As Congress debates whether to extend the temporary federal subsidies that have helped millions of Americans buy health coverage, a crucial underlying reality is sometimes overlooked: Those subsidies are merely a band-aid covering the often unaffordable cost of health care.
California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and five other states have set caps on health care spending in a bid to rein in the intense financial pressure felt by many families, individuals, and employers who every year face increases in premiums, deductibles, and other health-related expenses.
Hospitals and other health care providers are citing Republicansā One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Donald Trump in July, as one more reason to challenge those limits.
The law is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by more than $900 billion over a decade, which mathematically should help the overall health care system meet the caps. But the law is also expected to increase the number of uninsured Americans, mostly Medicaid beneficiaries, by an estimated 10 million people. Health care analysts predict hospitals and other providers will raise prices to cover the double whammy of lost Medicaid revenue and the cost of caring for an influx of newly uninsured patients.
Whether regulators in some states will allow providers to justify higher prices and exceed the spending caps is unclear. Only California and Oregon can penalize providers financially if they fail to meet targets.
āAre we going to say, āThatās OKā? Or are we going to say, āWell, you exceeded the target. Weāre still going to penalize you for thatā?ā said Richard Pan, a former state lawmaker and a member of the California Office of Health Care Affordabilityās board. āThat has not yet been decided.ā
The California Hospital Association, the industryās main state lobbying group, filed a lawsuit in October asking a state court to strike down the spending caps, which it argued fail to account for all the cost pressures hospitals face. Those pressures, it said, include an aging, sicker population; the rising cost of labor; expensive advances in medical technology; large capital outlays on required seismic retrofitting; and changes in federal policy, including the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The hospital groupās lawsuit also asserted that the state affordability office, by hastily imposing ill-considered cost-cutting targets, was undermining its other key mission of improving health care access, quality, and equity.
Californiaās affordability office last year set a five-year target to cap statewide spending growth, starting at 3.5% in 2025 and declining to 3% by 2029. The annual caps apply to a wide range of health care entities, including hospitals, medical groups, insurers, and other payers.
Earlier this year, it imposed much lower spending growth caps ā starting at 1.8% in 2026 and declining to 1.6% by 2029 ā for seven āhigh-costā hospitals.
āThe spending caps set by politically appointed bureaucrats could force cuts that result in many Californians traveling farther for care, facing longer emergency room wait times, experiencing more overcrowding, and losing access to critical services,ā Carmela Coyle, the hospital associationās president and CEO, said in an October press release.
The California attorney generalās office, which will represent the affordability agency, has not yet filed a response to the hospital groupās complaint and did not respond to a request for comment.
Hospitalsā Pushback
California is not the only state taking a close look at hospital prices, which are widely considered a primary driver of health care costs.
āStates, armed with information that points to payments to hospitals as a driver of what is way beyond affordable commercial premiums, have begun to take increasingly targeted actions focused on commercial hospital prices,ā said Michael Bailit, founder of the Needham, Massachusetts-based consultancy Bailit Health, which has advised multiple states, including California, on ways to tame health care spending. āIt is not surprising that the hospital industry is going to oppose such state actions.āĀ
In its lawsuit, the California Hospital Association said the affordability officeās own report showed that pharmaceutical and insurance companies are largely responsible for high costs.
Hospitals in some states with cost growth limits, including Connecticut and Massachusetts, have expressed objections similar to the ones raised in the California lawsuit. They could follow their counterparts in California if their lawsuit succeeds, said Peter Lee, who led Californiaās Affordable Care Act marketplace, Covered California, for over a decade and is now a senior scholar at Stanford Medicineās Clinical Excellence Research Center.
Lee said the work of Californiaās affordability office and similar agencies in other states is just about the only systemwide effort being made to cut health care costs. They are basically saying, āāLook, health care is taking money away from education, it is taking money away from the environment, it is taking money away from everything in the public sector, and in the private sector it is taking money away from wages,āā he said. āāWe donāt know how you, the health system, are going to do it, but it is your job not just to provide quality but to lower costs. Hereās the target.āā
To be sure, achieving the cost savings that California and those other states are seeking is no easy lift. It will ultimately require persuading large, financially powerful players that compete fiercely for health care dollars to adopt a different mindset and begin cooperating to reduce costs instead. And that, in many cases, will mean lower revenue.
But the status quo, as many people know all too well, means continued financial pain for millions.
In early 2020, Estevan Rodriguez, a bartender at Californiaās Monterey Beach Hotel, had surgery for a staph infection in his leg. The bill came to nearly $168,000. His insurance paid most of it, but he still owed $5,665, which took him two years to pay, more than $200 every month. āIt may not be a lot to some people, but it was a lot to me,ā Rodriguez said.
He said he dropped his Hulu subscription, switched to a lower-cost cellphone, and got cheaper car insurance. He started going to food banks rather than the grocery store, he said, and had a lot less time with his kids, because he was constantly working to pay off the hospital bill.
Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, where Rodriguez had his surgery, is one of the seven hospitals identified by Californiaās affordability office as high-cost. A study by the office attributed high hospital prices in Monterey County to a lack of market competition ārather than higher operating costs or superior quality of care.ā
The Monterey hospital referred a request for comment about its āhigh-costā designation to the California Hospital Association. CHA spokesperson Jan Emerson-Shea declined to comment beyond the language of the lawsuit and Coyleās press release statement.
Reduced Competition
Health care analysts worry the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will reduce market competition even further by stressing already weak hospitals, leading some to shut services, merge with larger health systems, or close. One study estimates 338 rural hospitals are at risk of closing nationwide.
Less competition, in addition to fewer Medicaid dollars and an increase in uninsured patients, will only strengthen the incentive of health systems with the requisite market clout to raise their commercial prices, increasing premiums for employers and individuals.
āWe think commercial prices will continue to increase as health care providers, and hospitals in particular, will seek to preserve or increase their revenue,ā said Rachel Block, a program officer at the Milbank Memorial Fund, a foundation that focuses on health equity.
That in turn could pose a challenge to state affordability regulators tasked with overseeing compliance with growth targets for health care spending.
Californiaās affordability office is required to consider mitigating factors, including changes in federal and state laws. But some of its board members have expressed skepticism about letting hospitals offset Medicaid losses with higher commercial prices.
āThereās a lot of talk about using HR 1 and other federal policies as an excuse to raise prices on commercial payers,ā Ian Lewis, an affordability office board member and policy director for UNITE HERE Local 2, a hospitality workers union in the Bay Area, said at the agencyās July board meeting, referring to the One Big Beautiful Bill. āThereās no more blood to be squeezed from this stone.ā
[email protected],
@bjwolfson
