The Senate will vote tomorrow on dueling health care plans: Democrats’ proposal to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for three years, and a plan from two Republican chairmen that would instead give enrollees funds in health savings accounts.
Why it matters:
The move gives the GOP an alternative to point to if the ACA subsidies expire at the end of the year and health care costs spike for millions of people.
But neither plan is expected to get the 60 votes to advance.
Driving the news:
The plan from Finance Committee chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and health committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R-La.) wouldn’t extend the tax credits past their year-end expiration, instead providing $1,000 to $1,500 in health savings accounts to help certain marketplace enrollees with out-of-pocket costs.
It’s drawn sharp criticism from some Democrats for leaving working-class Americans saddled with high health costs.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.) left open the possibility of talks after both votes fail on Thursday, though there is deep skepticism about the chances of reaching a bipartisan agreement.
“If neither proposal gets 60 then we’ll see where it goes from there,” Thune said.
President Trump, asked later about the Crapo-Cassidy bill and whether Republicans should vote for it, told reporters, “I like the concept. … I love the idea of money going directly to the people.”
Between the lines:
On the House side, GOP leadership, committee chairs and leaders of House GOP factions met yesterday to discuss health proposals, with an eye toward a possible House vote this year.
Members left the meeting tight-lipped, saying discussions are ongoing.
The full House Republican conference is expected to discuss health proposals in its meeting this morning ahead of potential votes next week.
For an economy that’s rapidly expanding, the usual drivers of job creation sure aren’t carrying their weight.
Why it matters:
Anemic job growth in key sectors is a sign that there is more underlying weakness in worker demand than the low unemployment rate might suggest.
It makes for a weaker starting point, as companies see new opportunities around the corner to use AI to automate their work.
It’s not a new trend: These sectors showed weak job creation or outright job losses for the last couple of years of the Biden administration.
But it is striking that a GDP surge fueled by data center and AI investment hasn’t been enough to generate more robust hiring.
By the numbers:
Overall employment is up 0.8% over the 12 months ended in September, but the hiring has been driven in significant part by health care, state and local government, and other less cyclical sectors.
Manufacturing employment is down 0.7% over the last 12 months. Tariffs are weighing on the sector, but its job losses long predate the Trump trade wars, with year-over-year job losses for more than two years.
Temporary help employment, which tends to be a volatile indicator underlying growth trends, is down 3%. It has been losing jobs for three consecutive years.
Two other sectors that tend to correlate with overall economic momentum, transportation and warehousing and wholesale trade, are also adding jobs at rates below that of overall job growth (0.6% and 0.2%, respectively).
Stunning stat:
As Bloomberg flagged, two sectors — health care and social assistance, and leisure and hospitality — accounted for more than 100% of net job gains so far in 2025.
Excluding those sectors, employment dropped by 6,000 jobs in the first nine months of the year.
Zoom out:
There’s not much reason to think these numbers are driven by AI-related opportunities for companies to increase productivity and rely on fewer human workers, particularly given that the phenomenon isn’t new.
But it is more plausible that seeing such opportunities on the horizon has made companies more reluctant to hire in the absence of overwhelming need.
BlackRock chief investment officer for global fixed income Rick Rieder wrote in a note after last week’s jobs report that “what we think we are seeing now is … essentially a hiring pause in anticipation of AI.”
Of note:
A report out this morning from the McKinsey Global Institute finds that AI and robotics technologies could, in theory, automate 57% of U.S. work hours.
“AI will not make most human skills obsolete, but it will change how they are used,” the authors find. “As AI takes on common tasks, people will apply their skills in new contexts,” they write, such as less time researching and preparing documents and more time framing questions and interpreting results.
The bottom line:
Beneath the headline numbers, there is some good reason that attitudes toward the job market are glum.
The Trump administration is shaking up how health systems are paid for outpatient care with a plan that could reduce Medicare hospital spending by nearly $11 billion over the next decade.
Why it matters:
It’s a big step forward for “site-neutral” payment policies that have been touted as a way to save taxpayers and patients money, but that hospitals say will lead to service cuts, especially in rural areas.
Driving the news:
Medicare administrators on Friday finalized a proposal to reduce what the government pays hospitals to administer outpatient drugs, including chemotherapy, at off-campus sites.
The move would equalize payment rates to hospitals and physician practices for the same services — an idea that Congress debated last year but didn’t act on in the face of aggressive hospital lobbying.
Medicare now pays about $341 for chemotherapy administration in hospital outpatient facilities, compared with $119 for the same service delivered in a doctor’s office.
Medicare next year will also start to phase out a list of more than 1,700 procedures and services only covered when they’re delivered in an inpatient setting.
What they’re saying:
The policy changes will give seniors more choices on where to get a procedure and potentially lower out-of-pocket costs at an outpatient site, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said.
Some health policy experts said the change will help make Medicare more affordable.
“We hope the administration will continue its efforts and adopt site neutrality for other services in future rules,” Mark Miller, executive vice president of health care at Arnold Ventures, said in a statement.
The other side:
“Both policies ignore the important differences between hospital outpatient departments and other sites of care,” Ashley Thompson, a senior vice president at the American Hospital Association, said in a statement.
“The reality is that hospital outpatient departments serve Medicare patients who are sicker, more clinically complex, and more often disabled or residing in rural or low-income areas than the patients seen in independent physician offices.”
Hospital outpatient departments still will see an $8 billion overall increase in their Medicare payments in 2026.
But the Trump administration contends that new technologies and other factors are shortening recovery times for procedures done on an outpatient basis.
Between the lines:
Health systems still scored a small win when CMS dropped a plan to speed up the repayment of $7.8 billion in improper cuts the first Trump administration made to safety-net providers’ reimbursements in the federal discount drug program.
The policy would have clawed back the money from hospitals’ Medicare reimbursements. Scrapping the idea “helps preserve critical resources for patient care during an already challenging time,” Soumi Saha, senior vice president of government affairs at Premier, said in a statement.
Still, CMS said it may try again in 2027. And law firm Hooper Lundy Bookman is already sending out feelers to hospitals willing to challenge the version of the repayment plan that will go into effect next year, per an alert sent Friday night.
What we’re watching:
Whether health systems challenge the site-neutral payment changes. The hospital payment plan came weeks later than expected and will make it harder for facilities to update billing, revise their budgets and train staff, Saha said.
The administration is also launching a survey of hospitals’ outpatient drug acquisition costs next year, which is seen as a prelude for cutting reimbursements under the discount drug program.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is urging Senate Democrats to unite behind an expansive health care proposal in the party’s negotiations with Republicans to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits.
Why it matters:
GOP leaders have promised Democrats a vote on the expiring tax credits next month as part of their deal to end the government shutdown.
Sanders wants the Democratic proposal to extend the ACA tax credits, repeal $1 trillion in GOP health care cuts, expand Medicare and lower prescription drug prices, he said in a letter to colleagues late Monday.
Republicans, however, have signaled that any deal to extend the tax credits must be short term and require reforms.
Premiums will more than double for millions of ACA enrollees next year if Congress does not renew enhanced marketplace subsidies by year’s end, according to a new analysis.
The big picture:
Democratic leaders have argued that the government shutdown has made health care a top political issue.
Sanders, the top Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said Democrats must make proposals that address “systemic deficiencies.”
“We should not be defending a system which is not only, by far, the most expensive in the world, but one which numerous international studies describe as one of the worst,” Sanders wrote to Democratic senators.
Sanders’ HELP committee is expected to be involved in negotiations with Republicans over a potential bipartisan deal to extend the credits next month.
A spokesperson for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said: “The bill Democrats bring to the floor will be a caucus product.”
Between the lines:
Sanders acknowledged in his letter that his Medicare For All proposal “does not yet have majority support” in the caucus. But he said his latest proposal included “much-needed reforms.”
Sanders also encouraged Democrats to propose investments to expand primary care services, ban stock buybacks and dividends and substantially reduce CEO compensation in the health care industry.
Republicans are taking a harder line against extending enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies — and doubling down on an alternative plan that would send the money directly to consumers.
Why it matters:
President Trump’s opposition to an extension makes it increasingly unlikely that Republicans will agree to renew the tax credits, even though it’s not clear how the GOP alternative would work or whether the party can reach a consensus.
Driving the news:
Trump wrote on Truth Social on Tuesday that the “only” plan he will support is “sending the money directly back to the people,” and that Congress should not “waste your time” on anything else, like a subsidy extension.
Trump didn’t elaborate on how his plan would work. The ACA already gives people financial help in buying insurance.
Some GOP proposals envision giving people money for a health savings account on top of existing ACA coverage, mitigating concerns about healthy people leaving the market.
Senate health committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R-La.) outlined a plan on Monday that would redirect the enhanced subsidy money to an HSA to help pay out-of-pocket costs for people who chose bronze-level ACA plans, which tend to have high deductibles.
He argued the move would direct money away from insurance companies and to consumers, and empower them to shop for health services.
Anotherpossible outcome would be allowing people to buy cheaper, skimpier coverage that doesn’t comply with the ACA’s benefit requirements. Some policy experts warn that would destabilize the ACA markets, by prompting an exodus of healthier people.
That would leave a sicker risk pool and prompt insurers to raise premiums, resulting in a “death spiral,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF.
By contrast, “I don’t think there’s any risk of, you know, a collapse or death spiral, from what Senator Cassidy is talking about,” Levitt said, though without the enhanced subsidies there would still be “potentially millions of people who just won’t be able to afford insurance at all.”
Between the lines:
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) wouldn’t rule out a bipartisan solution when asked about Trump’s comments on Tuesday, saying “we’ll see” how negotiations go and that “there’s an openness” to a deal on the GOP side.
He said the biggest obstacle, though, could be whether Democrats agree to apply the Hyde Amendment to the subsidies and add restrictions on using the funds for abortions.
The intrigue:
Cassidy is framing his plan as the most realistic option, given White House and House GOP leadership resistance to the subsidies.
“The president is not going to sign a straightforward extension of premium tax credits,” Cassidy said. “So if you actually want something which can pass and get a vote on the House floor, then what the president is proposing is actually a better way.”
Yes, but:
Democrats believe mounting public concern about rising health costs gives them the upper hand pushing for a subsidy extension.
“Sending people a few thousand dollars while doing nothing to lower health care costs is a scheme to help the ultra-wealthy at the expense of working people with cancer or pre-existing conditions,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in response to Trump’s comments.
“Americans want Congress to extend the ACA tax credits to keep health insurance premiums from skyrocketing on January 1,” he added.
The big picture:
The war of words is further diminishing the chances that a group of moderates in both parties can find a bipartisan agreement to extend the subsidies with some modifications favored by Republicans, like an income cap and anti-fraud measures.
House GOP leaders have also been criticizing the subsidies. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said on Fox News on Sunday that the party would be bringing forward legislation in the coming weeks on other ways to lower costs, like expanding HSAs or cracking down on pharmacy benefit managers.
The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday morning on health care costs, giving senators a chance to stake out their positions further in public.
The bottom line:
It’s unlikely that Trump’s plan would gain the necessary 60 Senate votes to advance. But it could give Republican senators political cover if they oppose a subsidy extension.
Republicans could still opt to use the reconciliation process to pass a bill with a simple majority. Though the White House floated the idea on Tuesday, it’s not clear if any GOP-only plan has the votes to pass.
Layoff trends in 2025 indicate an increase in job cuts compared to 2024, with US employers announcing nearly 950,000 cuts through September, the highest number since 2020. Key drivers include cost-cutting measures, the strategic implementation of artificial intelligence (AI), and a cooling labor market.
Key Trends
Elevated Numbers: Total US job cuts through October 2025 were over one million, a 65% increase from the same period in 2024. October 2025 had the highest number of layoffs for that month in 22 years.
AI as a Primary Driver: AI adoption is a leading cause for job cuts as companies restructure for efficiency and reallocate resources. Companies like Amazon and Intel have cited AI as a reason for significant workforce reductions.
“Forever Layoffs”: A new trend involves smaller, more regular rounds of layoffs (fewer than 50 people) that create ongoing worker anxiety and impact company culture. These rolling cuts often stay out of headlines but contribute significantly to the overall job cuts.
Method of Notification: The process is becoming more impersonal, with many employees being notified of their termination via email or phone call rather than in-person meetings.
Hiring Slowdown: Alongside the layoffs, there has been a sharp drop in hiring plans, with planned hires for the year at their lowest level since 2011.
Affected Industries
While tech has been significantly impacted since late 2022, other industries are also facing substantial cuts in 2025:
Technology: Remains a leading sector for cuts as companies continue to restructure after pandemic-era overhiring and focus on AI.
Retail and Warehousing: Companies like Target and UPS are cutting thousands of jobs due to changing consumer demands, automation, and a push for efficiency.
Energy and Manufacturing: Oil giants such as Chevron and BP are making cuts as part of cost-reduction strategies and market consolidation.
Finance and Consulting: Firms like PwC and Morgan Stanley are trimming staff, citing factors like low attrition rates and the need to realign resources.
Media and Communications: Companies like CNN and the Washington Post have made cuts to pivot toward digital services and reduce costs.
Economic Context
The overall U.S. labor market remains relatively healthy despite the uptick in layoffs, though it is showing signs of cooling. The unemployment rate has inched up, and consumer sentiment has declined. The Federal Reserve is monitoring the situation and has implemented interest rate cuts to help stabilize the job market.
The cost of hiring help to care for an elderly or a sick person at home is skyrocketing.
Why it matters:
A labor shortage and surging demand from an aging population was already driving up prices, and nowthe White House’s crackdown on immigration and funding cuts are making things worse.
By the numbers:
So far this year, the price of in-home care for the elderly, disabled or convalescent at home is up 10%, compared with a rise of 3% for prices overall, according to government data.
From just August to September, prices for home health care spiked a staggering 7%.
Zoom in:
Rising prices and the limited availability of people who do this work are pushing families to make hard choices. Some will put relatives and loved ones into institutions, a more expensive and often less desirable option than staying at home.
Others will drop out of the workforce or cut back their hours to care for parents, relatives or partners.
The supply of workers is not keeping up with demand, Matthew Nestler, senior economist at KPMG, writes in a post. “That hurts workers and their families, employers and the overall U.S. economy.”
Friction point:
Last year, employment was surging in home health care, with an average of 13,500 jobs added each month.
But after the Trump administration immigration crackdown began in January, employment dropped off, falling into negative territory for three consecutive months in the spring, Nestler noted this summer.
This isn’t a matter of demand falling, but a cutoff in supply, he explained.
How it works:
Immigrants make up 1 in 3 workers in home care settings, per data from KFF, a health care research organization.
The severe crackdown this year on undocumented immigrants and the Trump administration’s removal of legal status from workers who are here from Venezuela and other countries are making it hard to find workers, says Mollie Gurian, vice president of policy and government affairs at LeadingAge, an aging-services nonprofit.
“The supply of workers was already so low,” she says. With fewer folks available, the companies that provide these service are raising prices to put pressure on demand. Others are raising prices in anticipation of cuts to Medicaid funding, she says.
The big picture:
At the same time that the supply of people to do this work is falling, the number of Americans who need care is rising, as a silver tsunami of baby boomers ages.
The bottom line:
We are only at the very beginning of a dramatic demographic shift, Nestler says.
Elder care is a “ticking time bomb that no one’s talking about.”
The government shutdown has left many federal workers furloughed, caused nationwide flight delays, left small businesses unable to access loans and put nonprofit services in jeopardy. It’s only expected to get worse.
As Congress remains deadlocked over passing a stopgap measure to reopen the government, thousands of Americans are at risk of losing benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and other programs at the beginning of November.
An additional burden on Americans is the start of open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as ObamaCare, on Nov. 1, where they will see more costly health insurance premium plans unless lawmakers act.
Democrats and Republicans have spent weeks pointing fingers at each other, with no deal in sight. The Senate on Tuesday failed to advance a Republican stopgap measure to end the shutdown for the 13th time, while the House was out of session and President Trump was traveling abroad.
With uncertainty around the shutdown’s timeline growing day by day, here are six ways Americans will start to feel more of the shutdown’s impact.
Federal employees
At least 670,000 federal workers have been furloughed while about 730,000 are working without pay as of Oct. 24, according to data from the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank based in Washington, D.C. The center estimates that if the shutdown continues through the beginning of December, federal civilian employees will miss roughly 4.5 million paychecks.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the nation’s largest federal workers union, urged Congress to pass a “clean” funding measure known as a continuing resolution to reopen the government. AFGE President Everett Kelley said in an Oct. 27 statement, “No half measures, and no gamesmanship. Put every single federal worker back on the job with full back pay — today.”
“I get where they’re coming from. We want the shutdown to end too. But fundamentally, if Trump and Republicans continue to refuse to negotiate with us to figure out how to lower health care costs, we’re in the same place that we’ve always been,” Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) told The Hill on Tuesday.
SNAP and WIC
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) said benefits won’t be issued on Nov. 1 for SNAP, a program that helps low-income families afford food. Nearly 42 million Americans rely on SNAP benefits every month, according to data from the USDA.
Though the USDA formed a plan earlier this year that said the department is obligated to use contingency funds to pay out benefits during a shutdown, it has since been deleted. The USDA wrote in a memo this month that the contingency fund is only designed for emergencies such as “natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods, that can come on quickly and without notice.”
Democratic officials in more than two dozen states sued the Trump administration this week, arguing the USDA is legally required to tap into those funds. But House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has claimed those funds are not “legally available.”
Families who rely on WIC, a program that provides food aid and other services to low-income pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children younger than 5 years old, could also face trouble. The White House had provided $300 million to WIC to keep the program afloat in early October. But 44 organizations signed on to an Oct. 24 letter from the National WIC Association to the White House requesting an additional $300 million in emergency funds, warning that “numerous states are projected to exhaust their resources for WIC benefits” on Nov. 1.
Military pay
Payday is coming up at the end of this week for members of the military.
Earlier this month, Trump directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to “use all available funds” to pay troops. Officials ended up reallocating $8 billion in unspent funds meant for Pentagon research and development efforts toward service members’ paychecks. The administration also received a $130 million donation from a private donor to help cover military members’ paychecks.
Vice President Vance said he believes active-duty service members will get paid this Friday. But Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CBS News’s Margaret Brennan on Sunday that troops could go without pay on Nov. 15 if the shutdown continues.
Senate Democrats blocked a bill sponsored by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) earlier this month to pay active-duty members and other essential federal workers.
ACA subsidies
At the center of the shutdown fight is the ACA subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of this year. Democrats have been urging Republicans to extend the subsidies, arguing that ACA health insurance premium costs will increase if no action is taken.
Americans can choose their insurance plans for next year on the federal Affordable Care Act exchange website starting Saturday. An analysis from KFF found that without the subsidies extended, Americans will see their marketplace premium payments increase by 114 percent.
Republicans have been firm in their position of reopening the government first before discussing the ACA subsidies.
“The expiring ObamaCare subsidy at the end of the year is a serious problem. If you look at it objectively, you know that it is subsidizing bad policy. We’re throwing good money at a bad, broken system, and so it needs real reforms,” Speaker Johnson said at a Monday press conference.
Head Start
About 140 Head Start programs across 41 states and Puerto Rico serving more than 65,000 children could go dark if the shutdown goes past Nov 1., according to a joint statement from more than 100 national, state and local organizations focused on childhood education and development.
“Without funding, many of these programs will be forced to close their doors, leaving children without care, teachers without pay, and parents without the ability to work,” the statement says.
Head Start programs are designed to help low-income families and their children from birth to age 5 with a focus on health and wellness services, family well-being and engagement and early learning, according to its website.
Nonprofits
Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, told The Hill in a statement that the shutdown has forced many nonprofits to halt their operations because of frozen federal reimbursements and grants.
The nonprofits include those handling wildfire recovery in Colorado, housing vulnerable youth in Utah and helping with conservation work in Montana, Yentel said. Many federal workers without pay have also turned to their local food banks, further putting a financial strain on nonprofits.
“With the November 1 cutoff of SNAP and WIC looming, the situation will get even worse. Nonprofit food banks are already facing rising grocery costs and increased demand, including from federal workers and military families,” Yentel said. “If millions of Americans suddenly lose access to these life-saving nutrition programs, local nonprofits will be overwhelmed, and far too many seniors, children, and families will go without help.”
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.
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.”
HENRY KOTULA 