Listen to the article
The battle over Affordable Care Act subsidies intensified this week as Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont clashed over the potential impact of expiring enhanced premium subsidies.
Johnson took to social media to challenge Sanders’ claim that “over 20 million Americans” would see their health insurance premiums double if the enhanced subsidies expire at year’s end. While Johnson correctly pointed out that Sanders overstated the case, his own portrayal glossed over the significant financial impact many Americans would face.
According to analysis from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), the expiration of enhanced subsidies would result in out-of-pocket premiums more than doubling on average—specifically increasing by 114%, or $1,016—for ACA marketplace enrollees receiving subsidies. However, not all 20+ million enrollees would experience identical increases.
“On average, 22 million people will see their premium payments double. Some will see them more than double. Some will see them less than double, because that is the nature of an average,” explained Cynthia Cox, a KFF vice president and director of the Program on the ACA.
The enhanced subsidies, initially implemented as part of pandemic relief legislation and later extended through 2025, made insurance more affordable by reducing the percentage of income people must contribute toward premiums and eliminating the 400% federal poverty level income cap. Currently, 92% of the 24.3 million ACA enrollees receive some form of subsidy.
Democrats had pushed to include an extension of these subsidies in recent government funding legislation, but Republicans blocked the effort. As part of a Senate deal that resolved the government shutdown earlier this month, a vote on these enhanced subsidies will take place in December.
In his social media post, Johnson stated that “22 of the 24 million Americans on Obamacare exchanges will continue receiving Obamacare subsidies as originally designed” and that “the dollar amount of those subsidies will likely increase, not decrease, since they are tied to Obamacare’s skyrocketing premiums.”
While technically accurate that the dollar value of subsidies could increase as overall premiums rise, Johnson’s statement omits a crucial detail: Americans would still pay significantly more out-of-pocket because they would be required to contribute a higher percentage of their income toward premiums without the enhancement.
For example, individuals earning between 200% and 250% of the federal poverty level used to pay 6% to 8% of their income toward premiums before the enhancement reduced that to 4% to 6%. Those earning 300% to 400% of poverty previously paid 9.5% of income, which the enhanced subsidies lowered to 6% to 8.5%.
“It’s possible to both get a larger tax credit and still pay more out of your own pocket, much more out of your own pocket,” Cox noted. “Pretty much everyone who buys their own insurance will see an increase in what they have to pay.”
The impact would be particularly severe for certain groups. Nearly 6.7 million enrollees—about 39% of those using the federal HealthCare.gov platform—currently pay nothing for premiums and would face new costs. An individual earning $22,000 would go from paying $0 to $794 in 2026, while a family of four earning $45,000 would see costs rise from $0 to $1,607.
Additionally, approximately 1.6 million people with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level would lose subsidy eligibility entirely, as they only qualify under the enhanced program.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that 4.2 million more Americans would lack health insurance by 2034 if the enhanced subsidies expire, while the Urban Institute estimates 4.8 million more would be uninsured next year.
The debate comes amid rising overall premium costs. KFF analysis indicates that total premiums for ACA benchmark silver-level plans will increase by 26% on average for 2026, driven by multiple factors including increasing hospital costs, expensive GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, potential tariffs, and insurers’ expectations that healthier people may drop coverage without enhanced subsidies.
As December’s vote approaches, the outcome will have significant implications for millions of Americans’ healthcare costs and coverage status in the coming years.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
Thoughtful piece examining the complex realities around ACA subsidy changes. While the average impact may be significant, the actual effects will vary quite a bit. I hope lawmakers can find a balanced solution that protects affordability for those who need it most.
It’s good to see a fact-check that digs into the details rather than taking sides. The potential premium increases for many Americans are substantial, but the overall impact will vary. Careful consideration of the tradeoffs is key.
Agreed. Maintaining affordability while balancing fiscal constraints is a delicate challenge. Policymakers will need to weigh the nuances carefully to find an appropriate solution.
Interesting analysis on the potential impact of ACA subsidy changes. It’s a complex issue with nuances around average impacts vs. individual experiences. Curious to see how policymakers balance affordability concerns with fiscal realities.
Yes, the details will be important as lawmakers weigh the tradeoffs. Reliable data from nonpartisan sources like KFF will be crucial for an informed public debate.
This is an important issue that will affect millions of Americans. It’s good to see a fact-based look at the potential premium changes rather than partisan rhetoric. I hope policymakers can find a balanced solution.
Agreed, a balanced, data-driven approach is key. Polarized debates often obscure the nuances, so objective analysis from respected sources is valuable.
Challenging claims about ACA subsidies with data is the right approach. While the overall impact may average out, the real-world effects on individual households could be significant. Careful consideration of the tradeoffs is needed.
Exactly. Policymakers must weigh the tradeoffs between affordability, fiscal responsibility, and access to healthcare. This will require thoughtful debate grounded in facts, not partisan posturing.
Appreciate the objective, data-driven analysis in this article. The nuances around ACA subsidy changes are important to understand, rather than relying on broad claims. Looking forward to seeing how policymakers navigate this issue.
This is a complex issue with significant financial implications for millions. I appreciate the nuanced, data-driven analysis rather than partisan rhetoric. Finding the right balance will be crucial for lawmakers.