Although the longest government shutdown in U.S. history recently ended, it didn’t stop the discussion about one of the main bargaining chips used during the negotiations: expiring Obamacare subsidies.
Congress set to expire enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits (ePTCs) at the end of the year (2025). Congress created the ePTCs in 2021 as part of pandemic relief legislation. Democrats demanded that the extension of these subsidies be included in legislation to continue funding the federal government. This impasse led to a prolonged federal government shutdown.
Amid the shutdown standoff, President Donald Trump publicly recommended an alternative to extending the current subsidies. He suggested consumers should receive the billions of dollars the government sends to insurance companies to offset premiums.
Currently, ACA beneficiaries who qualify for tax credits do not receive the funds directly. The government sends money to insurers to offset monthly premiums. The recent debate centers on replacing this mechanism with consumer-controlled accounts as a way to repeal and replace aspects of Obamacare.
What would direct payment to consumers look like?
The President didn’t specify how he would send funds directly to consumers, but Republicans floated several ideas. Specific mechanisms proposed to implement these direct cash payments or allocations include:
Health Savings Account (HSA) Models
Republicans continue to recommend the use of HSAs, emphasizing consumer choice and long-term savings.
General HSA-Style Payouts
Senator Rick Scott has publicly backed cash payouts, stating that if a person is “entitled to a subsidy under the original Obamacare, give it to you in cash so you’re a buyer of health care“. Scott plans to draft a bill for an HSA-style account that would send money directly to Americans, allowing them to buy the healthcare they want. Scott argues this would increase competition and drive down costs.
According to Scott, people “can buy health care cheaper… if you just go buy it yourself, rather than go through an insurance plan”.
HSA Option Replacing Cost-Sharing Reductions
A detailed proposal by Paragon Health Institute suggests allowing lower-income ACA enrollees to use the portion of their subsidy intended for Cost-Sharing Reductions (CSRs)—which currently reduces deductibles and co-pays—as an HSA deposit instead. This option would require insurers to offer an HSA-qualified plan that includes an associated contribution for each plan that is actuarially equivalent to the plans mandated by the CSR program.
The HSA funds would ideally be sourced by Congress appropriating CSR funding and prohibiting “silver loading”. The insurer would make a monthly prorated HSA deposit to the enrollee’s account. HSA funds could be used for a wider variety of medical expenses than typical insurance coverage, including vision, dental, and hearing services. Unlike CSRs, which expire annually, HSA deposits remain available and accumulate year after year.
The enrollee would access the account using a bank-issued debit card that restricts usage, potentially even scanning at the SKU code level. The IRS would set reconciliation and recapture rules subject to end-of-tax-year reporting.
Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Model
Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) has proposed an alternative consumer account model. He wants to redirect the enhanced ACA subsidy funding into pre-tax flexible spending accounts (FSAs). Americans could use these accounts to pay for healthcare expenses such as deductibles or co-pays.
Unlike HSAs, FSAs generally must be exhausted within a fixed period; otherwise, they may be forfeited. Cassidy argued his FSA proposal is more “practical” than a subsidy extension because insurance exchanges could keep their already approved rates and simply “issue FSA eligibility, and it plugs right in.”
Some Republicans have proposed accounts that roll over. Or, they propose accounts allowing people to put some of the money into a retirement plan instead.
What impact might shifting subsidy payments directly to consumers have?
The economic and systemic impacts of shifting ACA subsidies—currently paid mostly to insurance companies as premium tax credits (PTCs)—directly to consumers are complex and subject to debate. Proponents argue this increases consumer control and market efficiency, while critics warn it could destabilize the insurance markets and severely compromise consumer financial security.
Impacts may include:
Systemic Risk and Market Stability
The most profound systemic impact projected by opponents of direct cash payments is the destabilization of the ACA marketplaces, creating a death spiral. If healthier Americans receive cash payments, they may choose to leave the ACA pool. Instead, they may purchase cheaper, less comprehensive insurance plans (sometimes referred to as “sham insurance” or “junk health plans”) or use the money for non-health expenses.
This exit would leave a pool disproportionately made up of older or chronically ill individuals with major health needs and higher health costs. Insurers would then have to raise premiums, leading to a scenario where even those who need insurance most might eventually be unable to afford it.
Such a shift from subsidies to cash payments is expected to cause enrollment to drop significantly, prompting insurers to leave the markets entirely. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that 4.2 million more people will lack health insurance in 2034 if even just the enhanced subsidies (not the entire program) expire.
Consumer Economic Impact
Shifting from guaranteed premium reductions to a direct cash payment mechanism fundamentally alters the nature of financial protection provided.
A cash payment from the federal government does not substitute for high-quality, comprehensive insurance. Given that a three-day hospital stay can cost up to $30,000, critics warn that individuals who receive cash instead of coverage and later face a major illness like cancer could quickly go bankrupt.
The cash payment proposal may eliminate the structural protection provided by the ACA’s Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rule, which requires insurers to spend 80% of premiums collected on healthcare costs and quality improvements. If consumers purchase individual coverage outside of large group plans, there is less financial protection.
Additionally, a study comparing cash transfers versus in-kind premium subsidies for mandatory health insurance in Switzerland found that the switch from cash to in-kind transfers reduced financial distress for recipients. This switch led to a reduction in the likelihood of late premium payments by about 20% and a decrease in severe economic problems (government debt collection) by approximately 12%.
If the direct payment takes the form of deposits into HSAs, proponents predict several benefits.
Unlike CSRs, which are use it or lose it annually, HSA deposits remain available and accumulate year after year, providing growing financial resources for future health expenses, including retirement. Consumers can use HSA funds for a wider variety of medical costs than traditional insurance typically covers, including vision, dental, and hearing services.
Impact on Healthcare Costs
Proponents argue that the shift to HSAs increases the efficiency of health spending. Since people would be spending their personally owned resources, they are incentivized to ensure the care they receive is worth the cost, potentially driving down overall health care costs. Critics argue that this increased cost-consciousness is overblown, noting that consumers typically lack the necessary price data to compare cost-effective plans. They believe the major cost drivers, such as prices negotiated between providers and insurers, would likely continue to keep costs high.
One counterintuitive systemic concern raised by analysts is that replacing ACA tax credits with cash may lead to an increase in government spending due to the woodwork effect. People who currently decline free health insurance might enroll to receive the free money, thus enrolling more people into the subsidized system than currently participate.
The original design of the ACA subsidies (paying insurers) already demonstrated positive financial impacts on recipients across the economy. The ACA’s premium tax credits (PTCs) significantly improved recipients’ financial stability. Specifically, for every $100 per capita spent on PTCs between 2014 and 2016, there was a measured reduction in the rate of:
- Consumer bankruptcies by 13%.
- Severe auto delinquency by 13%.
- Severe mortgage delinquency by 4%.
What Happens Next?
Republicans have promised Democrats a Senate floor vote, scheduled for the second week of December, on legislation to extend the expiring ACA tax credits. Previously informal discussions among senators regarding the subsidy extension will ramp up now that Congress resolved the government shutdown impasse.
It remains unclear whether the promised vote will focus purely on competing Democratic proposals (to extend the subsidies) or include alternative Republican approaches (like the cash payment proposals).
Republican lawmakers plan to turn the conceptual call for direct cash payments, spurred by President Trump, into formal legislation. However, Republicans first need to agree on a proposal before presenting an alternative.
Certifi’s health insurance premium billing and payment solutions help healthcare payers improve member satisfaction while reducing administrative costs.
