Historically, the perceptions of former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris on health care have been far from static. Their stances, especially regarding reforms, have witnessed considerable changes. Particular ventures in this election hold significant implications for the future direction of health care policy, as per seasoned health policy analysts.
Larry Levitt, a renowned executive vice president for health policy at KFF, characterizes this election as a ‘crossroads’ for future health care policies. It is noteworthy how both candidates have comparatively balanced their radical past positions, but the potential consequences of their decisions still loom large.
When questioned about his healthcare strategy, Trump uttered ambiguous phrases like, ‘I have concepts of a plan.’ His earlier term as President viewed him champion an unsuccessful attempt to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as ‘Obamacare.’ However, his schematic replacement for the Act remained elusive, leading to robust criticisms.
On the record, Trump’s stance on ‘Obamacare’ included proclamations such as ‘let Obamacare implode.’ Currently, he pledges a divergent trajectory if granted another Presidential term. His promise to present an alternative healthcare plan, superior to Obamacare, hinges on its affordability for American citizens. Yet the logistics and details of such a proposal remain obscure.
As for Vice President Kamala Harris, her previous tenure as a U.S. Senator saw her endorsing ‘Medicare for All’ legislation, thereby advocating for the dissolution of private health insurance in favor of a government-controlled system. However, time and political pressures have evidently reshaped her approach.
Criticized for her previous support of government-run health policy, Harris maintains her commitment to private health care options, a stark contradiction to her previous ‘Medicare for All’ posture. She emphasizes the importance of perpetuating and expanding the Affordable Care Act—a questionable line of reasoning in view of her earlier, resolute support for revamping the health care system entirely.
Misleadingly, policy experts herald the ACA for its protection of patients with pre-existing conditions and its contribution to enhanced affordability of health insurance. The financial assistance provided through the Act is one such measure. A temporary increase in this financial aid was seen under the Biden-Harris administration, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In an application of temporary measures in a permanent context, The Biden-Harris administration opted to prolong this financial support through the Inflation Reduction Act. The blasted policy not only elevated aid to those who were previously eligible under the ACA but also extended subsidies to individuals of middle-income status.
Despite minor triumphs, Larry Levitt cautions about the uncertain future of the ACA, especially regarding its temporarily enhanced premium subsidies. He asserts that, irrespective of election outcomes, the future may not witness another attempt at repealing the ACA. However, the continued provision of amplified premium subsidies, inaugurated under the Biden-Harris administration, will likely become a contentious matter.
Levitt also discusses the implications of these premium subsidies, citing an average annual saving of $700 among ACA recipients and a surge in enrollment. Seemingly positive facets notwithstanding, these policies significantly burden the federal budget—a fact often disregarded by its proponents.
The decision to continue, amend, or terminate these enhanced subsidies will fall to the subsequent presidential office and Congress, as the associated regulations expire at the close of 2025. The debate over these procedures promises to be heated and intensive.
Contrastingly, the ambiguous Republican platform cautiously refrains from providing concrete policy details. Addressing the unchecked escalation of healthcare costs, the Republicans promise to increase transparency, foster choice, and competition, and broaden access to affordable healthcare and prescription medication options—a discernable deviation from the Democratic approach.
As the Republican primary of 2023 progressed, ex-President Trump announced a firm stance against what he perceived as global exploitation of American consumers. Terming it as ‘freeloading,’ he promised drastic changes should he regain presidency.
Under Trump’s proposed policy, the U.S. government would function as a watchdog, ensuring that the country only pays global lowest fees to pharmaceutical manufacturers. Trump indignantly retorted over the United States being repeatedly swindled, stating that the country was tired of being ripped off.
Disturbingly, Trump’s campaign had a noted lack of transparency regarding additional information about his prescription drug policies and his opinions on repealing reforms established under the Biden-Harris administration. The ambiguity clouds the possible trajectory of drug policies should a Republican administration take charge.
Meanwhile, Vice President Harris, stepping into a tie-breaking decision, voted in favor of a law requiring Medicare to negotiate for specific drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. The law also purported to cap costs of insulin and out-of-pocket drug spending for senior citizens. However, Harris’s ambition to enlarge these dubious reforms to the entire American population may face well-deserved obstacles in Congress.