It may already be too late to implement certain changes Republicans are insisting on as a condition for renewing to Affordable Care Act subsidies, further casting doubt on any congressional deal to extend the financial aid.
Why it matters:
GOP lawmakers have made clear that they need to see changes to the enhanced ACA tax credits at the center of the government shutdown fight in order to extend them.
But insurers, states and other experts say some changes could already be impossible for next year, with ACA enrollment due to begin in less than two weeks, on Nov. 1. The subsidies are due to expire at year’s end, absent further action.
What we’re hearing:
Extending the credits after Nov. 1 is still possible, experts say, but gets much harder if there are significant changes, such as capping eligibility at a certain income level or requiring recipients to make a minimum premium payment.
What they’re saying:
“I have zero confidence that there’s enough operational time for systems and issuers to be able to implement changes, significant changes,” said Jeanne Lambrew, a former key health adviser in the Obama White House and later a top health official in Maine.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), one of the GOP senators more open to some form of subsidy extension, acknowledged that the implementation timeline poses a problem.
“Good question, and that’s why a lot of us started talking about it in July,” Rounds told Axios, blaming Democrats for triggering the shutdown on Oct. 1.
“When you have a shutdown that just kind of kills the discussions,” he said.
Between the lines:
One possible workaround would be for Congress to extend the enhanced subsidies unchanged for one year and then have GOP changes take effect in 2027. It’s not clear if that would pass muster in the House and Senate.
Some insurers are warning about implementation challenges in trying to make major changes for 2026.
“Our recommendation would be [a] straight extension for 2026 so that you can get the tax credits updated immediately and get people covered,” said an insurance industry source, speaking on the condition of anonymity to share private conversations. “Then, if Congress wants to make changes, those should apply in 2027 or later.”
Devon Trolley, executive director of Pennsylvania’s ACA marketplace, said “at this point in the calendar, the lowest risk option is an extension of the same framework that the enhanced tax credits have today.”
“Some changes might be not possible to implement if they structure it in a very different, very complicated way in the near term,” she said. “But other changes might be.”
An added complication is that there is no solution in sight for satisfying Republican demands that additional language be added preventing the subsidies from funding elective abortions.
The bottom line:
Congressional Democrats have been urging Republicans to enter negotiations, saying time is running short, while the GOP counters that Democrats need to open the government first.
“We can’t do any of that if we’re not negotiating,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) when asked about the time frame for changes to the tax credits.
“We’ve always understood there’s going to be a negotiation, but it’s only Republicans that are boycotting those negotiations.”
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!
The U.S. health industry revolves around a flawed presumption: individuals and families are dependent on the health system to make health decisions on their behalf. It’s as basic as baseball and apple pie in our collective world view.
It’s understandable. Consumers think the system is complex. They believe the science on which diagnostics and therapeutics are based requires specialized training to grasp. They think health insurance is a hedge against unforeseen bills that can wipe them out. And they think everything in healthcare is inexplicably expensive.
This view justifies the majority of capital investments, policy changes and competitive strategies by organizations geared to protecting traditional roles and profits. It justifies guardianship of scope of practice limits controlled by medical societies because patients trust doctors more than others. It justifies pushback by hospitals, insurers and drug companies against pro-price transparency regulations arguing out-of-pocket costs matter more. It justifies mainstream media inattention to the how the health system operates preferring sensationalism (medical errors, price sticker shock, fraud) over more complicated issues. And it justifies large and growing disparities in healthcare workforce compensation ranging from hourly workers who can’t afford their own healthcare to clinicians and executives who enjoy high six figure base compensation and rich benefits awarded by board compensation committees.
It’s a flawed presumption. It’s the unintended consequence of a system designed around sick care for the elderly that working age populations are obliged to fund. Healthcare organizations should pivot because this view is a relic of healthcare’s past. Consider:
Most consumers think the health system is fundamentally flawed because it prioritizes its business interests above their concerns and problems.
Most think technologies—monitoring devices, AI, et al– will enable them to own their medical records, self-diagnose and monitor their health independently.
And most –especially young and middle age consumers—think their healthcare spending should be predictable and prices transparent.
In response, most organizations in healthcare take cautious approaches i.e. “affordability” is opined as a concern but defined explicitly by few if any. “Value” is promised but left to vague, self-serving context and conditions. “Quality” is about affiliations, capabilities and processes for which compliance can be measured but results (outcomes, diagnostic accuracy, efficacy, savings, coverage adequacy, et al) — hardly accessible. And so on.
For starters, the industry must address its prices, costs and affordability in the broader context of household discretionary spending. Healthcare’s insiders are prone to mistaken notions that the household healthcare spend is somehow insulated from outside forces: that’s wrong. Household healthcare expenditures constitute 8.3% of the monthly consumer price index (CPI); housing is 35.4%, food is 13.6% and energy is 6.4%. In the last 12 months, the overall CPI increased 2.9%, healthcare services increased 4.2%, housing increased 3.6%, food increased 3.2% and energy costs increased only 0.2%. In that same period, private industry wages increased 1.0% and government wages increased 1.2%. Household financial pressures are real and pervasive. Thus, healthcare services costs are complicit in mounting household financial anxiety.
The pending loss of marketplace subsidies and escalating insurance premiums means households will be expected to spend more for healthcare. Housing market instability that hits younger and lower-middle income households hardest poses an even larger threat to household financial security and looms large in coming months. Utilization of healthcare products and services in households during economic downturns shrinks some, but discretionary spending for health services—visits, procedures, tests, premiums, OTC et al—shrinks substantially as those bills take a back seat to groceries, fuel, car payments, student loan debt, rent/mortgage payments and utilities in most households.
Healthcare organizations must rethink their orientations to patients, enrollees and users. All must embrace consumer-facing technologies that empower individuals and households to shop for healthcare products and services deliberately. In this regard, some insurers and employers seem more inclined than providers and suppliers, but solutions are not widely available. And incentives to stimulate households to choose “high value” options are illusory. Data show carrots to make prudent choices work some, but sticks seem to stimulate shopping for most preference-sensitive products and services.
The point is this: the U.S. economy is slowing. Inflation is a concern and prices for household goods and necessary services are going up. The U.S. health industry can ill-afford to take a business-as-usual approach to how our prices are set and communicated, consumer debt collection (aka “rev cycle”) is managed and how capital and programmatic priorities are evaluated.
Net Promoter Scores, Top 100 Recognition and Star Ratings matter: how organizations address household financial pressures impacts these directly and quickly. And, as never before, consumer sentiment toward healthcare’s responsiveness to their financial pressures is at an all-time low. It’s the imperative that can’t be neglected.
The Trump administration’s rollback of a policy that prohibited immigration enforcement in hospitals is sparking fear and confusion in exam rooms and emergency departments amid a surge in ICE arrests.
Why it matters:
Health care workers say stepped-up enforcement is interfering with care in some instances, and lawyers say it has created enough privacy concerns that some are erasing whiteboards on patient floors and concealing medical records.
Many hospitals don’t have clear protocols, Sandy Reding, president of the California Nurses Association and vice president for National Nurses United told Axios.
That’s put nurses and other health workers in situations in which they have to confront ICE agents carrying warrants in unauthorized areas.
State of play:
A Homeland Security Department directive in January rescinded a Biden administration policy that designated hospitals, schools and churches “sensitive locations” that were off limits to immigration enforcement.
That had the effect of giving Immigration Customs and Enforcement more leeway to detain individuals in hospitals. They are also able to closely monitor people in their custody who are brought in for medical care.
Health systems have been seeking legal advice and stepping up training for employees about what’s permissible in public and private spaces.
“The judicial warrant needs to be specific as to the place and who you’re looking for. It’s not going to say you can just walk into the ICU and check everybody,” Douglas Grimm, head of ArentFox Schiff’s national health care practice and a former hospital administrator, told Axios.
Zoom in:
The legal gray areas were driven home by physicians at a Los Angeles hospital who told LAist that ICE personnel interfered with the care of a detainee. Medical personnel were not able to call the patient’s family, even to find out health history, and agents refused to leave during confidential medical conversations.
Adventist Health White Memorial, in a statement, said it provides the same level of care to patients who come in while in government custody. “Our guidelines for caring for patients who are in custody are based on legal requirements. Our primary goal is to ensure the health and safety of our patients, staff and visitors,” the hospital operator said.
Elsewhere, a UCLA emergency nurse said she was blocked from assessing a screaming patient by an ICE agent,the Guardian reported.
And a Chicago alderwoman was arrested by ICE agents while checking on detainee at hospital in Humboldt Park,CBS reported.
Between the lines:
Distinguishing which areas are public and which are private is the first order of business, said Maria Kallmeyer of Quarles & Brady. So is laying out a protocol, including a phone tree with whom to call if ICE agents arrive, for front desk receptionists.
Staff are generally told to inform ICE that they don’t have the authority to grant access and should keep them in the lobby until they are able to reach a supervisor, she said.
Agents can access private areas like patient rooms if they have a judicial warrant or if they brought the patient in for care while in ICE custody.
In such scenarios, Grimm said, he advises health facilities to have a plan for wiping whiteboards and ensuring that all medical records on paper or on screens are put away.
Grimm noted past instances in which one officer enters a patient’s room while a second wanders the halls. In those scenarios, it’s up to the nurse manager or compliance manager to orally point out the officer is not authorized to be anywhere but with the specific patient.
“If the officer keeps walking, you have to take the next step, which is just try and record that. But don’t try and impede their progress,” Grimm said.
The other side:
ICE did not respond to requests for comment from Axios.
A spokeswoman previously told LAist the agency “is not denying any illegal alien access to proper medical care or medications” and that it’s “longstanding practice to provide comprehensive medical care from the moment an alien enters ICE custody.”
Yes, but:
Reading of the California Nurses Association said she received an Instagram video from some of her union members this summer showing ICE agents with large guns sitting behind a hospital reception desk. She learned they were there because they had brought a patient in custody to the facility.
It was intimidating for visitors and staff alike, and also created a clear potential privacy violation for any patient entering and being asked to provide personal information as they enter the building, she said.
“The nurses couldn’t do their work unencumbered because they were worried about the ICE agents,” she said. “There was one [agent] that was found in another unit which was off limits. They had to ask that person to leave because they weren’t supposed to be in patient care areas. So it became very clear that we need some rules.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) recently signed into law a requirement that hospitals have protocols prohibiting health providers from giving immigration authorities access to non-public areas unless there’s a warrant or court order. It also expanded the definition of protected “medical information” to immigration status.
It’s an important step toward setting some ground rules, but certain health facilities are still seeing dramatic drops in caseloads as patients forgo care.
“It is creating an atmosphere of fear,” Céline Gounder, clinical professor at NYU, told CBS Mornings about her experience in New York. “My colleagues and I have had numerous patients tell us that they hesitated or waited too long to come in for health care.”
Medicare Advantage Majority and Better Medicare Alliance are flooding the zone with attacks against bipartisan legislation aimed at curbing health insurers’ “upcoding” maneuver.
HEALTH CARE un-covered readers were the first to tip me off to television attack ads against the bipartisan No UPCODE Act, sponsored by Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). The ads in question, airing in the Washington D.C. media market, were paid for byMedicare Advantage Majority (MAM), which bills itself as a patient and provider coalition but has all the markings of a front group funded by the nation’s largest health insurers.
After a quick search through MAM’s YouTube channel, I think I found the ad I was tipped about. Titled “Voices,” the video features six seniors fawning over their Medicare Advantage plans – and it ends with a desperate plea to “oppose the No UPCODE Act” and “protect Medicare Advantage.”
MAM appears to have been propped up fairly recently – with their earliest ad (that I can find) from October 2024. All of their ads support Medicare Advantage. Some appear nonpartisan, while others are more overtly political, like the ad “Biden’s Playbook.” Here is a transcription of that ad:
“President Trump kept his promise to protect Medicare benefits for millions of American seniors. But now some in Congress want to take a page out of Joe Biden’s playbook and cut Medicare. These cuts threaten primary and preventative care that help keep millions of seniors healthy while also raising costs.
It’s a betrayal. It’s why people don’t trust Washington. Don’t let the politicians cut Medicare. Tell Congress to stand with President Trump and protect America’s seniors.”
None of MAM’s ads mention the expensive hidden fees, narrow networks of doctors and life-threatening prior-authorization hurdles often associated with private Medicare Advantage plans. Nor does it even hint at why Sen. Cassidy, a doctor and senior Republican leader and committee chair, introduced the No UPCODE Act in the first place: to reduce the tens of billions of dollars in overpayments to Medicare Advantage insurers and keep the Medicare Trust Fund solvent for years longer. Those overpayments – at least $84 billion this yearalone – is a leading reason why the Medicare Trust Fund is being depleted.
But Medicare Advantage Majority is not the only insurance industry front group flooding the zone.
I kid you not, while I was writing this very article I got a text from a different Big Insurance-funded group fear-mongering the same “cuts” to Medicare Advantage. As I’m typing away on my laptop, my phone dings… The first words in the text read: “ATTENTION NEEDED:”. The message had all the hallmarks of a cookie-cutter political blast that was cooked up by some DNC-alum or K Street PR strategist.
When I followed the prompt and clicked on the link, it took me to one of the industry’s most trusted hands in the Medicare Advantage fight, the Better Medicare Alliance (BMA) – one of my former colleagues’ most essential propaganda shops these days.
BMA is a slickly branded PR and lobbying shop that presents itself as a coalition of “advocates” working to protect seniors’ care, but it’s heavily funded by private insurers in the MA business who reap billions in those overpayments from taxpayers each year. BMA’s board has been stacked with Humana and UnitedHealth representatives and allies tied to medical schools like Emory and Meharry Medical College. For years, they’ve spent millions lobbying and propagating to protect MA insurers’ profits. This includes rallying against the No UPCODE Act since July; opposing CMS’ risk adjustment model in 2024 (which should help reduce some of the overpayments); and objecting vigorously to any Medicare Advantage plan payment reductions, year in and year out.
In short, BMA and MAM are both 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofits used by Big Insurance as part policy shop, part lobbying arm, and part attack dog. Together, they make up a strategy for insurers that want to keep their MA cash cows gorging on your money.
None of this is new, though. It’s the same PR crap I used to fling back in the old days when I was an industry executive and had to peddle Medicare Advantage plans. (Its deliciously ironic that MAM had the audacity to use the term “playbook” in one of its ads. In my old job I used to help write the industry’s playbook.) Each fall we’d work with AHIP (formerly America’s Health Insurance Plans) to host “Granny Fly-Ins” in Washington, D.C. Industry money (actually, taxpayer money) would cover the fly-in expenses, and the seniors would trot around Capitol Hill to extol the supposed benefits of Medicare Advantage plans and dare lawmakers to tamper with it. And that tactic worked for years. Of course, this was all before texting existed.
The squeal tells the story
For years, MA insurers have exaggerated how sick their patients are on paper (making them seem sicker so they can get a bigger taxpayer-funded handout). Hence the term “upcoding.” And the sick joke is – unfortunately – the same insurers who profit most from this upcoding scheme are using their taxpayer loot to stop this bill from gaining traction.
I think the industry’s squeal tells the story.
Let’s be real: Big Insurance wouldn’t be running this PR and lobbying blitz unless this legislation really would do some major good for Americans. The No UPCODE Act is a strong, bipartisan step toward ending wasteful, fraudulent practices that funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of industry executives and Wall Street shareholders. This one bill could save taxpayers as much as $124 billion over the next decade and keep the Medicare Trust Fund solvent for years longer.
You can be sure, though, that people on Capitol Hill and the administration already know ads like these are industry-funded. They see them for what they really are — part of a well-financed intimidation campaign. A game. Running ads like these is the industry’s way of flaunting its power and a reminder that big money can and will be spent in Congressional campaigns — and possibly (again) even during the Super Bowl — to mislead voters.
So remember, when you see an ad or get a text from an organization like MAM or BMA – know that these organizations have a lot to lose if legislation like the No UPCODE Act becomes law. And spending your premium and tax dollars on text blasts and TV spots are well worth the investment – to them, anyway.
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.
Recent analysis of spending data from five states with health care cost growth targets—Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Rhode Island—revealed an unexpected trend in 2023: Spending grew sharply in service categories that have historically increased more slowly. The most notable increase was in non-claims payments—payments made through financial arrangements between providers and health insurers that are not tied to individual claims. These payments rose by an average of 40.4 percent across the five states, driven largely by increases in Medicare Advantage non-claims spending.
Increases in non-claims payments are often seen as a positive sign. They suggest a shift away from fee-for-service payments toward alternative payment methods (APMs)—value-based payment models that incentivize care coordination, efficiency, and a focus on outcomes. However, it’s unclear what is included in these non-claims payments. A closer examination of this issue revealed a less visible but important concern: the role of insurer-provider vertical integration in potentially weakening the effectiveness of Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) requirements for insurers.
MLR Requirements
Medical Loss Ratio is a measure of the percentage of premium dollars that a health insurer spends on medical care and quality improvement activities—as opposed to administration, marketing, or profit. Since 2011, the Affordable Care Act has required insurers to maintain an MLR of at least 80 percent in the individual and small group markets, and 85 percent in the large group market. That is, for every dollar spent by an insurer, 80 cents or 85 cents—depending on the market—must go toward actual care and improvement. Insurers that don’t meet these required thresholds must pay a rebate to consumers for the premium dollars that were not spent on health care, less taxes, fees, and adjustments. In 2014, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services instituted a requirement for Medicare Advantage and Part D plans; they must maintain an MLR of at least 85 percent or rebate any excess revenues to the federal government.
These MLR requirements aim to ensure that the majority of premium revenue is used to deliver or improve care. However, a significant loophole allows insurers that have “vertically integrated” with providers to inflate reported medical spending. This reduces their rebate liability while increasing held profits. Since the MLR provisions took effect in 2012, an estimated $13 billion in rebates have been issued—highlighting the strong incentive insurers have to minimize these payouts.
The MLR Loophole
A company is vertically integrated when it owns or controls more than one entity in the supply chain. For insurers, this means acquiring physician practices, outpatient clinics, and even entire health systems. As a result of this vertical integration, payments to these affiliated providers count as medical spending when calculating an MLR for the insurer. However, there is no MLR requirement for providers. This creates an incentive for the insurer to direct spending to these affiliated provider entities, which may charge inflated prices, allowing the insurer to increase its reported MLR without delivering more care or improving quality.
Consider a hypothetical scenario: Company X owns Health Insurer A and Clinic Y. There’s another health insurer, B, in the market, but it is not owned by Company X. It costs Clinic Y $300 to deliver a particular service.
When a patient covered by Health Insurer B receives this service at Clinic Y, Insurer B pays the clinic $300 for delivering the service. But when another patient covered instead by Health Insurer A receives the same particular service at Clinic Y, Health insurer A pays the clinic a lot more: $500. The full $500 is counted as medical spending in Health Insurer A’s MLR calculation, even though the additional $200 didn’t buy any more services or any better care. It just represents internal profit for the vertically integrated entity, Company X, that is captured on the provider side of the business, and not true care delivery (see exhibit 1 below).
Exhibit 1: Incentives for vertically integrated insurers to direct spending to these affiliated provider entities
Source: Authors’ analysis.
The structure of APMs exacerbates this problem by making it easier to mask price increases. In fee-for-service systems, a price increase shows up directly. However, in APM payments that are per capitation or per episode, providers receive lump-sum payments for a group of services or a population. There is no service breakdown for these APMs. These lump-sum payments can facilitate investment in population health improvement, but if vertically integrated entities are exploiting the MLR loophole by increasing internal payment rates, the use of APMs make such profit maximization easier to conceal.
This dynamic reveals a limitation of the MLR rules. When the insurer is also the provider, there is less transparency into how health care dollars are actually allocated. The vertically integrated insurer and provider entity can also artificially inflate prices for medical services, worsening the nation’s health care affordability problem.
Potential Impact
Currently, there is no standardized way to assess the extent to which insurers that own or are otherwise affiliated with clinics and health systems are taking advantage of this loophole, or how much the practice contributes to high health care prices. However, with the growing trend toward insurer-provider vertical integration, the potential cost implications are significant.
Insurers That Own Providers Capture A Significant Share Of Commercial And Medicare Advantage Enrollment
In the large-group commercial market, the three largest insurers—Kaiser Permanente, UnitedHealthcare, and Elevance—held a combined 39 percent of the national market share in 2023. In the Medicare Advantage market, the top five plans—UnitedHealthcare, Humana, CVS Health/Aetna, Elevance, and Centene—accounted for 68 percent of total enrollment in 2023.All of these insurers operate within larger parent companies that own or control a range of health care provider entities.
For example, UnitedHealth Group, UnitedHealthcare’s parent company, also owns OptumHealth, which employs or manages more than 90,000 physicians across the country. The recently released Sunlight Report on UnitedHealth Group shows that it grew more than 10 times its size over the past decade, and the company now consists of nearly 3,000 distinct legal entities.
UnitedHealth Group is not the only insurer pursuing this strategy of vertical integration. Elevance Health (formerly Anthem, Inc.) owns Carelon, a health services provider that claims to serve one in three people in the US. CVS Health encompasses retail pharmacy storefronts (CVS Pharmacy), a pharmacy benefits manager (CVS Caremark), a health insurer (Aetna), in-store clinics (MinuteClinic), and provider groups such as Oak Street Health and Signify Health. This high level of consolidation gives these companies significant control over how care is delivered, priced, and reported.
Transactions Between Insurers And Their Affiliated Provider Entities Are Substantial And Growing
A 2022 analysis by the Brookings Institution suggests that in Medicare Advantage plans, internal transactions between affiliated insurers and providers can account for spending that ranges from about 20 percent to as much as 71 percent of the total. Cost growth target states’ reports on 2023 spending growth appear to confirm these trends within the Medicare Advantage market. Upon examination of the drivers behind the sharp increases in non-claims payments, a clear pattern emerged. In Connecticut, UnitedHealthcare launched a program that paid its affiliated provider group, which was then called OptumCare Network, a fixed percentage of Medicare Advantage premiums to cover care and care coordination. Oregon reported that the rise in Medicare Advantage non-claims payments was largely due to UnitedHealthcare shifting a significant share of its claims payments into non-claims spending through Optum.
These trends are not limited to Medicare Advantage, however. UnitedHealth and other major insurers such as Elevance and Aetna operate across multiple markets, raising concerns about similar dynamics in the commercial market. A recent analysis by Seth Glickman, a physician and former insurance executive, shows that in the past five years, UnitedHealth Group’s reported corporate “eliminations”—intercompany revenues reported in its consolidated financial statements that represent all books of business—more than doubled, increasing from $58.5 billion to $136.4 billion. At the same time, the share of Optum’s revenue derived from UnitedHealthcare, as opposed to unaffiliated entities, increased by nearly 50 percent.
Prices Of Health Care Services From Vertically Integrated Insurers And Providers Are Higher Than Prevailing Market Prices
Growing evidence also suggests that insurers are paying more for services provided through their affiliated entities than for those delivered by non-affiliated entities. A STAT News investigation revealed that UnitedHealth Group reimburses its own physician groups considerably more than other providers in the same markets for the same set of services. Similarly, a Wall Street Journal investigation showed how certain insurers and pharmacy benefit managers are generating substantial profits by overcharging for generic drugs within their own networks. The analysis found that for a selection of specialty generic drugs, Cigna and CVS’s prices were at least 24 times higher, on average, than the drug manufacturers’ prices.
Stronger Oversight Is Needed
The potential impact of these trends is so significant that policy makers are beginning to take notice. In 2023, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Mike Braun (R-IN) requested that the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General evaluate the extent to which vertical integration is increasing costs and allowing insurers to bypass federal MLR requirements. Earlier this year, Representatives Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and Greg Murphy (R-NC) submitted a bipartisan request to the Government Accountability Office—Congress’s independent, nonpartisan oversight agency—urging an investigation into the same issue in Medicare Advantage. It is unclear whether these investigations have been initiated.
Some states—understanding the role that market consolidation plays in driving up health care prices—have made efforts to strengthen oversight. In 2024, 22 states passed laws related to health system consolidation and competition. However, historically, these efforts have largely focused on promoting competition, preventing monopolies, and limiting dominant providers’ ability to charge prices well above competitive levels. Little attention has been given to the MLR loophole and the ability of vertically integrated insurers to report profits as medical care.
As states pursue policies to slow cost growth, they must apply greater scrutiny of vertical integration arrangements—especially around internal financial transactions between affiliated entities. States should require insurers to report detailed information on transactions between related parties, including non-claims-based APMs to affiliated providers and the pricing methodology used to develop these APMs. This reporting could be integrated into states’ premium rate review processes, allowing regulators to assess whether such transactions reflect actual medical costs. States could then modify or deny rate increases where evidence points to gaming of MLR rules.
Policy makers should also reassess whether, given these market dynamics, current regulatory tools such as the MLR are adequate. Addressing these issues will be essential for maintaining the integrity of cost containment efforts and ensuring that health care dollars are spent on delivering meaningful care.
Hospitals in rural and underserved areas could lose out on billions of dollars in federal funding if the government shutdown drags on.
Why it matters:
Many hospitals already run on tight margins and are bracing for fallout from Medicaid cuts and other changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
The big picture:
The immediate concern is health policies that expired when government funding lapsed at midnight Tuesday. Health providers and their lobbyists expect Congress will make providers whole in an eventual funding deal and reimburse claims made during the shutdown.
But that’s not a given. And uncertainty about how long the shutdown will go on is leaving some of the most financially vulnerable hospitals in limbo.
“There’s just that underlying fear of, oh my gosh, what if they can’t come together on any agreement to open the government again, and we all get looped into it,” said Kelly Lavin Delmore, health policy adviser and chair of government relations at Hooper Lundy Bookman.
State of play:
Safety-net hospitals face an $8 billion cut to Medicaid add-on payments in the absence of a government funding package.
The cuts to so-called disproportionate share hospital payments originate from the Affordable Care Act.
Congress has postponed the pay reductions more than a dozen times, but the most recent delay expired on Tuesday and Congress hasn’t signaled if or when it will step in.
The add-on payments are made quarterly, so hospitals may not feel immediate effects, even if Congress doesn’t further delay the cuts, according to the American Hospital Association. But state Medicaid agencies could let the cuts take place if they think lawmakers’ standoff will continue indeterminately, per AHA.
The uncertainty “really impacts that predictability and reliability as it relates to funding,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy at the Association of American Medical Colleges.
If the cuts do take effect, it would significantly hamper hospitals’ ability to care for their communities, Beth Feldpush, senior vice president of advocacy and policy at America’s Essential Hospitals, told Axios in a statement.
Additionally, two long-running programs that give pay bumps to rural hospitals expired on Wednesday.
One program adjusts Medicare payment upward for rural hospitals that discharge relatively few patients.
The other gives increased reimbursement rates to rural hospitals that have at least 60% of patients on Medicare.
They were designed to keep care available in communities that might otherwise not be able to support a hospital.
Both programs have expired in the past, only to be brought back to life with claims paid retroactively.
Zoom out:
Hospital industry groups have also been urging Congress to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits, which have become a flashpoint in the shutdown fight. Democrat lawmakers have so far refused to pass GOP-led funding proposals that don’t include a full extension of the subsidies.
What they’re saying:
AHA is urging Congress to find a bipartisan solution and reopen the government, a spokesperson told Axios.
“Patient care doesn’t go away with the loss of coverage and the loss of funding,” said Lisa Smith, vice president of advocacy and public policy for the Catholic Health Association.
“I just don’t know how long that’s going to be sustainable for our facilities that are really already operating on the margins.”
The Trump 2.0 administration is 8-months into its MAGA agenda. Summer has passed. Schools are open. Congress is in session. Campaign 2026 is underway. The economy is slowing and public sentiment is dropping.
For U.S. healthcare, it’s more bad news than good. The challenges are unprecedented. Most organizations—hospitals, medical groups, drug and device makers, infomediaries and solution providers, insurers, et al—are defaulting to lower risk bets since the long-term for the health system is unclear.
The good news is that the health system in the U.S. is big, fragmented, complex, expensive (5% CAGR spending increases thru 2034) and slow to change. It is highly regulated at local, state and federal levels, labor intense (20 million) and capital-dependent (government funding, private investment)—a trifecta nightmare for operators and goldmine for private investors who time the system for shareholders effectively. And it operates opaquely: business practices are hidden from everyday users and bona-fide measures of its effectiveness not widely applied or accepted.
The bad news is its long-term sustainability in its current form is suspect and its short-term success is dependent on adapting to key tenets in Trump Healthcare 2.0:
Trump Healthcare 2.0 is about reducing federal healthcare spending so federal deficits appear to be going down to voters in the mid-term election (November 3, 2026). Healthcare, which represents 27% of federal spending is an attractive target since a significant majority of all voters (especially MAGA Republicans) are dissatisfied with its performance and think is wasteful and inefficient. It views healthcare as a market where less government, more private innovation achieves more.
The effect of One Big Beautiful Bill Act cuts to Medicaid and marketplace subsidies and imposition of Make America Healthy Again dogma in CMS, CDC, FDA and FCC are popular in the MAGA base while problematic to states, hospitals, physicians and insurers whose business practices and clinical accountability will be more closely scrutinized.
The federal courts—SCOTUS, 13 circuit and 94 district courts– will support Trump Healthcare 2.0 policy changes in their decisions favoring state authority over federal rules, enabling White House executive orders and administrative actions against challenges and departmental directives that encourage competition, price transparency and cost reduction.
The FTC and DOJ will pro-actively pursue actions that reverse/disable collusion, horizontal and vertical consolidation in each sector deemed to raise prices and lower choices for consumers.
In the administration’s posturing for the mid-term election November 3, 2026, it’s assumed the economy and prices will be THE major issues to voters: healthcare affordability, housing costs and food prices will get heightened attention as a result. Thus, every healthcare organization board and leadership team should revisit short and long-term strategies, since traditional lag indicators re: utilization, regulations, structure, roles, responsibilities and funding are decreasingly predictive of the future.
Though every organization is different, there are 6 takeaways that merit particular attention as C suites and Boards re-evaluate strategies and timing:
Monitor the entire economy. The healthcare is 18% of the GDP; 82% of commerce falls outside its domain. Appropriations for healthcare compete with education, defense and public safety and health; household spending for healthcare competes with housing, food and transportation costs. The healthcare dollar is not insulated from competing priorities. If, as expected, the economy slows due to slowdowns in the job market and in housing, and if cuts to marketplace subsidies are enacted, healthcare spending will quickly and significantly drop though utilization will increase.
Follow clinical innovations carefully. Understand bench to bedside obstacles. The FDA will authorize 50-60 novel drugs and biologics and over 100 AI-enabled devices this year. Some will fundamentally alter care management processes; all will change costs and pricing. Those with short-term cost-reduction potential require consideration first. Given increased margin pressures, capital and operating budgets will reflect a more cautious and risk averse posture.
Manage fixed costs (more) aggressively and creatively. Direct costs reduction is not enough. Facilities and administrative functions are fair game and for outsourcing, partnerships and risk sharing with suppliers, vendors, advisors and even competitors.
Don’t underestimate price transparency. Prices matter. Consumers and regulator demand for price transparency from drugmakers, hospitals and insurers are inescapable. Justification and verification will be critical to trust and utilization.
Navigate AI strategically. The pace and effectiveness of Ai-enabled solutions will define winners and losers in each segment. And private capital—investors, partners—will bring those solutions to market.
Don’t discount public opinion. Consumer sentiment about the economy is low and dissatisfaction with the health system is high and increasing. Understanding root causes and initiating process improvement are starting points.
As I head back to DC today, the FY26 federal budget is in suspense as the GOP-controlled Senate and House debate a final version to avoid a shutdown next week. Physicians, public health and state officials will digest last week’s ACIP vaccine advisory recommendations and issue their own directives and insurers will file their plan revisions for 2026. That’s what lawmakers and trade groups will be watching.
But at the kitchen tables in at least 40% of America’s households, unpaid healthcare bills from hospitals, labs, doctor offices and set-aside cash for over-the-counter remedies and prescription drug co-pays are on the agenda. Student loan payments, escalating costs for groceries, housing, rent and child care and an unstable employment market are squeezing families. Budgeting for healthcare is more problematic for them than anything else because price are not accessible and charges are not known until after services are performed.
Trump Healthcare 2.0 is not transformational: it is transactional. It aims to simplify the system and facilitate changes certain to disrupt the status quo. Its locus of control, is Main Street USA. not Pennsylvania Ave, in DC.
HENRY KOTULA 