on “safety-net” hospitals in New York is significant.
Impact on New York
Expiration of Enhanced APTC
In 2022, the last time the Enhanced APTC subsidies were set to expire, New York State estimated that their expiration would increase premium costs for qualified health plan (QHP) enrollees by 58 percent and reduce funding to the Essential Plan by $600–$700 million.8 New York recently estimated the impact at 38 percent following passage of the House bill, which did not include the extension. According to NYSOH, the subsidy benefits nearly 140,000 New Yorkers and reduces coverage costs by $1,368 per person annually (previously $1,453 in 2022), which equates to over $200 million in federal funding that would be diverted from New Yorkers currently purchasing coverage on the exchange.
Additionally, New York has experienced higher-than-average premium increases in recent years, so when combined with reductions to subsidies, this may make it more difficult for people to afford to buy coverage and could further exacerbate the shrinking New York individual and small group health insurance markets. Premium increases in New York exceed national trends.9 Part of this in New York (as opposed to other states) is due to the use of various health-related taxes, which were detailed in How Health Care Policy in Washington Could Affect New York.
Rate increases for individual, small group, and large group health insurance for the 2026 plan year were reviewed and approved, with changes, by the Department of Financial Services (DFS) in August 2025. According to DFS, individual plans will increase by an average of 7.1 percent, while small group plans will increase by an average of 13 percent, both of which are significantly less than was requested by the insurers.
New York operates a Basic Health Program (BHP) option in the ACA, known as the Essential Plan (EP). The EP is a public health insurance program for New Yorkers with incomes above the maximum Medicaid eligibility (138 percent of the federal poverty limit) and below 200 percent of the poverty limit, or with the 1332 Waiver below 250 percent of the poverty limit (FPL). The BHP provision in the ACA only allows eligibility up to 200 percent FPL. Using a provision in section 1332 of the ACA that allows for federal regulators to make certain adjustments (or waivers), New York increased EP eligibility to 250 percent FPL. However, as a result of funding reductions enacted in the HR1, New York is currently seeking to reverse its waiver expansion, bringing the future maximum eligibility to 200 percent of the FPL.
Using January 2025 enrollment data, absent other changes, the estimated lost funding to the Essential Plan would jump from $1 billion to $1.2 billion. Changes enacted in HR1 (which the Democrats are currently seeking to reverse) reduce the value of the enhanced subsidies to New York by approximately one-third, as certain legally residing non-citizens are no longer eligible for any subsidies pursuant to the federal changes.10
Enhanced Premium Tax Credit—Impact of Expiration in New York 11
An extension or lack thereof of the subsidy has important implications for healthcare financing and access to coverage in the State of New York. At present, New York stands to lose $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion associated with the loss of the enhanced subsidies, including $1.0 billion to $1.2 billion currently used to provide low-cost coverage to 1.6 million persons with incomes between 138 and 250 percent of the poverty limit and nearly $200 million for 140,000 individuals purchasing coverage on New York State of Health (NYSOH).
Timing for Consumers
November 1, 2025, marks the beginning of the open enrollment period for purchasing coverage on a state or federally operated exchange for the 2026 plan year. Consumers can begin renewing plans beginning November 16, 2025, for those purchasing a qualified health plan on New York State of Health (NYSOH), with a December 15, 2025, deadline to enroll in coverage that begins on January 1, 2026.
In addition to NYSOH’s website and app, New York health insurance notices for the 2026 plan year are to be sent out by November 1, 2025, detailing premium information, including any applicable APTC. The notices will also list the income used for the automatic renewal determination in a section titled “How We Made Our Decision.” For enrollees who do not agree with the renewal determination, they can update their application on NYSOH between November 16, 2025, and December 15, 2025, to avoid a gap in coverage starting January 1, 2026.
Those rate notices are already being loaded into the plan systems and NYSOH online, as it takes some weeks to get the rate notices set and out to enrollees. If Congress does not act imminently to reauthorize the expanded APTC, consumers will receive notices that reflect 2026 premiums without the expanded APTC.
Indeed, NYSOH has already put online, as of October 1, 2025, the ‘Compare Plans’ and ‘Estimate Costs’ tool on the website, which allows consumers to look at plan options and evaluate costs. And, for consumers using the tool now, it already reflects that the Expanded APTCs will not be available for 2026.
Potential Enhanced APTC Compromise
There are three basic options available to Congress with some variation on duration with regard to the enhanced APTCs. Congress could:
Allow the enhanced APTCs to expire. If no compromise is reached, Congress could simply do nothing and funding for the Enhanced APTCs will stop at the end of 2025.
Extend the existing enhanced APTCs. The parties could compromise and extend the enhanced APTCs either permanently or temporarily to some date certain. As noted above, a bipartisan bill (H.R. 4541) would extend the enhanced APTCs for one year, and Senator Murkowski carries a bill in the Senate (S. 2824) that would extend the subsidies for two years. The Senate Democratic minority CR would extend the existing subsidies permanently.
Modify the eligibility criteria for enhanced APTCs. Currently, eligibility has no income limit as such, but the enhanced APTC subsidies ensure that no one spends more than 8.5 percent of income for the benchmark silver plan. Congress could make changes that include: (1) modifying the eligibility criteria to the level under the ACA to 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL); (2) adjusting the limit of the percent of income for the benchmark silver plan above (or below) 8.5 percent; or (3) some other rules that limit or expand income eligibility.
Congress could also explore options that modify the maximum amount a household would be required to contribute towards the cost of coverage (currently 8.5% for households above 400 percent of FPL) or limit the application of the marketplace coverage rule, which was detailed in a prior Rockefeller Institute of Government report.
Expiration of Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Funding
Additionally, scheduled reductions to DSH funding, that absent a change to New York State law, would primarily affect the availability of DSH funding for New York City, which were delayed from starting in October 2025 to October 2026 through 2028 in the initial House Reconciliation bill, but not included in HR1, are effective October 1, 2025, absent a federal extension. The DSH reduction has been delayed by Congress more than a dozen times since enactment through the ACA.12
Under current law, the availability of $2.4 billion federal DSH funding to New York, or 15 percent of federal funding for DSH ($16 billion), would be reduced. DSH funding is matched by the state or locality (through an intergovernmental transfer), making New York’s total DSH program over $4.7 billion as of federal fiscal year 2025. The Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) estimates New York State’s total DSH program, including federal and non-federal shares, would be reduced by $2.8 billion, which translates to a loss of $1.4 billion in federal DSH funding (or a nearly 59 percent reduction).
On September 23, 2019, immediately preceding the last government shutdown, CMS issued a final rule, finalizing the methodology to calculate the scheduled reductions to DHS funding, as initially enacted in the ACA, during the 2020 to 2025 period. It does not appear that the Trump administration has issued guidance related to implementation in 2025; however, the regulations track with the statute, meaning the Trump administration could implement the DSH reductions required under the ACA, absent agreement on a delay.
Like an extension of the enhanced subsidies for the APTCs, an extension (meaning a delay) of the DSH cuts is an important element for New York to avoid further significant loss of federal funding (in addition to the loss of funding as a result of HR1 and the potential expiration of the enhanced subsidies).
CONCLUSION
Multiple healthcare issues are at play in the Federal government shutdown.Democrats want to restore cuts and other actions made in HR1 in an effort to mitigate the impact on residents and the healthcare delivery system, including the State’s financial plan, while Republicans are not revisiting actions taken in HR1. Among others, requested cuts to be restored in HR1 include making certain legally residing non-citizens ineligible for federal funding to purchase comprehensive coverage on health insurance marketplaces, narrowing the definition of legally residing non-citizen for purposes of public program eligibility, and reducing the match rate for emergency Medicaid.
Two additional important issues are the impending expiration of enhanced subsidies for purchasing coverage on an official ACA marketplace and the impending implementation date for previously scheduled disproportionate share hospital (DSH) reductions. As referenced above, polling suggests that the extension of the subsidy has broad public support, and there is a bipartisan bill in Congress providing an extension. In the immediate days following the shutdown, positive polling around extending the enhanced APTC suggested there was a possibility of ending the shutdown with bipartisan support. While many states benefit from these subsidies, New Yorkers, more specifically, benefit from these subsidies on the exchange and in the Essential Plan, due to the State’s adoption of the Basic Health Program option for those with income slightly above Medicaid levels. While there is some coverage and indications of support regarding the enhanced APTC subsidies, the potential for the DSH cuts to be implemented is not in the mainstream media coverage.
Moreover, with regard to the enhanced APTC subsidies, we now see that the narrative from the Republican congressional majority is shifting,13 suggesting that the enhanced subsidies might not be part of resolving the current debate playing out in Washington.
Nevertheless, compromise is still possible, particularly in light of the disproportionate impact the expiration of the enhanced APTC will have on Republican-led states and the broad impact of the scheduled DSH reductions. One potential path to ending the shutdown where both sides could arguably claim victory would be to drop the demand for restoration of the health care cuts in HR1 in exchange for extending the enhanced APTC and again delaying the DSH cuts. While this potential “victory” would be a benefit to New York and reopen the federal government, that does not mean that the restoration of cuts enacted in HR1 would not also be important to New York in future negotiations.
It’s impossible to predict exactly where things are headed right now, but the Rockefeller Institute of Government continues to monitor developments in Washington, continuing past efforts to detail who and what is at stake in the current debates. This post is preceded by a series of healthcare reports, blogs, and podcasts by our health team, which include more information on the programs discussed in this post and related topics. More information can be found in these past works in the health series, which is available here.
Average annual premiums for single health coverage
A grouped column chart comparing average annual premiums for single coverage from 2018 to 2025 for ACA benchmark plans and employer-sponsored plans. Both plan types have increased in cost since 2018. In 2024, ACA benchmark plans were $5.7k annually while employer-sponsored plans were almost $9k on average. No data is available for employer-sponsored plans in 2025.
Something big isbeing missed in the congressional showdown over enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies: Health insurance premiums are eye-wateringly expensive for the average person without some kind of subsidy.
Why it matters:
Health care in the U.S. is expensive, we know, we’ve all heard it a million times. But most of us don’t really feel its full expense, which removes a lot of the urgency to truly address health care costs.
Whether it’s through government tax credits or employer premium assistance, most Americans with private health insurance don’t pay the entirety of their premium.
But we’re all paying the freight one way or another, either through taxes or paycheck deductions.
State of play:
The past few weeks have been full of dire warnings from Democrats and their allies about what will happen if the enhanced ACA subsidies from the pandemic era are allowed to expire at year’s end.
The gist is that millions of Americans will have sticker shock when they’re exposed to more or all of the premium cost, and many will ultimately opt out of buying coverage. That’s all probably true.
Of course, allowing the enhanced subsidies to expire would just make the law’s structure revert to its original state.
And that’s why some savvy Republican-aligned commenters are asking if that means the ACA is broken, or if the original version was unworkable.
Reality check:
Premiums have gone up — a lot, in some cases. But that’s not unique to the ACA marketplace, and premiums are even pricier in the employer market.
By the numbers:
This year, the average premium for a benchmark ACA plan is $497 a month, or nearly $6,000 a year, according to KFF.
The average employer-employee premium for single coverage was $8,951 last year, also according to KFF.
The average premium for family coverage was a whopping $25,572.
Let’s do some math.
Without any form of subsidization, a single person making $60,000 would spend 10% of pretax income on an ACA plan, and 15% on an employer plan.
Now let’s say that $60,000 income is supporting a family of four. The average premium without subsidies would cost that family 43% of its pretax income.
The median U.S. family income, according to the Census Bureau, was $83,730 in 2024. Health insurance premiums would be 31% of pretax income.
Between the lines:
The definition of “affordable” is obviously very subjective, but it seems safe to say that some of these numbers — especially for families — aren’t meeting it.
What we’re watching:
Open enrollment is coming, and people with ACA coverage aren’t the only ones facing premium increases.
Health benefit costs are expected to increase 6.5% per employee in 2026, according to Mercer. Many employers are planning to limit premium increases by raising out-of-pocket costs for employees.
On average, ACA marketplace plans are raising premiums about 20% in 2026, according to KFF.
How much of that increase gets passed on to enrollees will depend on whether the enhanced subsidies are extended, but the premium increases are partially due to insurers having accounted for the subsidy expiration.
The bottom line:
Policymakers have two broad options: They can keep fighting over who pays for what, or they can do bigger, systemwide reform.
If you’re waiting for the latter, don’t hold your breath!
HENRY KOTULA 
