Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

How Expiring Subsidies and Medicaid Cuts Could Reshape U.S. Access to Care

News

A stethoscope, calculator, pills, and cash.

As ACA subsidies expire and Medicaid rolls shrink, millions could face higher premiums or lose coverage, reigniting a national healthcare debate.

Getty Images, athima tongloom

Current Issue

In the coming year, millions of Americans could see their health insurance premiums rise, or lose coverage entirely, as key federal supports for affordable care are set to expire. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace, which were later extended by the Inflation Reduction Act, are scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. According to one analysis, if these enhanced subsidies expire, premiums on average could increase by 25-100 percent. At the same time, several states are reducing Medicaid rolls following the end of the pandemic-era continuous coverage requirement. Over 25 million people had been disenrolled from Medicaid and CHIP during this process in 2024. Together, these changes could redefine U.S. healthcare access, reigniting debates about public health and fiscal restraint.

Background

The ACA, passed in 2010, aimed to make health insurance more accessible for millions of uninsured Americans by expanding Medicaid eligibility and creating subsidized plans under the premium tax credit. The ARPA of 2021 significantly increased those marketplace subsidies, eliminating the 400% of poverty threshold for eligibility and reducing the percentage of income that enrollees must pay in premiums. As a result, the number of people eligible for marketplace subsidies increased from 18.1 million to 21.8 million from 2020-2021. Meanwhile, pandemic policies prevented states from disenrolling almost all Medicaid and CHIP enrollees for over three years. When this continuous coverage requirement ended in April of 2023, states began to reevaluate the eligibility of tens of millions of people. The expiration of ARPA temporary subsidies combined with the end of continuous Medicaid coverage set the stage for a contentious healthcare market next year.


Arguments for and Against Medicaid Cuts

Supporters of allowing the subsidies to expire and tightening Medicaid eligibility argue that these measures are necessary to reduce federal spending and restore fiscal discipline. For example, one analyst reported that ACA-related premium tax credits and related spending accounted for about 6% of federal healthcare spending in 2023, and projections show it shrinking further. Fiscal conservatives argue that the temporary nature of the pandemic-era expansions was clear from the start, and that continuing them indefinitely would distort the original design of the ACA and burden taxpayers.

Opponents of the cuts, however, warn that cutting back subsidies and shrinking Medicaid benefits would reverse more than a decade of progress in reducing the rate of uninsurance. One article estimates that 4-5 million additional Americans could become uninsured. Additionally, disenrollment data shows that procedural and administrative barriers have already contributed to millions of terminations in Medicaid, even where people may still be eligible. These critics argue that healthcare coverage is a public good, and that covering more people reduces uncompensated care costs for hospitals, improves population health outcomes, and increases economic stability for families.

Political and Public Health Implications

The debate over healthcare subsidies and Medicaid reflects a broader ideological divide in Washington. For the most part,Democrats favor extending or making the enhanced subsidies permanent, while Republicans emphasize deficit reduction and returning to pre-pandemic policy norms. This issue has become a key point of focus during the government shutdown.

From a public health perspective, the health outcomes related to this situation are equally important. If subsidies lapse and Medicaid cuts continue, the uninsured rate will likely rise, threatening preventative care, maternal health, and chronic disease management. Hospitals in rural and underserved areas which are already operating under thin margins could face higher uncompensated care burdens, potentially forcing reduction in services or closures. This is especially important as underserved communities and those of color who have already seen disparate impacts during the pandemic may be more vulnerable to coverage loss.

Conclusion

As the 2025 expiration date approaches, lawmakers must make a choice: whether to extend federal assistance and maintain current levels of coverage, or allow the system to contract in the name of fiscal prudence. This decision will shape the affordability of healthcare for millions. Whether Congress chooses to sustain or scale back these programs, one thing is clear: the future of U.S. healthcare once again hangs in the balance.


How Expiring Subsidies and Medicaid Cuts Could Reshape U.S. Access to Care was originally published by the Alliance for Civic Engagement and is republished with permission.


Read More

Why ICE's Aggressive Tactics are a Public Health Crisis

Following killings in Minneapolis, ICE operations reignite concerns over overpolicing, racial profiling, and the mental health toll on Black communities nationwide.

Getty Images, David Berding

Why ICE's Aggressive Tactics are a Public Health Crisis

Following the recent killings of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents continue to conduct operations across the country. In recent weeks, under-the-radar sweeps have been reported in communities from California to North Carolina.

ICE’s use of targeted policing, harassment, and excessive force has pushed the issue of overpolicing to the forefront again. For many in Black communities across the U.S., these patterns feel painfully familiar, especially considering the agents are charged with infiltrating communities of color to detain “illegal immigrants.” And while some cases of aggressive policing make headlines, there are countless others that never make the news. Nevertheless, the harm is real, affecting the collective mental health of communities of color and others as well.

Keep ReadingShow less
Native Americans Are Dying From Pregnancy. They Want a Voice To Stop the Trend.

Native Americans have been working with state and federal officials to boost tribal participation and leadership in maternal mortality review committees to better track and address pregnancy-related deaths. (Oona Zenda/KFF Health News)

Oona Zenda/KFF Health News

Native Americans Are Dying From Pregnancy. They Want a Voice To Stop the Trend.

Just hours after Rhonda Swaney left a prenatal appointment for her first pregnancy, she felt severe pain in her stomach and started vomiting.

Then 25 years old and six months pregnant, she drove herself to the emergency room in Ronan, Montana, on the Flathead Indian Reservation, where an ambulance transferred her to a larger hospital 60 miles away in Missoula. Once she arrived, the staff couldn’t detect her baby’s heartbeat. Swaney began to bleed heavily. She delivered a stillborn baby and was hospitalized for several days. At one point, doctors told her to call her family. They didn’t expect her to survive.

Keep ReadingShow less
William H Foege standing next to a bust of Hygeia.

Former Centers for Disease Control (CDC) director William H Foege standing next to a bust of Hygeia, the Greek goddess of health, 1985. Image courtesy Centers for Disease Control.

Getty Images, Smith Collection/Gado

Bill Foege: One of Humanity’s Heroes

At a time when public health is under attack in America, and people without medical expertise are making decisions that are having negative consequences globally, we would do well to remember those who helped achieve what had been remarkable progress in world health. One such person was Dr. William “Bill” Foege, a giant in the public health sector who died recently at the age of 89.

Among his many achievements is the role he played in eradicating smallpox, a disease that had been the scourge of humanity, killing as many as 500 million people. Like many contagious diseases, smallpox remained intractable in parts of the world that lacked effective healthcare systems.

Keep ReadingShow less
WHO Withdrawal and Trump’s Transactional Approach to Global Health Policy
boy in white tank top with face mask
Photo by Oscar Nolasco on Unsplash

WHO Withdrawal and Trump’s Transactional Approach to Global Health Policy

On January 22, the United States finalized its exit from the World Health Organization. This move did not come as a surprise. The process began more than a year earlier, the day after President Trump took his oath of office for a second term. His dislike for the world body and its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic is well known, as is his deal-making approach in foreign policy.

Trump’s logic is driven by self-interest and the notion of “What’s in it for us?” This transactional approach became even more apparent in December, when the U.S. Government signed 14 bilateral health agreements with African nations totaling US$ 16 billion.

Keep ReadingShow less