Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How did the Biden administration's healthcare policies differ from the Trump administration's regarding Medicaid and Medicare in 2022?
Executive Summary
The analyses attribute Biden-era policy emphasis to expanding Medicaid’s reach and benefits, with multiple studies associating Medicaid expansion with better self-reported health, lower risky behaviors, higher vaccination rates, and reduced mental distress during COVID-19 [1] [2]. By contrast, Trump-era actions focused on Medicaid waivers that enabled work requirements, a policy associated with increased uninsurance and limited or no employment gains in Arkansas and broader waiver critiques [3] [4] [5].
1. What advocates and studies claim happened to Medicaid — expansion showed measurable health gains
Researchers examining Medicaid expansion during the COVID-19 pandemic report improvements in several population health indicators among low-income adults, including better self-assessed health, lower smoking and heavy drinking rates, and higher flu vaccination uptake, implying expansion contributed to narrowing some racial and ethnic disparities in coverage and access [1]. Additional work links expansion to reduced mental distress among people who lost jobs, suggesting the economic security Medicaid provides operates as a buffer during labor-market shocks [2]. These findings are drawn from analyses published in 2022 and 2022–2023 windows, indicating contemporaneous evaluations of expansion’s effects during pandemic-era disruptions [1] [2].
2. Skeptics and reviews urge caution — evidence on disparity reduction is mixed
A scoping review focusing on racial disparities reports that Medicaid expansion may have reduced African American–white coverage gaps, but the evidence is heterogeneous and inconclusive, calling for further research to fully assess impacts on access and clinical outcomes [6]. The review, dated August 30, 2022, highlights variable study designs, differing state contexts, and inconsistent outcome measures as reasons results should be treated cautiously [6]. This nuance matters because policy advocates often cite coverage gains as equivalent to improved health outcomes; the literature suggests coverage increases do not uniformly translate to resolved disparities without complementary access and quality reforms [6].
3. Trump-era waivers and work requirements — policies that correlated with more uninsured people
Analyses and reporting characterize the Trump administration’s approach as favoring Medicaid waivers that permitted states to impose work requirements, an approach that critics argued could terminate coverage for beneficiaries unable to comply and thereby undermine expansion gains [3]. Empirical evaluations from Arkansas — where a work requirement was implemented and then studied — found a significant increase in uninsurance among targeted beneficiaries with no detectable rise in employment, challenging the policy’s stated goals of promoting labor-market attachment or better health via employment [4] [5]. This body of work underscores a consistent association between work-requirement waivers and coverage loss in practice [4] [5].
4. Medicare changes in the period — closing the Part D coverage gap and drug use dynamics
Separately, evaluations related to Medicare Part D trace how policy shifts to close the coverage gap reduced out-of-pocket spending and increased use of branded drugs, reflecting formulary and pricing responses by plans and beneficiaries [7]. A later 2025 analysis of Part D insulin coverage and formulary strategies underscores ongoing tensions as plans navigate policy changes and manufacturer discounts, with coverage design materially affecting beneficiary costs and drug utilization [8]. Together, these studies indicate Biden-era and ACA-era adjustments to Part D altered cost exposure and medication choices for beneficiaries, even as different stakeholders debated long-run affordability and pharmaceutical market responses [7] [8].
5. Where the evidence converges — coverage matters; policy design determines who benefits
Across sources, a consistent pattern emerges: expanding eligibility or reducing cost-sharing is associated with improved coverage and some downstream health or behavioral outcomes, while policies that add administrative barriers tend to increase uninsurance [1] [2] [5]. The studies on Medicaid expansion document mental health and preventive care gains during a period of elevated economic stress [2] [1]. Conversely, work-requirement evaluations show coverage loss without employment gains, indicating that administrative conditionality can undermine intended socioeconomic and health benefits [4] [5]. The Medicare Part D literature shows cost-sharing mechanics shape medication use, with policy reversals affecting out-of-pocket burdens [7] [8].
6. What’s missing from the debate and why policymakers should care about the limits of current evidence
Several reviews emphasize that heterogeneity across states, short follow-up windows, and differing outcome measures limit firm causal claims, leaving open questions about long-term clinical outcomes, cost implications, and distributional effects [6]. Arkansas-focused evaluations are instructive but may not generalize to all waiver implementations; similarly, Part D analyses show utilization shifts without fully answering impacts on health outcomes or total system spending [4] [7]. Policymakers weighing Medicaid expansion versus stricter eligibility conditions should note that coverage gains appear to deliver measurable benefits in crises, while administrative barriers risk reversing those gains without clear societal benefits [1] [2] [5].