Opinion - America has a health care affordability gap. Congress is working toward change.
The rising cost of health care polls as one of the top financial worries for hardworking American families, surpassing other financial stressors including debt, child care and fuel costs. This is particularly problematic for the millions of working-class Americans who are the backbone of our communities. Even those who have insurance can't escape the pressure when they are inevitably presented with medical bills not covered by their plans.
A resounding majority of voters — nearly 80 percent, according to a recent poll by Fabrizio Ward — say it's time the middle class has a dedicated tool to help them offset runaway health care costs. Yet the complexities and sheer size of our health care system make finding solutions seem insurmountable to many and divisive among the policymakers working toward change.
Even as leaders in Congress are focusing on the myriad of issues driving up the cost of care, such as prescription price hikes, lack of price transparency, and bureaucratic red tape, costs continue to climb. Americans can't afford to wait any longer.
That is why we are reaching across the aisle and supporting the Health Out-of-Pocket Expense Act, or HOPE Act, to give over 100 million eligible Americans the chance to manage their health care expenses. By advancing bipartisan legislation, we can bridge the health care affordability gap, help hardworking Americans receive the care they need, promote better health care outcomes, and work toward becoming a healthier nation.
The HOPE Act, with its broad eligibility and tax advantages, offers a structured and personal way to save for future health needs. The legislation introduces HOPE Accounts, an innovative savings tool designed to help individuals and families plan for medical costs. Individuals and their employers can contribute to a personal account that stays with them forever, untethered to their job, giving people a new way to save for future health expenses, from a routine visit to preventative care to an unforeseen emergency.
Most appealing to Americans is the portability of HOPE Accounts, meaning the funds can never be lost, even when they change jobs. It's security for the long run.
The HOPE Act offers a lifeline for families and individuals who find themselves battling these ever-rising costs, the consequences of which are illustrated both by data and constituent stories. A staggering 45 percent of adults in the U.S. can't afford care when they need it — a 6-point increase since 2022. Families are delaying or altogether skipping out on medical treatment simply out of fear of health care costs, threatening their physical health and adding to anxieties and stress.
Nearly one in three American adults avoided seeking needed care in three months alone, while others, often living paycheck to paycheck, are forced to choose between their health and affording other basic, essential needs from paying off bills and credit cards to buying food for their families.
Worse yet, when care can no longer be avoided, Americans find themselves dipping into their life savings. In the most severe yet all too common cases, patients attempt to buy time by using credit cards or otherwise face medical debt and even bankruptcy.
Americans coming from middle- or lower-income backgrounds are hit hardest, disproportionately affected by out-of-pocket expenses and the consequences of an inability to pay. For these individuals, balancing basic living expenses with unforeseen health care needs can be devastating no matter how hard they work to make ends meet.
The HOPE Act is not a complicated overhaul of the health care system, nor is it a narrow program with eligibility restrictions. It's a straightforward, common-sense solution that empowers families to take control of their health care expenses in a financially responsible way.
As health care costs rise, it is essential for Congress to work toward solutions that not only address the immediate need for affordable care but also equip people from all walks of life with tools that prepare them for future challenges. The HOPE Act does just that, empowering over 100 million people to manage and protect their health. We already have momentum with an endorsement from the Problem Solvers Caucus, a 62-member group evenly split between Republicans and Democrats and committed to advancing solutions by finding common ground. It's time for our other House colleagues to follow suit.
While this solution alone may not completely solve the health care affordability crisis, it is certainly a step in the right direction. Times have seemingly never been more unpredictable. But the HOPE Act is an opportunity for Congress to come together, show bipartisanship, and provide the critical lifeline working families need to take their health, security and futures back into their own hands.
Rep. Blake Moore (R) represents Utah's 1st Congressional District and is a member of the Ways and Means Committee. Jimmy Panetta (D) represents California's 19th Congressional District and is a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts.
Will Trump's big bill kill people? Here's the truth about Medicaid cuts. | Opinion Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. Show Caption Hide Caption Disabled protesters removed from House committee hearing Disabled demonstrators protesting a Republican proposal to cut benefits were forced to leave a House committee hearing and arrested. Perhaps you've heard: Republicans are about to kick millions of people off health insurance. That claim is all over the news media as Congress debates the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Advocates on the left even say the proposed changes will kill people. Such claims have no basis in reality. The point is to frighten Republican lawmakers into giving up on necessary reforms. Instead, the GOP should double down. Congressional Budget Office is biased, and often wrong The source for this fearmongering is the Congressional Budget Office. As the Foundation for Government Accountability shows in our new research, CBO staff consists largely of registered Democrats and the agency is often wrong in its projections. Washington elites and their media allies like to hold up the CBO as an all-seeing oracle. In theory, it's a nonpartisan federal agency inside Congress that accurately predicts how legislation will play out in the real world. In reality, CBO is overwhelmingly staffed by Democrats and its findings are less than trustworthy. We painstakingly analyzed the voter registration of every CBO employee. Our finding: A staggering 79% of CBO staff are Democrats. A mere 12% are Republicans. That's actually worse than senior bureaucrats at the most liberal federal agencies, including Housing and Urban Development, the State Department and Health and Human Services. And when you look at key CBO departments, the liberal bias is even more stark. The Health Analysis Division is 93% Democrat and zero Republican. That's the department now driving the news about the dangers of the Republican bill. In other words, CBO may well be the most liberal government outfit in all of Washington. And surprise, surprise: It does Democrats' bidding. Tell us: Republicans want massive cuts to Medicaid. What do you want? | Forum Opinion That fact should persuade Republicans to ignore CBO's analysis of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In May, CBO asserted that about 10 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage by 2034 if the bill passed. CBO blames Republican reforms like Medicaid work requirements, more frequent eligibility checks and the removal of illegal immigrants from Medicaid. But think about what's really happening. A group of Democratic bureaucrats are criticizing Republican efforts to roll back Democratic priorities. This isn't nonpartisan policy analysis. It's political damage control. CBO projections were wrong on 'Obamacare' And wouldn't you know: The leftist CBO is frequently wrong. The agency has a long history of underestimating the benefits of Republican policies like tax cuts and health care reforms. The CBO also routinely minimizes the damage of Democratic policies, especially the soaring cost of government expansions. In 2010, when the Affordable Care Act passed, the CBO said only 13 million able-bodied adults would be covered under the law's Medicaid expansion in all 50 states. But within a decade, 50% more able-bodied adults had jumped onto Medicaid, even though only two-thirds of states had expanded the program. Opinion: GOP must cut Medicaid now. Or risk debt crisis and devastating cuts later. CBO's error made "Obamacare" look more affordable than it is, and taxpayers have spent tens of billions of additional dollars on able-bodied adults who push vulnerable Americans and individuals with disabilities back in line. For more than a decade, CBO has been consistently wrong on Medicaid expansion's real-world impact, underestimating enrollment and the cost to taxpayers. But when CBO analyzed the Republican repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate in 2017, it overestimated how many people would lose coverage. It said 4 million people would lose private health coverage and Medicaid in the first two years alone. But by 2020, about 13 million people had gained coverage. CBO could hardly have been more wrong. And the agency is still in charge of making predictions. Now, the CBO is once again warning about massive coverage losses, and their media allies are dutifully repeating the assertion. But congressional Republicans should see through the charade. Case in point: CBO's predictions about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act include 1.6 million people enrolled in Medicaid in multiple states. They won't lose coverage in the state where they live, but CBO still counts them among those losing coverage. In addition, 200,000 'losses' are people who aren't even on Medicaid. CBO just assumes they'll join in the years ahead. GOP is doing the right thing with Medicaid The truth is that Republicans are doing what's right, morally and fiscally. They're requiring able-bodied adults to work as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits. That will allow states to focus on Medicaid's intended recipients such as individuals with disabilities. Republicans are also removing ineligible people and illegal immigrants from Medicaid rolls. CBO makes it sound like those coverage losses are wrong, but what's really wrong is letting millions of people take advantage of taxpayers. Republicans are looking out for Americans − taxpayers, individuals with disabilities and future generations. The Congressional Budget Office, on the other hand, is looking out for the Democratic agenda of growing government at any cost. Republicans in the Senate should ignore the fearmongering and move forward with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as soon as possible. Hayden Dublois is data and analytics director at the Foundation for Government Accountability, where Addison Scherler is a data investigator.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
When it comes to liberty, Florida, why stop at fluoride?
Our state legislature's ban on fluoridation does not go far enough. When Republican State Rep. Danny Alvarez said, "This is not about fluoride. This is about your liberty," every word applied to chlorine with equal relevancy. Yes, chlorine. The chemical that makes swimming pools smell funny as it neutralizes the indiscretions of bathers. How dare the government add chlorine to our drinking water to protect us from diseases such as cholera, dysentery, and typhoid without our consent! Some of us might prefer seeking "herd immunity" to these illnesses, even though untrustworthy "science" tells us this is impossible. Remember, this "science" also alleges we are in "climate change," an untruth our governor has banned from our textbooks and legislation. Ending chlorination isn't a blue issue or a red issue; it's a green issue. Let's turn our tap water green with algae and pond scum as a perpetual reminder that we are free Americans living in the Free State of Florida. Fluoridation in Florida: City-by-city: Does your municipality use fluoride to treat its drinking water? Carl Imboden, West Palm Beach This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Florida got freedom from fluoride. They shouldn't stop there | Letters
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. has promoted 'freedom of choice' while limiting vaccines, food
Prior to becoming Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had espoused the idea of "medical freedom," the ability of people to make personal health decisions for themselves and their families without corporate or government coercion. It's an idea supported under Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement to reduce the prevalence of chronic disease in the U.S. by making healthier lifestyle choices. On topics, such as vaccines, Kennedy has said he wouldn't prevent children from being able to receive vaccines but would leave the choice up to parents. MORE: CDC official who oversaw COVID vaccine recommendations resigns "I'm a freedom-of-choice person," Kennedy told Fox News host Sean Hannity during an interview in March. "We should have transparency. We should have informed choice, and if people don't want it, the government shouldn't force them to do it." Some public health experts told ABC News, however, that the HHS has been limiting choices on some products for many Americans despite Kennedy's talk about "freedom of choice." Just last week, Kennedy announced the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would no longer recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for certain groups. Additionally, Kennedy has called on states to ban recipients of food stamps from being able to use them to purchase soda. He has also praised states for banning fluoride from public drinking water and indicated he will change federal guidance on recommending adding fluoride. The public health experts said Kennedy's actions are setting up a dichotomy on public health. "I think that RFK Jr. has done a really good job of identifying some of the problems [in public health], but it's the solutions that are problematic," Dr. Craig Spencer, an associate professor of the practice of health services, policy and practice at Brown University School of Public Health, told ABC News. "What you're seeing with RFK Jr. and his approach to health is an individualization of public health. It's this idea that you can make decisions for your health, and that's always been true." He went on, "We need to be able to follow their guidance, not just have them tell us, 'Follow your own science.' As the focus shifts from community to individuals, we're losing a lot of that underpinning, which has led to a lot of the gains in public health." Kennedy has repeatedly stated that he is not anti-vaccine and that he supports vaccination. Shortly after Trump's election, Kennedy said in an interview with NBC News that "if vaccines are working for somebody, I'm not going to take them away. People ought to have choice, and that choice ought to be informed by the best information." MORE: CDC official who oversaw COVID vaccine recommendations resigns During his confirmation hearings, Kennedy said he supported the childhood vaccination schedule and that he would not do anything as head of HHS that "makes it difficult or discourages people from taking vaccines." Separately, in an opinion piece Kennedy wrote for Fox News in March on the nationwide measles outbreak, he said the measles vaccine helps protect individuals and provides "community immunity" but also called the decision to vaccinate a "personal one." However, last week, Kennedy announced the removal of the COVID-19 vaccine from the CDC's immunization schedule for "healthy children and healthy pregnant women." The CDC's immunization schedule is not just a guide for doctors but also determines insurance coverage for most major private plans and Medicaid expansion programs. Following Kennedy's announcement, the schedule was updated noting all children would be eligible for COVID vaccines, but now under a shared-clinical decision-making model -- allowing parents to choose whether their children are vaccinated alongside advice from a doctor. "Regarding the vaccines, HHS is restoring the doctor-patient relationship," HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon told ABC News in a statement. "We are encouraging those groups to consult with their health care provider to help them make an informed decision. This is freedom of choice." "If you restrict access, you necessarily restrict choice," Dr. Matthew Ferrari, a professor of biology and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at Pennsylvania State University, told ABC News. "Those two things are antithetical. You can't do both. You can't say you're allowing choice if you're restricting access." Ferrari said the idea of "medical freedom" is catchy, but public health recommendations are made based on how to protect the most vulnerable individuals. "If you look at the outcomes, if you look at the consequences of that movement, it has been to disproportionately restrict access to -- and restrict support and infrastructure to allow people to access -- preventive medicine," he said. "It's sort of easy to say, 'Well, take the vaccine away. But [vaccines] prevent a future outcome of illness for yourself and for others in the community." Traditionally, the CDC's Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices decides if there is a benefit to a yearly vaccine and who should get it. The independent advisory committee then makes recommendations to the CDC, which has the final say. The committee was set to meet in late June to vote on potential changes to COVID vaccine recommendations. Spencer said Kennedy's bypassing of traditional avenues when it comes to changing vaccine recommendations is also taking away choice from people. "This did not go through the normal process that it should have, and he basically just made a decision for people while at the same time saying that he's going to let people make a decision," Spencer said. Kennedy has also campaigned to prevent Americans from using food stamps -- provided under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program -- to buy candy and soda. "It's nonsensical for U.S. taxpayers to spend tens of billions of dollars subsidizing junk that harms the health of low-income Americans," Kennedy wrote in an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal last September. MORE: RFK Jr. to tell medical schools to teach nutrition or lose federal funding At a MAHA event in late May, Kennedy said the governors of 10 states have submitted waivers to the United States Department of Agriculture requesting permission to ban SNAP recipients from using benefits to buy candy and soft drinks. "The U.S. government spends over $4 trillion a year on health care," Nixon said in a statement. "That's not freedom -- it's failure. Secretary Kennedy is unapologetically taking action to reverse the chronic disease epidemic, not subsidize it with taxpayer dollars. Warning Americans about the dangers of ultra-processed food isn't an attack on choice -- it's the first step in restoring it." Nutrition experts agree that sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are unhealthy. Frequent consumption of SSBs is linked to health issues such as weight gain, obesity, type 2 diabetes, tooth decay, heart disease and kidney diseases, according to the CDC. Kristina Petersen, an associate professor in the department of nutritional sciences at Pennsylvania State University, told ABC News there is a crisis of diet-related diseases in the U.S., which increase the risk of disability and reduces lifespan. However, she said there needs to be strong evidence of the benefits of restrictive policies if they are to be put in place. "In terms of limiting people's choices, it is important to consider all the different roles that food plays in someone's life, and so obviously we want people eating nutritious foods, but also we need to acknowledge that food is a source of enjoyment," Petersen said. "A lot of social situations revolve around food. So, when we're thinking about reducing people's access to given foods, we need to think about the consequences of that." One unintended consequence could be an eligible family not signing up for SNAP benefits because of the restrictions, she said. Even if a ban on buying candy and soda with SNAP benefits does occur, Petersen said she is not aware of any evidence that shows banning certain foods leads to healthier diets. She added that the nation's dietary guidelines are written to emphasize healthy foods like fruits and vegetable rather than telling people to avoid or restrict less healthy foods. "All foods can be consumed as part of a healthy dietary pattern. It's really just the amount and the frequency that determines whether that pattern is helpful overall or less helpful," Petersen said. "People can have small indulgences, but really, we're interested in what is their pattern over a period of time." Providing incentives for purchasing healthier foods may be more effective and still allow people to have choice, Petersen said. A 2018 study used a model simulation to study the effects of food incentives, disincentives or restrictions in SNAP. One of the simulations involving incentives for foods such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, whole grains, fish and plant-based oils found to have the most substantial health benefits and be the most cost-effective. "Things like fruits and vegetables, they do tend to be more expensive, so if you incentivize them by providing more benefits … that's making the dollar go further, and it's kind of making the economic piece of this a bit stronger," Petersen said. "A lot of this is framed around personal choice. Rather than restricting access to, how can we give people more access to healthy foods? I think that's going to have the greatest benefit here." ABC News' Youri Benadjaoud and Cheyenne Haslett contributed to this report. RFK Jr. has promoted 'freedom of choice' while limiting vaccines, food originally appeared on
