Cassidy Pushes $1,500 Health Accounts, Seeks Bipartisan Deal to Lower ACA Deductibles; Urges Faster FDA Review of Mifepristone

The following is an edited and consolidated transcript of Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.) speaking with Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation on Dec. 14, 2025.

On Health-Care Affordability

Margaret Brennan: Your proposal would give Americans up to $1,500 in tax‑free accounts to use for medical expenses instead of extending expiring Affordable Care Act premium subsidies. Both your bill and a competing Democratic measure failed in the Senate, 51–48. Analysts say some ACA subsidy recipients could see costs rise by roughly 114%. Did Republicans move too slowly to offer an alternative?

Sen. Bill Cassidy: We need to focus on affordability in the exchanges. Democrats insist any solution must reduce premiums, but high deductibles—often around $6,000—make many plans effectively catastrophic. That structure helps insurers but leaves patients unable to access care.

Cassidy argues his plan, which would place up to $1,500 per person in tax‑free health accounts, lowers the “net deductible” for families and makes insurance more functional. He used an example of a couple in their 50s with two young adult children: the household could have about $5,000 available across accounts to cover out-of-pocket costs, reducing the immediate financial barrier to care such as an urgent‑care visit for a sprained ankle.

He also cited savings statistics to underscore the need: “About 40% of Americans have less than $1,000 in savings,” making point‑of‑care funds particularly important.

On Bipartisan Negotiations and White House Support

Brennan pressed whether the White House had actively backed Cassidy’s measure. Cassidy said the White House’s earlier proposals contained similar deductible relief and that the administration “appears to be there.” He emphasized that the primary obstacle in Thursday’s votes was Democratic opposition, not Republican unity, and signaled willingness to accept a short‑term extension of premium tax credits for people with high premiums if Democrats will agree to address out‑of‑pocket costs.

On timing, Cassidy said the mechanics of his proposal are straightforward—patients submit receipts and get reimbursed, similar to flexible spending accounts—so implementation could be fast. He suggested there would be administrative leeway into March, but stressed that a bipartisan deal is necessary.

On Mifepristone and FDA Oversight

Brennan also asked about reporting that the FDA has no ongoing safety studies of the abortion drug mifepristone, despite earlier indications a review would take place. Cassidy said he spoke with the FDA commissioner and believes assembling the review has taken longer than expected, creating the impression the work has been slow‑walked.

“For the pro‑life community, this should be a priority,” Cassidy said, adding that public confidence would be strengthened by a clear, timely evidence review. He acknowledged the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has found mifepristone safe with serious side effects in under 1% of patients, but urged the FDA to complete and publish its review promptly. Cassidy said he believes the commissioner is working hard but suspects some actions may reflect directives from higher authorities.

Bottom Line

Cassidy framed his proposal as a practical attempt to reduce barriers to care by putting money directly in patient pockets to meet deductibles, while remaining open to short‑term premium relief for those with high costs—if Democrats will negotiate. He also called for expedited, transparent FDA action on mifepristone to resolve lingering public questions.