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

University Roundtable Puts Latino Mental Health Front and Center

woman holds "Hablo Espanol" button

Picture Provided

University Roundtable Puts Latino Mental Health Front and Center

“Keep it to yourself. Push it down. Don’t say anything.” That is how Isis Lara Fernandez was taught to live with her status as an undocumented immigrant in the United States.

At 6-years-old, Lara Fernandez fled to the U.S. with her mother and siblings to escape domestic violence in Honduras. From that point forward, Lara Fernandez navigated life with a persistent fear that her secret could be discovered at any point in time.

Keep Reading Show less
The Health Care Debate & Feldstein’s Fix
black and gray stethoscope

The Health Care Debate & Feldstein’s Fix

Serving in Congress during the implementation of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, Republicans embraced the position of “repeal and replace.” Repeal the ACA, but replace it with what? The debate is front-and-center again, though the ground has shifted some. There is more support for the ACA. Even some Republicans are looking to temporarily extend COVID-era subsidies for ACA health plans. Other Republicans want Health Savings Accounts, so more money goes to individuals instead of insurance companies. Democratic leadership seeks an approach temporarily extending the expanded premium subsidies, during which the entire approach to health care can be rethought.

The late economist Martin Feldstein had the fix: Martin Feldstein proposed a voucher system in which everyone could purchase a health insurance plan covering health care expenses exceeding 15% of their income. This could be combined with HSAs if they prove popular with the public.

Keep Reading Show less
When Medical Misinformation Costs Lives: Balancing Free Speech and Public Health
person wearing gold wedding band

When Medical Misinformation Costs Lives: Balancing Free Speech and Public Health

In my corner of the world, it feels like 2020 all over again, experiencing the push and pull between losing someone I love due to medical misinformation, all while holding respect for free speech.

The tension between combating medical misinformation and protecting free speech represents one of the most challenging dilemmas of our age. On one side lies the very real danger of false health claims that can literally cost lives. On the other side, there is a fundamental democratic principle that has historically protected unpopular truths from suppression.

Keep Reading Show less
World AIDS Day and the Fight to Sustain PEPFAR
a woman in a white shirt holding a red ribbon
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

World AIDS Day and the Fight to Sustain PEPFAR

Every year on December 1, World AIDS Day isn't just a time to look back, but it’s a call to action. This year, that call echoes louder than ever. Even as medicine advances and treatments improve, support from political leaders remains shaky. When the Trump administration threatened to roll back the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), it became clear just how vulnerable such critical programs can be. The effort to weaken or even dismantle PEPFAR wasn't just a policy debate; it lifted the curtain on how fragile moral commitments are. Revealing how easily leaders can forget the human stakes when political winds shift.

Despite these challenges, PEPFAR endures. It remains among the world's most effective global health efforts. For over twenty years, it has received bipartisan backing, saved more than 25 million lives, and strengthened public health systems across dozens of countries, notably in Africa and the Caribbean. Its ongoing existence stands as a testament to what is possible when compassion and strategic investment align. Yet the program's continued effectiveness is anything but guaranteed. As attempts to chip away at its foundation recur, PEPFAR's future depends on unflagging advocacy and renewed resolve to keep it robust and responsive.

Keep Reading Show less