¶ Overview
- Van Drew voted for a bill that would kick 17 million Americans off their health insurance, including nearly 12 million Americans off of Medicaid. More than 30,000 New Jerseyans in his district could lose their health coverage as a result of his votes, a hospital in New Jersey was forced to cancel an expansion in anticipation of lost funds, and the New Jersey Health Administration warned of potential hospital closures due to the cuts.
¶ Van Drew Voted To Kick More Than 30,000 Of His Constituents And Nearly 12 Million Americans Off Medicaid
¶ Van Drew Voted Three Times To Take Health Coverage From New JERSEYANS
¶ July 2025: Van Drew Voted For The Final Version Of Republicans’ Reconciliation Bill
7/3/25: Van Drew Voted For The Senate FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Cut Medicaid And Other Social Programs To Offset The Bill’s Costs. In July 2025, Van Drew voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill that would permanently extend nearly $4 trillion in expiring individual and business tax cuts, create several new tax breaks and fund border and immigration enforcement and air traffic control upgrades. It would cut Medicaid and other safety net programs to partly offset the cost. Among other provisions, it would raise the statutory debt ceiling by $5 trillion and appropriate more than $448 billion in mandatory funding for Trump administration priorities and other needs, including $153 billion for defense, $89 billion for immigration enforcement, and $89.5 billion for border control and security. It also would increase the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 annually for five years for households making up to $500,000 a year until 2030, when it would permanently revert to $10,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 218 to 214. [House Vote 190, 7/3/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/3/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- HEADLINE: "At Least 17 Million Americans Would Lose Insurance Under Trump Plan" [Washington Post, 7/1/25]
- The Congressional Budget Office Estimated That 11.8 Million People Would Become Uninsured As A Result Of The Medicaid Cuts In Republicans’ Reconciliation Bill. According to the Washington Post, "The bill, which narrowly passed the Senate on Tuesday and now heads back to the House, would effectively accomplish what Republicans have long failed to do: unwind many of the key components of the ACA, President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement, which dramatically increased the number of Americans with access to health insurance. To start, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate version of the bill would result in 11.8 million more uninsured in 2034, mostly because of Medicaid cuts, compared with 10.9 million if the House version became law." [Washington Post, 7/1/25]
¶ May 2025: Van Drew Voted For House Republicans’ Budget Bill, Which Would Kick Millions Of People Off Medicaid
5/22/25: Van Drew Voted For The FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Included $3.8 Trillion In Tax Cuts Offset By $1.5 Trillion In Spending Reductions To Programs Like Medicaid And The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In May 2025, Van Drew voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would provide for approximately $3.8 trillion in net tax cuts and $321 billion in military, border enforcement and judiciary spending, offset by $1.5 trillion in spending reductions, as instructed in the fiscal 2025 budget resolution (H Con Res 14). It would raise the statutory debt limit by $4 trillion and provide for increased spending on defense and border security, spending cuts on social safety net programs, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It also includes a mix of tax breaks for businesses and individuals; tax increases on universities and foundations; and a phase-down of clean energy tax credits. […] It would reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by requiring states to shoulder more of the cost, expand work requirements for SNAP, extend programs authorized under the 2018 farm bill, and prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Program. As amended, it would cap state and local tax deductions at $40,000 for households with incomes below $500,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 215 to 214. [House Vote 145, 5/22/25; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- The House GOP Budget Bill Was Estimated To Increase The Uninsured Population By 8.6 Million By 2034. According to CNN, “The Medicaid and Affordable Care Act provisions in the package could result in 8.6 million more people being uninsured in 2034, according to an early CBO estimate released by Democratic lawmakers. That number is expected to grow with the latest changes.” [CNN, 5/28/25]
- The House GOP Budget Bill Codified A Trump Administration Proposal That Restricted Access To The Affordable Care Act. According to CNN, “The bill also calls for codifying a Trump administration proposal that would make changes to the Affordable Care Act enrollment process, including shortening the open enrollment period and eliminating the ability of low-income Americans to sign up year-round.” [CNN, 5/28/25]
¶ February 2025: Van Drew Voted For A Budget Resolution That Spelled Out Future Medicaid Cuts But Claimed It Didn’t
2/25/25: Van Drew Voted For The FY 2025 Budget Framework That Included $2 Trillion In Cuts, Raised The Statutory Debt Limit By $4 Trillion, And Required House Committees To Recommend Legislation That Would Implement Trump’s Agenda. In February 2025, Van Drew voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the concurrent resolution that would recommend a budget for fiscal 2025 and budget levels through fiscal 2034. The resolution would assume minimum savings of $1.5 trillion over 10 years and 2.6 percent economic growth over the same period. It also would require the statutory debt limit to be raised by $4 trillion. It also would authorize the House Ways and Means Committee to increase deficits by $4.5 trillion over 10 years to extend the 2017 tax cuts and implement new tax cuts proposed by the White House. It also would provide instructions for the budget reconciliation process through which separate legislation could be considered and passed in the Senate via a simple majority vote. The measure would deliver instructions to 11 House committees to report legislation that would implement President Donald Trump’s agenda, such as expanding tax cuts and bolstering border security and immigration enforcement. The committees would be required to report their legislative recommendations to the House Budget Committee by March 27, 2025. It also would set a $2 trillion target for the spending cuts to be submitted to the House Budget Committee. The resolution also would stipulate that if the committees don't reach that target, the Ways and Means’ reconciliation instructions to increase the deficit by a maximum of $4.5 trillion would be decreased by the amount the other committees come in below the target. Similarly, it would stipulate that Ways and Means could increase the deficit above the $4.5 trillion level by the amount of savings the committees achieve above the $2 trillion target.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 217 to 215. [House Vote 50, 2/25/25; Congressional Quarterly, 2/25/25; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 14]
- HEADLINE: “What Can House Republicans Cut Instead Of Medicaid? Not Much.” [New York Times, 2/25/25]
- HEADLINE: "House Republican Budget Takes Away Health Care, Food Aid To Pay For Expanded Tax Cuts For Wealthy" [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/21/25]
- New York Times Reported The $880 Billion In Cuts Required By The Republican Budget Proposal Would Have To Come From Medicaid, Medicare, Or CHIP. According to the New York Times, "The budget resolution itself is silent on whether Congress cuts Medicaid, which provides health coverage to 72 million poor and disabled Americans. But it instructs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the program, to cut spending by $880 billion over the next decade. If the committee can’t save at least that much, the entire effort could be imperiled because of the special process Congress is using to avoid a Senate filibuster. Ten other committees have their own instructions to follow, though none have been assigned with cutting nearly as much. It’s not so simple as finding the cuts elsewhere. The special process, known as budget reconciliation, means Republicans will have to find all $880 billion from within the Energy and Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction. That leaves them with fewer options than one might think. […] If Republicans want to avoid major cuts to Medicaid, the largest pot of available money is in the other big government health insurance program: Medicare. […] Even if the committee cuts everything that’s not health care to $0, it will still be more than $600 billion short. The committee could also save around $200 billion by eliminating the Children’s Health Insurance Program, but that option has not been raised by the budget committee or anyone in House leadership. […] Even if all of these cuts, revenues and rule cancellations from outside health care can pass muster, the committee will still be left with hundreds of billions of dollars to cut to hit its goal. Mathematically, the budget committee’s instructions mean the committee would need to make major cuts to either Medicare, Medicaid or both." [New York Times, 2/25/25]
¶ More Than 30,000 New Jerseyans In The Second Congressional District Could Lose Health Coverage A Result Of Van Drew’s Votes
An Estimated 30,294 People In Van Drew’s District On The Affordable Care Act And Medicaid Were Set To Lose Coverage Due To Republican Budget Bill Health Care Cuts. According to the Joint Economic Committee,
[Joint Economic Committee, Viewed 10/22/25]
2023: 174,600 New Jerseyans In The 2nd Congressional District Were Enrolled In Medicaid Or CHIP. According to the Center for American Progress,
[Center for American Progress, 3/11/25]
¶ Van Drew’s votes caused problems for new jersey hospitals
Van Drew Bragged About Saving A New Jersey Program That Allowed Certain Counties To Funnel Federal Funding To Local Hospitals, But That Very Program Was Estimated To Lose $800 Million In Funding As A Result Of The Republican Budget Bill. According to Gothamist, “New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew has been touting how he worked with President Donald Trump and his Senate colleagues to preserve a New Jersey program that allows certain counties to direct millions in federal funding to local hospitals each year — even as his fellow Republicans cut $1 trillion from Medicaid. ‘New Jersey hospitals were at risk of being left behind,’ Van Drew said in a statement the day before Trump signed the cuts into law. ‘I made it clear to congressional leadership that I would not accept any legislation that did not correct this issue.’ But under Trump’s new tax law, federal spending on New Jersey’s County Option tax program is now scheduled to ramp down between fiscal year 2028 and 2032. According to an analysis by the New Jersey Department of Human Services, roughly $800 million dollars in federal funding will be lost by 2032.” [Gothamist, 8/1/25]
- The Republican Budget Bill Also Limited The Number Of Hospitals That Could Apply For The Program, Which Provided Funding To Hospitals That Served Lower-Income Individuals. According to Gothamist, “New Jersey’s County Option program is limited to hospitals that serve a significant number of lower-income residents, aiming to boost Medicaid funding where presumably it’s needed the most. The loss of funding to the program raises questions about whether Van Drew –- who represents a district where 20% of the population rely on Medicaid – is truly fulfilling his promise that he wouldn’t support legislation that targeted vulnerable people’s health care. Van Drew’s office did not respond to questions about the funding diminishing over time. Hospitals in 14 New Jersey counties are currently eligible under the program. Eligible hospitals pay a fee to the county and get their federal Medicaid reimbursements boosted in return. Trump’s bill places a limit on the amount that hospitals can be reimbursed under this program.” [Gothamist, 8/1/25]
Bergen New Bridge Hospital In New Jersey Paused Plans To Construct A New Ambulatory Care Center Due To Funding Uncertainties Caused By The Republican Budget Bill. According to the New York Times, “In interviews, officials at these urban hospitals described scrambling to plan service cuts and hiring freezes and to shelve capital projects and basic repairs, even with most of the law’s Medicaid cuts still a year or more away. Many will at minimum close departments, like obstetrics and behavioral health programs. Lurking behind the plans were the worst-case fears that hospitals could close. […] Scripps Mercy Hospital in San Diego won’t be able to make renovations to meet a coming state deadline for hospitals to be able to remain fully operational after an earthquake. UMass Memorial Medical Center in Worcester, Mass., has already closed the state’s only drug detox program for adolescents. Bergen New Bridge Medical Center in New Jersey has paused plans for a new ambulatory care center. University Hospital in Newark expects to divert scarce resources to hire more financial counselors to help patients navigate the coming changes to Medicaid.” [New York Times, 11/18/25]
The New Jersey Health Administration Estimated The State’s Medicaid Program Would Lose $3.3 Billion, Which Would “Strain State Programs” And Could Even Lead To Hospital Closures. According to New Jersey Business Magazine, “The law’s most drastic changes target Medicaid and its beneficiaries. NJHA projects New Jersey will lose $3.3 billion in this critical safety net program, and we expect a chain reaction that will strain state programs, including charity care. The federal cuts also will hit Medicare and SNAP, and we await Congressional action on Affordable Care Act premium subsidies. At this juncture, we are assessing the total economic loss and downstream impact on our patients and providers. Up until this legislation, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was the largest healthcare funding cut in a generation, with $120 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts nationally. That law plunged more than half of NJ hospitals into the red. Some closed their doors for good.” [New Jersey Business Magazine, 7/29/25]
¶ Van Drew Opposed The Affordable Care Act And Voted Against Extending Critical Health Care Tax Credits
¶ Van drew called the affordable care act a “failed experiment” and effectively called to repeal it
December 2025: Van Drew Called The Affordable Care Act A “Failed Experiment,” A “Breeding Ground For Fraud” And Called To Effectively Repeal The Program. Rep. Jeff Van Drew tweeted, “The ACA was a failed experiment. It became a breeding ground for fraud: fake people getting approved, dead people enrolled, and billions of taxpayer dollars wasted. We need a better, honest system, with a clear plan to protect Americans during the transition.” [Twitter, @Congressman_JVD, 12/10/25] (video)
¶ Van Drew Voted Three Times Against Extending ACA Premium Tax Credits For Three Years
1/8/26: Van Drew Voted Against Extending The Affordable Care Act Tax Credits For Three Years. In January 2026, Van Drew voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill, as amended, that would extend for three years, through the end of calendar year 2028, the enhanced tax credits to subsidize premiums for health insurance purchased on the Affordable Health Care Act health insurance markets. It would allow taxpayers whose household income exceeds 400 percent of the federal poverty line to receive tax credits for three more years. The measure would retroactively take effect Jan. 1, 2026.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 230 to 196. [House Vote 11, 1/8/26; Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/26; Congressional Actions. H.R. 1834]
- 17 Republicans Voted For Passage Of The “Clean” Extension, Following A Procedural Vote The Day Before That Had Support From Nine Republicans. According to Politico, “Seventeen Republicans joined Democrats in passing legislation Thursday that would revive enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for three years, rebuffing opposition from GOP leadership. The 230-196 vote follows a procedural vote Wednesday to advance the bill, where nine Republicans joined Democrats in favor of moving forward.” [Politico, 1/8/26]
- Speaker Johnson Called The Bill “Really Bad Policy” And Said He Wished That Not Everyone Had A Vote. According to Politico, “Johnson’s office, in a last-ditch effort Thursday morning to undermine the effort, blasted out a memo accusing ‘Democrats [of] want[ing] to expand a COVID subsidy system already flagged for massive fraud and abuse, with absolutely zero reforms.’ After the vote Thursday evening, Johnson said in an interview of the Republicans who defected, ‘I think it’s a really bad policy, and I wish they hadn’t, but everybody had a vote.’” [Politico, 1/8/26]
1/8/26: Van Drew Effectively Voted Against Extending The Affordable Care Act Tax Credits. In January 2026, Van Drew voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “adoption of the rule (H Res 780) providing for consideration of the bill (HR 1834). It would consider as adopted the McGovern, D-Mass., substitute amendment that would extend, through 2028, the enhanced tax credits to subsidize premiums for health insurance purchased on the Affordable Health Care Act health insurance markets. The rule would direct the clerk to transmit to the Senate a message that the House has passed HR 1834 no later than one calendar day after passage.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 224 to 202. [House Vote 10, 1/8/26; Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/26; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 780; Congressional Actions. H.R. 1834]
1/7/26: Van Drew Effectively Voted Against Extending The Affordable Care Act Tax Credit. In January 2026, Van Drew voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to discharge from the House Rules Committee the rule (H Res 780) providing for consideration of the anticipated ACA tax credit extension vehicle (HR 1834).” The vote was on the motion to discharge the rule. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 221 to 205. [House Vote 4, 1/7/26; Congressional Quarterly, 1/7/26; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 780; Congressional Actions. H.R. 1834]
¶ Van Drew’s Inaction Created A Dramatic “Subsidy Cliff”
The Expiration Of Enhanced ACA Premium Tax Credits Created A “Subsidy Cliff” Whereby If Households Earned Even $1 More Than A Specific Income Threshold They Could Lose All Eligibility For Assistance. According to CNBC, "For the first time in years, many Americans enrolled in a health insurance plan via the Affordable Care Act marketplace will need to keep a careful accounting of their annual income — or risk a hefty federal tax bill. Enhanced ACA subsidies lapsed at the end of 2025, leaving millions of households on the hook for higher insurance premiums. The lapse also reintroduced the so-called subsidy cliff, whereby households that earn even $1 more than a specific income threshold will lose all eligibility for subsidies, also known as premium tax credits. That income cutoff, which varies by family size, is $62,600 for a single person, $84,600 for a two-person household and $128,600 for a family of four in 2026, for example." [CNBC, 1/6/26]
- More Than Two Million Americans Had Incomes Near A “Subsidy Cliff.” According to CNBC, "More than 2 million people enrolled in an ACA marketplace plan have an income near the subsidy cliff. ACA enrollees also tend to have relatively volatile incomes, making it hard to predict their annual earnings, experts said." [CNBC, 1/6/26]
Households That Went Over The Income Limit Would Have To Pay Back Any Federal Assistance They Received For Premiums, Which Could Cost Thousands Of Dollars, When They Filed Their Taxes. According to CNBC, "Households over the limit would have to pay back any federal subsidies they received for premiums — potentially worth thousands of dollars — when they file taxes next year for 2026." [CNBC, 1/6/26]
Republicans’ Big Beautiful Bill Exacerbated The Problem By Stripping Away Guardrails Capping The Amount Of Excess Subsidies Households Are Required To Repay. According to CNBC, "The potential financial impact is exacerbated by a multitrillion-dollar legislative package known as the ‘big beautiful bill’ that Republicans passed over the summer, which stripped away guardrails capping the amount of excess subsidies households must repay, experts said." [CNBC, 1/6/26]
¶ 22 Million Americans Relied On ACA Premium Tax Credits To Afford Health Insurance
Approximately 22 Million Americans Relied On ACA Premium Tax Credits To Afford Health Insurance. According to CNBC, "About 22 million Americans received premium subsidies, also known as premium tax credits, in 2025. Households can opt to receive the tax credit in one of two ways: As a lump sum during tax season or as an advanced payment. Under the latter option, by far the most popular, the federal government issues the tax credit directly to a consumer’s insurer, which then lowers the consumer’s out-of-pocket premium. Consumers receive those advanced ACA subsidies based on an estimated annual income they provide when signing up for insurance. They must reconcile those subsidies during tax season and repay any excess tax credits to the IRS." [CNBC, 1/6/26]
¶ Van Drew voted for a bill that would weaken protections for people with pre-existing conditions and failed to address premium spikes
¶ December 2025: Van Drew Voted For The Lower Health Care Premiums For All Americans Act
2025: Van Drew Voted For The Lower Health Care Premiums For All Americans Act That Allowed The ACA Tax Credits To Expire. In December 2025, Van Drew voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would expand the ability of small businesses to establish association health plans and bars states from preventing small businesses from obtaining stop-loss insurance for self-funded health insurance plans. It would codify and expand rules governing employer-funded health reimbursement arrangements and would allow employees in such arrangements to pay Affordable Care Act health insurance premiums through salary reductions. It would provide funding for ACA policy cost sharing reduction payments that reduce deductibles and copayments. It would prohibit plans from providing abortion-related care. It also would require pharmacy benefit managers to provide transparency regarding prescription drug costs and the drug rebates they receive.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 216 to 211. [House Vote 349, 12/17/25; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6703]
¶ The Lower Health Care Premiums For All Americans Act Did Nothing To Address The Expiration Of ACA Enhanced Premium Tax Credits And Would Weaken Protections For People With Pre-Existing Conditions
The December 2025 Republican Health Care Bill Failed To Prevent Imminent Premium Spikes For More Than 20 Million People Who Relied On ACA Marketplace Plans. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The health bill House Republicans are preparing to bring to the floor this week not only fails to prevent imminent premium spikes for more than 20 million people in marketplace plans, but would raise costs even higher for many marketplace enrollees and weaken pre-existing condition protections for individuals and small businesses." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/16/25]
- HEADLINE: "House Republicans Pass Health Care Plan Without Re-Upping Insurance Subsidies" [Politico, 12/17/25]
- HEADLINE: "House Passes GOP Health Bill Without Subsidies" [Axios, 12/17/25]
- HEADLINE: "House Passes GOP Health Care Bill Without Obamacare Subsidy Extension" [The Hill, 12/17/25]
- HEADLINE: "House Passes GOP Health Care Bill Without ACA Extension" [CBS News, 12/17/25]
The December 2025 Republican Health Care Bill Would Expand Association Health Plans, Which Would Result In Higher Underlying Premiums For Individuals And Small Businesses That Remained In ACA-Regulated Markets. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "It would expand association health plans (AHPs), a type of health plan that trade associations, professional groups, and other organizations may offer their members, to cover self-employed individuals and small businesses as if they were large employers. By allowing more people to enroll in coverage not subject to ACA standards and consumer protections, this would segment insurance risk pools: individuals who are younger and healthier, or small businesses with younger or healthier employees, could get plans with lower premiums because they would be priced separately from ACA-compliant coverage and wouldn’t have to meet ACA standards such as having to cover a set of essential health benefits. As a result, individuals and small businesses remaining in ACA-regulated markets would see higher underlying premiums." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/16/25]
The December 2025 Republican Health Care Bill Would Likely Lead To Higher Premiums For Older And Sicker Small Groups And Self-Employed People, Thereby Undermining Protections For People With Pre-Existing Conditions. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "In addition, the bill would undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions. While it would bar AHPs from rejecting individuals or charging them more based on certain health factors, it would give them greater ability to base a small group’s or self-employed person’s costs on their health risk compared to individual or small-group coverage. This would likely lead to higher premiums for older and sicker small groups and self-employed individuals, making such arrangements more attractive to healthier individuals and groups." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/16/25]