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

Political and Economic Pressures Set Up a Healthcare Shift in 2026
man in white dress shirt holding white paper

Political and Economic Pressures Set Up a Healthcare Shift in 2026

Healthcare in 2025 was consumed by chaos, conflict and relentless drama. Yet despite unprecedented political turmoil, cultural division and major technological breakthroughs, there was little meaningful improvement in how care is paid for or delivered.

That outcome was not surprising. American medicine is extraordinarily resistant to change. In most years, even when problems are obvious and widely acknowledged, the safest bet is that the care patients experience in January will look much the same in December.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Finish Line Is a Commons
Athletes compete in a hyrox event with puma branding.

The Finish Line Is a Commons

A decade ago, bootcamp workouts had little to do with appearance or chasing personal records. For me, they meant survival. They offered a way to manage stress, process grief, and stay upright beneath the weight of vocation and responsibility. Pastoral leadership, specifically during the time of “parachute church-planting,” often convinces a person that stillness is an unattainable luxury and that exhaustion is a sign of virtue. Eventually, my body defied those assumptions. So I went to the workout and may have discovered the “secret sauce” behind such entrepreneurial success. Then I returned. And kept returning. Mornings meant emerging outdoors at first light. I found myself in empty parking lots, on tracks, inside gyms, and eventually in a neighboring storefront home to BKM Fitness, owned by Braint Mitchell. There was no soundtrack, only measured breath and occasional encouragement called out by someone who hardly knew my name.

I could not have predicted that such spaces would become the most honest civic grounds I occupy. Today, my sense of belonging unfolds less in churches, classrooms, or boardrooms, and more in bootcamp circles, running groups, the leaderboard on Peloton, and, more recently, at a Hyrox start line—a hybrid fitness space where community looks and feels different.

Keep ReadingShow less
Freezing Child Care Funding Throws the Baby Out with the Bathwater
boy's writing on book

Freezing Child Care Funding Throws the Baby Out with the Bathwater

In the South, there is an idiom that says, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” It means not discarding something valuable while trying to eliminate something harmful. The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) proposed response to unsubstantiated child care fraud allegations in Minnesota risks doing exactly that.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has frozen child care and family assistance grants in five states, and reports indicate that this action may be extended nationwide. Fraud at any level is wrong and should be thoroughly investigated, and once proven to be true, addressed. However, freezing child care payments and family assistance grants based on the views of a single social media “influencer” is an overcorrection that threatens the stability of child care programs and leaves families without care options through no fault of their own.

Across the nation, Americans rely heavily on child care. According to the Center for American Progress, nearly 70 percent of children under age six had all available parents in the workforce in 2023, underscoring how essential child care is to family and economic stability.

Child care funding, therefore, is not optional. It is a necessity that must remain stable and predictable.

Without consistent funding, child care operations are forced to significantly reduce capacity, and some are forced to close altogether. In 2025, a longtime family child care owner made the difficult decision to close her business after state budget cuts eliminated critical child care funding. While this example reflects a state-level funding failure, the impact is the same. When funding becomes unreliable, as is the case with the current funding freeze, child care business owners, employees, parents, and children all suffer.

The economic consequences extend well beyond families. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, when parents cannot find or afford child care, they are pushed out of the workforce, and businesses lose skilled employees. Child care gaps disrupt staffing across industries and cost states an estimated $1 billion annually in lost economic activity.

Child care is no longer just a family issue. It is an economic issue. It is one of the few sectors that directly affects every other industry. At a time when women are being encouraged to have more children, a strong support system must also exist, and that includes consistent, reliable child care funding.

Misuse of government funds is not a new concept. During the COVID-19 pandemic, more than $200 billion in federal relief funding across programs was reportedly misused. Fraud occurs in every industry, and no system is immune to it.

If allegations of child care fraud are substantiated, safeguards should absolutely be implemented to prevent future misuse; however, freezing child care funding would further delay payments to a sector already plagued by late reimbursements, disrupt services for children and families, and destabilize small businesses that operate on thin margins.

The solution is straightforward. Strengthen oversight to mitigate risk, without punishing the entire field. We must acknowledge that the vast majority of child care programs operate in good faith and in compliance with the law, providing care to millions of children nationwide. According to a 2020 report by the United States Government Accountability Office, only seven states since 2013 have had errors in more than 10 percent of their child care fund payments.

Yes, accountability matters, but solutions must be precise and measured. Sweeping actions based on unsubstantiated claims destabilize the entire child care system. When child care collapses, families lose care, caregivers lose income, small businesses close, and the economy suffers.

We can strengthen safeguards without dismantling the system that families and the economy depend on. We can address misuse if and where it exists. But we cannot afford to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Eboni Delaney is the Director of Policy and Movement Building at the National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC), and a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project in Partnership with the National Black Child Development Institute.

Keep ReadingShow less
The ACA’s Missing Mandate: Why Costs Keep Rising

Repealing the ACA’s individual mandate destabilized insurance markets, drove premiums higher, and left families paying the price.

Getty Images

The ACA’s Missing Mandate: Why Costs Keep Rising

By repealing the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, policymakers allowed healthy Americans to walk away—leaving insurers with risk pools dominated by those most likely to need care. The result was inevitable: premiums soared, markets destabilized, and families were left paying the price.

When Congress passed the ACA, its most controversial feature was the individual mandate—the requirement that all Americans carry health insurance or pay a penalty. Critics called it coercion. In reality, it was the glue holding the system together.

Keep ReadingShow less