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 Trump's executive orders propose to expand access to association health plans and short-term plans for Medicare beneficiaries?
Executive summary
Trump’s executive orders in 2025 aimed to expand private-plan options for Medicare beneficiaries by directing agencies to make regulatory and policy changes that broaden access to Medicare Advantage and related private plans, while also encouraging more flexible supplemental and telehealth benefits [1] [2]. The administration’s broader health agenda paired these moves with orders to roll back some Biden-era CMMI payment models and to promote alternatives such as association health plans and short‑term limited‑duration coverage in other parts of the insurance market, though the executive orders’ direct effect on traditional Medicare enrollment rules is limited and implementation details remain unresolved [3] [4].
1. What the orders said: push toward private-plan options for seniors
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized rules described as advancing Trump’s executive orders to “Protecting and Improving Medicare for Our Nation’s Seniors,” which increase telehealth access, expand the types of supplemental benefits that Medicare Advantage (MA) plans can offer, and make MA more available in rural areas and for people with end‑stage renal disease—actions the administration framed as expanding MA and private-plan access for beneficiaries [1].
2. Association health plans and short‑term plans: where the coverage comes from
Available sources show the administration has sought to expand private plan choices broadly across the insurance market—this includes initiatives favoring association health plans (AHPs) and short‑term limited‑duration plans in non‑Medicare markets—by rolling back prior regulations that limited such options under the Affordable Care Act framework; however, the specific executive orders’ text tying AHPs/short‑term plans directly to Medicare beneficiaries is not detailed in the provided reporting [4] [3]. In other words, moves to loosen rules for AHPs and short‑term plans have been part of the broader agenda, but explicit mechanisms for applying those plan types to Medicare are not described in available sources [4].
3. Administrative levers used: directives, CMS rules, and CMMI rollbacks
The administration used executive orders to direct HHS and CMS to pursue regulatory changes and to rescind or pause Biden-era initiatives developed by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). Some orders instructed agencies to reconsider or stop CMMI models intended to change Medicare/Medicaid payment and benefit designs; commentators note this makes the executive actions appear more symbolic and regulatory than immediately substantive, and it leaves significant implementation questions about how new private‑plan expansions will be operationalized [3] [5].
4. Practical effects and limits for Medicare beneficiaries
Reporting emphasizes that while the orders expand administrative authority and signal policy direction—especially toward expanding MA supplemental benefits and telehealth—key statutory features of traditional Medicare (eligibility, basic benefit structure) remain governed by law, so executive actions can change regulations and models but cannot, by themselves, convert Medicare into an association‑plan framework [1] [3]. Analysts caution that rescinded CMMI directives and regulatory shifts may not immediately alter out‑of‑pocket costs for most seniors and that some measures are largely preparatory for later rulemaking [4].
5. Competing perspectives: supporters’ claims vs. critics’ warnings
Supporters framed the moves as increasing choice and innovation—expanding MA options, supplemental benefits, and telehealth to give seniors more plan options and services [1]. Critics and independent analysts warned that reversing Biden‑era payment and model experiments could slow efforts to reduce drug costs and test value‑based approaches for beneficiaries, and that executive orders reversing prior rules may be more symbolic than decisive until concrete regulations and statutory changes follow [3] [6].
6. What reporting does not say or is still uncertain
Available sources do not mention detailed, finalized regulatory pathways that would explicitly allow Medicare beneficiaries to enroll in association health plans or short‑term limited‑duration plans as a direct substitute for Medicare; the materials instead describe broader regulatory pushes, CMS rule changes for MA, and rescissions of CMMI models—leaving the precise legal mechanisms and expected enrollment impacts “to be determined” through subsequent rulemaking and potential legislation [4] [3].
7. Bottom line for readers
The executive orders and accompanying CMS activity signal a clear policy preference for expanding private‑plan options and regulatory flexibility (MA supplemental benefits, telehealth, rural MA access), and they include broader market‑level deregulatory moves that have favored association and short‑term plans elsewhere in the insurance system; however, concrete adoption of AHPs or short‑term plans as Medicare options is not documented in the reporting provided, and many effects depend on follow‑on rulemaking and statutory constraints [1] [4] [3].