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

The All-America City of San Antonio Collaborates to Address Teen Pregnancy and Other Issues
person in green pants sitting on white textile
Photo by Vanessa on Unsplash

The All-America City of San Antonio Collaborates to Address Teen Pregnancy and Other Issues

San Antonio, TX, has been working to reduce teen pregnancy for over two decades, making considerable progress through collaborations among the city, county, nonprofit organizations, and the University of Texas. A nine-time All-America City, one of San Antonio’s key community collaborations, SA 2020, harnessed civic muscle to create and achieve dozens of measurable goals, including a significant reduction in teen pregnancy.

The San Antonio Teen Pregnancy Collaborative (SATPPC) was formed in 2010 in response to news that Bexar County had one of the highest rates of teen births in the United States. The SATPPC brought together an impressive list of cross-sector organizations, including public entities, community-based organizations, and faith-based and secular institutions. The group’s overall goal was to reduce the Bexar County teen birth rate among females ages 15 to 19 by 15% by 2020, and it exceeded this goal even before that date.

Keep ReadingShow less
In Milwaukee, J.D. Vance Ties Trump's Fraud Task Force to Medicaid and SNAP Crackdowns

U.S. Vice President JD Vance speaks at the 128th Air Refueling Wing Hangar on July 08, 2026, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Vance traveled to Milwaukee to deliver remarks on the Trump administration's anti-fraud initiatives.

(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

In Milwaukee, J.D. Vance Ties Trump's Fraud Task Force to Medicaid and SNAP Crackdowns

MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin– Vice President J.D. Vance visited Milwaukee on July 8 to promote the Trump administration’s crackdown on fraud at the state and federal levels in programs like Medicare and SNAP.

Speaking inside an aircraft hangar at the Wisconsin Air National Guard’s 128th Air Refueling Wing, in front of a banner reading “Protect Taxpayer Dollars,” Vance cast the anti‑fraud efforts to protect both taxpayers and the programs themselves.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. participates in a roundtable discussion on efforts to combat per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin at EPA headquarters on May 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Heather Diehl/Getty Images

RFK Jr. Received Compassion When He Was Arrested for Heroin, but My Patients Do Not

In 1983, while on a flight to South Dakota, a 29-year-old Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was reported to have developed profuse sweating, pallor, and a weak pulse. Authorities searched his luggage and discovered two-tenths of a gram of heroin. He pled guilty to a felony charge, and the judge ordered him to two years of probation instead of a possible jail sentence. He entered rehabilitation for substance use and shared that since then, he has been in recovery for 43 years.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is now the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). He has shown tremendous courage in sharing the story of substance use, including his LSD, methamphetamine, and heroin use. I cannot imagine the amount of stigma he has endured. I hope that his success encourages others to seek treatment. Yet as an addiction medicine physician, I am also struck by how different my patients' experiences are from those of Kennedy.

Keep ReadingShow less
stethoscope and us dollar bills on blue-colored background.

Millions of Americans face rising healthcare costs and coverage gaps. Learn how strengthening the Affordable Care Act can improve affordability and access.

Getty Images, aaaaimages

When Health Care Becomes a Choice, Something Is Broken

Recently, a nurse told me she had to choose between paying for her husband’s surgery and putting a new roof on their home. “We’re praying for no rain,” she said. In that moment, the distance between political promises and real life collapsed. This is what the economy feels like for millions of Americans — not a graph, not a headline, but a quiet calculation of which basic need they can afford to meet. No family in a nation as wealthy as ours should have to rely on the weather to survive.

For years, Americans were promised that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would be replaced with something better, cheaper, and available to everyone. That promise never became policy. Congress never passed a comprehensive replacement. The closest attempt, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), collapsed under the weight of its own numbers. The Congressional Budget Office found that it would have left 23 million more Americans uninsured, caused 14 million to lose coverage in the first year alone, cut Medicaid by $834 billion, and raised premiums for older adults to levels many could never pay. A 64‑year‑old making $26,500 a year would have seen premiums jump from $1,700 under the ACA to more than $14,000. Protections for people with pre‑existing conditions would have weakened. That is not “better.” That is not “cheaper.” And it certainly was not “for everyone.”

Keep ReadingShow less