Republican megabill will mean higher health costs for many Americans
The tax and spending legislation the House voted to send to President Donald Trump's desk on Thursday, enacting much of his domestic agenda, cuts federal health spending by about $1 trillion over a decade in ways that will jeopardize the physical and financial health of tens of millions of Americans.
The bill, passed in both the House and the Senate without a single Democratic vote, is expected to reverse many of the health coverage gains of the Biden and Obama administrations. Their policies made it easier for millions of people to access health care and reduced the U.S. uninsured rate to record lows, though Republicans say the trade-off was far higher costs borne by taxpayers and increased fraud.
Under the legislation Trump's expected to sign on Friday, Independence Day, reductions in federal support for Medicaid and Affordable Care Act marketplaces will cause nearly 12 million more people to be without insurance by 2034, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. That in turn is expected to undermine the finances of hospitals, nursing homes, and community health centers — which will have to absorb more of the cost of treating uninsured people. Some may reduce services and employees or close altogether.
Here are five ways the GOP's plans may affect health care access.
Need Medicaid? Then get a job
The deepest cuts to health care spending come from a proposed Medicaid work requirement, which is expected to end coverage for millions of enrollees who do not meet new employment or reporting standards.
In 40 states and Washington, D.C., all of which have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, some Medicaid enrollees will have to regularly file paperwork proving that they are working, volunteering, or attending school at least 80 hours a month, or that they qualify for an exemption, such as caring for a young child. The new requirement will start as early as January 2027.
The bill's requirement doesn't apply to people in the 10 largely GOP-led states that have not expanded Medicaid to nondisabled adults. Health researchers say the policy will have little impact on employment. Most working-age Medicaid enrollees who don't receive disability benefits already work or are looking for work, or are unable to do so because they have a disability, attend school, or care for a family member, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.
State experiments with work requirements have been plagued with administrative issues, such as eligible enrollees losing coverage over paperwork problems, and budget overruns. Georgia's work requirement, which officially launched in July 2023, has cost more than $90 million, with only $26 million of that spent on health benefits, according to the Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization.
"The hidden costs are astronomical," said Chima Ndumele, a professor at the Yale School of Public Health.
Less cash means less care in rural communities
Belt-tightening that targets states could translate into fewer health services, medical professionals and even hospitals, especially in rural communities.
The GOP's plan curtails a practice, known as provider taxes, that nearly every state has used for decades to increase Medicaid payments to hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers and private managed-care companies.
States often use the federal money generated through taxes to pay the institutions more than Medicaid would otherwise pay. Medicaid generally pays lower fees for care than Medicare, the program for people over 65 and some with disabilities, and private insurance. But thanks to provider taxes, some hospitals are paid more under Medicaid than Medicare, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a health research nonprofit.
Hospitals and nursing homes say they use these extra Medicaid dollars to expand or add new services and improve care for all patients.
Rural hospitals typically operate on thin profit margins and rely on payments from Medicaid taxes to sustain them. Researchers from the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research who examined the original House version of the bill concluded it would push more than 300 rural hospitals — many of them in Kentucky, Louisiana, California, and Oklahoma — toward service reductions or closure.
Republicans in the Senate tacked a $50 billion fund onto the legislation to cushion the blow to rural hospitals. The money will be distributed starting in 2027 and continuing for five years.
Harder to get and keep ACA coverage
For those with Obamacare plans, the new legislation will make it harder to enroll and to retain their coverage.
Affordable Care Act marketplace policyholders will be required to update their income, immigration status and other information each year, rather than be allowed to automatically reenroll — something more than 10 million people did this year. They'll also have less time to enroll; the bill shortens the annual open enrollment period by about a month.
People applying for coverage outside that period — for instance because they lose a job or other insurance or need to add a newborn or spouse to an existing policy — will have to wait for all their documents to be processed before receiving government subsidies to help pay their monthly premiums. Currently, they get up to 90 days of premium help during the application process, which can take weeks.
Republican lawmakers and some conservative policy think tanks, including the Paragon Health Institute, said the changes are needed to reduce fraudulent enrollments, while opponents say they represent Trump's best effort to undo Obamacare.
The legislation also does not call for an extension of more generous premium subsidies put in place during the covid pandemic. If Congress doesn't act, those enhanced subsidies will expire at year's end, resulting in premiums rising by an average of 75% next year, according to KFF.
On Medicaid? Pay more to see doctors
Many Medicaid enrollees can expect to pay more out-of-pocket for appointments.
Trump's legislation requires states that have expanded Medicaid to charge enrollees up to $35 for some services if their incomes are between the federal poverty level (this year, $15,650 for an individual) and 138% of that amount ($21,597).
Medicaid enrollees often don't pay anything when seeking medical services because studies have shown charging even small copayments prompts low-income people to forgo needed care. In recent years, some states have added charges under $10 for certain services.
The policy won't apply to people seeking primary care, mental health care or substance abuse treatment. The bill allows states to enact even higher cost sharing for enrollees who seek emergency room care for nonemergencies. But if Medicaid patients fail to pay, hospitals and other providers could be left to foot the bill.
Cuts for lawfully present immigrants
The GOP plan could cause at least hundreds of thousands of immigrants who are lawfully present — including asylum-seekers, victims of trafficking and refugees — to lose their ACA marketplace coverage by cutting off the subsidies that make premiums affordable. The restriction won't apply to green-card holders.
Because the immigrants who will lose subsidies under the legislation tend to be younger than the overall U.S. population, their exit would leave an older, sicker, and costlier population of marketplace enrollees, further pushing up marketplace premiums, according to marketplace directors in California, Maryland, and Massachusetts and health analysts.
Taking health care access away from immigrants living in the country legally "will do irreparable harm to individuals we have promised to protect and impose unnecessary costs on local systems already under strain," John Slocum, executive director of Refugee Council USA, an advocacy group, said in a statement.
The bill reflects the Trump administration's restrictive approach to immigration. But because it ran afoul of Senate rules, the legislation doesn't include a proposal that would have reduced federal Medicaid payments to states such as California that use their own money to cover immigrants without legal status.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
5 minutes ago
- Politico
In Today's GOP, There Is No Choice at All
The so-called Big Beautiful Bill was always destined to pass, and it's instructive to realize why: for Republican lawmakers, this was an up-or-down vote on President Donald Trump. The sprawling measure — which at its core was really one big, beautiful tax extender — was never about those tax rates or Medicaid or the deficit. The underlying legislation was no bill at all, but a referendum on Trump. And that left congressional Republicans a binary choice that also had nothing to do with the policy therein: They could salute the president and vote yes and or vote no and risk their careers in a primary. It doesn't take a political science PhD to realize where today's GOP would land. Don't believe me, just ask the senior senator from North Carolina, Thom Tillis. Yes — to be sure alert! — there was much juggling between the two chambers of Congress. House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate GOP Leader John Thune and their lieutenants deserve credit for the creativity and flexibility they demonstrated by pacifying lawmakers uneasy about state and local tax deductions, rural hospitals and even the fate of Alaska Native whaling captains (somewhere, Don Young and Ted Stevens are smiling). But, folks, the alternative was no alternative at all. Without acting, Republican lawmakers would have risked breaching the debt ceiling this summer, tempted an across-the-board tax hike when the 2017 rates expired at the end of the year and torpedoed their president's sole legislative initiative. The last of these merits more attention. Perhaps the most remarkable story sitting in plain view in today's Washington is the gap between Trump's political and media dominance and the paucity of his legislative agenda. The president has been happy to spend the first six months of his second term signing executive orders, wielding tariffs as economic weapons and rampaging through news cycles with all manner of provocations, outbursts and threats. He's less a traditional president than the old Kool-Aid man bursting through walls. Which works quite well for somebody who measures success by attention and is mainly interested in the perception of winning than an LBJ-style collection of pens and parchment from bills signed. The second-term, free-range Trump has not even pretended to be interested in the details of lawmaking and is even less interested in forging bipartisan coalitions with people he sees criticizing him on the television shows he consumes by the hours. Also, he's mostly animated by immigration crackdowns and playing department store owner or price- fixer-in-chief, which he can mostly do on his own and battle out in the courts without consulting Congress. Recognizing as much, and that their narrow margins in both chambers would limit their ambitions, a group of GOP lawmakers wisely decided to stuff every measure they could into one reconciliation bill they could ram through the House and Senate with bare majorities. Yes, there was more money for immigration and defense, but the most significant policy changes, except for Medicaid, were modest changes to deductions on tips, overtime and auto purchases that helped Trump fulfill campaign trail promises. Those sweeteners helped keep Trump's attention, relatively speaking, and let him portray the bill in which-side-are-you-on terms that rendered the language less relevant than the stakes. The hard truth for small-government conservatives in Congress to swallow is that their primary voters care more about fidelity to Trump than reducing the size of the federal government. Any overly loud critiques by lawmakers — no matter if rooted in principle or sound politics — were angrily dismissed by Trump as so much 'grandstanding' by malcontents. He had scant interest in bill language because signing a bill is the point. Victory is in the action not the particulars. Plus, there's only room for one grandstander in today's Republican Party, as Tillis, Rep. Thomas Massie and Elon Musk (twice) have now learned. Every other actor is merely toiling in the engine room of the USS MAGA. It's fitting that this Trump-era fact of political life is most difficult for Republicans on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum to grasp. What unites Senators Rand Paul and Susan Collins, a goldbug curious libertarian and old-school New England moderate? Neither is willing to accept a purely tribal politics in which substance is secondary to a cult of personality. In fairness to Trump, he's matured enough politically to recognize the difference between hectoring Massie, Paul and Tillis and haranguing Collins. The first cohort represents states the president carried three times and, with the important exception of Tillis, can easily be replaced by another Republican. But the Mainer is the GOP version of Joe Manchin: Once she's gone, the replacement will be a conventional Democrat, not a more loyal Republican. Speaking of Manchin, he and other Democratic veterans of the last administration's legislative wars are all too familiar with the hangover that may await today's jubilant Republicans after the beautiful black ink on the bill is dry and the fireworks have all gone off. Joe Biden hardly commanded a cult of personality, but the tug of tribalism was almost as strong on congressional Democrats like Manchin, who were told to fall in line and back Biden's pricey agenda. The West Virginian eventually did so, the main legislation did little to alleviate inflation despite its name and most voters at the polls last year pointed a finger at Democrats and not global supply chains for higher costs. So Trump may not care about the details, but Democratic ad-makers in next year's midterm will — and they'll bet that the Medicaid cuts the president swore he'd never enact will do more to move voters than their tax bracket remaining the same.


Washington Post
11 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Why the GOP's Medicaid cuts are less than meets the eye
Criticism of the just-passed Republican budget bill has focused on its supposedly 'deep cuts' to Medicaid. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries warned: 'Children will be hurt. Families will be hurt. Women will be hurt. Seniors will be hurt. Everyday Americans with disabilities will be hurt.' The Congressional Budget Office projects that in 2034, 11.8 million fewer Americans will have Medicaid coverage because of the bill — a figure that has been cited more than any other in Democratic rhetoric.


Atlantic
13 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Nation the Army Built
In July 1775, General George Washington rode into Cambridge, Massachusetts, to lead an army of 16,000. These men, Washington announced, were 'all the Troops of the several Colonies,' thereafter to be known as 'the Troops of the United Provinces of North America.' Washington went on to say that he 'hoped that all Distinctions of Colonies will be laid aside; so that one and the same spirit may animate the whole.' It was easier said than done. The country they were fighting to establish had no national identity or culture—no flag, no anthem, no touchstone around which citizens could rally. What did it mean to be American? 'Not British' wasn't enough. Over the next eight years, Washington and the Army built the foundations of that national identity—first by asserting the right to legitimate use of force, which is one of the most important powers of a sovereign entity, and then by creating traditions that carry symbolic significance and offer shared experiences, and establishing institutions that represented all 13 states. The process was messy and imperfect in the late 18th century and remains incomplete today. Most 18th-century nations were based on a single religion, ethnicity, race, or cultural tradition. Their governments were secured with military force or inheritance, and often backed by claims of divine blessing. None of those conditions existed in the colonies. In 1774, when the First Continental Congress gathered in Carpenters' Hall, in Philadelphia, more delegates had visited London than the city that would become our nation's first seat of government. Each colony had spent decades building economic, intellectual, and emotional ties with Great Britain, not with one another. Culturally, the colonists saw themselves as Britons. As late as the mid-1760s, many called themselves King George III's most loyal subjects, demonstrated through enthusiastic purchasing of teapots and art prints depicting royal marriages, births, and anniversaries. If anything, the colonies viewed one another as competitors and battled over rights to waterways, their westernmost lands, and defensive support from the mother country. Washington himself shared these provincial loyalties and had a low opinion of many of his fellow colonists. The morning after arriving in camp, in July 1775, he conducted a review of the Continental Army units and the defensive positions on the hills surrounding Boston Harbor. He concluded, he later wrote, that the troops were ' exceeding dirty & nasty people ' led by indifferent officers with an ' unaccountable kind of stupidity.' But the war would change Washington's view of these soldiers, and he came to respect the sacrifice and valor of his troops from all 13 states. The war changed the soldiers themselves. In the peace that followed, veterans became central to America's nation-building project. Uri Friedman: What if America had lost the Revolutionary War? Before the war, colonists had celebrated the King's birthday. During the war, those celebrations were replaced by festivities honoring Washington's birthday. In 1779, the Virginia Gazette reported on 'a very elegant entertainment' held at 'the Raleigh tavern by the inhabitants of this city, to celebrate the anniversary of that day which gave birth to General George Washington, Commander in Chief of the armies of the United States, the saviour of his country.' On February 11, 1781, the French allied forces joined in the fun. 'Yesterday was the Anniversary of your Excellency's birth day,' the commander of the French forces wrote to Washington. 'We will celebrate it with the sole regret that your Excellency be not a Witness of the effusion and gladness of our hearts.' The King had served as a unifying figure around whom Britons could rally, and his birthday celebrations had been an important social tool used to reinforce British identity. Washington was a useful substitute. The general also introduced a new flag. In 1775, the Continental Colors, also known as the Grand Union Flag, which featured 13 red and white stripes with the Union Jack in the upper left corner, was raised by several vessels in Philadelphia and generals in Massachusetts. But any flag that featured the Union Jack could be confused with the British flag on the battlefield. For his headquarters, Washington adopted instead a dark-blue command flag with 13 evenly dispersed white stars. He could have chosen any number of military symbols and evocative images, but chose a flag that made an explicit statement about national unity. The Army's shared experiences made that unity reality. In the 18th century, Americans rarely traveled more than a few miles from home, but soldiers fought battles in Massachusetts and South Carolina, and in most states in between. They experienced different cultures, ate different foods, and interacted with people from different walks of life. They also regularly went without food, sufficient clothing, or pay. In summer, they slept in tents and were tormented by flies and mosquitoes; in winter, they huddled, shivering, around miserly fires. Their suffering blurred local loyalties and fostered new ties. As the end of the war loomed, veteran officers built cultural and political bodies such as the Institution of the Society of the Cincinnati. When the Confederation Congress couldn't afford to pay soldiers their back pay or provide pensions for the wounded, the society stepped in to help care for struggling veterans, widows, and their children. It also promoted the values of the Revolution. In the years after the war, the states devolved into competitive bickering. The 2,270 members of the society called on their fellow citizens to cherish their national identity as the reward for winning independence. These efforts were not uncontroversial. Critics accused the society of trying to establish an aristocracy to control civil and military institutions—one of many disagreements over the evolution of America's identity in the postwar years. The national coalition had largely held together while the states had been battling a shared foe, but deep divisions soon emerged. Ben Nadler: Where do flags come from? Anti-Federalists preferred a decentralized national government with most power reserved for the states; Federalists advocated for stronger central government and an energetic executive. Not all Federalists were veterans, but many veterans, especially officers, became Federalists, having suffered as a result of Congress's weaknesses. They understood the consequences of decentralized government. Some of Washington's favorite officers and aides pushed for a national convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, and pestered and pleaded with Washington to attend. They knew his unifying presence was essential for the proceedings to succeed. At the Constitutional Convention, veterans led the push for a new federal government featuring a powerful single executive. They believed the future of the nation depended on the government's ability to raise funds, protect its borders, manage internal disputes, and dictate foreign policy. If the government failed, so too would the republic, and the American identity would cease to exist. Later, veterans would serve as congressmen, senators, Cabinet secretaries, and executive-branch appointees at much higher rates than civilians. Washington and his soldiers would not recognize much about 21st-century America. And yet our divisions, the battles over who counts as an ideal citizen, and the challenges of building a nation based on ideas would feel remarkably familiar. So would the debate over the Army's role in protecting our democracy. Washington and his officers knew the risk an army posed to a civilian-led republic. They were determined to protect the institutions and our founding values, rather than destroy them. Their example of deference to civilian authority remains one of the core principles of the armed forces today. The anniversary of Washington taking command is a reminder that the Army's effort to forge a lasting American bond was just the beginning of a long and difficult process. Their goal is our goal, and it's still worth fighting for.