Evans Accused of Spreading Misinformation During Health Insurance Shutdown Debate

As government shutdown enters fourth week, health care premium debate intensifies with Republicans opposing tax credit extensions

As the federal government shutdown stretches into its fourth week, the central dispute continues to revolve around health insurance subsidies that keep premiums affordable for millions of Americans. At the heart of the debate are the enhanced premium tax credits (ePTCs) established during the Biden administration, which are set to expire unless Congress takes action.

Congressman Gabe Evans (R-CO) recently voiced opposition to extending these credits, claiming they allow high-income individuals to receive government subsidies. “Somebody that’s making $500,000 a year can still go get a subsidy to help pay for health care,” Evans stated during an October 7 appearance on Ryan Schuiling’s KHOW 630 talk show.

Health policy experts have swiftly challenged this assertion. Isabel Cruz, policy director for the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, explained that Evans’ claim misrepresents how the subsidy system actually functions.

“While there is no income limit, the program sets a cap of 8.5% of income that people have to pay towards their premiums,” Cruz clarified. “For someone making $500,000, that would be $42,500. No premium is that high, so they would not qualify for any subsidies.”

The enhanced premium tax credits originated in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and were later extended through 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act. Before these enhancements, subsidies were only available to households earning between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL) – creating what experts call a “subsidy cliff” where one additional dollar of income could result in thousands of dollars in lost benefits.

The ePTCs eliminated this cliff by extending subsidies on a sliding scale, ensuring no household pays more than 8.5% of their income toward health insurance premiums, regardless of income. This particularly benefits older Americans approaching Medicare age, self-employed workers, and rural residents facing higher regional premiums.

Recent analysis from the Bipartisan Policy Center illustrates the potential impact if these credits expire. A family of four with a household income of $45,000 currently paying no premium could see costs rise to $1,607 annually. More dramatically, a 60-year-old couple earning just over the previous 400% FPL threshold (about $85,000) could see their premiums skyrocket from $7,225 to $22,600 per year – nearly a quarter of their annual income.

“Not extending the enhanced premium tax credits will lock the very middle-income folks he’s referring to out of any support,” Cruz emphasized, noting that families earning over $128,600 would be most affected by a return to the subsidy cliff.

Tax premium calculators available through state health exchanges and the Kaiser Family Foundation confirm Cruz’s assessment. These tools show no scenario in which a Coloradan earning half a million dollars would receive any subsidy under the current system, as their required contribution would exceed any marketplace premium.

The debate highlights a fundamental disagreement about government’s role in healthcare access. Republicans have characterized the subsidies as wasteful spending that benefits the wealthy, while Democrats and healthcare advocates argue they provide critical support to middle-class families facing otherwise unaffordable premiums.

When contacted for examples supporting his claim about subsidies going to high-income earners, Congressman Evans’ office did not respond to requests for comment.

As the shutdown continues, millions of Americans face uncertainty about their future healthcare costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that allowing the enhanced credits to expire would result in approximately 3.8 million Americans losing health insurance coverage and premium increases for millions more who maintain coverage through the marketplaces.