Insights^

Find our analysis on legislation, regulations, MedPAC meetings, and more. 

What Can We Expect in Health Care from a Harris Administration v. a Trump Administration?

With less than a month until the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the stakes are high for the future of American health care. Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, and former President Donald Trump returning as the Republican nominee, represent two vastly different visions. Their health care agendas diverge widely regarding philosophy, focus, and implementation. Here’s an overview of the potential health care priorities under a Harris administration versus what a second Trump administration might reintroduce or pursue. 

Kamala Harris: Expanding Access and Building on the ACA 

As Vice President under Joe Biden, candidate Kamala Harris has already shaped and advocated for health care policies aimed at expanding access, affordability, and coverage. If elected, she would likely continue to push forward these priorities, aiming to expand the Affordable Care Act (ACA) while addressing broader health care inequities.  Some key points from her campaign include: 

  1. Protecting and Expanding the ACA
    Harris has reiterated her support for expanding the ACA, which she views as crucial for maintaining health coverage gains made since its passage. Her campaign has emphasized making health care more affordable, particularly by reducing premiums and expanding subsidies under the ACA. 
  2. Lowering Prescription Drug Prices
    Similar to the Biden administration, Harris has highlighted lowering prescription drug prices as a key focus in her campaign. While she hasn’t laid out all specifics, it’s reasonable to assume she would continue advocating for measures like allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices—something Democrats have been pushing for in Congress. 
  3. Public Option Support
    Although Harris has not focused heavily on the Medicare for All Act in the 2024 campaign, she supports offering a public option. This government-run insurance plan would compete with private insurers. This is consistent with her shift during the 2020 Democratic primary when she moved away from fully endorsing Medicare for All to a more moderate position that expanded choice without eliminating private insurance. 
  4. Reproductive Rights & Health Equity
    Harris is vocal about defending reproductive rights, including access to abortion and broader reproductive health services. Given the recent rollback of abortion protections following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Harris promises to take a strong stance on restoring and expanding access to reproductive health care. Expect targeted investments in addressing health care challenges for marginalized communities, including people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and rural populations, as well, given her storied championship of the disproportionate challenges they face. 

Donald Trump: Return to Priorities from First Term 

Former President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign has largely emphasized the need to reverse many Biden-era policies, but his health care agenda is likely to build on the deregulatory approach of his first term. Although Trump has not released a detailed health care platform, based on past actions and statements, we can anticipate the following key points: 

  1. Repealing the ACA
    Trump vows to “repeal and replace” the ACA during his presidential debate with Harris on Sept. 10.  He offers no details on what the replacement would entail, and his campaign continues to explicitly outline any specific replacement plans.  Trump’s administration attempted multiple times to dismantle the ACA, and he may return that effort if re-elected.  He signals that he views the ACA as an overreach of government and has previously called for a replacement focused on privatization and less regulation. 
  2. Medicaid Work Requirements
    During his previous term, Trump supported adding work requirements for Medicaid recipients, a policy consistent with his vision of reducing government dependency. Though his campaign has not spotlighted this yet, work requirements would likely return as part of a broader effort to scale back Medicaid and other entitlement programs if he is re-elected. 
  3. Medicare and Medicaid Reform
    Trump has expressed his opposition to any cuts to Medicare in his 2024 bid for the White House.  Given his previous Administration’s support for Medicare Advantage (MA)It seems likely that a second Trump Administration would not pursue policies to reduce payments to MA plans. That said, bipartisan interest in reforming prior authorization requirements under MA plans may be something Trump could support. Similarly, he could revisit the block grant approach to Medicaid, which would give states more flexibility to set their own rules, often resulting in cuts or stricter eligibility requirements.  This is aligned with what has traditionally been a staple of Republican health policy: the idea that solutions should be market-based and should shrink the federal government’s involvement in health care. 
  4. Prescription Drug Pricing and Transparency
    Trump campaigns on the issue of lowering prescription drug prices, something that cuts across party lines. In his 2024 campaign, he reiterated the importance of forcing pharmaceutical companies to lower prices. He previously introduced the “most favored nation” rule, tying U.S. drug prices to lower prices in other countries. While it is not certain if this specific policy will return, Trump’s emphasis on price transparency and competitive markets is likely to shape his drug price reform efforts. 

Campaign Rhetoric and Broader Trends 

Neither Harris nor Trump have released fully detailed health care platforms for their 2024 campaigns at this point. However, the rhetoric from each campaign aligns closely with their historical stances: 

  • Harris’s health care agenda preserves and expands access, particularly for underserved and vulnerable populations. She positions herself as a defender of the ACA, a champion for reproductive rights, and an advocate for reforms like a public option that expands coverage while controlling costs. 
  • Trump’s health care approach focuses on deregulation, reducing government involvement in health care, and pushing market-driven solutions. He has continued to emphasize reducing drug costs and may revive efforts to roll back the ACA and add Medicaid work requirements. 

Both campaigns are still developing, and as the election nears, specific policy details on health care may emerge. However, the philosophical differences between Harris and Trump are clear: one prioritizes expanding government programs to ensure broader access, while the other seeks to limit the government’s role in health care and encourage private market solutions. 

MedPAC Reviews Home Health

On October 11, 2024, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) held the second day of its October 2024 public meeting. The sessions focused on home health and included discussions of recent changes to the Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment System (PPS) and home health use among Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees.

MedPAC Reviews Home Health

On October 11, 2024, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) held the second day of its October 2024 public meeting. The sessions focused on home health and included discussions of recent changes to the Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment System (PPS) and home health use among Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees.

MedPAC Discusses Nursing Homes and Medicare Advantage

On October 10, 2024, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) discussed issues related to Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes, findings from MedPAC’s annual beneficiary and provider focus group, and supplemental benefits in Medicare Advantage (MA).  Read more about the meeting. 

CDC Funding: A Partisan Divide

In recent years, calls to defund or significantly reduce the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have gained traction among certain Republican factions, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prominent voices within Congress, aligned with former President Donald Trump, have intensified these efforts, advocating for a rethinking of the CDC’s role and funding in public health.    The July 23, 2024, House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing with the CDC Center Directors illustrated the partisan divide, with Republicans doubling down on their concerns that the agency overstepped its bounds during the pandemic and is rife with inefficiencies, and committee Democrats, led by Ranking Member Frank Pallone, defending the role of the agency in responding to global health emergencies. He blasted Republicans for reporting out a partisan Labor-HHS Appropriations bill that reduces the CDC budget by $1.8 billion.   

The following details the arguments for and against maintaining and increasing the budget for the CDC. 

Republican Arguments for Defunding the CDC 

  1. Government Overreach

Many Republicans have argued that the CDC overstepped its authority during the COVID-19 pandemic when the agency enforced policies such as mask mandates and lockdowns. They assert that these decisions should be left to individuals or local governments rather than dictated by federal agencies. 

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has made calls for defunding the CDC due to its overreach during the pandemic. He has criticized the agency for infringing on individual freedoms through mandates on masks and vaccines, suggesting that such decisions should not come from a federal entity. 

During the July 23, 2024, House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) expressed serious concerns over the CDC’s actions during the pandemic. McMorris Rodgers questioned the agency’s authority to impose mandates restricting personal freedoms, echoing the broader Republican argument against what they see as federal overreach in health policy. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has taken her opposition to the CDC further by introducing legislation in 2021 to defund the agency, citing violations of constitutional rights during the pandemic. She maintains this stance, calling for dismantling the CDC to prevent future government overreach. 

  1. Inefficiency and Bureaucracy

Several Republicans have argued that the CDC has become inefficient, suggesting that reducing the agency’s budget would force the agency to focus on its core mission rather than expand into what they view as politically charged areas, like gain of function research. 

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has prioritized advocating for reducing the size of federal agencies, including the CDC, citing inefficiency.  He criticized the CDC during the COVID-19 response, suggesting in 2023 that its bloated bureaucracy prevented the agency from functioning effectively and that budget cuts going forward would help streamline its operations. 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) echoed similar concerns, arguing that unchecked funding leads to inefficiency within large federal agencies like the CDC. In early 2023, Cruz called for greater oversight and budget reductions, noting the CDC’s inconsistent messaging during the pandemic as evidence of poor management. 

  1. Economic and Social Impact

Many Republicans contend that the CDC’s recommendations during the pandemic, such as business closures and stay-at-home orders, caused unnecessary economic harm. They argue that defunding the CDC would prevent similar policies from being implemented in the future. 

In 2023, Sen. Cruz continued to push for budget reductions in the CDC, claiming that the agency’s pandemic policies contributed to significant economic damage, particularly for small businesses. He argued that budget cuts would reduce the CDC’s ability to impose economically harmful measures in the future. 

Sen. Paul has similarly highlighted the negative economic impact of the CDC’s pandemic restrictions. In 2023, he renewed calls for defunding the agency, suggesting that this would prevent the CDC from causing similar disruptions in future health emergencies. 

Democratic Arguments for Maintaining or Increasing CDC Funding 

In contrast, some Democrats argue that defunding the CDC would severely weaken the country’s ability to respond to health emergencies. They contend that the agency’s funding should be maintained or increased to ensure the U.S. remains prepared for future health crises. 

  1. Public Health Protection

Democrats consistently argue that the CDC plays a crucial role in protecting public health, particularly in managing pandemics and responding to bioterrorism threats. They contend that defunding the agency would leave the U.S. vulnerable to future health crises. 

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) has consistently advocated increasing the CDC’s budget. In 2023, she argued that cutting the agency’s funding would leave the country unprepared for future public health emergencies, putting lives at risk. 

  1. Research and Innovation

Democrats emphasize that the CDC is a leader in public health research, including vaccine development and disease surveillance. They argue that defunding the agency would stifle innovation and slow the development of treatments for infectious and chronic diseases. 

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee, has consistently highlighted the CDC’s critical role in public health research. In 2023, she argued that reducing the CDC’s budget would halt progress on key research initiatives essential for preventing future outbreaks. 

  1. Preventing Future Crises

Democrats argue that investing in the CDC now will help prevent costly public health crises in the future. They contend that cutting its budget would increase the likelihood of more frequent and severe outbreaks. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has long argued that public health funding is critical for crisis prevention. In 2023, she warned that defunding the CDC would undermine the country’s ability to detect and respond to emerging health threats. 

  1. Economic and Social Stability

Democrats argue that a well-funded CDC protects public health and supports economic stability. By preventing widespread disease outbreaks, the CDC helps avoid the economic disruption seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has stressed the economic benefits of a robust public health infrastructure. He has pointed out that the CDC’s work in preventing diseases and managing outbreaks keeps people in the workforce and reduces health care costs. He has consistently supported increased funding for the CDC, warning that cuts would put public health and the economy at risk. 

Conclusion 

The debate over CDC funding reflects deep partisan divisions. On one side, Republicans like Sen. Paul and Rep. Taylor Greene argue that the CDC has overreached, is inefficient, and should have its budget reduced or eliminated.  

On the other side, Democrats like Sen. Murray, Rep. DeLauro, and Rep. Pallone argue that the CDC is essential for public health protection, research, and crisis prevention. They warn that defunding the agency would leave the country unprepared for future health emergencies, threatening public safety and national security. 

Further partisan disagreement over CDC funding is likely to continue into the lame duck session and efforts to fund the government in FY 2025.  

Subscribe to Us Now!

Be a DC insider by getting our updates straight to your inbox