Wyoming’s “BearCare” idea: a Last-ditch Safety Net after Congress Yanked the Ladder up

The original story by Kerry Drake for WyoFile.

Wyomingites who need health insurance deserve better than what Congress just handed them: a political food fight that ends with regular people staring at a brutal menu — pay a fortune to keep an Affordable Care Act plan, or roll the dice uninsured.

That’s the mess Wyoming lawmakers are trying to mop up with something called BearCare: a state-run, federally funded catastrophic coverage plan meant to protect people from getting financially wrecked by major illness or injury.

And the reason BearCare is even on the table is pretty straightforward: Congress refused to extend the enhanced ACA premium tax credits. Those credits helped keep marketplace plans affordable. Without them, Wyoming residents are facing the biggest premium hikes in the country, and some families could see increases north of 400%.

In other words, the floor dropped out.

You can blame whichever team jersey you want in DC, but the end result is the same: people who were barely hanging on to coverage are now being asked to cough up way more money — or give up coverage entirely.

Republicans have spent years trying to repeal the ACA and never really landed a replacement that could pass. And yet you’ve still got politicians like Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso — a retired physician, no less — talking about how “Americans can’t afford these high costs” and that we need to “focus on the cost of care.”

Sure. But in the meantime, his constituents are about to pay more this year, because the credits weren’t extended. Private insurance costs are climbing too, and hospitals that already struggle in rural states are looking at the prospect of more uncompensated care — meaning the bills don’t disappear; they just get shifted around.

Democrats don’t come out looking great here either. In the shutdown drama, some of them cut a deal for a vote on tax credits that wasn’t going to win, anyway. Then both parties turned the whole thing into campaign fuel for 2026. It’s hard not to notice how often the “strategy” in Washington is basically: Let voters suffer, then see who gets blamed.

BearCare is a proposal from the Wyoming Department of Health. Think of it as a “bare necessities” plan — catastrophic coverage for the kind of events that can bankrupt a family: serious accidents, cancer, big surgeries, the whole “one bad day” category.

It’s not meant to be a deluxe, everything-covered plan. It’s closer to: You might not be able to afford full coverage anymore, but you shouldn’t lose your house because you got sick.

And no, despite the jokes flying around the Capitol, it’s not named after Rep. John Bear of Gillette. He’s actually one of the loudest critics of the idea — and he suggested it should be named after Gov. Mark Gordon, who’s praised it. Call it BearCare, GordonCare, “Please Don’t Bankrupt Me”-Care — the branding isn’t the point.

BearCare is part of Wyoming’s application for the federal Rural Health Transformation Program, a pot of roughly $50 billion nationwide.

Wyoming could get up to $800 million over five years if the state’s broader package is approved. That package includes efforts to stabilize hospitals, strengthen preventative care, expand the workforce, and use tech to improve access — all the stuff rural health systems keep saying they need to survive.

Health Director Stefan Johansson asked lawmakers to put a placeholder in the budget in case BearCare gets a green light from CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) and the Legislature.

Rep. Bear’s critique is the predictable one: he argues it’s an expensive government-backed program that won’t be sustainable.

Johansson’s counter is basically: that’s not how this is designed. The idea is to use federal “seed” money to get it off the ground — but over time, the program would be funded by members’ monthly enrollment fees.

So rather than “the state permanently paying for everyone,” the pitch is: use federal startup help, then run it like a self-supporting insurance pool for people who are getting priced out of the marketplace — especially individuals and small businesses.

Would it be better than private catastrophic plans that already exist — the ones with low premiums, high deductibles, and limited coverage for everyday needs? That’s the key question. Supporters argue BearCare’s value is that it’s built specifically as an alternative for people who are about to get crushed by the post-tax-credit marketplace, instead of being a niche product buried in fine print.

Let’s be real: America’s health insurance system doesn’t get “fixed” with one state program. If you believe the only real solution is something like Medicare for All, BearCare isn’t that.

But Wyoming isn’t debating this in a vacuum. It’s debating it in a moment where a lot of people are about to go from insured but stressed to uninsured and exposed.

And catastrophic coverage matters most to the folks who can least afford a surprise medical bill — people living paycheck to paycheck, working seasonal jobs, running small businesses, or stuck in that classic gap where you make too much for help but not enough to comfortably pay the sticker price.

If you’re one of those people, the idea of some protection can be the difference between sleeping at night and lying awake doing terrifying math.

BearCare isn’t a magic wand. It’s Wyoming trying to build a practical “don’t-get-ruined” option after Congress let a major affordability tool expire.

If the choice for thousands of residents is really about to become “pay way more” or “go without,” then a third door — even a bare-bones one — is worth taking seriously.

Because the current plan from Washington is basically: good luck out there.