logo
The Obamacare subsidy clock is ticking

The Obamacare subsidy clock is ticking

Politico25-07-2025
Presented by
With Carmen Paun, Erin Schumaker and Robert King
Driving the Day
COUNTING DOWN — Obamacare open enrollment is fewer than 100 days away, and huge uncertainties loom over how much millions of Americans will have to pay out-of-pocket for coverage.
Enhanced federal Affordable Care Act subsidies, which offer premium assistance to millions of low- and middle-income Americans, are set to expire at the end of the year. Insurers, hospitals, doctors and patient groups still hope that Congress will extend the tax credits, which were established in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and later extended in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
Why it matters: The clock is ticking. Open enrollment begins Nov. 1, and insurers will start sending their renewal notices to enrollees in the coming months.
If Congress doesn't extend the subsidies before then, enrollees are sure to see their premiums skyrocket compared with last year's prices. Insurers and state marketplace directors have warned that widespread confusion and sticker shock could lead people to opt out of health insurance coverage altogether.
Insurers in some states are filing two sets of rates — one assuming the subsidies expire and another assuming they're extended. While Congress could extend the subsidies later in the year, after open enrollment begins, that would likely add to the confusion and pose heavy administrative burdens on insurers and states.
Even so: While some Republicans, including Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and retiring North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, have recently signaled openness to an extension or a deal with Democrats on the issue, there's little urgency to address the issue sooner rather than later.
'It's coming, but in senatorial times, we have time to deal with this,' Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) told POLITICO this week.
Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said he wants to strike a deal with GOP members on extending the subsidies, but 'right now they are talking about more reconciliation bills.' Republicans on key committees look to pass a bipartisan health package by the end of the year, but some Democrats are already playing hardball and demanding a subsidy extension before restarting negotiations on a larger package tackling bipartisan issues like drug pricing and pharmacy benefit manager reform.
'We are aware they are going to expire, and I am engaged in discussions with colleagues on both sides right now,' Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) told POLITICO.
Key context: The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the number of uninsured people would rise by an average of 3.8 million every year between 2026 and 2034 if the credits expire. But an extension would be costly for the federal government — estimated at $335 billion over 10 years.
Obamacare premiums for people at or near the federal poverty line would skyrocket if the tax credits expire, potentially growing from $1 to $24, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Insurers have been pushing the message to lawmakers that failing to extend the subsidies could be politically perilous — as Republicans have also just passed a megabill that could lead to 10 million people losing health insurance, including those on Medicaid and Obamacare.
WELCOME TO FRIDAY PULSE. Do you have any intel on the subsidy fight? Drop us a line at khooper@politico.com and sgardner@politico.com, and follow along @kelhoops and @sophie_gardnerj.
MORNING MONEY: CAPITAL RISK — POLITICO's flagship financial newsletter has a new Friday edition built for the economic era we're living in: one shaped by political volatility, disruption and a wave of policy decisions with sector-wide consequences. Each week, Morning Money: Capital Risk brings sharp reporting and analysis on how political risk is moving markets and how investors are adapting. Want to know how health care regulation, tariffs or court rulings could ripple through the economy? Start here.
At the White House
TRUMP CHASTISES HARM REDUCTION — President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday barring federal funding meant for substance use disorder from being used for harm-reduction programs, Carmen reports.
The order said the programs, which can include syringe exchanges or supervised consumption sites, are ineffective and 'only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm.'
The order directs the health secretary to ensure that discretionary grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, part of HHS, don't go to such programs.
Safe-injection sites remain illegal under federal law, but they've been allowed to operate in states such as New York and Rhode Island.
Advocates of such harm-reduction programs say that needle exchanges and safe-injection sites save drug users' lives by preventing overdoses and also protect them from contracting diseases from infected syringes.
Public drug use is another target of Trump's executive order, which asks the attorney general, the health secretary and the housing secretary to determine whether they can prioritize grants to states and local authorities who enforce prohibitions on open illicit-drug use. This includes bans on urban camping, loitering and squatting.
The order also focuses on using civil, or involuntary commitment, to put people living on the street, many of whom use illicit drugs or have a mental illness or both, 'into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment.'
Why it matters: The executive order is in line with Trump's law-and-order approach to dealing with substance use disorder, mental illness and homelessness.
It follows a Trump campaign promise to 'use every tool, lever and authority to get the homeless off our streets,' the president said in a 2023 campaign video.
'Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens,' Trump's executive order says.
The order requires the health secretary to ensure that federal funds for Federally Qualified Health Centers and Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics 'reduce rather than promote homelessness by supporting, to the maximum extent permitted by law, comprehensive services for individuals with serious mental illness and substance use disorder, including crisis intervention services.'
Eye on Insurers
MOLINA SLASHES EARNINGS, AGAIN — Major Medicaid and Obamacare insurer Molina Health slashed its earnings guidance for the second time this month, citing 'unprecedented' rising medical cost pressures.
The rise has been driven by higher costs in behavioral pharmacy and inpatient and outpatient care, CEO Joe Zubretsky said. Molina's Medicaid business in particular has seen an uptick in behavioral health costs and the use of expensive drugs outside of the high-cost weight-loss drugs known as GLP-1s, including treatments for cancer and HIV, Zubretsky said.
He also noted an increase in patients being admitted to the ER for complex health episodes and seeking out primary care and preventive screenings.
'The magnitude and persistence of these medical cost increases are unprecedented,' Zubretsky said.
The insurer's medical cost ratios — how much it spends on medical claims compared to administrative costs — were elevated across its Medicaid, Medicare Advantage and Obamacare businesses in the second quarter.
The pressures led the company in early July to slash its yearly financial guidance by $5.50 per share, and the company lowered its guidance an additional $3 in Thursday's earnings report.
Why it matters: Molina is one of several major insurers experiencing elevated cost pressures that exceed the companies' initial projections for the year. UnitedHealthcare, Centene and Oscar Health have all recently slashed their 2025 guidance amid higher cost trends.
And insurers face a rocky road ahead, with federal changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act threatening their bottom lines over the next few years and indicating a potential downturn for the industry, which has been buoyed by record Obamacare enrollment numbers over the past few years.
Even so: Molina expects the impact of changes to Medicaid enacted in the GOP megabill 'will be modest and gradual,' as the work requirements the law imposes won't go into effect until 2027 or later and most of its members will still qualify for Medicaid. But the impact of the bill's provisions that will hit state Medicaid funding will depend on how states react to the changes — and whether they limit eligibility or reduce benefits as a result, Zubretsky said.
'We believe these changes will be implemented over the course of the two-year period of 2027 and 2028 and possibly into 2029 and, therefore, allow the market time to react appropriately, so any impact would be gradual and not abrupt,' he said.
In the courts
GRANT WARFARE — The Trump administration seeks to lift a lower court order that blocked cuts to grants from the National Institutes of Health related to diversity, equity and inclusion, Erin reports.
The administration filed an application at the Supreme Court on Thursday requesting emergency relief from the order on the grounds that the federal government shouldn't have to continue to pay for research not aligned with President Donald Trump's executive orders and his administration's priorities.
Big picture: Thursday's filing comes after U.S. District Judge William Young ordered the administration last month to restore hundreds of scientific grants the NIH terminated this year.
During a hearing on two lawsuits about grant terminations, the Massachusetts judge and former President Ronald Reagan appointee rebuked the administration for what he called 'appalling' and 'palpably clear' discrimination against racial minorities and LGBTQ+ Americans.
WHAT WE'RE READING
POLITICO's Simon J. Levien reports on the Senate HELP Committee advancing Dr. Brian Christine's nomination to be HHS assistant secretary for health.
STAT's Jason Mast reports on the impact of the halt of shipments of Sarepta's gene therapy on families affected by Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
KFF Health News' Kate Ruder reports on new state privacy laws aimed at protecting brain data collected by devices.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Republicans step up pressure on Democratic lawmakers to return to Texas
Republicans step up pressure on Democratic lawmakers to return to Texas

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Republicans step up pressure on Democratic lawmakers to return to Texas

By James Oliphant WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Texas Republicans tried on Monday to pressure Democrats to return to the state legislature after their absence again prevented a vote on a redistricting plan favored by President Donald Trump that seeks to add Republican seats in Congress. After House Speaker Dustin Burrows declared there were too few members to conduct business, he said Republicans would move up to Tuesday voting on bills for measures related to floods that killed at least 137 people last month, a bid to persuade Democrats to return. 'The question is simple,' Burrows said. 'Will you be in that chair to vote for these critical disaster-recovery bills, or will you be remembered as the one who did not show up?' Democratic legislators in the Texas House of Representatives fled this month to deny Republicans the quorum necessary to pass the Trump-backed redistricting plan, which is intended to flip five congressional seats in the state from Democrat to Republican. The Democrats have gone to more hospitable states such as California and Illinois, putting them out of reach of Texas' legal maneuvers to force their return. Texas Governor Greg Abbott and other officials have vowed to track down the absent members and step up efforts to remove them from office. Burrows said state Department of Public Safety agents had fanned out to 'every region' of Texas. 'They are set up outside members' homes, conducting surveillance, knocking on doors, calling their phones multiple times of day,' he said. 'So far, no one is home, but the search continues, and it will not stop.' Burrows said he would ask the department to establish a tip line for information about the absent members. California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who has threatened his own redistricting effort to boost his party, wrote Trump on Monday that California would drop that if Texas ended its redistricting initiative. "You are playing with fire, risking the destabilization of our democracy, while knowing that California can neutralize any gains you hope to make," Newsom told Trump in the letter. "This attempt to rig congressional maps to hold onto power before a single vote is cast in the 2026 election is an affront to American democracy." Newsom said on Friday he will ask voters to approve a ballot measure in November redrawing the state's congressional map in a way likely to create five more Democratic seats. Democrats need to flip only three Republican-held seats to retake the majority in the 435-seat U.S. House next year, so even modest gains for either party via redistricting could prove decisive. If Democrats win the House, they could stymie much of Trump's legislative agenda and pursue multiple investigations into his administration. Texas House Democrats did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Last week, several members argued that Abbott has the authority to release surplus disaster-assistance funds without the legislature's involvement.

Dems rage against Trump's DC takeover
Dems rage against Trump's DC takeover

The Hill

time11 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Dems rage against Trump's DC takeover

PRESIDENT TRUMP took extraordinary measures Monday to implement a federal crackdown on crime in Washington, D.C., while warning other cities run by Democrats that the government stands ready to expand its enforcement efforts across the nation. At a nearly two-hour press conference from the White House, Trump declared a 'public safety emergency' in the nation's capital and a cited a rarely used law that allows him to temporarily take control of the District's police department. In addition, Trump is deploying the National Guard to assist local and federal law enforcement with patrols. 'I'm announcing historic action to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam, squalor and worse,' Trump said. 'This is liberation day in D.C. and we're going to take our capital back.' Trump has been moving in this direction for several days, citing a recent attack on a former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employee, who was severely beaten during an attempted carjacking last week. The FBI had been assisting in police patrols since that incident, although Trump's moves on Monday escalate federal involvement and represent a direct challenge to the District's self-governance. 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty, criminal, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people,' Trump said. 'We're not going to let it happen anymore.' Democrats are furious and accusing the president of overreach. 'This is dictator-level stuff,' Democrats on the House Oversight Committee posted on X. 'Deploying the military on DC's streets only creates fear and chaos. Donald Trump will be held accountable for this brazen power grab.' House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-K.Y.) plans to hold a hearing with Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D), Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) and D.C.'s Attorney General Brian Schwalb (D) in September to discuss Monday's actions. In a Monday press conference, Bowser called Trump's actions 'unsettling and unprecedented.' 'I'm going to work every day to make sure it's not a complete disaster. Let me put it that way,' she told reporters. Schwalb called the move 'unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful.' 'There is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia,' he posted on X. 'Violent crime in DC reached historic 30-year lows last year, and is down another 26% so far this year. We are considering all of our options and will do what is necessary to protect the rights and safety of District residents.' D.C. City Council Member Charles Allen (D) called it 'an extreme, outrageous, and dangerous move for our city and the safety of all our residents.' 'National Guard soldiers are trained for warfare & natural disasters, not for community policing. Every American should be deeply concerned with what they're witnessing today,' Allen posted on X. The district's police union chairman Gregg Pemberton backed Trump's move. 'We stand with the President in recognizing that Washington, DC, cannot continue on this trajectory,' he said in a statement. 'Crime is out of control, and our officers are stretched beyond their limits. The federal intervention is a critical stopgap, but the MPD needs proper staffing and support to thrive. This can only happen by repealing the disastrous policies that have driven out our best officers and hindered recruitment.' In tomorrow's edition of The Movement, 'President Trump's effort to lessen crime in Washington, D.C. and launch a 'beautification' effort is clashing with a long tradition of Republicans criticizing and outright writing off the nation's cities.' Click here to sign up & get it in your inbox.

Trump isn't the main villain in Texas' gerrymander scheme
Trump isn't the main villain in Texas' gerrymander scheme

Los Angeles Times

time11 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Trump isn't the main villain in Texas' gerrymander scheme

If you want someone to blame for the recent crisis caused by President Trump's rush to force a gerrymander of Texas' congressional districts, and the harried responses from governors in California, Illinois and New York, you can start with the Supreme Court. In 2019, in Rucho vs. Common Cause, the group held, 5 to 4, that challenges to partisan gerrymandering present 'a nonjusticiable 'political question'' and thus cannot be heard in federal court. This was widely considered a terrible ruling at the time, and we're just now starting to see the consequences. Gerrymandering occurs when the party that controls a state legislature redraws its districts to maximize smooth elections and safe seats for its party members. The notorious practice isn't new — it's nearly as old as the U.S., having taken its name from Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, an early governor of Massachusetts. Despite finding the practice 'highly disagreeable,' Gerry signed off on the drawing of his state's districts in 1812 to help his party gain competitive seats in the Legislature. During this process, someone apparently remarked that one bizarrely drawn district looked like the salamander — and the name 'gerrymandering' took hold. In the March 26, 1812, edition of the Boston Gazette, the paper ran a cartoon of the district, caricatured by artist Elkanah Tisdale to introduce 'The Gerry-Mander: A new species of Monster.' For most of American history, those engaging in gerrymandering would choose between a handful of maps based on their predictions of which could yield them the greatest advantage. Today, computers can generate thousands of these clever geographical divisions, with leaders ultimately choosing the map that provides them the best chance of partisan success. Intricate algorithms and detailed data about voters allow these map drawers to engage in gerrymandering with surgical precision. Rucho vs. Common Cause arose in North Carolina, which is basically a purple state these days; presidential elections are always close, and statewide votes for congressional seats are evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. However, when Republicans gained control of the North Carolina Legislature in 2010, they crafted a plan to redraw the boundaries for the state's then 13 congressional districts in their favor. State Republicans hired longtime political consultant Thomas Hofeller to generate and evaluate roughly 3,000 distinctive maps, and then selected the one they believed gave Republicans the best chance of earning significant control over North Carolina's House. In the 2018 midterm elections, Republican and Democratic candidates statewide each received roughly half of the votes, but Republicans won 10 of the 13 congressional races. This, of course, isn't unique to North Carolina. In Pennsylvania, across several elections, congressional races in districts drawn by a Republican legislature resulted in Democrats receiving between 45% and 51% of the statewide vote, yet winning just five of its 18 House seats. In Rucho vs. Common Cause, a lower federal court found that partisan gerrymandering violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (as well as the 1st Amendment and Article 1 of the Constitution). But the Supreme Court, in a 2019 opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., reversed this decision. The 5-4 majority held that federal courts 'cannot entertain a claim' and suggested that the plaintiffs 'must find their resolution elsewhere.' But this was just wrong. Gerrymandering is nothing more than a method for rigging elections. The central precept of a republican government, as the Supreme Court itself once observed, is 'that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.' However, partisan gerrymandering infamously creates a system for representatives to effectively choose their voters. As a result, each voter does not have the same opportunity to influence the outcome of an election, which is antithetical to equal protection. When the court first ruled on partisan gerrymandering, holding that federal courts could hear challenges to it, Justice Lewis Powell observed that 'the boundaries of the voting districts have been distorted deliberately' to deprive voters of 'an equal opportunity to participate in the State's legislative processes.' Some voters will benefit and will have more influence in choosing representatives. For others this will be more difficult as their votes are diluted. That is inconsistent with democracy. Even though districting is usually done at the beginning of each decade, right after the U.S. census, and even though Texas' congressional districts were drawn just a few years ago, Trump and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott are trying to engage in redistricting for the sole goal of manipulating the composition of Congress. Trump, knowing the Supreme Court's decision means that federal courts can't stop it, has strongly urged the state to redraw its districts now to effectively create five more safe seats for Republican representatives. Not surprisingly, states with Democratic governors and legislatures are now looking for ways to respond, including redrawing districts that create Democratic seats in Congress. But some of these states, notably California and New York, already adopted the desirable and seemingly bipartisan approach of having independent commissions draw their districts to eliminate the plague of gerrymandering. The question is whether they can and should also change this practice now to combat what Texas is trying to do. There are many ways to end partisan gerrymandering. Congress could pass a law requiring that all states use independent commissions to draw the congressional districts. The Supreme Court could reconsider and overrule Rucho vs. Common Cause and go back to holding, as the law used to be, that federal courts can invalidate partisan gerrymandering. State courts can find partisan gerrymandering violates state constitutions. But none of this is going to happen now, and there is nothing to stop Texas from its efforts to carve out five more Republican districts. States controlled by Democrats need to respond; unilateral disarmament never makes sense. The loser is American democracy. And the Supreme Court is to blame. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, is an Opinion Voices contributing writer.

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