The Trump administration had planned to roll out new regulations on August 25 that would have significantly altered how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is implemented, ultimately resulting in millions of Americans losing their health insurance coverage. However, those rules will not take effect because a federal judge in Maryland sided with a coalition of doctors and small businesses that sued to block the changes. The plaintiffs argued that the administration’s rules would make it harder for people to access ACA coverage while stripping away important protections designed to ensure comprehensive and affordable care.
In his decision, the Maryland judge emphasized that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that Americans continue to have access to affordable healthcare, noting that expanding coverage and lowering costs was the core objective of the ACA. He cited NFIB v. Sebelius, in which the U.S. Supreme Court explained that the ACA’s primary purpose was “to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care.” The judge underscored that removing coverage for an estimated 1.8 million people would not only drive up insurance premiums for those who remain insured but also significantly lower the quality of care available to those who would be left uninsured a result that is undeniably contrary to the public interest.
The administration itself acknowledged in the Federal Register that the rule would likely result in decreased coverage and higher costs, yet defended the changes by claiming they were necessary to address program integrity and fraud prevention concerns. The court agreed that reducing fraud and safeguarding taxpayer funds are legitimate priorities but concluded that these interests do not outweigh the harm that would result from implementing the rule. The judge found the proposed regulation to be deeply flawed because its primary effect would be to disenroll large numbers of Americans from their health plans under the guise of cracking down on fraud, ultimately undermining the very goals of the ACA.
