A “Temporary” Pandemic Subsidy Congress Refuses to Let Die
This week, the House will vote on a discharge petition to force floor consideration of a bill extending the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced COVID-era premium subsidies for another three years, bypassing committee scrutiny and leadership entirely.
Discharge petitions are meant to be extraordinary tools. Here, they are being used to short-circuit debate over whether Congress should once again revive a policy that was explicitly temporary, fiscally reckless, and increasingly indefensible.
Four weeks ago, I warned in The Hill that lawmakers were approaching a familiar moment of choice, one where political convenience threatens to override common sense:
“It has become obvious that Congress will have a difficult time letting a benefit expire that voters are already receiving.”
That difficulty is now front and center. But political discomfort does not make bad policy good, and it certainly does not make it affordable.
A Temporary Policy That Was Always Meant to Expire
The enhanced premium subsidies were created through the American Rescue Plan Act during the global pandemic.
And crucially:
“As the Kaiser Family Foundation made clear in its 2021 analysis of the legislation, this ‘COVID-19 relief’ was ‘temporary, lasting for two years.’”
Congress already chose to ignore that promise once, extending the subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Now, with a vote on reauthorization looming, lawmakers are attempting to normalize what was sold as emergency relief.
The discharge petition would do exactly that, extending the subsidies as-is, with no income cap, no reform, and no acknowledgment that the emergency has long since passed.
We Cannot Afford to Pretend This Is Free
The first and most obvious problem is cost:
“The first thing that should give Congress pause is the simple fact that we cannot afford it.”
Making the current version of the subsidies permanent would cost $415 billion over 10 years, or $488 billion once interest and related expenses are included. By 2035, CBO estimates imply the cost would exceed $11,500 per newly insured person.
At a time of persistent $2 trillion deficits, extending an expensive pandemic-era benefit without reform is fiscal malpractice.
Subsidies for the Wealthy, Paid for by Everyone Else
Perhaps the most damning flaw of enhanced subsidies is who they benefit. Unlike the original ACA credits, these subsidies have no income cap:
“In contrast to the original Affordable Care Act credits, which were designed to help lower-income families, the enhanced subsidies have no income cap, dramatically expanding eligibility to high-income households.”
The result?
“Households earning half a million dollars a year have qualified for thousands of dollars in subsidies.”
And:
“The biggest winners are upper-income households, often with double or triple the U.S. median household income.”
Extending these subsidies means asking middle-income taxpayers, already stretched by inflation and weak real wage growth, to continue underwriting health insurance for affluent households who were never meant to receive assistance in the first place.
Fraud, Waste, and Insurance Company Windfalls
The problems don’t stop at distributional inequity:
“The creation of enhanced subsidies, combined with regulatory changes that weakened income verification, has triggered a massive increase in fraudulent enrollment.”
According to the Paragon Health Institute:
“Some 6.4 million enrollees were improperly enrolled in 2025, costing $27 billion this year alone.”
Even worse, much of the subsidy money never reaches consumers:
“Only about one-third of the value of the enhanced subsidies has gone toward lowering costs for consumers.”
The Joint Economic Committee finds:
“28 cents in every dollar is deadweight loss … while 38 cents goes straight toward lining the pockets of the insurance companies.”
In other words, this is not a targeted affordability policy. It is a multibillion-dollar industrial subsidy that entrenches higher premiums and weaker cost discipline across the ACA exchanges.
What Message Is Congress Sending?
As my colleague Veronique de Rugy observed:
“Every Democrat voted for that sunset clause. Now, as the expiration nears, they are demanding that Republicans extend the very subsidies they themselves voted to end.”
That contradiction lies at the heart of the current moment.
What example does Congress set by extending a temporary pandemic subsidy that worsens the fiscal outlook and subsidizes the wealthy?
“What message are they sending if they agree to continue forcing hard-pressed taxpayers … to fund the health care plans of high-income households?”
And ultimately:
“Should legislators force middle-income Americans to pad the margins of multi-billion insurance companies?”
The discharge petition vote is not just about health care. It is about whether Congress is still capable of honoring its own deadlines, and whether “temporary” still means anything in Washington.
Common sense should prevail. Whether it will is the real test.