GOP Moderates’ Bid To Extend ACA Subsidies Stalls Over Pay‑For Dispute

An effort by House GOP moderates to win a vote on a two‑year extension of enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies has stalled after party leaders and centrists failed to agree on whether the extension must be offset with spending cuts.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R‑Pa.) and other centrist Republicans planned to offer an amendment in the House Rules Committee that would pair a two‑year extension with eligibility reforms, according to a House GOP staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity. House leadership, however, insisted any extension include "pay‑fors" — spending offsets that conservatives say are necessary to avoid adding to the deficit.

Analysts estimate extending the enhanced subsidies would cost at least $35 billion per year, a figure frequently cited by conservative opponents. Moderates rejected leadership’s demand to tie offsets to cuts in mandatory spending unless those offsets were health‑care related, creating an impasse neither side would yield on.

What the Amendment Would Do

The proposed amendment incorporates key provisions from a bill previously introduced by Fitzpatrick and Rep. Jared Golden (D‑Maine), but it omits planned reforms to the pharmacy benefits manager industry. Moderates say the two‑year extension plus eligibility changes would offer near‑term relief for millions of enrollees if adopted.

Where Leadership Stands

Speaker Mike Johnson (R‑La.) has acknowledged moderates’ political concerns about letting subsidies lapse but has not signaled support for advancing a standalone extension without offsets. The broader GOP health care package Johnson released last week would appropriate funds to replace cost‑sharing reductions and expand association health plans, but it would not directly extend the enhanced ACA subsidies set to expire Dec. 31.

Political Stakes And Committee Roadblocks

The Rules Committee, which includes several conservative spending hawks, may block the amendment. If the enhanced subsidies lapse at year‑end, many Americans could face sharply higher premiums early next year — a politically sensitive problem for lawmakers heading into the next election cycle.

“I think leadership was supportive of our efforts to put forth an amendment. Where there was some disagreements was if a pay‑for would be included, or if a pay‑for would not be included,” a GOP staffer said.

“My Democratic colleagues broke health care, and now they are down here saying we must give more money to insurance companies,” Rep. Chip Roy (R‑Texas) said on the House floor. “Any Republican who goes along with that needs to answer for doing the same thing.”

Paths Forward

If the Rules Committee does not advance the amendment, GOP moderates must choose whether to oppose the larger package or pursue alternative routes to force consideration. One option is to build support for discharge petitions designed to compel floor votes: one petition would force action on the Fitzpatrick‑Golden bill; another would push a one‑year extension offered by Reps. Jen Kiggans (R‑Va.) and Josh Gottheimer (D‑N.J.) with more modest eligibility changes. Democrats are also pressing for a discharge petition to advance a three‑year extension and are reportedly only four Republican signatures shy of the 218 required to force action.

What happens next depends on whether moderates can cobble together sufficient support from both parties or whether conservatives hold the line against any extension absent pay‑fors. With time running short before Dec. 31, lawmakers face a fast‑moving clock and significant political pressure to resolve the impasse.

Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved.