Home Blog Page 16

A Closer Look at the $50 Billion Rural Health Fund in the New Reconciliation Law



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Editorial Note: Originally published on July 16, this brief is being updated regularly as new information becomes available.

On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed a budget reconciliation bill into law that includes significant reductions in federal health care spending, large tax cuts, and other changes. The new law will reduce federal Medicaid spending alone by $911 billion over ten years and lead to 10 million more people becoming uninsured by 2034 based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates. While this legislation was being debated, Members of Congress from both parties raised concerns about the potential impact on rural hospitals, particularly given the ongoing trend of rural hospital closures. In response, and just prior to passage, the Senate added $50 billion in funding for a new “rural health transformation program,” referred to here as the “rural health fund.”

This brief describes the rural health fund, explains what the law says about the allocation of funds, and highlights outstanding questions about how the funds will be distributed across and within states to pay rural hospitals and for other purposes. Based on the statutory language, it is not yet clear what specific criteria the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will ultimately use to approve or deny state applications and distribute funds across states; what share of the $50 billion fund will go to rural areas; what share will go to the nearly 1,800 hospitals in rural areas or be used for other providers or purposes; whether funds will be targeted to certain types of rural hospitals, such as the 44% of rural hospitals with negative margins; and to what extent the CMS Administrator will be able to influence how states use their funds prior to approving an application. Further, the law does not require CMS to publish information about the distribution of funds so that the allocation decisions are transparent. Similar questions were raised during the COVID-19 pandemic about how well provider relief funds were targeted to hospitals with the greatest need.

The rural health fund includes $50 billion, which is a little over one third (37%) of the estimated loss of federal Medicaid funding in rural areas

The fund provides $50 billion for state grants (DC and the U.S. territories cannot apply). Half ($25 billion) will be distributed by CMS “equally among all states with an approved application,” which appears to suggest that each state with an approved application would receive the same amount from this pool regardless of the size of its rural population, the number of rural hospitals or other providers in the state, the financial standing of its rural hospitals, or other factors. For example, Connecticut (which has 3 rural hospitals based on one definition) could receive the same amount as Kansas (which has 90 rural hospitals) if both are approved for funding. CMS will have some discretion in determining how to allocate the remaining half ($25 billion) (see Figure 1 and more details below).

The Rural Health Fund Includes $50 Billion, With Half Distributed Equally Among States With Approved Applications and Half Distributed Based on an Approach Determined by CMS Within Broad Requirements

States can apply to use the funds in a variety of ways, such as for promoting care interventions, paying for health care services, expanding the rural health workforce, and providing technical assistance with system transformation.

The $50 billion in new funding could offset a little over a third (37%) of the estimated cuts to federal Medicaid spending in rural areas ($137 billion over ten years) based on KFF analysis of CBO’s estimates, or about 5% of the total estimated cuts to federal Medicaid spending ($911 billion over ten years). This does not account for other revenue losses related to the bill, including cuts to federal spending for the ACA Marketplaces, or the revenue losses stemming from the increased number of people who will be uninsured because of the expiration of the enhanced ACA premium tax credits and the implementation of final Marketplace integrity rules. The impact of these changes on rural areas, and the extent to which the rural health fund offsets losses, will vary across the country.

The rural health fund will be temporary, while many of the cuts in health spending are not time limited

While many of the major cuts related to Medicaid and the ACA Marketplaces under the law are not time limited, the rural health fund is temporary. The law provides $10 billion per year through the rural health fund for fiscal years 2026 through 2030, a five-year period. According to statements made by the CMS Administrator, CMS will distribute applications to states in early September 2025, states will submit applications to CMS in that month, and CMS will process their applications in November and send out the first batch of funds at the end of the year. States will be allowed to spend funds that they receive at a given point through the end of the following fiscal year, and CMS may be able to redistribute some unused funds over time, but all funds must be spent before October 1, 2032. New legislation would be required to provide additional support to rural areas after the funds dry up.

The distribution of dollars from the rural health fund will occur before many of the health care spending cuts under the law are fully realized. The rural health fund was put in place, and doubled in size, to address concerns of lawmakers from rural states, and front loading these dollars could allow systems to absorb forthcoming cuts. As described above, the law specifies that rural health fund dollars will first be available for fiscal year 2026, with $10 billion dollars available per year over five years through fiscal year 2030, and all funds must be spent before October 1, 2032. Yet most of the health care spending reductions are backloaded and occur after fiscal year 2030. For example, based on KFF’s analysis of CBO estimates, nearly two thirds (64%) of the ten-year reductions in federal Medicaid spending would occur after fiscal year 2030.

CMS will have broad leeway in how it distributes funds across states

The law grants CMS broad discretion over the distribution of funds and confirms that these decisions are not subject to administrative or judicial review. The law gives CMS authority to determine which state applications to approve or deny, without specifying the criteria CMS should use to make these decisions, though it does specify certain items that states must include in their applications.

As noted above, half of the funds ($25 billion) will be distributed equally among states with approved applications. For the second half of the funds ($25 billion), CMS has more flexibility. The law requires that CMS considers certain factors when distributing these funds (the share of the state population that lives in a rural part of a metropolitan area, the share of rural health facilities in the state as a share of all rural health facilities nationwide, and the situation of hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients with special needs). It also allows the CMS Administrator to consider “any other factors that [it] determines appropriate.”  CMS could choose to restrict this $25 billion pool of funds to a subset of states, though the law specifies that it must distribute these funds to at least a quarter of states with approved applications.

States will have discretion in how they distribute funds among hospitals, and other providers, and may be able to steer some dollars to nonrural areas, subject to CMS approval

Just as the law grants CMS broad discretion over the distribution of funds across states, it also permits states to use the funds for a wide variety of purposes, subject to CMS approval. States must use the funds for at least three of the following purposes:

  • Promoting evidence-based, measurable interventions to improve prevention and chronic disease management.
  • Providing payments to health care providers for the provision of health care items or services, as specified by the CMS Administrator.
  • Promoting consumer-facing, technology-driven solutions for the prevention and management of chronic diseases.
  • Providing training and technical assistance for the development and adoption of technology-enabled solutions that improve care delivery in rural hospitals, including remote monitoring, robotics, artificial intelligence, and other advanced technologies.
  • Recruiting and retaining clinical workforce talent to rural areas, with commitments to serve rural communities for a minimum of 5 years.
  • Providing technical assistance, software, and hardware for significant information technology advances designed to improve efficiency, enhance cybersecurity capability development, and improve patient health outcomes.
  • Assisting rural communities to right size their health care delivery systems by identifying needed preventative, ambulatory, pre-hospital, emergency, acute inpatient care, outpatient care, and post-acute care service lines.
  • Supporting access to opioid use disorder treatment services, other substance use disorder treatment services, and mental health services.
  • Developing projects that support innovative models of care that include value-based care arrangements and  alternative payment models, as appropriate.
  • Additional uses designed to promote sustainable access to high quality rural health care services, as determined by the CMS Administrator.

Within the contours of this list, states could restrict the funds to rural hospitals or specific types of rural hospitals (such as those that are isolated and in financial distress) or they could use them for additional or different purposes, such as paying nursing facilities or recruiting clinical workers to rural areas.

While the fund is described as a “rural” program, the law appears to give states some ability to direct some of the dollars to urban and suburban areas, pending CMS approval. For example, most of the permitted uses in the list above do not specify that the funds would need to go to rural areas, such as the description of payments to hospitals and other providers and of support for opioid use treatment services, other substance use disorder treatment services, and mental health services. The current CMS Administrator indicated that nonrural areas could potentially receive money from the fund. The law also does not define “rural” when describing the scope of the program, meaning that states or the administration could do so broadly.

The law does not direct CMS or states to be transparent about the allocation and use of funds

CMS is not required to publish information about how the funds are distributed—such as by posting the amount sent to each state or why certain state applications were approved or denied—though it could choose to do so. States are required to submit annual reports to CMS on the use of the allotments. CMS could require states to disclose information about the amount they receive or the use of funds to the public.

This work was supported in part by Arnold Ventures. KFF maintains full editorial control over all of its policy analysis, polling, and journalism activities.



Source link

Implementation Dates for 2025 Budget Reconciliation Law



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

On July 4, President Trump signed the budget reconciliation bill, previously known as “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” into law. The bill includes significant health care policy changes. This timeline provides a brief overview of the specific provisions and their effective dates. You can view all health provisions in the order they are implemented or can filter them by the following categories: Medicaid, Medicare, Affordable Care Act and Health Savings Accounts. You can read a detailed summary of the health provisions of the law.

Implementation Dates for Health Provisions in the 2025 Republican Tax and Spending Cut Legislation



Source link

Health Provisions in the 2025 Federal Budget Reconciliation Law



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Eligibility and Cost Sharing Policies

Section 71119: Work Requirements

Background

Prior to passage of the federal budget reconciliation law, Medicaid eligibility could not be conditioned on meeting a work or reporting requirement without obtaining a Medicaid Section 1115 waiver. During the first Trump administration, 13 states received approval to implement work requirements through Section 1115 waivers. Work requirement waiver approvals were either rescinded by the Biden administration or withdrawn by states, and Georgia is the only state with a Medicaid work requirement waiver currently in place. Since the beginning of Trump’s second term, some states have shown renewed interest in pursuing work requirement policies through 1115 waivers.

Description

  • Requires states to condition Medicaid eligibility for individuals ages 19-64 applying for coverage or enrolled through the ACA expansion group (or a waiver) on working or participating in qualifying activities for at least 80 hours per month or attending school at least half-time.
  • Mandates that states exempt certain adults, including parents with children ages 13 and under, those who are medically frail, and those who are participating in a substance use disorder treatment program, from the requirements.
  • Requires states to verify that individuals applying for coverage meet the requirements for 1 and up to a maximum of 3 consecutive months preceding the month of application and that individuals who are enrolled meet the requirements for 1 or more months between the most recent eligibility redeterminations (at least twice per year).
  • Requires states to use data matching “where possible” to verify whether an individual meets the requirement or qualifies for an exemption.
  • Specifies that if a person is denied or disenrolled due to work requirements, they are also ineligible for subsidized Marketplace coverage.
  • Prohibits these provisions from being waived, including under Section 1115 authority.
  • Allows the Secretary to exempt states from compliance with the new requirements until no later than December 31, 2028, if the state is demonstrating a good faith effort to comply and submits progress in compliance or other barriers to compliance.
  • Provides $200 million in funding to states for systems development for FY 2026 and an additional $200 million to HHS to support implementation (for FY 2026).

Effective Date: Not later than December 31, 2026, or earlier at state option.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $326 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71107: More Frequent Eligibility Determinations

Background

Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), states are required to renew eligibility every 12 months for Medicaid enrollees whose eligibility is based on modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), including children, pregnant individuals, parents, and expansion adults. For enrollees whose eligibility is based on age 65+ or disability, states must renew eligibility at least every 12 months . States are required to review eligibility within the 12-month period if they receive information about a change in a beneficiary’s circumstances that may affect eligibility.

Description

  • Requires states to conduct eligibility redeterminations every 6 months for Medicaid expansion adults.
  • Provides $75 million in implementation funding for FY 2026.

Effective Date: For renewals scheduled on or after December 31, 2026.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $63 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71103: Verifying Enrollee Address and Other Information

Background

The Eligibility and Enrollment final rule issued in April 2024 requires states to leverage reliable data sources to update enrollee address information, effective June 2025.

Description

  • Requires states to update enrollee address information using reliable data sources, including the National Change of Address Database and managed care entities.
  • Requires the Secretary to establish a system to share information with states for purposes of preventing individuals from being simultaneously enrolled in two states and requires states to submit monthly enrollee SSNs and other information to the system.

Effective Date: January 1, 2027 for states to obtain contact information; October 1, 2029 to establish system to prevent enrollment in two states simultaneously.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $17 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71104: Ensuring Deceased Individuals Do Not Remain Enrolled

Description

  • Requires states to review the Master Death File at least quarterly to determine if any enrolled individuals are deceased.

Effective Date: January 1, 2027.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will not affect federal Medicaid spending over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71102: Eligibility and Enrollment Final Rule

Background

In April 2024, CMS issued a final rule to streamline application and enrollment processes in Medicaid, align renewal policies for all Medicaid enrollees, facilitate transitions between Medicaid, CHIP, and subsidized Marketplace coverage, and eliminate certain barriers in CHIP. Implementation deadlines for states vary across provisions, but many provisions in the rule are already in effect, and for others, states are already in compliance.

Description

  • Prohibits the Secretary from implementing, administering, or enforcing certain provisions that have not yet taken effect in an April 2024 CMS final rule until October 1, 2034.

Effective Date: Upon enactment.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $56 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71101: Medicare Savings Program Final Rule

Background

In September 2023, CMS issued a final rule to reduce barriers to enrollment in Medicare Savings Programs (MSPs), which provide Medicaid coverage of Medicare premiums and cost sharing for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. Implementation deadlines for states vary across provisions in the rule, but many provisions are already in effect, and for others, states are already in compliance.

Description

  • Prohibits the Secretary from implementing, administering, or enforcing certain provisions that have not yet taken effect in a September 2023 CMS final rule until October 1, 2034.

Effective Date: Upon enactment.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $66 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71109: Restricting Immigrant Eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP

Background

In addition to meeting other eligibility requirements, lawfully present immigrants must have a “qualified” immigration status to be eligible for Medicaid or CHIP. Qualified immigrants include: lawful permanent residents (LPRs); refugees; individuals granted parole for at least one year; individuals granted asylum or related relief; certain abused spouses and children; certain victims of trafficking; Cuban and Haitian entrants; and citizens of the Freely Associated States (COFA migrants) residing in states and territories. Many lawfully present immigrants must wait five years after obtaining qualified status before they may enroll in Medicaid; states may waive the five-year wait for children and pregnant individuals (referred to as the ICHIA option). Some states have state-only funded coverage programs for undocumented immigrants.

Description

  • Restricts the definition of qualified immigrants for purposes of Medicaid or CHIP eligibility to Lawful Permanent Residents (“green card” holders), certain Cuban and Haitian immigrants, citizens of the Freely Associated States (COFA migrants) lawfully residing in the US, and lawfully residing children and pregnant adults in states that cover them under the ICHIA option.
  • Provides $15 million in implementation funding for FY 2026.

Effective Date: October 1, 2026.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $6 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71112: Retroactive Coverage

Background

Under current law, states are required to provide Medicaid coverage for qualified medical expenses incurred up to 90 days prior to the date of application for coverage.

Description

  • Limits retroactive coverage to one month prior to application for coverage for individuals enrolled through the Medicaid expansion and two months prior to application for coverage for traditional enrollees.
  • Provides $15 million in implementation funding for FY 2026.

Effective Date: January 1, 2027.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $4 billion over 10 years.

Section 71120: New Cost Sharing Requirements for Certain Expansion Individuals

Background

States have the option to charge premiums and cost-sharing for Medicaid enrollees within limits, and certain populations and services (emergency, family planning, pregnancy and preventive) are exempt from cost-sharing. Cost-sharing is generally limited to nominal amounts but may be higher for those with income above 100% of the federal poverty level (FPL). Out-of-pocket costs cannot exceed 5% of family income. States may allow providers to deny services to enrollees for nonpayment of copayments.

Description

  • Requires states to impose cost sharing of up to $35 per service on expansion adults with incomes 100-138% FPL; maintains existing exemptions of certain services from cost sharing and exempts primary care, mental health, and substance use disorder services and services provided by federally qualified health centers, behavioral health clinics, and rural health clinics from cost sharing; limits cost sharing for prescription drugs to nominal amounts.
  • Maintains the 5% of family income cap on out-of-pocket costs.
  • Permits states to allow providers to deny services for failure to pay cost sharing but does not prevent providers from reducing or waiving cost sharing.
  • Eliminates enrollment fees or premiums for expansion adults.

Effective Date: October 1, 2028.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $7 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Financing

Section 71115: Provider Taxes

Background

States are permitted to finance the non-federal share of Medicaid spending through multiple sources, including state general funds, health care related taxes (or “provider taxes”), and local government funds. Federal rules specify provider taxes must be broad-based and uniform (i.e., states can’t limit provider taxes to only Medicaid providers) and may not hold providers “harmless” (i.e., guarantee providers receive their money back). The hold harmless requirement does not apply when tax revenues comprise 6% or less of providers’ net patient revenues from treating patients (referred to as the “safe harbor” limit).

Description

  • Prohibits all states from establishing any new provider taxes or from increasing the rates of existing taxes.
  • Reduces the safe harbor limit for states that have adopted the ACA expansion by 0.5% annually starting in fiscal year 2028 until the safe harbor limit reaches 3.5% in FY 2032.
  • Applies the new safe harbor limit in expansion states to state and local government taxes on all providers except nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities.
  • Provides $20 million in implementation funding for FY 2026.

Effective Date: Upon enactment for prohibition of new or increased taxes; October 1, 2027 for reduction in safe harbor limit.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $191 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71117: Requirements for Provider Tax Uniformity Waivers

Background

States are permitted to finance the non-federal share of Medicaid spending through multiple sources, including state general funds, health care related taxes (or “provider taxes”), and local government funds. Federal rules specify provider taxes must be broad-based and uniform (i.e., states can’t limit provider taxes to only Medicaid providers) and may not hold providers “harmless” (i.e., guarantee providers receive their money back).

Description

  • Revises the conditions under which states may receive a waiver of the requirement that taxes be broad-based and uniform so that some currently permissible taxes, such as those on managed care plans, will no longer be permissible in future years.
  • Provision overlaps with a proposed rule released May 12, 2025.

Effective Date: Upon enactment; HHS Secretary may provide a transition period of up to three years.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $35 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71116: State Directed Payments

Background

States are generally not permitted to direct how managed care organizations (MCOs) pay their providers. However, subject to CMS approval, states may use “state directed payments” (SDPs) to require MCOs to pay providers certain rates, make uniform rate increases (that are like fee-for-service supplemental payments), or to use certain payment methods.

A 2024 rule on access to care in Medicaid managed care codified that the upper limit for SDPs is the average commercial rate for hospitals and nursing facilities, which is generally higher than the Medicare payment ceiling used for other Medicaid fee-for-service supplemental payments.

Description

  • Directs HHS to revise Medicaid regulations for state directed payment to cap the total payment rate for inpatient hospital and nursing facility services at 100% of the total published Medicare payment rate for expansion states and at 110% of the total published Medicare payment rate for non-expansion states.
  • Prevents payments approved after May 1, 2025 in excess of the new limits from taking effect unless they are for rural hospitals.
  • Reduces existing payments that are above the allowable Medicare-related payment limit by 10 percentage points each year until they reach the new lower limit.
  • Specifies that in the absence of published Medicare payment rates, the limit is set at the Medicaid fee-for-service payment rate.

Effective Date: Upon enactment for lower limit on new state directed payments; January 1, 2028 for reduction in existing state directed payments above new allowable Medicare-related limit.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $149 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71118: Section 1115 Demonstration Waiver Budget Neutrality

Background

Under long-standing policy and practice, Section 1115 demonstration waivers must be “budget neutral” to the federal government over the course of the waiver. Federal costs under an 1115 waiver may not exceed what they would have been for that state without the waiver. Typically, budget neutrality calculations are determined on a per enrollee basis—so, per enrollee spending over the course of the waiver (usually 5 years) cannot exceed the projected per enrollee spending calculated in the “without-waiver baseline.”

Budget neutrality calculations and the use of “savings” when expenditures decrease on account of the waiver are negotiated between states and CMS and the Office of Management and Budget.

Description

  • Specifies the Chief Actuary for CMS must certify 1115 waivers are not expected to result in an increase in federal expenditures compared to federal expenditures without the waiver.
  • Provides $5 million in implementation funding for each of FY 2026 and FY 2027.

Effective Date: January 1, 2027.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $3 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71106: Payment Reduction for Certain Erroneous Medicaid Payments

Background

Federal law directs CMS to recoup federal funds for erroneous payments made for ineligible individuals and overpayments for eligible individuals if the state’s eligibility “error rate” exceeds 3%. CMS may waive the recoupment if the Medicaid agency has taken steps to demonstrate a “good faith” effort to get below the 3% allowable threshold.

Description

  • Requires HHS to reduce federal financial participation to states for identified improper payment errors related to payments made for ineligible individuals and overpayments made for eligible individuals.
  • Expands the definition of improper payments to include payments where insufficient information is available to confirm eligibility.

Effective Date: October 1, 2029.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $8 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Medicaid Expansion

Section 71114: Eliminating Temporary Financial Incentive for Medicaid Expansion

Background

The Affordable Care Act expands Medicaid eligibility to non-elderly adults with incomes up to 138% FPL based on modified adjusted gross income and provides 90% federal financing for the expansion population. The Supreme Court effectively made expansion an option for states. The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) added a temporary financial incentive for states that newly adopt expansion. Currently, 41 states, including DC, have implemented the Medicaid expansion.

Description

  • Eliminates the temporary incentive for states that newly adopt the Medicaid expansion.

Effective Date: January 1, 2026.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $14 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71110: Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for Emergency Medicaid

Background

Emergency Medicaid reimburses hospitals for the costs of emergency care provided to immigrants who would qualify for Medicaid except for their immigration status, which hospitals are required to provide under federal law. States receive federal matching payments based on the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP), which is computed using a formula that takes into account states’ per capita income, for traditional populations; they receive a 90% federal match rate for individuals enrolled in the Medicaid expansion.

Description

  • Limits federal matching payments for Emergency Medicaid for individuals who would otherwise be eligible for expansion coverage except for their immigration status to the state’s regular FMAP.
  • Provides $1 million in implementation funding for FY 2026.

Effective Date: October 1, 2026.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $28 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Long-term Care

Section 71111: Nursing Home Staffing Final Rule

Background

A 2024 Biden-administration final rule requires long-term care facilities (LTC) to meet minimum staffing levels (including a 24/7 RN on-site and a minimum of 3.48 total nurse staffing hours per resident day), requires state Medicaid agencies to report the share of Medicaid payments for institutional LTC that are spent on worker compensation, and provides funding for people to enter careers in nursing homes.

On April 7, 2025, the US District Court for Northern Texas ruled to overturn the minimum staffing requirements, and it is expected that the Administration will not appeal that decision.

Description

  • Prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from implementing, administering, or enforcing the minimum staffing levels required by the final rule until October 1, 2034.

Effective Date: Upon enactment.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $23 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71108: Home Equity Limits

Background

Most Medicaid enrollees who qualify for Medicaid because they need long-term care (LTC) are subject to limits on their home equity. In 2025, federal rules specified that states’ limits on home equity must be between $730,000 and $1,097,000, and those amounts are updated each year for inflation.

Description

  • Reduces the maximum home equity limits to $1,000,000 regardless of inflation.
  • Allows states to apply different requirements for homes that are located on farms.

Effective Date: January 1, 2028.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $195 million over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71121: New Home and Community Based Services (HCBS)

Background

States are required to cover nursing facility care under Medicaid, but nearly all home care (HCBS) is optional. Nearly all states provide home care through “1915(c) waivers,” which limit services to people who require an institutional level of care. Because those services are optional, states may limit the amount of care people receive and the number of people receiving services. Most states have waiting lists because the number of people seeking services exceeds the amount of care available.

Description

  • Allows states to establish 1915(c) HCBS waivers for people who do not need an institutional level of care.
  • Requires state waiver submissions to demonstrate that new waivers will not increase the average amount of time that people who need an institutional level of care will wait for services.
  • Includes $50 million in FY 2026 and $100 million in FY 2027 for implementation.

Effective Date: July 1, 2028 for new waiver approvals.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will increase federal Medicaid spending by $7 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Access

Section 71401: Rural Health Transformation Program

Description

  • Establishes a rural health transformation program that will provide $50 billion in grants to states between fiscal years 2026 and 2030, to be used for payments to rural health care providers and for other purposes.
  • Distributes 50% of payments equally across states with approved applications; the remaining funds will be distributed by CMS based at least in part on states’ rural populations that live in metropolitan statistical areas, the percent of rural health facilities nationwide that are located in a state, and the situation of hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients with special needs.
  • Uses of funds include promoting care interventions, paying for health care services, expanding the rural health workforce, and providing technical or operational assistance aimed at system transformation.
  • Provides CMS with $200 million in implementation funding for FY 2025.

Effective Date: Upon enactment but funding is first available in fiscal year 2026. CMS to determine state application deadline, which will be no later than December 31, 2025.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will increase federal spending by $47 billion over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71113: Prohibiting Federal Medicaid Payments to Certain Providers

Background

States must generally allow beneficiaries to obtain Medicaid services from any provider that is qualified and willing to furnish services. Managed care organizations (MCOs) may restrict enrollees to providers in the MCO’s network, except that such plans cannot restrict free choice of family planning providers.

Description

  • Prohibits federal Medicaid funds to be paid to providers that meet the following criteria on October 1, 2025: are nonprofit organizations, essential community providers primarily engaged in family planning services or reproductive services, provide for abortions outside of the Hyde exceptions and received $800,000 or more in payments from Medicaid in 2023; this would affect Planned Parenthood and other Medicaid essential community providers.
  • Provides $1 million in implementation funding for FY 2026.

Effective Date: Upon enactment for 1 year; implementation is currently blocked for some providers due to ongoing litigation.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will increase federal spending by $53 million over 10 years.

KFF Resources

Section 71105: Medicaid Provider Screening Requirements

Background

Provider screening and enrollment is required for all providers in Medicaid fee-for-service or managed care networks. Additionally, the ACA requires states to terminate provider participation in Medicaid if the provider was terminated under Medicare or another state program. CMS has multiple tools to assist states with provider screening and enrollment compliance, including leveraging Medicare data.

Description

  • Requires states to conduct checks at provider enrollment or reenrollment and on a quarterly basis of the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File to determine whether providers enrolled in Medicaid are deceased.

Effective Date: January 1, 2028.

Budgetary Impact

CBO estimates this provision will not affect federal Medicaid spending over 10 years.

KFF Resources



Source link

Health Provisions in the 2025 Federal Budget Reconciliation Law



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

View more of Medicaid Watch. "Featuring policy research, polling, and news about how Medicaid is changing and the impact of those changes, due to the tax and spending cuts law."On July 3, the House passed the same version of the budget reconciliation bill that the Senate passed on July 1. On July 4, President Trump signed the bill, previously known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” into law. This summary describes the health care provisions in four categories: Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). An implementation timeline of the health provisions is available along with more background and a side-by-side comparison of the House and Senate passed bills.



Source link

KFF Health Tracking Poll: Public Views on Recent Tax and Budget Legislation



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Read the news release about these poll findings.


Key Takeaways

  • Following passage of the tax and budget reconciliation bill, dubbed the “big beautiful bill” by President Trump and Republicans, public attention to the bill has increased. Two-thirds now say they’ve heard “a lot” or “some” about the legislation, up from half who said so in June. Overall views remain largely negative, with about two-thirds (63%) continuing to hold unfavorable views of the legislation – which is similar to the share who said the same last month before the legislation passed. Despite this stability in overall views, partisan divides have widened, with the share of Republicans expressing favorable views increasing from 61% to 78% and the share of Democrats expressing unfavorable views rising from 85% to 94%.
  • Almost half (46%) of adults think the legislation will hurt them and their family, while a quarter (28%) don’t expect to be affected and another quarter (26%) think it will help them, up from 17% in June. The shift in perceptions of how the law will impact families is largely driven by Republicans and especially those who identify with the MAGA movement. Over half (54%) of Republicans now think the legislation will help them and their family, up from a third (32%) who said so in June. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who identify with the MAGA movement, six in ten (61%) now expect the law to help their families, up from four in ten (38%). A majority of Democrats (72%) and about half of independents (53%) continue to say the law will hurt them and their family.
  • Reflecting where most people get their news, a majority of adults, and similar shares across partisans, say they saw information about the tax and budget bill on social media in the past month (78% of those who use social media, and 73% of all adults). About half of those who saw content about the tax and budget bill on social media say the content was mostly in opposition to the bill, while fewer (11%) say the content they saw was mostly in support of it, and about four in ten (41%) saw a mix of both positive and negative content. Reflecting the partisan bent of most social media feeds, Democrats are much more likely to say they saw content in opposition to the legislation, whereas Republicans are much more likely to say they saw content in favor of the legislation or a mix of both positive and negative. Regardless of the tone of the social media content, most of those who saw content about the tax and budget bill on social media say it was a least “somewhat helpful” in helping them understand what the bill does.

Awareness and Impact of the Reconciliation Legislation

Earlier in July, the tax and budget bill, also known by Republicans as the “big beautiful bill,” was passed in Congress and signed by President Trump. The legislation has been lauded by Republicans as the largest tax cut in history for middle- and working-class Americans, but others describe it as the largest rollback in health programs, containing provisions that would significantly cut and drastically change Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The latest KFF tracking poll shows that as public awareness of the legislation has increased, partisan divides in opinion of the law have widened.

Two-thirds (68%) of the public now say they have heard “a lot” or “some” about the tax and budget bill, up from half who said the same in June. Another quarter say they’ve heard “a little” (23%), while few (9%) say they have heard “nothing at all.” Democrats remain somewhat more likely than Republicans and independents to say they’ve heard at least “some” about the legislation. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, those who consider themselves part of the MAGA movement are more likely to have heard “a lot” or “some” about the law compared to non-MAGA Republicans (71% vs. 57%).

Two-thirds (66%) of those who self-purchased their insurance and six in ten adults under age 65 with Medicaid coverage, two of the groups that will be most directly impacted by the law, say they’ve heard “a lot” or “some” about the legislation.

Two-Thirds of the Public Have Heard About the Tax and Budget Bill, Larger Shares Among Democrats and MAGA Republicans

Overall favorability for the “big beautiful bill” remains relatively low, with about one-third (36%) of adults holding a favorable opinion and six in ten (63%) having an unfavorable view.  Overall views of the reconciliation bill remain unchanged from KFF’s June tracking poll, which was conducted prior to the Senate passing the legislation. This overall stability masks a widening partisan divide in views. Favorability among Republicans has increased 17 percentage points since June, from 61% to 78%. At the same time, Democrats have become even more negative in their views, with 94% expressing an unfavorable opinion, up from 85% in June. Favorability among independents has remained steady but still low, with around one-quarter (26%) expressing a favorable view of the legislation, similar to the share in June (27%).

Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, those who identify with the MAGA movement express more favorable opinions of the law than those who don’t identify as MAGA (85% vs. 54%). Notably, however, the share of non-MAGA Republicans viewing the bill favorably increased from one-third (33%) in June to a slight majority (54%) after it was passed and signed into law.

Among Medicaid enrollees under age 65 – a group that is most likely to be impacted by the health provisions of the reconciliation law, three in ten (29%) have a favorable opinion, while seven in ten (69%) view the bill unfavorably. Additionally, almost half (46%) of those who purchased their own insurance (46%) have a favorable opinion, while 53% are unfavorable.

Among adults with household incomes of less than $40,000 annually, few (30%) hold favorable views of the law.

Views of the Reconciliation Bill Are Partisan, With an Increase in Positive Views From Republicans in the Last Month

Almost half (46%) of adults say they think the tax and budget legislation will generally hurt them and their family, similar to the share who said so in June (44%). About a quarter (26%) of adults think the law will “help,” up from 17% in June. Another quarter (28%) think it won’t make a difference for them and their families.

The uptick in the share who believe the bill will help them and their families is largely driven by Republicans. After passage, just over half (54%) of Republicans think the reconciliation bill will help them and their family, up from a third (32%) who said so in June. At the same time, the share of Republicans who say the bill won’t impact their families decreased from 47% to 33%. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who identify with the MAGA movement, six in ten (61%) now say the bill will help them, up from 38% in June. Non-MAGA Republicans are more divided, with 38% expecting the bill to help their families, with three in ten respectively expecting it to hurt (30%) or saying it won’t make much difference (32%). Seven in ten Democrats (72%) and about half of independents (53%) continue to say the bill will hurt them and their family.

Those with lower incomes are much more likely to say that the tax and budget bill will hurt them and their families, with over half (56%) of those with a household income of less than $40,000 a year who say so.

Two-thirds (65%) of Medicaid enrollees say the tax and budget bill will hurt them and their families, while just under one in ten (18%) believe it will help. Four in ten (38%) of those who have insurance that they purchased themselves expect that the legislation will generally hurt them and their family, while a similar share (35%) say it won’t make much of a difference. Fewer (26%) say it will help them and their family.

Half of the Public Say the Tax and Budget Bill Will Generally Hurt Them and Their Family, Including Larger Shares of Democrats

The Reconciliation Legislation on Social Media

A majority of adults (78% of those who use social media, and 73% of all adults) and similar shares across partisans say they saw information about the tax and budget bill on social media in the past month – reflecting the type of information the public is getting from their social media feeds. Among those who use social media, the share who say they saw information about the tax and budget bill on social media is similar to the share who say they saw information about other prominent topics on social media, including immigration (85%) and the U.S. economy (83%). Smaller shares of those who use social media report seeing information about Medicaid (58%) or the Affordable Care Act (34%) on social media in the past month.

The share of adults who report seeing information about each topic is similar across age groups but slightly differs across partisanship – perhaps reflecting the partisan bent of social media feeds. While similar shares of partisans say they saw information about the tax and budget bill, immigration, and the U.S. economy, Democrats who use social media were more likely than Republicans to say they saw information about Medicaid (67% vs. 48%) and the Affordable Care Act (39% vs. 24%) on social media in the past month.

A Majority and Similar Shares Across Partisanship Saw Content About the Tax and Budget Bill on Social Media in the Past Month

Reflecting in part the sites’ widespread adoption among the public, Facebook is the most common reported source of information seen about the tax and budget bill, followed by YouTube. About six in ten (62%) adults who say they saw information about the tax and budget bill on social media say they saw it on Facebook (49% of all social media users), including majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans. About four in ten (42%) of those who saw information say it was on YouTube (33% of all social media users), followed by about least one in five adults who use social media saying they saw it on Instagram (24%), TikTok (23%), or on X, formerly known as Twitter (19%). Fewer adults who use social media report seeing information about the tax and budget bill on other social media apps or sites, including Reddit (11%), Truth Social (4%), Bluesky (2%), or Snapchat (2%).

Across Partisanship, Most Adults Saw Content About the Tax and Budget Bill on Facebook, YouTube

Among those who saw information about the tax and budget bill on social media, about half (47%) say most of the content they saw was in opposition to the tax and budget legislation, while about one in ten (11%) say the content was mostly in support of the legislation, and an additional four in ten (41%) say they saw a mix of both. Reflecting the partisan bent of most social media feeds, about three in four (76%) Democrats who say they saw content say that was in opposition to the bill, while Republicans are more likely (26%) to say the content was in support of the legislation. Notably, about half of Republicans who saw information about the legislation on social media say the content they saw was a mix – perhaps reflecting the debate among Republican lawmakers leading up to the bill’s passing.

Few Adults Say They Saw Content in Support of the Tax and Budget Bill on Social Media

Most (62%) people who say they saw content about the tax and budget bill on social media say it was at least “somewhat helpful” in understanding what the bill does, including about one in six (16%) who found it “very helpful.” An additional one in four (27%) say it was “not too helpful,” while a further one in ten (11%) say it was “not at all helpful.” Democrats (72%) and independents (66%) are more likely to say that they found the content helpful in explaining what the bill does compared with Republicans (51%). One in four (25%) young adults under age 30 say the content they saw on social media about the bill was “very helpful” in helping them understand what it does, larger than the shares of older adults who say the same.

Most Say the Content They Saw on Social Media About the Tax and Budget Bill Helped Them Understand What the Bill Does



Source link

KFF Health Tracking Poll: Public Views on Recent Tax and Budget Legislation



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Read the news release about these poll findings.


Key Takeaways

  • Following passage of the tax and budget reconciliation bill, dubbed the “big beautiful bill” by President Trump and Republicans, public attention to the bill has increased. Two-thirds now say they’ve heard “a lot” or “some” about the legislation, up from half who said so in June. Overall views remain largely negative, with about two-thirds (63%) continuing to hold unfavorable views of the legislation – which is similar to the share who said the same last month before the legislation passed. Despite this stability in overall views, partisan divides have widened, with the share of Republicans expressing favorable views increasing from 61% to 78% and the share of Democrats expressing unfavorable views rising from 85% to 94%.
  • Almost half (46%) of adults think the legislation will hurt them and their family, while a quarter (28%) don’t expect to be affected and another quarter (26%) think it will help them, up from 17% in June. The shift in perceptions of how the law will impact families is largely driven by Republicans and especially those who identify with the MAGA movement. Over half (54%) of Republicans now think the legislation will help them and their family, up from a third (32%) who said so in June. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who identify with the MAGA movement, six in ten (61%) now expect the law to help their families, up from four in ten (38%). A majority of Democrats (72%) and about half of independents (53%) continue to say the law will hurt them and their family.
  • Reflecting where most people get their news, a majority of adults, and similar shares across partisans, say they saw information about the tax and budget bill on social media in the past month (78% of those who use social media, and 73% of all adults). About half of those who saw content about the tax and budget bill on social media say the content was mostly in opposition to the bill, while fewer (11%) say the content they saw was mostly in support of it, and about four in ten (41%) saw a mix of both positive and negative content. Reflecting the partisan bent of most social media feeds, Democrats are much more likely to say they saw content in opposition to the legislation, whereas Republicans are much more likely to say they saw content in favor of the legislation or a mix of both positive and negative. Regardless of the tone of the social media content, most of those who saw content about the tax and budget bill on social media say it was a least “somewhat helpful” in helping them understand what the bill does.

Awareness and Impact of the Reconciliation Legislation

Earlier in July, the tax and budget bill, also known by Republicans as the “big beautiful bill,” was passed in Congress and signed by President Trump. The legislation has been lauded by Republicans as the largest tax cut in history for middle- and working-class Americans, but others describe it as the largest rollback in health programs, containing provisions that would significantly cut and drastically change Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The latest KFF tracking poll shows that as public awareness of the legislation has increased, partisan divides in opinion of the law have widened.

Two-thirds (68%) of the public now say they have heard “a lot” or “some” about the tax and budget bill, up from half who said the same in June. Another quarter say they’ve heard “a little” (23%), while few (9%) say they have heard “nothing at all.” Democrats remain somewhat more likely than Republicans and independents to say they’ve heard at least “some” about the legislation. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, those who consider themselves part of the MAGA movement are more likely to have heard “a lot” or “some” about the law compared to non-MAGA Republicans (71% vs. 57%).

Two-thirds (66%) of those who self-purchased their insurance and six in ten adults under age 65 with Medicaid coverage, two of the groups that will be most directly impacted by the law, say they’ve heard “a lot” or “some” about the legislation.

Overall favorability for the “big beautiful bill” remains relatively low, with about one-third (36%) of adults holding a favorable opinion and six in ten (63%) having an unfavorable view.  Overall views of the reconciliation bill remain unchanged from KFF’s June tracking poll, which was conducted prior to the Senate passing the legislation. This overall stability masks a widening partisan divide in views. Favorability among Republicans has increased 17 percentage points since June, from 61% to 78%. At the same time, Democrats have become even more negative in their views, with 94% expressing an unfavorable opinion, up from 85% in June. Favorability among independents has remained steady but still low, with around one-quarter (26%) expressing a favorable view of the legislation, similar to the share in June (27%).

Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, those who identify with the MAGA movement express more favorable opinions of the law than those who don’t identify as MAGA (85% vs. 54%). Notably, however, the share of non-MAGA Republicans viewing the bill favorably increased from one-third (33%) in June to a slight majority (54%) after it was passed and signed into law.

Among Medicaid enrollees under age 65 – a group that is most likely to be impacted by the health provisions of the reconciliation law, three in ten (29%) have a favorable opinion, while seven in ten (69%) view the bill unfavorably. Additionally, almost half (46%) of those who purchased their own insurance (46%) have a favorable opinion, while 53% are unfavorable.

Among adults with household incomes of less than $40,000 annually, few (30%) hold favorable views of the law.

Almost half (46%) of adults say they think the tax and budget legislation will generally hurt them and their family, similar to the share who said so in June (44%). About a quarter (26%) of adults think the law will “help,” up from 17% in June. Another quarter (28%) think it won’t make a difference for them and their families.

The uptick in the share who believe the bill will help them and their families is largely driven by Republicans. After passage, just over half (54%) of Republicans think the reconciliation bill will help them and their family, up from a third (32%) who said so in June. At the same time, the share of Republicans who say the bill won’t impact their families decreased from 47% to 33%. Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who identify with the MAGA movement, six in ten (61%) now say the bill will help them, up from 38% in June. Non-MAGA Republicans are more divided, with 38% expecting the bill to help their families, with three in ten respectively expecting it to hurt (30%) or saying it won’t make much difference (32%). Seven in ten Democrats (72%) and about half of independents (53%) continue to say the bill will hurt them and their family.

Those with lower incomes are much more likely to say that the tax and budget bill will hurt them and their families, with over half (56%) of those with a household income of less than $40,000 a year who say so.

Two-thirds (65%) of Medicaid enrollees say the tax and budget bill will hurt them and their families, while just under one in ten (18%) believe it will help. Four in ten (38%) of those who have insurance that they purchased themselves expect that the legislation will generally hurt them and their family, while a similar share (35%) say it won’t make much of a difference. Fewer (26%) say it will help them and their family.

The Reconciliation Legislation on Social Media

A majority of adults (78% of those who use social media, and 73% of all adults) and similar shares across partisans say they saw information about the tax and budget bill on social media in the past month – reflecting the type of information the public is getting from their social media feeds. Among those who use social media, the share who say they saw information about the tax and budget bill on social media is similar to the share who say they saw information about other prominent topics on social media, including immigration (85%) and the U.S. economy (83%). Smaller shares of those who use social media report seeing information about Medicaid (58%) or the Affordable Care Act (34%) on social media in the past month.

The share of adults who report seeing information about each topic is similar across age groups but slightly differs across partisanship – perhaps reflecting the partisan bent of social media feeds. While similar shares of partisans say they saw information about the tax and budget bill, immigration, and the U.S. economy, Democrats who use social media were more likely than Republicans to say they saw information about Medicaid (67% vs. 48%) and the Affordable Care Act (39% vs. 24%) on social media in the past month.

Reflecting in part the sites’ widespread adoption among the public, Facebook is the most common reported source of information seen about the tax and budget bill, followed by YouTube. About six in ten (62%) adults who say they saw information about the tax and budget bill on social media say they saw it on Facebook (49% of all social media users), including majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans. About four in ten (42%) of those who saw information say it was on YouTube (33% of all social media users), followed by about least one in five adults who use social media saying they saw it on Instagram (24%), TikTok (23%), or on X, formerly known as Twitter (19%). Fewer adults who use social media report seeing information about the tax and budget bill on other social media apps or sites, including Reddit (11%), Truth Social (4%), Bluesky (2%), or Snapchat (2%).

Among those who saw information about the tax and budget bill on social media, about half (47%) say most of the content they saw was in opposition to the tax and budget legislation, while about one in ten (11%) say the content was mostly in support of the legislation, and an additional four in ten (41%) say they saw a mix of both. Reflecting the partisan bent of most social media feeds, about three in four (76%) Democrats who say they saw content say that was in opposition to the bill, while Republicans are more likely (26%) to say the content was in support of the legislation. Notably, about half of Republicans who saw information about the legislation on social media say the content they saw was a mix – perhaps reflecting the debate among Republican lawmakers leading up to the bill’s passing.

Most (62%) people who say they saw content about the tax and budget bill on social media say it was at least “somewhat helpful” in understanding what the bill does, including about one in six (16%) who found it “very helpful.” An additional one in four (27%) say it was “not too helpful,” while a further one in ten (11%) say it was “not at all helpful.” Democrats (72%) and independents (66%) are more likely to say that they found the content helpful in explaining what the bill does compared with Republicans (51%). One in four (25%) young adults under age 30 say the content they saw on social media about the bill was “very helpful” in helping them understand what it does, larger than the shares of older adults who say the same.



Source link

One Big Beautiful Bill Act brings sweeping changes to health coverage



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) – or H.R. 1 – has set the stage for sweeping changes to U.S. health coverage, many of which won’t take effect until 2027 or later. But some changes are happening much sooner – starting right now, later in 2025 and early 2026 – and will significantly impact Medicaid enrollees, Marketplace consumers, and low-income immigrants.

In this article, we look at five major changes for consumers to watch, some of which take effect immediately.

What is the OBBBA?

President Donald Trump signed into law the OBBBA, which is federal budget legislation, on July 4, 2025. The legislation will have significant implications for health coverage in the United States in the coming years. Millions of people are expected to lose coverage, due in large part to the Medicaid changes that will be implemented in 2027 and future years.

And this is in addition to the millions of people who are expected to lose health coverage due to the anticipated sunsetting of the Marketplace subsidy enhancements at the end of 2025 and the new Marketplace rules that were finalized in 2025. Altogether, the number of uninsured people in the U.S. is expected to increase by about 17 million people in the next decade or so, due to the One Big Beautiful Bill, the expiration of the subsidy enhancements, and the new Marketplace rules.

But although many of the One Big Beautiful Bill’s policy changes won’t take effect until 2027 or later, some of the law’s Medicaid and Marketplace changes will be implemented by the time open enrollment for 2026 coverage begins in November 2025.

Here’s what consumers need to know, and how their health coverage options could be affected:

1. Medicaid applications and renewal will get more complex

  • In a nutshell: Medicaid enrollees will face more administrative hurdles when applying for or renewing coverage.
  • Who’s affected? Medicaid and CHIP enrollees – including those in Medicare Savings Programs (MSPs) – and especially older adults and people with disabilities.
  • Takes effect: July 4, 2025

In 2023 and 2024, the Biden administration finalized a two-part rule designed to simplify and streamline the application and renewal process for Medicaid (including Medicare Savings Programs, which help to pay Medicare premiums and out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries with low incomes and asset levels), the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Basic Health Programs.

The Biden administration’s rule included provisions such as eliminating in-person eligibility interviews for people with disabilities and those 65 or older, changes to ensure that fewer people would lose coverage due to undeliverable mail, and a ban on lock-out periods for children disenrolled from CHIP for failure to pay premiums.

Starting immediately, H.R.1 prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from implementing, administering, or enforcing that rule, at least through September 2034.

As is the case for other Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill, sources project these changes will lead to a decrease in federal Medicaid spending, due to fewer people being enrolled in the program.

What people affected by the change can do: In order to enroll in and renew coverage, people may find that they need to complete additional paperwork or comply with other new rules. If you’re enrolled in Medicaid (including an MSP) or CHIP, it’s essential to make sure that the state Medicaid agency has your correct contact information, and that you quickly respond to any administrative requests related to your eligibility or coverage renewal.

2. Planned Parenthood no longer eligible for Medicaid reimbursements

  • In a nutshell: Medicaid can no longer reimburse the costs of any health care provided at Planned Parenthood or other “essential community providers” that offer abortion care.
  • Who’s affected? Planned Parenthood clinics and similar “essential community providers,” and Medicaid enrollees who receive any type of health care at these clinics.
  • Takes effect: July 4, 2025 (temporarily blocked by a court ruling)

As soon as it was enacted, the OBBBA eliminated Medicaid funding for one year, for entities that are “primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care” and that provide abortion services in situations other than rape, incest, or a danger to the mother’s life.

It’s important to note that longstanding federal rules already prevent federal funding from being used to pay for abortion care, except when the abortion stems from rape, incest, or a danger to the mother’s life. (Thus, non-excepted abortions, dubbed “non-Hyde” abortions, cannot be funded with federal money.) So the change under the OBBBA results in federal Medicaid funding being cut for non-abortion care, such as cancer screenings and contraception.

This resulted in some Planned Parenthood clinics notifying patients that they could no longer accept Medicaid.

But Planned Parenthood immediately filed a lawsuit to block the Medicaid funding cut, and a judge issued a 14-day injunction on July 7, temporarily blocking the Department of Health & Human Services from cutting off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood.

The governor of Washington announced that if Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit to permanently block the funding cut is unsuccessful, the state of Washington will cover the $11 million in federal Medicaid funding that Planned Parenthood will lose in Washington. As noted above, federal funding cannot be used for non-Hyde abortions, so that $11 million is for other medical services, such as preventive care.

3. Low-income immigrants will lose subsidy eligibility

  • In a nutshell: Recently arrived low-income immigrants will no longer qualify for subsidies to buy Marketplace health insurance.
  • Who’s affected? Lawfully present immigrants in their first five years in the U.S. with household incomes below the federal poverty level.
  • Takes effect: January 1, 2026

In general, Marketplace subsidies are not available to anyone with a household income under the federal poverty level (FPL). But there has always been an exception for recent immigrants who are lawfully present in the U.S. if they are in the five-year waiting period before they can qualify for Medicaid.

To avoid creating a coverage gap for low-income lawfully present immigrants during their first five years in the U.S., the Affordable Care Act (ACA) included a provision to allow them to qualify for Marketplace subsidies so they could meaningfully access the Marketplace.

But the OBBBA ends this provision, starting January 1, 2026. Immigrants with household income under the poverty level who have been in the U.S. for less than five years will no longer qualify for subsidies in the Marketplace.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, about 300,000 people will lose their health coverage as a result of the termination of subsidy eligibility for recent immigrants whose income is below the FPL.

What people affected by the change can do: To qualify for Marketplace subsidies, immigrants who have been in the U.S. for under five years will need a household income for 2026 that is at least equal to the 2025 FPL. In all but Alaska and Hawaii (where the FPL is higher), that’s $15,650 for a single person and $32,150 for a household of four.

When applicants enroll in Marketplace coverage, they’re asked to project their household income for the full year that the coverage will be in effect, so recent immigrants who are enrolling or renewing coverage during the open enrollment period in the fall of 2025 will need to project an income of at least the 2025 FPL when they apply for their 2026 subsidies.

And applicants should be prepared to provide proof of their income when they enroll in or renew their coverage for 2026, as that will be required if the applicant attests to an income that doesn’t match the information the Marketplace gets from other sources like the IRS.

4. Subsidy recipients face full repayment of excess APTC

  • In a nutshell: Starting with 2026 coverage, there’s no limit on how much excess APTC a Marketplace enrollee might have to repay if their income ends up higher than expected.
  • Who’s affected? Marketplace enrollees who receive advance premium tax credits (APTC) – especially those with income fluctuations.
  • Takes effect: Applies to 2026 tax filings (based on 2026 coverage)

Most Marketplace enrollees – 92% in 2025 – qualify for advance premium tax credits (APTC). APTC is based on an applicant’s projected income for the relevant calendar year. The federal government advances the estimated premium tax credit on the applicant’s behalf, to their health insurer, throughout the year.

But the following year, that APTC has to be reconciled when the enrollee files their tax return for the year. If the income an enrollee earns during the year doesn’t match what they projected when they enrolled, the IRS might owe them additional premium tax credit, or the enrollee might have to pay back some of the excess APTC that was paid on their behalf.

Until now, there has been a cap on how much excess APTC people have to repay, as long as their household income was less than 400% of FPL. The specific amounts were indexed each year by the IRS, but the most a person would have to repay in excess APTC for 2024 was $3,150, if their household income was as high as 399% of FPL.

But the One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminates those caps. Starting with the 2026 plan year, if your income ends up being higher than you projected, there will no longer be a limit on how much excess APTC you have to repay. Instead, you will have to repay all of the excess, regardless of how much that is.

For the 2023 tax year, across all tax returns that had been filed by late July 2024, a total of more than 4.9 million tax filers owed a combined total of more than $6 billion in excess APTC. That’s an average of about $1,224 per filer, although that amount is after applying the repayment caps, which could be as low as $375 for a single filer in 2024.

(To clarify, the repayment caps for 2024 ranged from $375 for a single filer whose household income was under 200% of FPL, to $3,150 for a family with a household income of 399% FPL. The details are shown in Table 5 of the IRS instructions for Form 8962, which is used to reconcile Marketplace premium tax credits.)

What people affected by the change can do: When people enroll in Marketplace coverage for 2026, it will be essential to project income as accurately as possible. The Marketplace will ask for proof of income if the projection you provide doesn’t match what the information the Marketplace gets from data sources like the IRS.

It will also be a good idea to double-check your income projection mid-way through 2026, to see if you’re on track to earn roughly the amount you projected when you enrolled. If not, you can update your income in your Marketplace account, and they’ll adjust your subsidy in real time. This could help to avoid having to repay excess APTC when you file your 2026 tax return, which will be particularly important once there’s no longer a cap on how much excess APTC has to be repaid.

5. More Marketplace plans can be used with health savings accounts (HSAs)

  • In a nutshell: Millions more people with high-deductible Marketplace plans will become eligible to contribute to health savings accounts.
  • Who’s affected? Marketplace enrollees with Bronze or Catastrophic plans and consumers using direct primary care (DPC)
  • Takes effect: January 2026 (for 2026 plan year)

Starting with the 2026 plan year, Marketplace enrollees with Bronze or Catastrophic plans will be eligible to contribute to a health savings account (HSA). Through the end of 2025, HSA contributions can only be made by someone who has an HSA-qualified high-deductible health plan (HDHP), as defined by the IRS. But starting with the 2026 plan year, the HDHP definition will expand to include all Marketplace Bronze and Catastrophic plans.

Prior to 2026, most Bronze plans are not HDHPs, since most Bronze plans do not meet the current IRS HDHP requirements. For example, in Chicago, there are 31 Bronze Marketplace plans available in 2025, but zero HDHPs. In Houston, there are 28 Bronze Marketplace plans available, and only one HDHP (which is one of the Bronze plans).

Through the end of 2025, Catastrophic plans can never be HDHPs, since their out-of-pocket limits are too high and they cover up to three primary care visits pre-deductible. But very few people enroll in Catastrophic plans, largely because Marketplace premium subsidies cannot be used with Catastrophic plans, and people age 30 and older can only enroll in a Catastrophic plan if they obtain a hardship exemption from the Marketplace.

But millions of people have Bronze Marketplace plans. During the open enrollment period for 2025 coverage, about 30% of all Marketplace enrollees selected Bronze plans.

In addition to the revised HDHP definition, H.R.1 also relaxes the rules around HSAs and direct primary care (DPC) arrangements. Starting in January 2026, having a DPC membership (in addition to an HDHP) will no longer disqualify someone from contributing to an HSA. In addition, the DPC membership fee will be considered a qualified medical expense, meaning it can be paid with pre-tax HSA funds.

Why does HSA access matter?

Contributions to an HSA are pre-tax, investment gains or interest earned in the account are also not taxed, and HSA withdrawals are not taxed as long as the money is used for a qualified medical expense.

In addition, HSA contributions reduce a person’s ACA-specific modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), which can affect whether the person qualifies for Marketplace subsidies. This will be particularly important for people to understand starting with the 2026 plan year, as the “subsidy cliff” will return in 2026 unless Congress acts to extend the subsidy enhancements that are scheduled to sunset at the end of 2025.

So a person who is facing the loss of all subsidies in 2026 might find that by contributing to an HSA, they can bring their MAGI into the subsidy-eligible range. Marketplace enrollees should discuss this issue with a financial planner or accountant before selecting a plan for 2026. If contributing to an HSA makes financial sense for them, it will be important to select an HDHP during the open enrollment period, keeping in mind that Bronze and Catastrophic plans will be considered HDHPs as of 2026.


Louise Norris is an individual health insurance broker who has been writing about health insurance and health reform since 2006. She has written hundreds of opinions and educational pieces about the Affordable Care Act for healthinsurance.org.





Source link

Insurers’ Preliminary Rate Filings Anticipate Biggest Increases in ACA Marketplace Plan Premiums Since 2018



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Note: For updated data on proposed ACA Marketplace premiums from more than 300 insurers in all 50 states and DC, read our updated analysis.

ACA Marketplace insurers are proposing a median premium increase of 15% for 2026, according to a new analysis of preliminary rate filings. Based on the early indications, individual market insurers will introduce the largest hike in premiums since 2018, the last time policy uncertainty contributed to sharp premium growth.

Across the 105 ACA Marketplace insurers in 19 states and DC that have submitted rate filings so far, most are requesting premium increases of 10% to 20% for 2026, and more than a quarter are proposing premium increases of 20% or more.

In addition to the anticipated growth in the cost of health care services, insurers have cited several policy changes that they expect to drive up rates next year, including the following:

  • The expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits at the end of this year, which have made coverage more affordable and contributed to record-high enrollment in the ACA Marketplaces, is expected to drive up out-of-pocket premium payments by more than 75% on average and cause many healthier enrollees to drop their coverage.
  • The impact of tariffs on some drugs, medical equipment, and supplies. Some insurers estimate that they could increase premiums by an average of 3% more than they otherwise would have.

Other factors could also affect premium changes, including the budget reconciliation legislation and Marketplace Integrity and Affordability rule, both of which were enacted and finalized after many of these insurers submitted their preliminary rate filings. Finalized 2026 rate changes are expected to be published in late summer.Subsidized enrollees are generally shielded from annual rate increases as their tax credits keep premium payments capped at a portion of their income.

However, with enhanced tax credits set to expire later this year if Congress takes no action to extend them, subsidized enrollees will pay more because they have less financial assistance. Middle income people with incomes above four times the poverty level would no longer be eligible for assistance and would have to shoulder the full premium.

The full analysis and other data on health costs are available on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an online information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system.



Source link

Insurers’ Preliminary Rate Filings Anticipate Biggest Increases in ACA Marketplace Plan Premiums Since 2018



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

ACA Marketplace insurers are proposing a median premium increase of 15% for 2026, according to a new analysis of preliminary rate filings. Based on the early indications, individual market insurers will introduce the largest hike in premiums since 2018, the last time policy uncertainty contributed to sharp premium growth.

Across the 105 ACA Marketplace insurers in 19 states and DC that have submitted rate filings so far, most are requesting premium increases of 10% to 20% for 2026, and more than a quarter are proposing premium increases of 20% or more.

In addition to the anticipated growth in the cost of health care services, insurers have cited several policy changes that they expect to drive up rates next year, including the following:

  • The expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits at the end of this year, which have made coverage more affordable and contributed to record-high enrollment in the ACA Marketplaces, is expected to drive up out-of-pocket premium payments by more than 75% on average and cause many healthier enrollees to drop their coverage.
  • The impact of tariffs on some drugs, medical equipment, and supplies. Some insurers estimate that they could increase premiums by an average of 3% more than they otherwise would have.

Other factors could also affect premium changes, including the budget reconciliation legislation and Marketplace Integrity and Affordability rule, both of which were enacted and finalized after many of these insurers submitted their preliminary rate filings. Finalized 2026 rate changes are expected to be published in late summer.
Subsidized enrollees are generally shielded from annual rate increases as their tax credits keep premium payments capped at a portion of their income.

However, with enhanced tax credits set to expire later this year if Congress takes no action to extend them, subsidized enrollees will pay more because they have less financial assistance. Middle income people with incomes above four times the poverty level would no longer be eligible for assistance and would have to shoulder the full premium.

The full analysis and other data on health costs are available on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an online information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system.



Source link

Individual Market Insurers Requesting Largest Premium Increases in More Than 5 Years



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Note: For updated data on ACA Marketplace premiums from more than 300 insurers in all 50 states and DC, read our updated analysis.

This analysis of preliminary rate filings submitted by 105 ACA Marketplace insurers in 19 states and DC finds that ACA Marketplace insurers are requesting a median premium increase of 15% for 2026, which would represent the largest hike in premiums since 2018, the last time policy uncertainty contributed to sharp premium growth.

In addition to the anticipated growth in the cost of health care services, insurers have cited several policy changes that they expect to drive up rates next year, including the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits at the end of this year and the impact of tariffs on some drugs, medical equipment, and supplies.

The full analysis and other data on health costs are available on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an online information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system.



Source link