The Financial Architecture of the Affordable Care Act: A Comprehensive Analysis of Funding, Fiscal Impact, and Enduring Debates

Introduction

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), signed into law in March 2010, represents the most significant restructuring of the United States health care system since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

The law was enacted with a dual mandate: to dramatically expand health insurance coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and, simultaneously, to introduce reforms designed to “bend the cost curve” of escalating national health expenditures.¹

Central to achieving these ambitious goals is the ACA’s intricate and innovative financial architecture—a complex tapestry of new taxes, industry fees, cuts to projected spending in existing programs, and a novel system of subsidies.

This financial structure has been the subject of relentless political debate, continuous legislative and administrative evolution, and landmark judicial review since its inception.²

This report provides a comprehensive, expert-level analysis of how the Affordable Care Act is funded.

It moves beyond a simple accounting of revenues and outlays to dissect the law’s complete financial ecosystem.

The central thesis of this analysis is that the ACA’s funding mechanism is not a static set of accounts but a dynamic system.

Its fiscal stability and long-term impact are perpetually shaped by the complex interplay of its core spending and revenue components, subsequent legislative modifications like the American Rescue Plan Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, pivotal judicial rulings such as the Supreme Court’s decision on Medicaid expansion, administrative actions, and the economic and behavioral responses of individuals, insurers, and states.³

By examining the law’s spending commitments, its revenue engine, the intricate flow of funds, its net budgetary impact, and the broader economic and political ramifications, this report seeks to provide a definitive reference on the financial underpinnings of this transformative legislation.

The Architecture of ACA Spending: A Multi-Trillion Dollar Commitment

The ACA’s primary objective of expanding health coverage is achieved through substantial federal outlays.

These expenditures are channeled through three main avenues: subsidizing the purchase of private insurance on newly created marketplaces, financing a broad expansion of the Medicaid program, and investing in public health and health system innovation.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), federal subsidies for health insurance, which are dominated by ACA programs alongside Medicare and Medicaid, were estimated at $1.8 trillion in 2023 and are projected to reach $3.3 trillion by 2033.¹

Subsidizing Private Coverage: The Marketplace Foundation

The cornerstone of the ACA’s private insurance expansion is the Health Insurance Marketplace (also known as the exchange), where individuals and small businesses can purchase standardized health plans.

To make this coverage affordable, the law established two key subsidy programs.

Advance Premium Tax Credits (APTCs): The primary mechanism for reducing the cost of coverage is the Advance Premium Tax Credit (APTC).

These are refundable, advanceable tax credits available to U.S. citizens and lawfully present immigrants with household incomes between 100% and 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) who are not offered affordable coverage through an employer or other public program.⁸

The subsidy is calculated on a sliding scale designed to cap the amount an individual or family must contribute toward their premium for the second-lowest-cost Silver plan (the “benchmark plan”) in their geographic area.⁸

For example, an individual’s required contribution might be capped at 2% of their income at the low end of the eligibility scale, rising to 9.5% (as initially enacted) near 400% FPL.¹¹

The federal government pays the credit directly to the insurer each month to lower the enrollee’s premium bill.¹²

Cost-Sharing Reductions (CSRs): The second subsidy, Cost-Sharing Reductions (CSRs), is designed to lower out-of-pocket costs such as deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance.

CSRs are available only to individuals who are eligible for APTCs, have incomes between 100% and 250% of the FPL, and enroll in a Silver-level plan on the Marketplace.⁸

These subsidies increase the actuarial value (AV) of a standard Silver plan (which covers 70% of average costs) to as high as 94% for the lowest-income enrollees, making the plan function more like a Platinum plan at a Silver plan price.¹¹

A critical funding challenge arose with CSRs.

While the ACA authorized these payments to insurers, Congress never specifically appropriated funds for them.

This led to a 2017 executive action halting direct federal reimbursement to insurers for the cost of providing CSRs.⁶

In response, state regulators allowed insurers to recoup these costs through a practice known as “silver loading,” where they significantly increased the premiums of only Silver plans.

Because APTCs are tied to the cost of the benchmark Silver plan, this action had the paradoxical effect of increasing federal subsidy outlays, as the government had to pay larger APTCs to cover the now-inflated benchmark premiums.¹⁴

Legislative Enhancements and Fiscal Impact: The generosity and reach of the Marketplace subsidies were significantly expanded by subsequent legislation.

The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021, and later the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, temporarily eliminated the 400% FPL income cap for subsidy eligibility (instead capping premium contributions at 8.5% of income for all) and made the subsidies more generous for those already eligible.³

These enhancements fueled record-breaking Marketplace enrollment, which reached over 21 million in 2024.¹⁷

This expansion, however, came at a significant cost.

CBO data show that ACA-related subsidies for nongroup coverage and the Basic Health Program accounted for an estimated $91 billion, or 6%, of all federal health insurance spending in 2023.

This figure is projected to rise to $138 billion by 2034.¹⁵

The “temporary” nature of these enhanced subsidies has created a new political and fiscal reality; their scheduled expiration at the end of 2025 would result in a massive premium “cliff,” with KFF estimating an average out-of-pocket premium increase of over 75% for enrollees, creating immense political pressure for their extension.⁴

This dynamic demonstrates how temporary spending provisions can effectively become permanent entitlements due to the political difficulty of withdrawing a widely distributed benefit.

The Medicaid and CHIP Expansion: The Largest Coverage Driver

The single largest driver of coverage gains under the ACA has been the expansion of Medicaid.²⁰

The law dramatically broadened eligibility for the program, which historically was limited to specific low-income groups like pregnant women, children, and certain disabled individuals.

Mechanism and Federal Funding: The ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility to nearly all non-elderly adults with household incomes at or below 138% of the FPL.⁹

To incentivize states to adopt this expansion, the federal government offered a significantly enhanced federal matching rate (FMAP).

For the newly eligible adult population, the federal government paid 100% of the costs from 2014 to 2016.

This federal share then phased down slightly, settling at a permanent rate of 90% for 2020 and all subsequent years—a much higher match than states receive for their traditional Medicaid populations.¹¹

This provision represents the largest single spending component of the ACA, covering an estimated 21.3 million people in expansion states as of 2024.¹⁵

The NFIB v.

Sebelius Impact: The structure of the Medicaid expansion was fundamentally altered by the 2012 Supreme Court case National Federation of Independent Business v.

Sebelius.

The Court ruled that the ACA provision threatening to withhold all of a state’s existing Medicaid funding if it refused to expand was unconstitutionally coercive.²²

This decision effectively made the Medicaid expansion optional for states.⁵

As of mid-2024, 10 states have still not adopted the expansion.²⁴

This has created a “coverage gap” in those states, where millions of adults have incomes too high to qualify for their state’s traditional, restrictive Medicaid program but too low to qualify for Marketplace subsidies, which begin at 100% of the FPL.⁵

This judicial decision created a crucial interdependence between the ACA’s two main spending programs.

When a state forgoes expansion, childless adults with incomes between their state’s low eligibility threshold and 100% FPL are left with no affordable coverage options.

Those with incomes between 100% and 138% FPL, who would have been covered by Medicaid in an expansion state, instead become eligible for heavily subsidized Marketplace plans.

This shifts federal costs from the Medicaid budget line to the Marketplace subsidy line.

This is a significant fiscal shift because, as the CBO has analyzed, the federal cost of subsidizing a person on an exchange is considerably higher than the cost of covering them through Medicaid (projected at $9,000 versus $6,000, respectively, for an individual in this income range in 2022).⁵

Thus, a state’s political decision not to expand Medicaid directly increases a different and more expensive category of federal ACA spending.

Fiscal Consequences for States and Providers: For states that have expanded Medicaid, the fiscal consequences have been profound.

The massive influx of federal funds—billions of dollars annually—has been shown to stimulate state economies, creating over a million jobs nationwide in one study’s projection.²⁵

Expansion has also generated net savings for many state budgets by reducing state and local spending on uncompensated care for the uninsured and other state-funded health programs.²⁶

For health care providers, particularly safety-net institutions like community health centers (CHCs), the expansion has been transformative.

Research shows that in expansion states, CHCs saw a significant shift in their revenue mix: Medicaid revenue increased substantially while revenue from grants and uncompensated care costs plummeted.²⁷

This provided a more stable and predictable funding stream, though it also created a new financial dependency on patient service volume.²⁷

Investing in Health System Transformation and Public Health

Beyond direct coverage expansion, the ACA authorized significant spending on programs aimed at improving public health and reforming the health care delivery system.

Mandatory and Discretionary Funding: The law established several special funds with mandatory appropriations, insulating them from the annual appropriations process.

The most prominent is the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which provides grants to states and communities for prevention activities like immunizations and chronic disease screenings.³

Another is the

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund, which finances the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

PCORI conducts comparative effectiveness research and is funded primarily by a small fee levied on most health insurance policies.²⁹

Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI): The ACA established and provided substantial mandatory funding for CMMI, housed within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

CMMI’s purpose is to test, evaluate, and scale innovative payment and delivery models—such as Accountable Care Organizations and bundled payments—that aim to lower health care costs while maintaining or improving quality.¹¹

However, the CBO has found that, contrary to initial projections that CMMI would generate net savings, its activities have thus far resulted in a net

increase in federal spending, as the costs of administering the demonstration projects have outweighed the savings generated.¹⁸

Grants and Workforce Programs: The ACA also authorized billions of dollars in discretionary funding for a wide range of grant programs intended to strengthen the health care system.

These include funding to expand community health centers, bolster the National Health Service Corps (which provides scholarships and loan repayment for clinicians serving in underserved areas), and support health workforce training programs.²⁸

While the CBO estimated that fully funding these authorizations would cost nearly $100 billion over a decade, actual appropriations by Congress have often fallen well below the authorized levels.³²

The Revenue Engine: Financing the ACA’s Coverage Expansion

To finance its multi-trillion-dollar spending commitments and achieve its goal of deficit reduction, the ACA enacted a sweeping set of revenue-raising provisions and spending offsets.

These measures were intentionally diverse, drawing from new taxes on high-income individuals, assessments on the health care industry, penalties for failing to comply with coverage mandates, and, most significantly, reductions in the projected growth of Medicare.¹¹

Taxes on High-Income Individuals

A core principle of the ACA’s financing was to draw revenue from those with the greatest ability to pay.

The law introduced two new, permanent taxes targeting high-income households, which together form a foundational pillar of its long-term funding.

Additional Medicare Tax: This provision imposes an additional 0.9% Hospital Insurance (HI) tax on earned income exceeding certain thresholds: $200,000 for single filers and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly.²⁹

This tax is levied on top of the existing 1.45% employee and 1.45% employer Medicare payroll taxes.

Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT): This provision established a new 3.8% tax on net investment income (such as capital gains, dividends, and interest) for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross incomes above the same $200,000/$250,000 thresholds.¹¹

A crucial design feature of both taxes is that their income thresholds are not indexed for inflation.³⁴

Over time, as nominal wages and incomes rise with economic growth and inflation, a progressively larger number of households are pulled over these fixed thresholds.

This phenomenon, known as “bracket creep,” functions as a powerful, built-in revenue escalator, ensuring that receipts from these taxes grow automatically over the long term without requiring new legislative action.

This design choice, however, has drawn criticism that the taxes will eventually affect households not originally considered “high-income”.³⁴

Assessments and Fees on the Healthcare Industry

The ACA required the health care industry, which was expected to benefit financially from millions of newly insured customers, to contribute to the cost of reform through a series of new taxes and fees.³³

• Health Insurer Fee: An annual fee was levied on health insurance providers, with each company’s share determined by its portion of the total market. This was a significant revenue source for several years but faced intense industry opposition and was permanently repealed by Congress, effective in 2021.²⁹
• Branded Prescription Drug Fee: An annual fee is assessed on manufacturers and importers of branded (non-generic) prescription drugs, also allocated based on market share. This fee remains in effect.²⁹
• Medical Device Excise Tax: A 2.3% excise tax was imposed on the sale of certain medical devices. This tax was highly controversial, subject to multiple congressional moratoria, and ultimately repealed permanently in 2020.¹¹
• PCORI Fee: As mentioned previously, a small fee per covered life is assessed on most health insurance policies to fund the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.²⁹

The history of these industry assessments reveals a key political dynamic of ACA funding.

Revenue sources that target specific, well-organized, and powerful industries (like device manufacturers and insurers) proved politically fragile and vulnerable to repeal.

In contrast, broad-based taxes on individuals and diffuse spending cuts have been far more durable.

Mandate Penalties and Employer Responsibilities

To encourage broad participation in the new coverage system and stabilize the insurance risk pools, the ACA included two “shared responsibility” provisions, which also generated revenue.

Individual Shared Responsibility Provision (Individual Mandate): From 2014 to 2018, the ACA required most individuals to maintain qualifying health coverage or pay a tax penalty.

The penalty was calculated as the greater of a flat dollar amount (e.g., $695 per adult in 2016) or a percentage of household income (2.5% in 2016).¹¹

This provision was intended primarily to prevent adverse selection by compelling healthier individuals to purchase insurance, but it also generated several billion dollars in revenue annually.¹

The penalty was highly unpopular and was effectively repealed when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 reduced the penalty amount to zero, starting in 2019.⁷

Employer Shared Responsibility Provision (Employer Mandate): The ACA requires applicable large employers (generally those with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees) to offer affordable health coverage that provides minimum value to their full-time employees and their dependents.

Employers who fail to do so and have at least one full-time employee receive a premium tax credit on the Marketplace are subject to a penalty payment.¹¹

This provision serves both as a backstop to prevent erosion of the employer-sponsored insurance system and as a revenue source.

Medicare and Other Spending Reductions: The Largest Offset

The single largest source of financing for the ACA’s coverage expansions comes not from new taxes, but from provisions designed to reduce the projected growth of federal spending in Medicare and other health programs.¹¹

These offsets were projected to generate hundreds of billions of dollars in savings over the first decade.

Key reductions include:

• Medicare Advantage (MA) Payments: The law restructured payments to private Medicare Advantage plans, which had historically been paid more per enrollee than the cost of covering similar beneficiaries in traditional fee-for-service Medicare. The ACA reduced these payment rates and implemented coding intensity adjustments to bring them closer to parity with traditional Medicare.¹¹
• Provider Payment Updates: The ACA reduced the annual inflation updates for payments to a wide range of Medicare providers, including hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, and hospices.¹¹
• Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments: The law scheduled gradual reductions in both Medicare and Medicaid DSH payments. These payments historically compensated hospitals for treating a high volume of uninsured and low-income patients. The legislative rationale was that as the ACA expanded coverage, hospitals’ uncompensated care burdens would decrease, lessening the need for these supplemental payments.¹¹

Financial Flows and Market Stabilization: The Plumbing of the ACA

Authorizing spending and revenue is only one part of the equation.

A complex operational infrastructure is required to manage risk in the reformed insurance markets and ensure the correct flow of funds from the federal government to individuals, states, and providers.

This “plumbing” of the ACA has been a source of significant operational challenges and financial risk.

The “Three R’s”: Managing Risk in a Reformed Market

The ACA’s new insurance market rules—particularly guaranteed issue (insurers must accept all applicants) and modified community rating (insurers can only vary premiums based on age, location, family size, and tobacco use)—created enormous uncertainty for insurers.¹¹

To prevent a market death spiral caused by adverse selection, the law included three premium stabilization programs, collectively known as the “Three R’s,” designed to mitigate risk, especially in the early years.³⁸

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of ACA Risk Mitigation Programs (The “Three R’s”)
Feature	Risk Adjustment	Reinsurance
Purpose	Redistributes funds from plans with healthier, lower-cost enrollees to plans with sicker, higher-cost enrollees to discourage “cherry-picking” healthy customers. 38	Reimburses individual market plans for a portion of their high-cost claims to protect against the financial shock of very sick enrollees and stabilize overall premiums. 10
Duration	Permanent	Temporary (2014–2016)
Applicability	All non-grandfathered individual and small group plans, both on and off the Marketplace. 38	Individual market plans only. 38
Funding Source	Budget-neutral transfers between insurers within each state’s market. No federal funds are used. 38	A temporary, broad-based levy on nearly all health insurance plans, including large group and self-insured plans. 38
Outcome	Remains a core, permanent feature of the individual and small group markets.	Successfully lowered premiums during its operation. Some states have since implemented their own federally-approved reinsurance programs. 10

The Failure of Risk Corridors: The third program, Risk Corridors, was designed to be a temporary (2014-2016) two-way street between insurers and the federal government to limit extreme profits or losses due to pricing uncertainty.³⁸

If an insurer’s actual claims costs were significantly lower than their target amount (based on premiums), they would pay a portion of the gains to the government.

If their costs were significantly higher, the government would reimburse them for a portion of the losses.

The program was intended to be self-financing from the payments made by profitable insurers.⁴⁰

However, the program failed spectacularly.

In its first year, claims for reimbursement from insurers with large losses vastly exceeded the payments collected from profitable insurers.

Amidst political controversy that the program was a “bailout” for insurance companies, Congress passed a provision in an appropriations bill that prohibited the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from using any other federal funds to cover the shortfall.⁴⁰

As a result, the government paid out only a fraction of what it owed insurers, leading to the financial collapse of several new non-profit co-op plans created by the ACA and prompting a wave of lawsuits from insurers that eventually reached the Supreme Court.

The failure of the risk corridor program had a chilling effect on the market, causing surviving insurers to price in this heightened political risk by proposing steep premium increases in 2017 and 2018, thereby undermining the law’s affordability goals.

Tracing the Flow of Funds

The ACA’s financial flows are complex, involving multiple federal agencies and stakeholders:

1. Revenue Collection: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is responsible for collecting the ACA’s various taxes, including the NIIT, the Additional Medicare Tax, and penalties from employers and individuals (prior to 2019). These revenues are deposited into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury.²⁹
2. APTC Payments: For consumers who enroll in a Marketplace plan and are eligible for subsidies, HHS calculates the appropriate APTC amount. The Treasury then makes these payments directly to the selected insurance company on a monthly basis. At the end of the year, the consumer reconciles the advance payments received with the final credit they are eligible for based on their actual income when they file their federal tax return with the IRS.¹²
3. Medicaid/CHIP Payments: CMS is responsible for distributing federal matching funds to state governments to cover the federal share of their Medicaid and CHIP expenditures. For the ACA expansion population, this is the enhanced 90% FMAP.²⁸
4. Grant Distribution: HHS and its various operating divisions award grants from dedicated funding streams like the Prevention and Public Health Fund and other discretionary appropriations to state and local governments, universities, community health centers, and other non-profit organizations to carry out specific public health, workforce, and research activities.³²

Program Integrity and Financial Management: The GAO’s Perspective

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, has conducted numerous audits of the ACA’s implementation.

Its findings have consistently highlighted significant weaknesses in the financial management and internal controls of the Marketplace, posing substantial risks to the federal government.

• Enrollment and Eligibility Controls: The GAO found that CMS’s internal controls for verifying applicant information—such as income, citizenship, and Social Security numbers—were not consistently effective.¹² In one report, the GAO noted that as of April 2015, about 431,000 applications from the 2014 enrollment period still had unresolved inconsistencies, representing an estimated $1.7 billion in annual subsidies.¹⁴ Undercover testing repeatedly demonstrated these vulnerabilities, with GAO investigators successfully creating fictitious applicants who were approved for subsidized coverage totaling tens of thousands of dollars.¹²
• Lack of Financial Tracking and Recapture: The GAO criticized CMS for not having systems in place to track the financial value of subsidies that were adjusted or terminated due to resolved inconsistencies.¹² Critically, it noted that while improper APTC payments can be clawed back through the tax reconciliation process, there was no mechanism to identify or recover improper CSR payments, which are not subject to reconciliation.¹²
• Inadequate Fraud Risk Management: In a significant finding, the GAO reported that CMS had failed to conduct a comprehensive fraud risk assessment of the Marketplace enrollment and eligibility process, a standard and essential practice for managing large federal programs.¹² This failure meant CMS was operating without a clear understanding of its key fraud risks and whether its existing controls were sufficient to mitigate them.

These oversight findings reveal that the successful funding of a program as complex as the ACA requires more than just authorizing spending and revenue.

A critical, often underappreciated, component is the administrative and IT capacity to manage the funds.

The ACA’s data-intensive subsidy structure, which requires verifying dynamic information like household income for millions of people, placed an immense strain on the implementation capabilities of CMS and the IRS. The failure to adequately fund and develop this capacity upfront created significant and persistent financial risks.

The Evolving Budgetary Ledger: Deficit Impact and Fiscal Sustainability

Perhaps the most contentious question surrounding the ACA’s finances is its net impact on the federal budget.

The answer has evolved over time and remains the subject of a fundamental debate over accounting conventions and long-term fiscal sustainability.

The Official Scorekeeper: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

The CBO, along with the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), is the official non-partisan scorekeeper for federal legislation.

• Initial Projections: At the time of its enactment in 2010, the CBO and JCT projected that the ACA would, on net, reduce the federal deficit. The initial estimate was a reduction of over $100 billion over the first decade (2010-2019) and a reduction of over $1 trillion in the second decade.²⁰
• Evolving Estimates: This projection has been updated numerous times to reflect legislative changes (like the repeal of the individual mandate penalty and the temporary enhancement of subsidies), judicial rulings, and changes in economic and technical assumptions.¹ Despite these changes, the CBO’s core finding has remained consistent: a full repeal of the ACA would substantially
  increase the federal deficit, primarily because the costs of the coverage provisions are more than offset by the law’s spending reductions and revenue increases.²⁰

The Fiscal Sustainability Debate: The “Double-Counting” Controversy

The most sophisticated and enduring critique of the ACA’s fiscal standing, advanced by the Chief Actuary of CMS and analysts at conservative-leaning think tanks like the Mercatus Center and the Manhattan Institute, centers on the concept of “double-counting” Medicare savings.³⁴

• The Core Critique: The argument posits that the CBO’s official deficit-reduction score is misleading because of how Medicare trust fund accounting works. Under federal law, the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund cannot pay out benefits in excess of its dedicated revenues once the fund is depleted. The ACA’s Medicare spending reductions extend the solvency of the HI trust fund. Critics argue that the same dollar of savings cannot be used simultaneously to (1) finance new, non-Medicare spending like Marketplace subsidies, and (2) extend the life of the Medicare trust fund, which in itself increases Medicare’s authority to spend in the future relative to a baseline where the fund would have become insolvent and triggered automatic benefit cuts.³⁴
• The Counterargument: Proponents of the law and defenders of the CBO’s methodology argue that this is not “double-counting” but standard federal budget accounting. The CBO scores legislation based on a “unified budget” concept and a “current law” baseline, which has historically assumed that Congress would act to prevent major entitlement programs from becoming insolvent and cutting benefits. From this perspective, the Medicare savings are real reductions in projected federal outlays that are available to finance other priorities or reduce the overall deficit.⁴³

This entire debate reveals that the answer to the question “Is the ACA fiscally responsible?” is not a simple number.

It depends entirely on the choice of a foundational, and highly contested, assumption about what the fiscal future would have looked like in the absence of the law.

Fiscal Impact of Pivotal Events

Two major events after the ACA’s passage profoundly altered its financial and coverage landscape.

Table 2: Estimated Fiscal Impact of the Supreme Court’s Medicaid Expansion Decision
Metric (11-Year Projection, 2012–2022)	Projected Impact
Federal Deficit	-$84 billion (reduction)
Federal Medicaid Spending	-$289 billion (reduction)
Federal Marketplace Subsidy Spending	+$210 billion (increase)
Number of Medicaid Enrollees (in 2022)	-6 million
Number of Uninsured (in 2022)	+3 million
Source: CBO analysis as summarized by the Bipartisan Policy Center 5

The Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling making Medicaid expansion optional was projected by the CBO to reduce federal deficits.

The savings from approximately 6 million fewer people enrolling in Medicaid were greater than the increased costs of about 3 million of those individuals instead enrolling in more expensive, federally subsidized Marketplace plans.

The remaining 3 million were projected to become uninsured, falling into the coverage gap.⁵

Table 3: Estimated Fiscal Impact of the Individual Mandate Penalty Repeal
Metric (10-Year Projection, 2018–2027)	Projected Impact
Federal Deficit	-$338 billion (reduction)
Federal Subsidy & Medicaid Spending	-$300+ billion (reduction)
Penalty Revenue	-$50 billion (reduction)
Number of Uninsured (in 2027)	+13 million
Average Nongroup Premiums	+10%
Source: CBO and JCT analysis 47

The 2017 TCJA’s elimination of the individual mandate penalty was also projected by the CBO to reduce the deficit.

The logic was that without the penalty, fewer people—especially younger, healthier individuals—would sign up for coverage.

This would reduce federal spending on subsidies and Medicaid by an amount that exceeded the loss of penalty revenue.⁷

This finding highlights a perverse fiscal incentive: the government “saves” money precisely because the policy change undermines the ACA’s goals of broad coverage and stable markets by increasing the number of uninsured and raising premiums for those who remain.⁴⁸

Economic and Political Ramifications of ACA Funding

The ACA’s financial design has had consequences that extend far beyond the federal ledger, influencing the broader economy, the financial well-being of American households, and the contours of the nation’s political discourse.

Macro and Microeconomic Impacts

• Economic Growth, Jobs, and Wages: At the time of its passage, opponents warned that the ACA’s taxes and mandates would be a “job killer” and a drag on the economy.³ However, multiple post-enactment analyses, including from the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama and the independent Commonwealth Fund, found no evidence of a net negative economic impact. In fact, they pointed to evidence that the law likely acted as a modest economic stimulus in its early years by increasing consumer demand (as families had more disposable income from subsidies) and by contributing to a historic slowdown in the growth of health care costs, which freed up resources for other investments.⁴³
• Healthcare Cost Inflation: The years following the ACA’s passage saw a significant slowdown in the growth of national health spending per capita.⁴³ While the 2008 recession was a major contributing factor, evidence suggests the ACA’s Medicare payment reforms and its push toward new, more efficient delivery models also played a role in this trend.⁴³
• Household Financial Security: Perhaps the most profound economic impact has been at the microeconomic level. By providing access to affordable coverage, the ACA functions as a major financial security program. Numerous studies have documented that gaining coverage through Medicaid expansion or the Marketplace significantly improves household finances. It leads to sharp reductions in the amount of unpaid medical bills and debt sent to third-party collection agencies, a lower likelihood of personal bankruptcy, and a decrease in catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures.⁵¹ In this sense, the ACA’s funding structure is explicitly redistributive, transferring resources from higher-income households and the health care industry to low- and moderate-income families to provide not just access to health care, but also a crucial buffer against financial ruin.

The Political Battlefield: Values Masquerading as Numbers

The debate over ACA funding has been one of the most polarizing and enduring political battles of the 21st century.

The conflict is not merely about accounting but about deeply held, conflicting values regarding the role of government, individual responsibility, and social solidarity.²

• Taxes vs. Health as a Right: As one analysis noted, the debate is fundamentally a conflict between the Democratic value of ensuring universal access to care, even if it requires higher taxes, and the Republican value of minimizing taxes and the federal government’s role, even if it results in less coverage.⁵⁴ The ACA’s explicit reliance on new taxes on high-income individuals and the health industry is a primary driver of sustained conservative opposition.⁵⁴
• Mandates and Government Role: The individual mandate, despite being a concept with roots in conservative health policy, became a lightning rod for opposition, tapping into a deep-seated American skepticism of government mandates.²
• The Politics of Repeal and Replace: For years, Republicans held dozens of votes to repeal the ACA. Yet, when they gained full control of government in 2017, their efforts to “repeal and replace” the law failed. This was due to the immense practical and political difficulty of unwinding a system upon which tens of millions of people had come to depend. The CBO’s scoring of repeal bills, which consistently showed massive coverage losses and increased costs for older and sicker individuals, combined with opposition from governors of both parties who feared the fiscal consequences for their states, ultimately doomed the effort.⁵⁶

This dynamic illustrates how fiscal “facts,” like CBO scores, become politicized.

The same CBO report showing the ACA reduces the deficit can be used by supporters to claim fiscal responsibility, while opponents, by challenging the underlying baseline assumptions, can use it to argue the law is a fiscal disaster.²⁰

This demonstrates that in a hyper-partisan environment, technical analysis does not settle debates.

Instead, the assumptions behind the analysis become the new battleground, revealing that the political fight over ACA funding is fundamentally irresolvable by numbers alone because it is rooted in conflicting values.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The financial architecture of the Affordable Care Act is a landmark achievement in American social policy, a complex and dynamic system designed to expand health coverage on a massive scale while attempting to control costs.

Its funding is a hybrid model, combining new, progressive taxes and significant spending reductions in existing programs to finance a vast expansion of federal health entitlements.

This report has demonstrated that the law’s fiscal trajectory has been anything but static, having been profoundly altered by the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Medicaid expansion and by Congress’s repeal of the individual mandate penalty.

The ACA’s long-term fiscal sustainability remains a subject of fierce debate, hinging on contested accounting conventions and the enduring political will to enforce its cost-containment measures.

The law’s financial flows have also proven to be a significant operational challenge, with government oversight consistently identifying weaknesses in program integrity that pose risks to taxpayer funds.

Based on this comprehensive analysis, the following recommendations are offered for future policy and oversight:

1. Enhance Fiscal Transparency: The intense debate over the ACA’s long-term fiscal impact, particularly the “double-counting” controversy, highlights the limitations of relying on a single budgetary baseline. To provide Congress and the public with a more complete understanding of the law’s long-term commitments, Congress should direct the CBO to regularly report on the ACA’s fiscal effects using multiple baselines. This should include the standard “current law” baseline as well as an alternative baseline that reflects prior law regarding trust fund solvency, which would make the long-term spending implications identified by critics more explicit.
2. Strengthen Program Integrity and Administrative Capacity: The success of the ACA’s subsidy structure depends on the government’s ability to manage its complex financial flows effectively. The persistent findings of the GAO regarding weak eligibility controls and inadequate fraud risk management underscore a critical need for improvement. CMS should be required to fully implement the GAO’s outstanding recommendations, including conducting a comprehensive fraud risk assessment of the Marketplace, strengthening eligibility verification systems, and developing a mechanism to track and potentially recapture improper subsidy payments. Critically, Congress must recognize that administrative capacity is a core component of the program’s funding and must provide dedicated, sufficient appropriations for the IT and personnel infrastructure needed to safeguard taxpayer dollars.
3. Confront Long-Term Health Spending Growth: While the ACA included numerous provisions aimed at “bending the cost curve,” their long-term effectiveness remains uncertain. The political repeal of mechanisms like the “Cadillac Tax” and the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), and the CBO’s finding that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) has not yet produced net savings, indicate that controlling health care costs remains the nation’s primary fiscal challenge. Policymakers must move beyond the battles of the past decade and engage in a serious, bipartisan effort to develop and implement new delivery system and payment reforms that can generate verifiable savings and ensure the long-term sustainability of not only the ACA’s commitments but the entire U.S. health care system.

Works cited

1. Affordable Care Act | Congressional Budget Office, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/topics/health-care/affordable-care-act
2. Why do so many Americans oppose the Affordable Care Act? – PubMed, accessed August 12, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25731135/
3. Affordable Care Act (ACA): What It Is, Key Features, and Updates – Investopedia, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/affordable-care-act.asp
4. How much and why ACA Marketplace premiums are going up in 2026, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/how-much-and-why-aca-marketplace-premiums-are-going-up-in-2026/
5. Primer: Understanding the Effect of the Supreme Court Ruling on the …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/CBO-SCOTUS-ACA-Primer.pdf
6. What Has Become of the Affordable Care Act? – National Affairs, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/what-has-become-of-the-affordable-care-act
7. The 2025 Tax Debate: The Affordable Care Act Individual Mandate in TCJA, accessed August 12, 2025, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/the-2025-tax-debate-the-affordable-care-act-individual-mandate-in-tcja/
8. Affordable Care Act Overview – Florida Department of Financial Services, accessed August 12, 2025, https://myfloridacfo.com/division/consumers/understanding-insurance/healthreform
9. Affordable Care Act (ACA) – Glossary | HealthCare.gov, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/affordable-care-act/
10. Federal Policy Priorities for Preserving and Improving Access to Coverage: Perspectives from State-Based Marketplaces – Commonwealth Fund, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2021/feb/federal-policy-priorities-preserving-coverage-state-based-marketplaces
11. Summary of the Affordable Care Act | KFF, accessed August 12, 2025, https://files.kff.org/attachment/Summary-of-the-Affordable-Care-Act
12. GAO-16-29, PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-29.pdf
13. The Affordable Care Act’s Impacts on Access to Insurance and Health Care for Low-Income Populations, accessed August 12, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5886019/
14. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: CMS Should Act to Strengthen Enrollment Controls and Manage Fraud Risk – GAO, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-16-29
15. How Does the Federal Government Subsidize Healthcare Under the ACA — and What Does It Cost? – Peterson Foundation, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.pgpf.org/article/how-does-the-federal-government-subsidize-healthcare-under-the-aca-and-what-does-it-cost/
16. How Much More Would People Pay in Premiums if the ACA’s Enhanced Subsidies Expired?, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/interactive/how-much-more-would-people-pay-in-premiums-if-the-acas-enhanced-subsidies-expired/
17. 44M people enrolled in ACA coverage programs: KFF study – Fierce Healthcare, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payers/44m-people-enrolled-aca-coverage-programs-kff-study
18. Health Care | Congressional Budget Office, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/topics/health-care
19. KFF report: Early filings suggests ACA premiums will spike in 2026 – Fierce Healthcare, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payers/kff-report-early-filings-suggests-aca-premiums-will-spike-2026
20. Affordable Care Act – Wikipedia, accessed August 12, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act
21. Understanding the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) | eHealth, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/resources/affordable-care-act/understanding-the-aca
22. Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act: What does it mean for neurology?, accessed August 12, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5765941/
23. Understanding the Effects of the Supreme Court’s Decision on Healthcare Reform, accessed August 12, 2025, https://pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/understanding-the-effects-of-the-supreme-courts-decision-on-health-care-reform/
24. Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions – KFF, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/status-of-state-medicaid-expansion-decisions/
25. The Economic and Employment Effects of Medicaid Expansion Under the American Rescue Plan – Commonwealth Fund, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2021/may/economic-employment-effects-medicaid-expansion-under-arp
26. The Effects of Earlier Medicaid Expansions: A Literature Review | CEA – Biden White House, accessed August 12, 2025, https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/06/22/the-effects-of-earlier-medicaid-expansions-a-literature-review/
27. Financial impacts of the Medicaid expansion on community health …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9108051/
28. Discretionary Spending Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) | Congress.gov, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41390
29. Affordable Care Act tax provisions | Internal Revenue Service, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/affordable-care-act-tax-provisions
30. GAO-24-107260, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: Review of the Audit of the FY 2023 Financial Statements, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/assets/d24107260.pdf
31. Medicaid and CHIP | Congressional Budget Office, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/topics/health-care/medicaid-and-chip
32. Discretionary Spending Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – FAS Project on Government Secrecy, accessed August 12, 2025, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R41390.pdf
33. Redistribution Under the ACA is Modest in Scope | Urban Institute, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/22271/413023-redistribution-under-the-aca-is-modest-in-scope.pdf
34. THE FISCAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE … – Mercatus Center, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/The-Fiscal-Consequences-of-the-Affordable-Care-Act.pdf
35. The Effect of Eliminating the Individual Mandate Penalty and the Role of Behavioral Factors – Commonwealth Fund, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/Eibner_individual_mandate_repeal.pdf
36. Affordable Care Act – U.S. Department of Labor, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/affordable-care-act/for-employers-and-advisers
37. New Kaiser Family Foundation Report Shows Impact of ACA Repeal on Medicare, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.medicarerights.org/medicare-watch/2016/12/22/blog-new-kaiser-family-foundation-report-shows-impact-aca-repeal-medicare
38. Fact Sheet: ACA Risk-Sharing Mechanisms – American Academy of Actuaries, accessed August 12, 2025, https://actuary.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/ACA_Risk_Share_Fact_Sheet_FINAL120413.pdf
39. Explaining Health Care Reform: Risk Adjustment, Reinsurance, and …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/issue-brief/explaining-health-care-reform-risk-adjustment-reinsurance-and-risk-corridors/
40. The ACA’s Risk Spreading Mechanisms: A Primer on Reinsurance …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-acas-risk-spreading-mechanisms-a-primer-on-reinsurance-risk-corridors-a/
41. Affordable Care Act | Internal Revenue Service, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act
42. Appropriations and Fund Transfers in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) | Congress.gov, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41301
43. Six Economic Benefits of the Affordable Care Act – Obama White House Archives, accessed August 12, 2025, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/02/06/six-economic-benefits-affordable-care-act
44. The Fiscal Consequences of the Affordable Care Act | Mercatus Center, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.mercatus.org/research/research-papers/fiscal-consequences-affordable-care-act
45. Reports With Policy Options | Congressional Budget Office, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/topics/reports-policy-options
46. The Fiscal Consequences of the Affordable Care Act | Manhattan Institute, accessed August 12, 2025, https://manhattan.institute/article/the-fiscal-consequences-of-the-affordable-care-act
47. Repealing the Individual Health Insurance Mandate: An Updated Estimate, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53300
48. Repealing the Individual Mandate Would Do Substantial Harm – November 26, 2017, accessed August 12, 2025, https://schaeffer.usc.edu/research/repealing-the-individual-mandate-would-do-substantial-harm/
49. Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans – The Heritage Foundation, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/assuring-affordable-health-care-all-americans
50. The Affordable Care Act and the U.S. Economy: A Five-Year Perspective – Commonwealth Fund, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_fund_report_2016_feb_1860_schoen_aca_and_us_economy_v2.pdf
51. The Effect of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansions on Financial Wellbeing – PMC, accessed August 12, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6208351/
52. Marketplace Coverage and Economic Benefits: Key Issues and Evidence – HHS ASPE, accessed August 12, 2025, https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/36e5e989516728adcc63e398b3e3d23d/aspe-marketplace-coverage-economic-benefits.pdf
53. Affordable Care Act: What We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About …, accessed August 12, 2025, https://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2014/09/affordable-care-act-what-we-don%E2%80%99t-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-politics
54. Health and Taxes and the Values at Stake in the ACA Debate | Milbank Quarterly, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.milbank.org/quarterly/articles/health-taxes-values-stake-aca-debate/
55. Choice, Competition, And Flexibility, Part II: Market-Driven Alternatives To Single Payer, accessed August 12, 2025, https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/commentary/choice-competition-and-flexibility-part-ii-market-driven-alternatives
56. Behind the Headlines: The Policy and Politics of ACA Repeal and Replace – The Alliance, accessed August 12, 2025, https://the-alliance.org/blog/behind-headlines-policy-politics-aca-repeal-replace/