📋 Key Takeaways
🎯 Overview
HR 6703 passed the House 216-211 on December 17 and would reduce the deficit by $35.6 billion over 2026-2035, but it deliberately avoids extending the enhanced ACA subsidies that expire December 31, 2025. The bill pursues a market-oriented alternative: expanding association health plans for small businesses, creating employer-funded individual market arrangements, and mandating pharmacy benefit manager transparency. Over 20 million Americans face premium increases—more than double on average—when enhanced subsidies expire, yet this legislation offers no immediate relief. The political tension is stark: Republicans frame it as structural reform to lower premiums through competition, while Democrats and consumer advocates view it as abandoning millions facing immediate cost spikes. The surprising angle: CBO estimates the bill would force 300,000 Americans per year off health insurance through 2035 despite its title promising lower premiums for all.
---
🔧 What the Bill Actually Does
Allows small businesses and self-employed workers to form cross-industry health insurance pools. Association health plans can span multiple states and industries, bypassing traditional small group market rules, with coverage starting in 2026.
Permits employers to fund employees' individual market insurance instead of offering group plans. These "CHOICE arrangements" let employers contribute different amounts based on age (up to 300% variation), employment status, and geography—shifting insurance selection and risk to workers.
Strips states of authority to regulate stop-loss insurance for self-insured plans. Federal preemption removes state power to set minimum attachment points, enabling smaller employers to self-insure with minimal risk retention.
Requires pharmacy benefit managers to disclose drug-by-drug pricing, rebates, and spread pricing. Large employers get detailed reports showing the difference between what PBMs charge plans and what they pay pharmacies, effective 30 months after enactment.
Permanently funds ACA cost-sharing reduction payments starting in 2027, but prohibits using these funds for any health plan covering abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment—a major expansion of Hyde Amendment restrictions.
---
⚖️ Winners and Losers
Winners:
✅ Small businesses and self-employed workers — Access to group purchasing power through association health plans; potential premium reductions through risk pooling
✅ Younger, healthier workers — Lower premiums in association plans and individual markets if they separate from broader risk pools
✅ Large employers — Unprecedented transparency into PBM pricing and rebate structures; leverage for better negotiations
✅ Stop-loss insurers — Explicit federal preemption opens market for smaller employer self-insurance
✅ Employers seeking benefit flexibility — Can shift to defined contribution model via CHOICE arrangements; vary contributions by worker class
Losers:
❌ Older workers and those with health conditions — Association plans can use actuarial adjustments that effectively price based on employer risk profiles; 300% age-based variation in CHOICE arrangements
❌ ACA marketplace enrollees — No subsidy extension; premiums could more than double with average increases of $1,000 per person
❌ Part-time and hourly workers — Employers can offer lower CHOICE arrangement contributions to these classes compared to salaried workers
❌ State insurance regulators — Loss of authority over association health plans and stop-loss insurance; reduced consumer protection tools
❌ Women seeking abortion coverage — Federal cost-sharing funds cannot support plans with abortion coverage, potentially reducing plan availability
---
⚠️ Surprising Provisions & Common Misconceptions
• The "actuarial adjustment" loophole contradicts non-discrimination promises. While the bill prohibits discrimination based on individual health status, it explicitly allows association health plans to adjust premiums for employer members based on "the specific risk profile of each employer member"—meaning companies with sicker workforces pay more. This creates backdoor medical underwriting at the group level.
• CHOICE arrangements could make coverage unaffordable for older workers despite employer contributions. The 300% age-based variation cap far exceeds the ACA individual market's 3:1 ratio. A 64-year-old could receive three times the contribution of a 21-year-old, but individual market premiums for older adults often exceed this differential, leaving them worse off than in traditional group coverage.
• PBM transparency has a major disclosure loophole. The bill allows PBMs to place "reasonable restrictions" on public disclosure of proprietary information. If PBMs prevent plans from sharing pricing data with competitors or using it for competitive bidding, the information asymmetry that enables excessive spread pricing persists—transparency without teeth.
• The abortion funding restriction is far broader than current law. Unlike the Hyde Amendment which applies to direct federal spending, this provision prohibits cost-sharing reduction payments to any qualified health plan offering abortion coverage. This could force insurers to create separate plans or eliminate abortion coverage entirely from marketplace offerings.
---
📊 Fact Sheet (Backers, Opposition, Context)
Key sponsors/backers: • Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA-1), sponsor • House Republican leadership (Speaker Mike Johnson) • Codifies Trump Administration's 2019 HRA Rule and 2018 Association Health Plan Rules
Major supporters (industries or groups): • Small business organizations (access to group purchasing) • Americans for Tax Reform (market-oriented reforms) • Stop-loss insurance carriers (federal preemption) • Conservative health policy groups (Paragon Health Institute)
Who opposes it: • National Education Association and labor unions (no immediate subsidy relief) • Consumer health advocacy groups (risk pool fragmentation concerns) • State insurance commissioners (loss of regulatory authority) • Democrats (abortion restrictions and lack of subsidy extension)
Related bills or negotiations: • Four moderate Republicans signed Democratic discharge petition forcing January vote on three-year subsidy extension • Senate Republicans proposed competing health savings account approach in December (failed) • Four Senate Republicans (Collins, Murkowski, Sullivan, Hawley) voted with Democrats on subsidy extension
---
🔮 What's Next
Current status: Bill faces uncertain future in Senate, where it would need support from several Democrats to pass
Immediate timeline pressure: Enhanced ACA subsidies expire December 31, 2025, with Congress having adjourned for the year on December 19. The bill provides no relief for marketplace enrollees facing dramatic cost increases in just weeks.
Next procedural steps: • Senate consideration in January 2025, requiring 60 votes to overcome filibuster • House discharge petition forces vote on three-year subsidy extension expected week of January 5 • Senator Collins suggests bipartisan negotiations for "reforms plus a two-year extension" • President Trump proposed alternative: sending money directly to Americans through health care accounts, letting subsidies expire
Political reality: Bill faces long odds due to Democratic opposition to abortion restrictions, Republican divisions, and Senate procedural hurdles. Even if HR 6703 stalls, association health plan and PBM transparency provisions could resurface in broader reconciliation package or bipartisan compromise that includes subsidy extension.