logo
Why young Americans dread turning 26: health insurance chaos

Why young Americans dread turning 26: health insurance chaos

Boston Globe16 hours ago
But for years, Republicans have whittled away at the infrastructure of the original law. Long gone is the requirement to buy insurance. Plans sold in the online insurance marketplaces have no stringent quality standards. Costs keep rising, and eligibility requirements and subsidies are a moving target.
Advertisement
The erosion of the law has now created an 'insurance cliff' for Americans who are turning 26 and don't have a job that provides medical coverage.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Some, scared off by the complexity of picking a policy and by the price tags, tumble over the edge and go without insurance, in a health system where the rate for an emergency room visit can be thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars.
Today, an estimated 15% of 26-year-olds go uninsured, which, according to an analysis by health research group KFF, is the highest rate among Americans of any age.
If they qualify, young adults can sign up for Medicaid, the federal and state program for low-income Americans, in most but not all states.
Advertisement
But many buy cheap subpar insurance that leaves them with insurmountable debt following a medical crisis. Others choose plans with extremely limited networks, losing access to their longtime doctors and medicines.
Often they find those policies online, in what has become a dizzyingly complicated system of government-regulated insurance marketplaces. They vary in quality from state to state; some are far better than others.
But they generally offer few easily identifiable, affordable and workable choices.
'The good news is that the ACA gave young people more options,' said Karen Pollitz, who directed consumer information and insurance oversight at the Department of Health and Human Services during the Obama administration. 'The bad news is the good stuff is hidden in a minefield of really bad options that'll leave you broke if you get sick.'
Publicly funded counselors called 'navigators' or 'assisters' can help insurance seekers choose a plan. But those programs vary by state, and often customers don't realize that the help is available. The Trump administration has cut funding to publicize and operate those navigator programs.
In addition, changes to Medicaid eligibility in the policy bill passed by Congress in July could mean that millions more enrollees lose their insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Those changes threaten the very viability of the online marketplaces, which currently provide insurance to 24 million Americans.
In dozens of interviews, young adults described the unsettling and devastating consequences of having inadequate insurance, or no insurance at all.
Damien Phillips, 26, a reporter at a West Virginia newspaper, considered joining the Navy to get insurance as his 26th birthday approached. Instead, he felt he 'didn't make enough to justify having health insurance' and has reluctantly gone without it.
Advertisement
When Ethan Evans, a 27-year-old aspiring actor in Chicago who works in retail, fell off his parents' plan and temporarily signed up for Medicaid, diminished mental health coverage meant cutting back on visits to his longtime therapist.
Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., the first Generation Z member of Congress, was able to quit his job and run for office at 25 only because he could stay on his mother's plan until he turned 26, he said.
Now 28, he is insured through his federal job.
'The ACA was groundbreaking legislation, including the idea that every American needs health care,' he said. 'But there are pitfalls, and one of them is that when young adults turn 26, they fall into this abyss.'
Back in 2010, the decision to make 26 the cutoff age for staying on a parent's insurance was 'kind of arbitrary,' recalled Nancy-Ann DeParle, deputy chief of staff for policy in the Obama White House.
'My kids were young, and I was trying to imagine when my child would be an adult,' she said.
Before that time, children were often kicked off family plans at much younger ages, typically 18.
The Obama administration's idea was that by 26, young adults were most likely settling into careers and jobs with insurance. But if they still didn't have access to job-based insurance, Medicaid and the online marketplaces would offer alternatives, the thinking went.
But over the years, the courts, Congress and the first Trump administration eviscerated provisions of the ACA. By 2022, a shopper on the marketplace run by the federal government had more than 100 choices, many of which included expensive trade-offs, presented in a way that made comparisons difficult without spreadsheets.
Advertisement
Young Invincibles, an advocacy group representing young adults, runs its own 'navigator' program to help young people choose health insurance plans.
'We hear the frustration,' said Martha Sanchez, who was until recently the group's director of health policy and advocacy. 'Twenty-six-year-olds have had negative experiences in a process that's become really complex. Many throw up their hands.'
The ACA was supposed to help consumers find affordable, high-quality plans online. The legislation also tried to expand Medicaid programs, which are administered by states, as a way to provide health insurance to low-income Americans.
But the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that states could not be forced to expand Medicaid. Ten states, led mostly by Republicans, have not done so, leaving up to 1.5 million Americans, who could have qualified for coverage, without insurance.
Even where Medicaid is available to 26-year-olds, the transition has often proved precarious.
Madeline Nelkin of New Jersey, who was studying social work, applied for Medicaid coverage before her 26th birthday in April 2024 because her university's insurance premiums were more than $5,000 annually.
But it was September before her Medicaid coverage kicked in, leaving her uninsured while she fought a chest infection over the summer.
'People tell you to think ahead, but I didn't think that meant six months,' she said.
When Megan Hughes, 27, of Hartland, Maine, hit the cliff, she went without. An aide for children with developmental delays, she has a thyroid condition and polycystic ovary syndrome.
She looked for a health care plan but found it hard to understand the marketplace. (She didn't know there were navigators who could help.) Now she can't afford her medicine or see her endocrinologist.
Advertisement
'I'm tired all the time,' Hughes said. 'My cycles are not regular anymore at all. When I do get one, it's debilitating.' She is hoping a new job will provide insurance later this year.
Traditionally, most Americans with private health insurance got it through their jobs. But the job market has changed dramatically since 2010, particularly in the wake of the pandemic, with the rise of the gig economy.
Over 30% of people ages 18 to 29 said in recent surveys that they were working or have worked in short-term, part-time or irregular jobs.
The ACA requires organizations with 50 or more employees to offer insurance to people working 30 hours per week. This has led to a growing number of contract employees who work up to, but not past, the hourly limit.
In Oklahoma, Daisy Creager, 29, has had three employers over the last three years. Insurance was important to her, not least because her former husband had Type 1 diabetes.
As she left the first of those jobs, her husband's endocrinologist helped the couple stockpile less expensive insulin from Canada, since they would be uninsured.
After a few months, they bought a marketplace plan, but it was expensive and 'didn't cover a lot,' she said.
When she found a new job, she dropped that plan, only to discover that her new insurance coverage didn't start until the end of her first month of employment. The couple would be uninsured for a few weeks.
A few days later, she came home to find her husband unconscious on the floor, in a diabetic coma. After hovering near death in an intensive care unit for four days, he woke up and began to recover.
Advertisement
'I think I've done everything right,' Creager said. 'So why am I in a position where the health insurance available to me doesn't cover what I need, or I can barely afford my premiums, or worse, at times I don't even have it?'
Experts agree that the marketplaces need stronger regulation.
In 2023, the federal government defined clearer standards for what plans in each tier of insurance should offer, such as better prescription drug benefits, defined co-pays for X-rays, or coverage for emergency room visits.
Certain types of basic care, such as primary care, should require just a small co-pay for at least a small number of initial visits. Each insurer must offer at least one plan that complies with these new standards at every tier of coverage -- an 'Easy Pricing' option or 'standard plan.'
Most plans on the marketplaces don't meet these criteria. Federal and state regulators had long planned to cull such 'noncompliant' plans, but gradually, fearing that doing so too quickly would scare insurers away from participating.
But with the priorities of the new Trump administration now in focus, and a Republican majority in Congress, it's far from clear what course President Donald Trump, who sought to repeal the ACA outright in his first term, will take.
There are hints: Subsidies to help Americans buy insurance, adopted during the Biden administration, are set to expire at the end of 2025 if the Republican-led Congress doesn't extend them.
If subsidies expire, premiums are likely to rise sharply for plans sold on the marketplaces, leaving insurance out of reach for many more young adults.
This article originally appeared in
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Opinion/Guest column: Health care cuts bode ill for Central Mass. economy
Opinion/Guest column: Health care cuts bode ill for Central Mass. economy

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion/Guest column: Health care cuts bode ill for Central Mass. economy

Consistent with the old maxim that all politics is local, it is also true that all policy is local. Whether on Capitol Hill or Beacon Hill, policies that lawmakers enact inevitably have repercussions — for good or bad — on communities such as Worcester. Sadly, the local impacts of Congress' enactment of President Trump's so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' and of the White House's pending proposal to slash National Institutes of Health funding by 40%, will be onerous. A great deal has been reported on the patient impact of these policies. Appropriately so, considering that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the $1 trillion cuts to health care programs in the 'Beautiful Bill' will cause over 10 million people to lose health insurance coverage by 2034 and the near certainty that the administration's proposed NIH cuts will impede development of new treatments for patients with critical health conditions. Less obvious, but also important, are the potentially devastating impacts these policies will inflict on the Central Massachusetts economy. By targeting health care and scientific research, they will not only harm the largest employers and biggest drivers of the regional economy but will also have a ripple effect on sectors outside of health care or research. The leaders of this region's two largest employers, UMass Memorial Health and UMass Chan Medical School, have been outspoken about the dire consequences of massive federal cuts to their institutions. UMass Memorial expects to lose at least $100 million in Medicaid funding annually, and UMass Chan cites an expected $94 million shortfall in NIH grants in the upcoming fiscal year, on top of $42 million in grant disbursements already withheld by the Trump administration. Cuts of this magnitude will have a devastating impact on patients, employees and the public service missions of both institutions. These cuts will also affect workers and businesses in sectors that work regularly with medical, research and education institutions. The construction industry is a case in point. Hospitals and research institutions rely upon highly skilled electricians, plumbers, HVAC technicians and other tradespeople to build, renovate and maintain complex facilities that adhere to the most stringent safety and health regulations. But as federal cuts cause some health services to be reduced and laboratories to close, construction and renovation projects will inevitably decline, impacting the livelihoods of tradespeople and construction firms. The same dynamic will replicate across other industries that provide supportive services to medical and research institutions, whether it be finance, legal, suppliers or countless others whose businesses rely, at least in part, on such work. Hard data back up this dynamic. In its 2025 annual analysis on the economic impact of NIH research, United for Medical Research reports that each $1 of NIH funding results in $2.56 of economic activity. So, when the federal government cuts research grants to Worcester research universities by an aggregate of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, the secondary impact will hit businesses and workers well beyond the campuses of UMass Chan or WPI. Similar ripple effects will reverberate across the local economy when hospitals' finances are torpedoed by massive cuts to Medicaid and Medicare and rising volumes of uninsured patients. It is impossible to find a silver lining in policies that wreak such havoc on the engines of our local economy, and that feeling is exacerbated by the Congressional Budget Office's estimate that the 'Beautiful Bill' will also drive up the national deficit by $3.4 trillion. Nonetheless, it is imperative not to give up. Everyone impacted — patients, workers, businesses and institutional leaders — must speak up and remain engaged so future Congresses prioritize reversing these irrational policies. Jim Leary is an attorney and former state legislator from Worcester. This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: Opinion/Guest column: Health care cuts bode ill for regional economy

Committee: More than 98,000 New Mexicans could lose Medicaid coverage
Committee: More than 98,000 New Mexicans could lose Medicaid coverage

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Committee: More than 98,000 New Mexicans could lose Medicaid coverage

NEW MEXICO (KRQE) – The Medicaid Advisory Committee said recent federal cuts could have a negative impact on New Mexicans. They claim more than 98,000 New Mexicans could lose Medicaid coverage. Rail Yards Market exploring adding a permanent daily market space The state could also see a loss of $8.5 billion in federal provider payments. It would take 18 months and $35 million to update Medicaid, SNAP, and call center systems to match requirements in President Donald Trump's budget bill. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Why U.S. politicians are up in arms about new internet rules in Britain
Why U.S. politicians are up in arms about new internet rules in Britain

NBC News

time5 hours ago

  • NBC News

Why U.S. politicians are up in arms about new internet rules in Britain

A growing number of U.S. politicians are condemning a new British law that requires some websites and apps — including some based in the United States — to check the ages of users across the pond. A bipartisan group of members of Congress visited London recently to meet counterparts and air their concerns about the U.K.'s Online Safety Act, which went into effect July 25. Vice President JD Vance has been criticizing the law for months, as have privacy advocates who argue that the law infringes on free expression and disproportionately hurts vulnerable groups. Vance criticized the U.K. again on Friday, this time in person at the start of a visit to the country. Sitting alongside British Foreign Secretary David Lammy and speaking to reporters, Vance warned the U.K. against going down a 'very dark path' of online 'censorship' that he said was trod earlier by the Biden administration. The U.K. Online Safety Act is aimed at preventing children from accessing potentially harmful material online, and internet companies are now asking British users to verify their ages in a variety of ways, including with photos of their IDs, through a credit card provider or with selfies analyzed via age-check software. But the sweeping nature of the law has caught some Britons by surprise. They're being asked to prove their age not only for pornography websites but also before they can listen to songs with explicit lyrics or access message boards to discuss sensitive subjects. Reddit, for example, is restricting access to various pages including r/stopsmoking, r/STD and r/aljazeera. Reddit said in a post about its enforcement of the law that for people in the U.K., it was now verifying ages before they can 'view certain mature content.' A spokesperson for the company said r/STD — a message board focused on questions of sexual health — is restricted because of explicit images. They said r/stopsmoking is restricted because it deals with harmful substances and that r/aljazeera — which is not affiliated with the news organization of the same name but deals with similar topics — is restricted because it depicts serious injury or violence. To get around the new law, the use of virtual private network software that can mask a person's location, also known as VPNs, has surged in the U.K. The primary argument of U.S. politicians who oppose the law is that they don't want American tech companies to have to comply, even if they're serving British customers. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said he raised his objections with U.K. government officials during meetings in London at the end of July. In a statement after his return, he said the law and other European regulations 'create a serious chilling effect on free expression and threaten the First Amendment rights of American citizens and companies.' 'We absolutely need to protect children and keep harmful, illegal content off these platforms — but when governments or bureaucracies suppress speech in the name of safety or regulation, it sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the core of Western democratic values,' Jordan said. The issue may come to a head in a couple of different venues. That could be the courts if any tech companies file lawsuits over the law, or it could come up in trade negotiations if President Donald Trump decides to press the issue with British politicians, although they say it's not open to debate in trade talks. Marc Andreessen, a venture capitalist and Meta board member with close ties to the Trump administration, recently called U.K. leaders to complain about the law, the Financial Times reported Friday. A spokesperson for Andreessen said the report was not true. The U.K.'s Online Safety Act is one of the most comprehensive national laws that any democracy has ever passed to try to curtail potentially harmful content online in the name of children. Parliament passed the law in 2023, and the government went through two years of writing detailed rules before putting the law into effect last month. The law is notable for a combination of reasons: the variety of content it applies to, the potential fines and the possible international reach. A wide array of content is at issue. While the 'primary' focus of the law is online material such as pornography and suicide, it also requires websites to age-gate content with bullying, serious violence, 'dangerous stunts' and 'exposure to harmful substances.' That has covered relatively mainstream services such as Spotify and Microsoft's Xbox gaming system. Companies that don't comply face potential fines of up to 10% of their global revenue, which for the biggest companies could be billions of dollars. The British regulator Ofcom, short for Office of Communications, says companies must use ' highly effective age assurance ' to restrict the riskiest types of content. And the U.K. has not been adamant that it won't allow international borders to stymie enforcement. Ofcom says it plans to apply the law to services with 'a significant number' of U.K. users, services where U.K. users 'are a target market' and services that are 'capable of being accessed' by U.K. users with a 'material risk of significant harm' to such users. The law appears to retain strong support among the British public. About 69% said they supported the new rules in a YouGov poll taken after implementation began, and 46% said they supported it 'strongly.' But 52% said they do not think the law will be very effective at preventing minors from accessing pornography. The law was passed during a previous, Conservative-led government and took effect under the current, Labour-led government. But the far-right party Reform U.K. is pushing for a repeal of the law. Party leader Nigel Farage, a former member of Parliament, has called it 'state suppression of genuine free speech,' and his party is running high in polls. 'Millions of people have noticed that what they're getting on their feeds is different to what it was,' Farage said at a recent news conference. Farage also met with visiting members of Congress last week, and the talks turned heated with Farage and Democrats exchanging insults, according to Politico, although the dispute appeared to be more about Trump's free speech restrictions than about the U.K. law. Most U.S.-based tech companies say they are complying with the new law. Microsoft said in a blog post that Xbox users in the U.K. would begin seeing notifications 'encouraging them to verify their age' as a 'one-time process,' with actual enforcement starting next year. If users don't comply, Microsoft warned, they'll lose access to social features of Xbox but will still be able to play games. Discord said it was implementing new default settings for all U.K. users, in effect treating everyone like a minor with heavy content filtering unless they verify that they're adults. Discord says users can choose to verify their age either with a face scan or an ID upload. Elon Musk's X has also restricted posts, including information about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, according to the BBC. X and Musk did not respond to requests for comment. But a few services are not complying. The far-right social media site Gab, which allows white supremacist views and other extremist content, said in a notice on its website that it had received notices from Ofcom and, rather than comply, decided to block the entire U.K. from accessing its site. The company said in the notice: 'We refuse to comply with this tyranny.' Preston Byrne, a U.S. lawyer who specializes in technology issues, has said on X that he plans to file a lawsuit soon on behalf of an unnamed client seeking to quash possible enforcement of the British law within the United States. The subject has been simmering for months ahead of the law's implementation, and it came up in February when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited the White House. In an Oval Office meeting, a reporter asked Trump what he thought of the U.K. approach to free speech, and Trump tossed the question to Vance, who expressed concern. 'We do have, of course, a special relationship with our friends in the U.K. and also with some of our European allies. But we also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British — of course, what the British do in their own country is up to them — but also affect American technology companies and, by extension, American citizens,' he said. Starmer defended his government's approach. 'We've had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very, very long time. Certainly, we wouldn't want to reach across U.S. systems and we don't, and that's absolutely right,' he said. British Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy later said the U.K. would not make any changes to the Online Safety Act as part of trade negotiations with the Trump administration. American privacy advocates are watching the debate play out with alarm, concerned that similar age verification laws — like new state laws targeting the Apple and Google app stores — would upend the internet closer to home. 'Young people should be able to access information, speak to each other and to the world, play games, and express themselves online without the government making decisions about what speech is permissible,' wrote Paige Collings, a senior speech and privacy activist at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, in a blog post Tuesday.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store