WASHINGTON — Although House Speaker Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, acknowledged Friday that ‘‘Obamacare is the law of the land,’’ its survival or collapse in practical terms now rests with decisions that are in President Trump’s hands.
In the coming weeks and months, the White House and a highly conservative health and human services secretary will be faced with a series of choices over whether to shore up insurance marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act — or let them atrophy.
These marketplaces are currently a conduit to health coverage for 10 million Americans, but they have been financially fragile, prompting spiking rates and defections of major insurers.
In an interview on Friday with The Washington Post, Trump made his inclinations clear: ‘‘The best thing politically is to let Obamacare explode.’’
The president said the law remains ‘‘totally the property of the Democrats’’ and that ‘‘when people get a 200 percent increase next year or a 100 percent or 70 percent, that’s their fault.’’ Former Obama administration officials countered that Trump and congressional Republicans are responsible for what happens next.
In the seven years since a Democratic Congress passed the law, public sentiment over it has been closely divided. Support has grown slightly in recent months as Republicans tried to begin dismantling it.
There are many levers within the ACA that the administration could use to undermine the law or, instead, try to stabilize its marketplaces. In addition, federal rules could be redefined, giving the government’s health policies a more conservative twist even with the law still in effect.
According to health care experts from across the ideological spectrum, an imminent question is whether the political tumult surrounding the ACA’s fate and the president’s talk of explosion could further shake the confidence of consumers and insurers alike. Doing so could prompt exits from the marketplaces.
Trump’s threat could become ‘‘a self-fulfilling prophecy,’’ said Andy Slavitt, the acting administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the last two years of the Obama administration. ‘‘That’s like inheriting an overseas war, and deciding you let your own soldiers get killed because you didn’t elect to enter that war.’’
Mario Molina, chief executive of Molina Healthcare, a small company covering about a million Americans through the ACA’s insurance exchanges, said he is unsure whether it will lessen its participation.
Its decision this spring will hinge on actions by the White House and GOP lawmakers, he said. ‘‘The ball’s sort of in their court. The choices they make are going to determine what happens to the marketplace.’’
The decisions facing the administration are, in essence, a sequel to an executive order the president issued his first night in office, when he directed federal agencies to ease the regulatory burden that the ACA has placed on consumers, the health care industry, and health care providers.
So far, the main action stemming from that directive is a move by the Internal Revenue Service to process Americans’ tax refunds even if they fail to submit proof that they are insured, as the ACA requires.
But there are other steps the administration could take. A major one would be to end cost-sharing subsidies the law provides to lower- and middle-income people with marketplace plans to help pay deductibles and copays.
Another question is how the administration will handle the next enrollment season for ACA health plans, which will begin in November. The end of the most recent season coincided with Trump’s first days in office, and the new administration yanked some advertising meant to encourage sign-ups — resulting in a small dip in enrollment by the final deadline.
And while a set of federal essential health benefits, required of health plans sold to individuals and small businesses, will now remain in law, federal health officials could narrow what they require.
The administration also could take advantage of a part of the ACA that, starting this year, lets health officials give states broad latitude to carry out the law’s goals — including more free-market approaches that conservatives favor.
