Last Updated: September 01, 2026

← Just want the overview? Read the We The People Summary.

The American Health Security Act

• Legislative Pathway: Reconciliation-Eligible (Primary fiscal impact via subsidies and Medicare expansion)
• Goal: To achieve universal, affordable, and high-quality healthcare for all Americans.
• Key Provisions:
  • A National Public Health Insurance Option: Create a government-run health insurance plan that is available to all Americans, providing comprehensive benefits and competing with private insurance.
  • Strengthen the ACA: Increase subsidies for the ACA marketplaces and provide incentives for all states to expand Medicaid.
  • Cost-Control Measures: Authorize the government to negotiate prescription drug prices, regulate hospital prices, and simplify administrative procedures to reduce waste.

Constitutional Authority

Article I, Section 8 (Taxing and Spending Clause — federal health insurance program structured as a public option in the mold of Medicare and Medicaid, both upheld for half a century; the ACA’s individual mandate upheld in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) as an exercise of the taxing power. Note the limit NFIB imposes: the same decision held that conditioning a state’s existing Medicaid funds on acceptance of the expansion was unconstitutionally coercive under the Spending Clause, which is why expansion is effectively optional and why holdout states remain. The Medicaid provisions of this Act are therefore structured as new-money inducements that do not place existing federal funding at risk — see Strengthen the ACA above); Article I, Section 8 (Commerce Clause — federal regulation of the interstate health insurance market, longstanding); Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the existing statutory framework for Medicare drug price negotiation, now extended to the public option); Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the framework for subsidies and marketplace operations extended by this Act). The public option is structurally simpler than the ACA private-insurance regulations and rests on more settled constitutional ground — Medicare has been the constitutional model for public health insurance since 1965. Prescription drug price negotiation: settled authority since the IRA, now expanded. Hospital price regulation: rate-setting authority rests primarily on the Medicare prospective payment system, which has set administered hospital rates since 1983 and is the closest and strongest precedent. The Hospital Price Transparency Rule (CMS, 2021) is cited only for the narrower proposition that CMS may impose disclosure obligations on hospitals in commercial markets — disclosure is not rate-setting, and it should not be relied on as authority for price caps. Extension of administered rates to commercial markets is the Act’s most legally exposed provision and should be expected to be litigated; the Commerce Clause argument is strong but not settled.

Rationale

The United States spends roughly twice the OECD average per capita on healthcare — and about 1.5 times the next-highest spenders — and gets worse outcomes by virtually every measure — lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality, higher maternal mortality, more medical bankruptcies, more uninsured. This is not because Americans are sicker or American medicine is worse. It is because the system is structurally designed to extract maximum financial return from each medical encounter, rather than to deliver health. Insurance companies profit from denying care. Hospital systems profit from monopoly pricing in consolidated regional markets. Pharmacy Benefit Managers profit from opaque rebate structures. Drug companies profit from patent thickets that prevent competition. The result is a system that is one of the largest line items in the federal budget, one of the largest line items in every household budget, and one of the leading sources of personal bankruptcy — while still leaving roughly 26-30 million Americans uninsured (Census/NHIS range, rising as enhanced ACA subsidies lapse) and tens of millions more underinsured. The public option does not abolish private insurance — it gives every American the choice of a public alternative that competes on cost and coverage. Direct drug price negotiation does what every other developed country already does. Hospital price transparency and regulation address the consolidation that has made hospital pricing opaque and exploitative. This is not “Left vs. Right.” It is “Working vs. Broken.” Healthcare is the foundation beneath the rest of American life — and right now it is broken in ways that no other developed democracy tolerates.

Public Health Insurance Option: Design Parameters

The public health insurance option is the centerpiece of healthcare reform, providing a government-administered plan that competes with private insurance while offering comprehensive coverage at lower cost. This section outlines key design decisions and implementation considerations.

Core Design Principles

Access and Eligibility:

• Universal availability: Any U.S. resident can enroll (citizens, lawful permanent residents, visa holders)
• No pre-existing condition exclusions: Guaranteed issue
• No medical underwriting: No health questionnaires or coverage denials based on health status
• Open enrollment: Annual enrollment periods with special enrollment for qualifying events
• Immediate coverage: No waiting periods for enrollment or coverage activation

Relationship to Existing Coverage:

• Available to all: Not restricted to those without employer coverage
• Employer opt-in: Employers can offer public option instead of private insurance (potential cost savings)
• Individual choice: Employees can choose public option even if employer offers private plan (may require contribution)
• ACA marketplace integration: Available through healthcare.gov exchanges alongside private plans
• Medicare preservation: Does not replace Medicare; seniors remain in Medicare (superior benefits)
• Medicaid coordination: States can use public option for Medicaid managed care (if cost-effective)

Benefits Package Design

Benefit Scope (Two Options):

Option A: Medicare-Equivalent (“Medicare for More”)

• Hospital care (Part A equivalent): Inpatient, skilled nursing, hospice
• Medical services (Part B equivalent): Doctor visits, preventive care, durable medical equipment
• Prescription drugs (Part D equivalent): Comprehensive formulary with negotiated prices
• Gaps: No dental, vision, hearing by default (could be added as optional riders or included in base)
• Advantage: Well-understood benefit structure, existing administrative infrastructure
• Cost: Moderate premiums due to established benefit standards

Option B: Comprehensive (“Platinum Plus”)

• All Medicare-equivalent benefits PLUS:
• Dental, vision, hearing coverage (no annual limits)
• Mental health and substance abuse (parity with medical benefits, unlimited visits)
• Long-term care: Home health services, nursing home coverage (with cost-sharing)
• Maternity and newborn care: Comprehensive prenatal, delivery, postpartum
• Preventive care: $0 copay for all recommended screenings and vaccines
• Advantage: True comprehensive coverage, addresses Medicare gaps
• Cost: Higher premiums but offsets out-of-pocket expenses

Recommended: Start with Option A (Medicare-equivalent) to minimize costs and facilitate CBO scoring. Option B is offered as a premium tier from launch, with dental, vision, and hearing phased into the base benefit in Operating Years 2-3 (Administration Years 4-5) if the program is fiscally on track — see Implementation Timeline, which uses the administration clock.

Cost-Sharing Structure:

• Premiums: Income-based sliding scale — 0% below 138% FPL rising to 8.5% of income above 500% FPL (see schedule below)
• Deductibles: $0-500 depending on income tier (lower than typical private plans)
• Copays: $10-25 for primary care, $50 for specialists, $0 for preventive care
• Out-of-pocket maximum: $2,000-6,000 annually based on income (protects against catastrophic costs)
• Comparison: Significantly lower than average private insurance (deductibles often $3,000-8,000)

Provider Network and Payment Rates

Network Strategy (Three Options):

Option A: Medicare Provider Network

• Automatically include all providers accepting Medicare (vast majority of doctors/hospitals)
• Advantage: Immediate nationwide network, no contracting needed
• Disadvantage: Some providers may opt out if payment rates deemed too low

Option B: Open Network (All Licensed Providers)

• Any licensed provider can treat public option patients
• Advantage: Maximum choice, no network restrictions
• Disadvantage: Harder to negotiate rates, potential for balance billing

Option C: Negotiated Network (Hybrid)

• Contract with provider networks in each region (similar to private insurance)
• Higher payment rates than Medicare to encourage participation
• Advantage: Balanced approach, provider buy-in
• Disadvantage: Administrative complexity, potential network gaps in rural areas

Recommended: Start with Option A (Medicare network) for administrative simplicity, with Option C as fallback if provider participation insufficient.

Provider Payment Rates:

• Baseline: Medicare rates. Commercial payers reimburse hospitals at roughly Medicare+40-60%, so Medicare rates sit about 29-38% below the commercial average
• Enhancement: Medicare + 10-15% to encourage provider participation and address adequacy concerns
• Rationale: At Medicare+15% against commercial rates of Medicare+40-60%, provider payment is 18-28% below commercial — the lower figure applies where commercial rates are nearer Medicare+40%, the higher where they approach Medicare+60%
• Rural adjustment: Higher rates in provider shortage areas to ensure access
• Quality incentives: Bonus payments for high performance on quality metrics, carrying the same anti-selection safeguards as risk adjustment above. Quality measures are themselves risk-adjusted and each provider’s case-mix is published, so a score improved by choosing easier patients is visible as such; outcome measures are preferred to process measures where available; and any measure shown to be gamed is retired. Selection improves a provider’s quality score and its risk profile at once — a bonus tied to an unadjusted measure pays twice for the same manipulation
• Hospital price regulation: Caps on hospital charges (address cost-shifting from Medicare/Medicaid)

Balance Billing Prohibition:

• Providers accepting public option must accept plan payment as payment in full (no surprise bills)
• Enforcement: CMS can exclude providers who violate billing rules

Premium Structure and Affordability

Income-Based Premium Sliding Scale:

The governing parameter is the percentage of household income, on the ACA applicable-percentage model. Dollar figures are illustrative monthly premiums computed at the midpoint of each band using 2026 federal poverty guidelines, and move with income and family size.

Income Level (% of FPL)	Premium as % of Income	Illustrative Monthly (Individual)	Illustrative Monthly (Family of 4)
<138% FPL	0%	$0	$0
138-200% FPL	2%	~$45	~$90
200-300% FPL	4%	~$135	~$270
300-400% FPL	6%	~$280	~$570
400-500% FPL	7%	~$415	~$855
>500% FPL	8.5% (capped)	~$620	~$1,265

The percentage rather than a flat dollar cap is deliberate. An earlier draft of this schedule capped premiums at a fixed monthly amount, which made the effective contribution rate fall as income rose above the cap — regressive, and inconsistent with the stated design principle.

Comparison to Private Insurance:

• Average employer-sponsored insurance, total premium (employer plus employee share): roughly $750/month individual and $2,100/month family. The employee’s own contribution averages far less — roughly $115/month individual and $525/month family, since employers typically cover 70-83%
• Compare like with like. Public-option premiums above are paid entirely by the enrollee. Against total employer premium the public option is 30-50% lower, which is the relevant comparison for an employer deciding whether to switch or for someone without an employer offer. Against an employee’s own contribution under a subsidized employer plan, the public option is not automatically cheaper at higher incomes — the honest claim is that it is dramatically cheaper for the uninsured, the self-employed, and the individual market, and competitive rather than uniformly superior for those already holding subsidized employer coverage
• Total cost of care (premiums plus out-of-pocket) is lower under the public option across income bands, driven by the lower deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums above

Subsidy Mechanism:

• Enhanced ACA premium tax credits (existing infrastructure)
• Advance payment directly to public option (minimize upfront cost for enrollees)
• Reconciliation at tax time (if income changes during year)

Administration and Operations

Administering Agency:

• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) within HHS
• Leverage existing Medicare infrastructure (claims processing, provider relations, fraud detection)
• Create new division: Office of the Public Option (OPO)

Enrollment and Customer Service:

• Online enrollment through healthcare.gov (integrated with ACA exchanges)
• Phone enrollment: Expand call center capacity (24/7 multilingual support)
• In-person assistance: Community health centers, libraries, social service agencies
• Automatic enrollment: Individuals eligible for $0 premium auto-enrolled unless opt-out (maximize coverage)

Claims Processing:

• Contract with existing Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) for efficiency
• Electronic claims submission (same format as Medicare claims)
• 30-day payment standard (faster than many private insurers)

Technology Infrastructure:

• Build on healthcare.gov platform (already handles ACA enrollment)
• Interoperability with private insurance systems (coordination of benefits)
• Mobile app for easy access to coverage information, digital ID cards

Fraud Prevention:

• CMS Office of Inspector General oversight
• Predictive analytics to detect billing anomalies (AI/machine learning)
• Provider audits and enrollment screening
• Whistleblower protections and rewards

Enrollment Projections and Market Impact

Two clocks. Enrollment and cost figures below are stated in Operating Years, counted from first coverage. The Implementation Timeline further down uses Administration Years. Coverage begins in Administration Year 3, so Operating Year 1 = Administration Year 3, and Operating Year 5 falls in Administration Year 7 — beyond a single term. Steady-state figures describe the program at maturity, not what is achievable within the first term.

Conservative Enrollment Estimates:

• Operating Year 1: 15 million enrollees (current ACA marketplace ~20M; capture 15-20M from individual market + uninsured)
• Operating Year 3: 25 million enrollees (word of mouth, lower prices drive adoption)
• Operating Year 5: 40 million enrollees (some employer groups switch, individual market dominance)

Optimistic Enrollment Estimates:

• Operating Year 1: 25 million enrollees
• Operating Year 3: 50 million enrollees
• Operating Year 5: 75+ million enrollees (significant employer adoption)

Market Competition Effects:

• Private insurers must compete on price and quality (currently limited competition in many markets)
• Expect private insurers to lower premiums 10-15% to remain competitive (benefit for all)
• Some private insurers may exit individual market (already limited participation)
• Private insurers may focus on supplemental coverage (dental, vision) or premium employer plans

Transition from Medicaid:

• Some states may purchase public option coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries (managed care)
• Must ensure public option benefits ≥ Medicaid benefits (federal oversight)
• Could reduce state administrative costs while maintaining coverage

Entry Thresholds, Annual Review, and De-escalation to Standing Floor

The public option is the mandate’s only step-three intervention — the government entering a market as a competitor rather than regulating it (see Regulatory Philosophy §5-6). A claim that an intervention is justified by market failure is worthless unless the failure is measured, so the thresholds are named here rather than left to judgment.

Entry Thresholds (per CMS rating area, measured separately for insurance and hospital markets):

• HHI ≥ 2,500 — “highly concentrated” under the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines and well above the 1,800 structural threshold in the 2023 Merger Guidelines; or
• Fewer than three insurers offering on-exchange plans in the rating area; or
• A single insurer holding ≥ 50% of covered lives
• Any one condition qualifies the rating area

The baseline does not exist yet, and entry is contingent on it.

The previous draft of this provision asserted that roughly half of U.S. rating areas qualify today. That figure was unsourced, which is self-defeating in a provision whose entire purpose is that the threshold is measurable. What can be said with support is narrower: the American Medical Association’s annual Competition in Health Insurance study has consistently found a large majority of metropolitan commercial markets to be highly concentrated on the HHI measure, and single-insurer exchange counties, while far fewer than at their 2018 peak, have not disappeared. How many rating areas clear the specific thresholds above is not currently known, because nobody publishes the figure in this form.

• No public option enters any market before the first annual concentration report is published. Entry is conditional on measured qualification, not on the assumption that markets qualify
• The baseline is constructible today from data that already exists: CMS Medical Loss Ratio filings, NAIC market-share reporting, and HHS/ASPE rating-area enrolment files. The first report is a compilation task, not a research programme
• If the first report shows materially fewer qualifying markets than expected, that is an argument against the scale of the intervention and should be treated as one. A threshold that only ever justifies what was already planned is not a threshold

Annual Review:

• CMS publishes concentration data for every rating area annually — HHI, insurer count, top-insurer share, and the same for hospital markets by referral region — as machine-readable open data, not a PDF report
• Published whether or not it supports continued public-option operation. A measure the operator can suppress is not a constraint
• Independent verification by the Congressional Budget Office or the Government Accountability Office, which do not administer the program

De-escalation (not withdrawal):

When a rating area falls below HHI 1,800 sustained for three consecutive years with four or more insurers each holding ≥ 5% of covered lives, the public option de-escalates in that area:

• Stops active expansion — no marketing spend, no auto-enrolment, no employer-group solicitation
• Remains available as a standing option at actuarially-priced premiums
• Prices at cost, never below — it functions as a published benchmark, not as a predator. The point is to make the price of adequate coverage visible, not to win share
• Re-escalates automatically if HHI returns to ≥ 2,500 or insurer count falls below three, without requiring new legislation

Why a standing floor rather than exit:

Withdrawing entirely once a market de-concentrates would restart the cycle that produced the concentration. Markets do not stay competitive because they were competitive once — that is the same error as treating laissez-faire as self-sustaining. A standing public option is the maintenance mechanism: it constrains pricing by existing, not by winning, and it makes re-concentration unprofitable rather than merely illegal.

The precedent is domestic and old. The Tennessee Valley Authority was justified as a yardstick — a public operator whose costs establish what adequate service should cost, disciplining private rates by comparison rather than by regulation. That is the role the public option assumes once a market is competitive again.

Stated plainly: this is de-escalation, not exit. The framework’s general commitment is that interventions recede; here the intervention recedes to a floor and stays. That is a weaker claim than full withdrawal and it is made deliberately, because the alternative is a competitive market that lasts until the next merger wave. Where the framework claims less, it should say so.

Risk Pooling and Adverse Selection Protection

The strongest technical objection to any public option is adverse selection. The public option offers guaranteed issue, no medical underwriting, and no pre-existing condition exclusions. Private plans competing alongside it retain latitude over benefit design, network composition, and marketing — all standard instruments for attracting healthier enrollees. Absent countermeasures, the public option becomes the high-risk plan: per-enrollee cost rises, premiums follow, healthier enrollees leave, and the cycle repeats. This is the documented failure path of the ACA CO-OPs, and the cost projections in the next section assume an average-risk population that adverse selection would not deliver.

Three mechanisms, all with direct ACA precedent, prevent it. The first two are designed to be budget-neutral.

Risk Adjustment (budget-neutral):

• Permanent risk adjustment across all plans in each market — public option and private, on and off exchange — on the model of ACA §1343
• Transfers flow from plans with healthier-than-average enrollees to plans with sicker-than-average enrollees, based on enrollee risk scores. Total transfers net to zero; this is a reallocation, not an outlay
• Coding-intensity adjustment: risk scores are normalized against a Medicare Advantage-style coding-intensity factor. Without it, risk adjustment rewards aggressive diagnosis coding rather than actual illness burden — the documented failure mode in Medicare Advantage, where upcoding has driven payments above the cost of equivalent traditional Medicare enrollees
• Audited annually by CMS with published methodology and plan-level results

Reinsurance (funded by assessment, not appropriation):

• Permanent reinsurance covering a share of claims above an attachment point (indicatively 75% of costs between $50,000 and $250,000 per enrollee per year)
• Funded by a per-covered-life assessment on all health plans, public and private, on the model of the ACA §1341 transitional reinsurance program — which was financed by a broad plan assessment rather than general revenue
• Estimated program size $10-15B annually. Because it is assessment-funded and the assessment base includes the public option itself, the net federal cost is accommodated within the tracked $150-250B public-option planning figure, which already sits well above the bottom-up scenario estimate. No change to public_option_cost or any figure derived from it
• Attachment point and coinsurance rate set annually by CMS to hold the assessment stable

Benefit Standardization (no cost):

• Standardized plan designs within each metal tier for all plans competing in the individual market, limiting benefit-design cherry-picking (narrow specialty drug formularies, restrictive specialist networks, and similar instruments that deter high-cost enrollees without violating guaranteed issue)
• Marketing conduct standards prohibiting enrollment practices that steer high-cost applicants away

Deliberately Excluded — Risk Corridors:

• Symmetric risk corridors are not included. The ACA’s §1342 corridors were enacted without a permanent appropriation; Congress subsequently restricted payment, and in Maine Community Health Options v. United States (2020) the Supreme Court held the government liable for roughly $12B it had declined to pay. A risk-sharing promise Congress can decline to fund creates unbudgeted liability and litigation risk without providing the stability it advertises. Risk adjustment and reinsurance achieve the stabilization objective without that exposure

Cost Analysis and Financing

Annual Cost Projections:

Stated assumptions. Per-enrollee cost is held at $5,500 in constant 2026 dollars across all three scenarios. This is a real-terms figure and excludes medical cost inflation, which has run roughly 4-5% annually; on that trend, nominal per-enrollee cost in Operating Year 5 would be ~20-27% higher, adding roughly $45-60B to Year 5 medical costs. Premiums collected per enrollee rise across the scenarios (from ~$2,000-2,700 to ~$3,000-3,750) because the projected enrollee mix shifts toward higher-income employer-group members, who sit higher on the income-based premium schedule. Both assumptions run in the optimistic direction, and the second runs opposite to the adverse-selection risk described above. They are the principal reason these scenarios yield a lower net cost than the $150-250B planning figure the mandate actually uses.

Enrollment: 15 million (Operating Year 1, Conservative)

• Average cost per enrollee: $5,500 (lower than private due to lower payment rates and reduced overhead)
• Total medical costs: $82.5 billion
• Administrative costs (2% overhead): $1.7 billion
• Total cost: $84.2 billion
• Premiums collected: $30-40 billion
• Net federal cost: $44-54 billion (after premiums)

Enrollment: 25 million (Operating Year 3, Moderate)

• Total medical costs: $137.5 billion
• Administrative costs: $2.75 billion
• Total cost: $140.25 billion
• Premiums collected: $60-75 billion
• Net federal cost: $65-80 billion

Enrollment: 40 million (Operating Year 5, Conservative Steady-State)

• Total medical costs: $220 billion
• Administrative costs: $4.4 billion
• Total cost: $224.4 billion
• Premiums collected: $120-150 billion
• Net federal cost: $74-104 billion

Offset by System-Wide Savings:

These are the three components of the mandate’s tracked healthcare savings total. Each is carried in _data/figures.json and detailed in the Fiscal Analysis:

• Prescription drug negotiation: $250-300B (based on the February 2026 CBO baseline)
• Administrative efficiency: $100-180B (2% public-option overhead vs. 12-18% private, plus simplified billing and reduced provider billing complexity)
• Preventive care and chronic disease management: $50-90B (reduced emergency utilization, early intervention)
• Total system-wide healthcare savings: $400-570B annually

Additional effects excluded from the total above (to avoid double-counting):

• Reduced uncompensated care: $20-30B — accrues to hospitals, not the federal budget
• Private market premium reductions: $50-100B — accrues to private purchasers, and is partly the same administrative efficiency already counted above

Net Impact:

• Public option federal cost: $150-250B (steady state, tracked planning figure)
• System-wide healthcare savings: $400-570B annually
• Net healthcare savings: $150-320B annually (savings less the high end of public-option cost)

Reconciling the scenarios above with the planning figure. The enrollment scenarios in this section are bottom-up illustrations at a fixed $5,500 per enrollee in 2026 dollars, and they produce a lower net federal cost ($74-104B at 40 million enrollees) than the $150-250B planning figure the mandate’s fiscal model uses. The difference is assumption, not arithmetic: the planning figure assumes higher per-enrollee cost and lower premium recovery, and it does not hold per-enrollee cost flat against medical inflation. The mandate uses the conservative $150-250B figure in all fiscal totals. The scenarios are retained because their arithmetic is transparent and because they show how sensitive net cost is to premium recovery and enrollee mix — not as competing estimates.

Implementation Timeline

Days 1-60 (Design Phase):

• HHS convenes stakeholder consultation (insurers, providers, patient advocates, states)
• Draft benefit package specifications
• Determine provider payment rates (analyze Medicare adequacy)
• Design premium sliding scale and subsidy structure
• Develop enrollment and claims processing systems requirements

Days 61-120 (Draft Legislation):

• HHS delivers draft legislation to Congress
• CBO scoring process begins (cost estimates, enrollment projections)
• Committee hearings and markup

Days 121-180 (Refinement and CBO Scoring):

• Revise based on Congressional feedback and CBO preliminary score
• Finalize legislative text
• Build political coalition for passage

Months 6-12 (Legislative Process):

• Congressional consideration (House, Senate)
• Budget reconciliation option if necessary (simple majority)
• Presidential signature

Year 2 (Buildout Phase):

• CMS builds administrative infrastructure (OPO)
• Provider outreach and enrollment
• Technology system development (healthcare.gov integration)
• Marketing and public education campaign
• Hire customer service staff

Year 3 (Launch):

• Open enrollment begins (October Year 2 for January Year 3 coverage)
• Coverage begins for first enrollees
• Monitor enrollment, costs, provider participation
• Rapid response team for implementation issues

Years 4-5 (Optimization):

• Expand benefits if fiscally sustainable (add dental/vision)
• Adjust payment rates based on provider participation
• Evaluate cost-sharing structure (reduce premiums if surplus)
• Consider employer purchasing option

Political Strategy and Stakeholder Management

Coalition Building:

• Patient advocates (universal coverage, affordability)
• Labor unions (employer healthcare costs reduced)
• Small businesses (alternative to expensive private plans)
• Hospitals and providers (payment for currently uninsured patients, reduced uncompensated care)
• State governments (Medicaid cost control option)

Opposition and Counterarguments:

Private insurance industry: “Government takeover, kills private insurance”

• Response: Public option is choice, not mandate. Private insurance has not merely survived alongside public coverage but grown within it — Medicare Advantage now enrolls more than half of Medicare beneficiaries. This analogy is offered for the political claim only. Medicare Advantage does not demonstrate that public competition lowers system cost; MedPAC has repeatedly found MA costs Medicare more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare would for comparable enrollees, driven by favorable selection and coding intensity. That is precisely why the risk-adjustment provisions above include a coding-intensity correction

Providers: “Medicare rates too low, threatens access”

• Response: Medicare+10-15% rates more sustainable than current uninsured uncompensated care; rural adjustments address access concerns

Fiscal conservatives: “Unaffordable, adds to deficit”

• Response: Premiums offset a substantial share of gross cost; net federal cost of $150-250B is more than offset by system-wide savings of $400-570B, for net savings of $150-320B annually; healthcare spending as % of GDP decreases

Constitutional challenges: Unlikely (ACA upheld, government insurance programs well-established)

Communication Strategy:

• Lead with choice: “If you like your private insurance, keep it”
• Emphasize competition: “Let government compete fairly and see if it can do better”
• Cost savings: “Lower premiums, lower deductibles, lower out-of-pocket costs”
• Universal coverage: “No American should go bankrupt from medical bills”
• Medicare model: “We trust Medicare for seniors; extend that option to everyone”

---