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

Housing Insecurity as a Public Health Crisis: From Framework to Action
white and brown house on brown textile
Photo by Chiara F on Unsplash

Housing Insecurity as a Public Health Crisis: From Framework to Action

For those of us with deep roots in California, we understand better than most that homelessness is layered and complex. It is not a one-off issue, but the result of multiple, intersecting factors that compound over time.

Los Angeles County has taken a critical step in naming the problem. The challenge now lies in operationalizing this framework, translating recognition into coordinated action that addresses the layered and intersecting harms individuals face.

Keep ReadingShow less
Death with Dignity: A Person's Right to Choose Life or Death

Nurse holding hands with elderly patient.

Getty images

Death with Dignity: A Person's Right to Choose Life or Death

There is much debate around the world regarding both physician-assisted dying legislation—often called "Death with Dignity"—and expanding the circumstances in which it is applicable. Eight countries and 19 states already permit it in some form.

It is controversial for many reasons. Part of the controversy stems from our cultural discomfort with death. Part of it results from the medical profession's focus on keeping people alive and its fear of malpractice suits. Part of it is religious.

Keep ReadingShow less
Rolling Back Health Equity Training Requirements in Medical Schools Harms Us All
man sight on white microscope
Photo by Lucas Vasques on Unsplash

Rolling Back Health Equity Training Requirements in Medical Schools Harms Us All

When my son was 4 years old, he fell off a swing at the playground. As a physician, I knew immediately that his dangling wrist was broken. I felt relieved to get him to the ER - but that relief was short-lived; the orthopedist started examining my son’s broken wrist, without giving him any pain medication. I will never forget the look of sheer agony on my son’s little face and the piercing shriek he let out. Later, I learned that not only are Black adults with fractures more likely to be undertreated for pain in the ER, but Black children, too, like my son. Pseudoscientific beliefs about racial differences in pain perception have contributed to this inequity in pain management.

In late March 2026, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), the accrediting body for U.S. medical schools, issued updated standards for 2027-2028. The requirement that medical schools ensure students “learn to recognize and appropriately address biases in themselves, in others, and in the health care delivery process” was removed. While previous standards referenced structural competence, cultural competence, biases, health inequities, and approaches to reduce them, now there is only a vague mention of “instruction and experiential learning in the factors that contribute to disparate health outcomes,” which is included within a broader systems-based practice competency.

Keep ReadingShow less
Naloxone displayed on a table.

An addiction medicine physician explores how policy changes could reverse progress and increase preventable deaths.

Getty Images, Cappi Thompson

Why Is Harm Reduction on the Chopping Block?

“Do you lick your needles when you inject?” This is one of the questions that I, an addiction medicine doctor, regularly ask my patients. The answer is often yes. Their reasons vary: checking needle patency, enacting an entrenched ritual, or, most poignantly, “cleaning” the needle.

I explain to my patients that licking introduces oral bacteria that can lead to life-altering complications, including sepsis, heart infections, paralysis, and death. Every day, I see the devastating complications that arise not just from inadequate access to sterile supplies but from a misunderstanding of how to reduce harm.

Keep ReadingShow less