What alternatives do nonexpansion states offer for uninsured low-income residents?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Nonexpansion states have created a patchwork of alternatives — expanded subsidies or “fallback” marketplace plans, targeted state programs for specific groups (pregnant people, children, mental-health populations), hospital and charity care investments, and partial or temporary policy tweaks — but these options leave millions in a Medicaid “coverage gap” with less-generous benefits and higher out‑of‑pocket costs than full Medicaid would provide (Commonwealth Fund; Stateline) [1] [2]. Analysts estimate roughly 1.6–2.2 million people in that gap nationally before recent state actions; policy proposals (and some states’ partial fixes) would cover millions more but at substantially higher state cost or with weaker benefit packages than Medicaid (Commonwealth Fund; Stateline; Commonwealth Fund) [2] [1] [3].
1. States’ stopgap: marketplace “fallback” or expanded subsidies — a limited workaround
Several policy proposals and temporary federal actions have aimed to push low‑income residents in nonexpansion states onto marketplace plans by extending premium subsidies or creating a federal “fallback” that makes exchange coverage available to people under 100% of the federal poverty level; proponents argue this narrows the gap and could cover millions, but the plans would have lower actuarial value and narrower benefits than Medicaid, with higher cost‑sharing for enrollees (Commonwealth Fund) [1] [3]. Commonwealth Fund modeling shows one “Option 2” that extends ACA coverage to people below 100% FPL could cover 4.6 million more people in nonexpansion states than current law — but it would not fully replicate Medicaid’s lower cost‑sharing or scope of benefits [1] [3].
2. Targeted state programs: pick‑and‑choose coverage for specific populations
Several holdout states have chosen narrower approaches instead of full expansion: increasing coverage for pregnant people, children, or behavioral‑health populations, or adopting partial expansions that reach specific groups (for example, expansions targeted at pregnant people or mental‑health services), often to protect rural hospitals or key constituencies (New Hampshire Bulletin; NPR) [4] [5]. These targeted measures can help particular communities but leave large swaths of low‑income adults — especially childless adults — uninsured because eligibility thresholds remain far below 100% FPL in many nonexpansion states (Commonwealth Fund) [1].
3. Hospital, charity care and state budget cushions — short‑term relief, long‑term instability
Some nonexpansion states have increased funding to hospitals, safety‑net clinics, and charity care to blunt uncompensated care pressure and shore up rural providers. Lawmakers often justify these investments as lower‑cost alternatives to full expansion, but analyses show they do not replicate the coverage gains, access improvements, or health effects associated with Medicaid expansion and can leave providers still exposed to financial risk (New Hampshire Bulletin; Commonwealth Fund) [4] [1].
4. The size and demographics of the “coverage gap” — who pays the price
Research and reporting put the Medicaid coverage gap at roughly 1.6 million to 2.2 million Americans in nonexpansion states before recent state adoptions of expansion; the gap chiefly affects people of color and residents of Southern states, with a disproportionate impact on childless adults who face no state eligibility except very low, variable parent thresholds (Commonwealth Fund; Stateline) [6] [2]. Studies link expansion to better coverage, access and some health outcomes, so the absence of expansion has measurable population health consequences (PMC; Commonwealth Fund) [7] [6].
5. Political calculus and the trend: expansion pressure is growing
Reporting shows political pressure is mounting on remaining holdouts as states face hospital strain and budget calculations that sometimes favor expansion; several Republican‑led states have shifted or adopted partial expansions, and some governors and legislatures are reconsidering long‑standing opposition (NPR; New Hampshire Bulletin) [5] [4]. Yet the tradeoffs remain explicit: full expansion brings higher enrollment and federal funds but requires a state match and carries political costs; piecemeal fixes or marketplace workarounds require different state budgets and deliver weaker benefits (Commonwealth Fund; NPR) [1] [5].
6. What analysts say about “filling the gap” — cost, coverage and equity tradeoffs
Policy analysts emphasize two truths: filling the gap on marketplaces or via partial programs can reduce uninsurance but costs and benefits differ sharply from Medicaid; and the most direct path to comprehensive coverage is full ACA expansion because it offers a more generous federal match and broader benefits. Commonwealth Fund modeling shows creative marketplace or subsidy options would cover millions more but with higher state costs per person and lower actuarial value than Medicaid, while leaving health‑equity concerns unresolved [1] [3].
Limitations: available sources do not provide a single updated national count for 2025 of people remaining in the coverage gap after recent state policy changes; nor do they detail every state’s current stopgap programs in full (not found in current reporting). All factual assertions above cite the sources that discuss these alternatives and their documented tradeoffs [1] [3] [2] [7] [4] [5] [6].