Impact of 2025 Tax Law Changes on Young Doctors
Limits on federal student loans lead to $50,000 increase in debt during residency.
Abstract
The 2025 tax law replaced existing income-driven repayment plans with the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) and imposed federal borrowing caps which also eliminated Graduate PLUS coverage for high-debt medical students. The dominant effect of the 2025 law for high-debt medical graduates entering repayment is the expansion of private exposure stemming from new limits on federal borrowing, not the change from prior IDR plans to RAP on the federal portion. For a representative borrower with $450,000 in total debt, approximately 40 percent now falls outside the federal system and accrues interest during residency.
Introduction
The 2025 tax law altered the structure of graduate student finance by replacing existing income-driven repayment plans with RAP and by capping federal borrowing such that Graduate PLUS loans are no longer available as a backstop for high-debt programs. Early discussion emphasized changes in monthly payments under RAP. For medical students with large balances, the more consequential margin is the shift in the composition of debt rather than the replacement of one federal formula with another.
Under the pre-2025 system, medical students could finance the full cost of attendance through federal programs and place the entire portfolio in an income-driven plan with interest subsidies. After 2025, borrowers with total costs above the cap must finance the remainder privately. The private portion of the debt load accrues interest during residency having an immediate impact on household finances and potential career choices for doctor durint their crucial training periods.
The analysis presented here focuses on the impact of limits to federal student borrowing on the financial status of young doctors.
Policy Change and Debt Structure
The 2025 tax law made multiple changes to federal student loan policy. For high-debt medical borrowers, two provisions are first-order: (i) the replacement of prior income-driven plans with RAP, and (ii) the introduction of federal borrowing caps that eliminate Graduate PLUS coverage for medical students. Other changes (including enforcement and foreclosure–related rules) do not materially affect the early-career debt path of most young doctors are not considered here.
The first change involves the replacement of prior income-driven plans such as SAVE with the RAP program. For a high-debt medical borrower, the change from SAVE to RAP has only modest effects on required payments during residency—both plans constrain payments to low levels when income is low and limit negative amortization on the federal portion. The post-residency payment rate under either regime is near 10 percent of income. The mechanical differences between SAVE and RAP therefore raise federal-side burdens only marginally. The larger change is that the federal portion itself is smaller under the new regime.
The second change caps federal borrowing and eliminates Graduate PLUS coverage for medical students. Borrowers with total program costs above the cap must rely on private credit for the difference. For high-debt medical students, this produces a structural shift in debt composition: a material share of total borrowing now lies outside the federal system.
Existing policy analyses note that borrowing caps and the elimination of Graduate PLUS are expected to have large effects for high-cost professional programs such as medicine and dentistry. However, we are not aware of published work documenting the financial impact associated with the increase in private debt for young doctors.
Before 2025, medical students could finance the full cost of education with Direct Unsubsidized and Graduate PLUS loans. High-debt borrowers therefore entered repayment with portfolios entirely inside the federal system and fully eligible for income-based repayment and associated interest subsidies. Private borrowing occurred only when chosen by the borrower, not because of a financing constraint.
A representative borrower with $450,000 in total debt at graduation shifts from full federal coverage to mixed federal–private financing after the 2025 law:
· Pre-2025: $450k fully federal (Direct Unsubsidized + Graduate PLUS); 100% IDR-eligible.
· Post-2025: $265k federal + ≈$180k private; ≈40% of total debt now outside federal coverage.
Under the new regime, the RAP plan governs only the shrinking federal portion. The dominant change for high-debt medical borrowers is the forced migration of a large share of principal into private credit without income-based protections or subsidy. The economic effects follow mechanically from that reallocation.
Economic Effects for a Representative Borrower
The shift from 100 percent federal student loans to a structure involving 40 percent debt has two immediate impact – a higher cost of capital and the prospect of increasing debt loads during the crucial residency and fellowship periods that define a doctor’s career.
· Pre-2025: $450,000 all-federal portfolio carried a weighted rate near 8.4%, and unpaid interest during residency was partially or fully subsidized under income-driven repayment.
· Post-2025: Roughly 40% of the same portfolio shifts to private credit at 10–11%, raising the effective rate to about 9.5% and removing subsidy during residency.
During residency, take-home pay is typically insufficient to cover the interest on private balances. A borrower with $180,000 in private loans at 10.5 percent faces monthly interest of approximately $1,575. Private lenders generally do not offer income-based deferral with subsidy. When borrowers make only nominal payments, balances increase throughout residency.
Private loan balance of $180,000 at 10.5% over a four-year residency evolves as follows:
· Interest-only ($1,575/mo): balance unchanged at $180k.
· $500/mo payments: balance rises to ≈$245k (≈+36%).
· $100/mo “token” payments: balance rises to ≈$269k (≈+49%).
· No payments: balance rises to ≈$272k (≈+51%).
A typical resident making token payments sees the private portion grow by ~50%. Because private loans constitute ~40% of total borrowing, this implies a ~15–18% increase in total student debt before full repayment begins.
In many specialties, the early-career period extends beyond residency. Fellowships of one to three years maintain income near resident levels, and private balances continue to accrue interest when payments remain constrained. Although physicians in these fields ultimately obtain high lifetime earnings, the concentration of compounding risk in the pre-attending period raises variance in realized outcomes. The structure of the 2025 law places this risk on new physicians rather than on taxpayers by shifting the marginal dollar of borrowing outside the federal system.
Implications and Conclusion
The analysis indicates that the primary channel through which the 2025 tax law affects high-debt medical borrowers is not the replacement of existing income-driven repayment plans with RAP, but the introduction of a binding federal borrowing cap that forces a substantial portion of medical education cost into private credit. Once balances exit the federal system, they accrue interest during residency without income-based protection or subsidy. The resulting negative amortization increases total debt prior to repayment and shifts interest-rate and timing risk from the federal system to new physicians.
The residency and fellowship period was previously one in which balances were stabilized by federal subsidy or limited capitalization. Under the new structure, it becomes a period of accelerated balance growth. The shift in early-career risk exposure may alter specialty choice and training duration at the margin for borrowers with high leverage and constrained liquidity.
The results presented here characterize the debt-accumulation phase; subsequent work is needed to model full life-cycle repayment, including forgiveness and income heterogeneity, to evaluate how early negative amortization propagates through total repayment costs.
Authors Note: David Bernstein, a retired economist, is the editor of the blog Economic and Policy Insights, a blog that includes frequent posts about the consequences of student debt.If you’d like to support this work — and receive premium posts, working drafts, and early access to new analyses — I’m offering two introductory options:
· 🎓 Six months free for new paid subscribers
· 💡 50% off an annual membership (only $30 total)
Paid subscribers receive a steady stream of research-driven writing on personal finance, health insurance, retirement strategy, and the stock market. Your support makes it possible to continue and expand this kind of work.