President Trump proposes ‘Trumpcare’ to replace Obamacare
President Donald Trump proposed a new health insurance plan on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle,” promising lower premiums and more control for consumers.
A White House report says Americans who get health insurance through their workplaces would pay less for their health care if anticompetitive deals between hospitals and health insurance companies were banned.
The federal government has sued two major hospital systems alleging such anticompetitive dealings. In separate antitrust lawsuits in 2026, the Justice Department accused hospital systems NewYork-Presbyterian and OhioHealth of using their market positions to force health insurers to eliminate lower-cost competitors.
In a new report, White House officials detailed the savings that could accrue if the federal government banned such anticompetitive contracts. A report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers found that monthly premiums for workplace insurance plans would fall by 6.5%, resulting in annual savings of about $1,755 per family and $606 per individual.
The report estimates that hospital prices would fall by 18% in cities affected by anti-competitive deals. Such a ban would save approximately $4,100 per patient admitted to hospitals where such contact requirements were eliminated.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers released the report as the Trump administration seeks to counter Democratic attacks on health care affordability.
Democrats blame Congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump for allowing enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire this year, making ACA health insurance more expensive for some people with marketplace plans. More than 5 million people are expected to lose Medicaid coverage by 2034 due to work requirements and other changes to federal and state programs for low-income families, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.
But White House officials say the report sheds light on how the administration is addressing affordability. Instead of spending taxpayer money on subsidies to reduce out-of-pocket costs for consumers, officials are targeting higher prices charged by hospitals, drug companies, and other health care companies.
President Trump also sought to pressure drug companies to lower prescription drug prices through most-favored-nation agreements. The Trump administration also launched TrumpRx, a direct-to-consumer website that lists discounted prescription drugs.
The Trump administration has not adopted rules or supporting legislation prohibiting anticompetitive contracts. But officials expect the Justice Department’s lawsuits against two high-profile hospital systems will garner the attention of hospital industry leaders.
“If the public understands that the Justice Department is taking this issue very seriously, we can expect it to have a ripple effect,” a White House official said.
On June 16, the Department of Justice filed a proposed settlement with the Ohio Department of Health that would prohibit the Ohio Health System from entering into terms with health insurance companies that would thwart budget-friendly plans.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement that the settlement is “another example of how the Department of Justice is lowering health care costs for consumers and fighting the anti-competitive practices that drove them up in the first place.”
Vivian Ho, an economist at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, said the Justice Department’s lawsuit against large hospital systems is “a huge step in the right direction toward lowering health care prices.”
He said employers have generally been slow to steer workers toward lower-cost health care options, but said removing anticompetitive language from hospital and insurance company contracts would help employers do so.
How do hospital contracts raise prices for consumers?
A White House report details how behind-the-scenes negotiations between hospitals and health insurance companies can raise prices for consumers.
The report highlights three practices that hospitals with dominant market positions use to prevent or limit competition from lower-cost providers.
∎ Anti-steering provisions prevent health insurance companies from steering patients to lower-cost providers.
∎ Anti-tiering language in contracts forces insurers to place major hospitals in the most advantageous cost-sharing tiers of insurance plans. Such a move could limit efforts by employers and insurers to encourage consumers to choose lower-cost hospitals.
∎ All-or-Nothing contracts require insurers to include all hospitals and physicians of a major health system as part of the insurance plan’s network, or none at all. Such provisions could prevent competing hospitals from attracting enough patients to compete properly, the report said.
The report estimates that about 24 percent of Americans with employer health insurance plans live in areas where major hospitals have such agreements. The report said the contract terms had a “measurable impact” on health insurance premiums.
The report estimates that if these contract clauses were banned, employers and consumers could save about $45 billion in insurance premiums each year. Insurance premiums increase depending on the total medical expenses.
Those savings would likely be passed on to workers through lower insurance premium deductions or higher wages.
