ICYMI: While Trump Policies Skyrocket Health Care Costs for Working Families, Pappas Prioritizes Relief

March 2, 2026

MANCHESTER, NH — A recent article from the New York Times details how the Trump Administration’s proposed changes to Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans could dramatically increase out-of-pocket costs for millions of Americans, create barriers for enrolling in other health care plans, remove benefits like adult dental, erode other consumer protections, and usher in other plans that could lead to severely restricted access to doctors and hospitals.

According to the administration’s own estimates, up to two million people could lose coverage by 2027 under the proposal.

While Donald Trump and Republicans like John Sununu back policies that shift costs onto patients and protect corporate special interest profits, Congressman Chris Pappas is fighting for a health care system that puts Granite Staters first.

By Reed Abelson

The Trump administration’s proposed new rules for Obamacare plans next year would shift more health care costs to Americans, with much higher deductibles that could lead to larger medical bills.
Under the proposal, people who rely on the Affordable Care Act for their health insurance coverage could choose plans with much lower monthly premiums. But that could leave them exposed to medical expenses totaling thousands of dollars more than A.C.A. plans do now before their insurance would kick in.
[…]
But Congress would need to pass legislation to allow the money to be redirected or make any major changes to the program.
[…]
Critics of the new approach warn that consumers are already abandoning costly health insurance coverage. More than a million people have dropped out of Obamacare this year to date, a decline that many attribute to a decision by the Republican-controlled Congress to let enhanced subsidies expire at the end of last year.
Millions of people who depended on the subsidy cushion under Obamacare were hit with monthly premiums that were double or more what they paid last year.
[…]
Many policy experts expressed doubt that the administration’s proposal would reduce the high cost of health care. “Nobody wants that product,” said Amitabh Chandra, a Harvard health economist who has studied high-deductible plans. “It’s going to be a really cheap product that nobody wants.”
The proposal involves a type of plan known as a catastrophic or skinny policies. While they may be appropriate for someone who is young and healthy, a sudden emergency room visit or unexpected hospital stay could cost thousands of dollars in unforeseen bills. People with chronic medical conditions also might have to pay for much — if not all — of their care out of their own pockets.
Dr. Joseph R. Betancourt, the president of the Commonwealth Fund, which finances health care research, pointed out that people are already struggling to pay for their medical care.
“There’s no doubt that we have an affordability crisis,” he said. “As we move forward to shifting more of the burden to patients, there’s a chance to really exacerbate the crisis.”
The proposed A.C.A. rules include numerous potential changes to the Obamacare markets. Some would make it harder for people to enroll, while others would redefine which benefits must be covered by a plan — adult dental care would no longer be considered an essential benefit.
The proposal could also erode other consumer protections. Overall, the rules could result in up to two million people dropping coverage in 2027, according to the administration’s own estimates.
The administration’s proposal would also usher in other plans that could lead to severely restricted access to doctors and hospitals. Some people could be left without a dedicated network of sources for medical services, forcing them to search on their own for care and risk sizable bills.
Insurance companies could potentially sell multiyear policies as well as plans that do not offer an established network of hospitals and doctors. Those plans would instead pay a fixed amount for a doctor’s visit or procedure, and patients would have to pay any difference in price.
[…]
Others worry about creating an inferior version of insurance. “We’re normalizing hardship, and we’re normalizing catastrophe,” said Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy adviser for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The new rule “is not trying to make something comparable to employer coverage,” she said.
[…]
Ellen Montz, a former Obamacare regulator who is now a managing director for the consulting firm Manatt Health, cautioned that regulators would need to ensure people could actually have access to medical care under plans without an established network.
Someone with a costly medical condition would have to find providers to accept the prices established by an insurer. “It’s an important consumer protection,” she said.
Another risk is that these plans, because they are less expensive, will end up being used as the benchmark for the level of subsidies in a given market. People who want a traditional plan with an established network could end up paying more because they receive a lower subsidy.
[…]
If patients cannot find a doctor who will accept the insurer’s rate, they risk paying high medical bills.
[…]

###