How would ending subsidies affect unsubsidized low-income and middle-income families differently?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Ending the enhanced ACA premium subsidies would sharply raise premiums and reduce eligibility: KFF and reporting estimate the average subsidized enrollee’s annual out‑of‑pocket premium would rise from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026 — a 114% increase — and CBO/other analysts project marketplace enrollment could fall by millions if subsidies expire [1] [2] [3] [4]. The policy change hits middle‑income households differently than low‑income households: many middle‑income families that newly qualified under ARPA/IRA would lose all assistance and face steep premium shocks, while lower‑income enrollees would typically see reduced subsidy amounts but still retain some support in states that expanded Medicaid [5] [4].
1. Why the subsidies matter: the shrinkage of the “missing middle”
Enhanced subsidies expanded eligibility above the ACA’s original 400% of federal poverty level limit and capped household premium contributions, bringing millions—what analysts call the “missing middle”—into the marketplaces; the IRA extended those enhancements through 2025 and helped drive enrollment from about 11–14 million in earlier years to over 24 million in 2025 [4] [6]. If the enhancements expire, households above the 400% threshold would lose access entirely and many below it would face smaller credits and higher cost shares [5] [4].
2. Middle‑income families: loss of eligibility, steep premium shocks
Middle‑income families benefited most from the temporary elimination of the 400% cap; when the enhancements end, those families often “fall off the cliff” and receive no premium assistance at all, producing very large dollar‑and‑percentage increases in premiums — in some scenarios premiums more than double and could exceed $1,000 per month for families in high‑cost states or older enrollees [7] [1] [5]. Analyses warn a 60‑year‑old couple just over 400% FPL could see premiums rise to levels that amount to a quarter of their income in 2026 [8].
3. Low‑income households: reduced aid but different pathways
Lower‑income enrollees — particularly those up to about 250% of FPL — drove most of marketplace growth and will see larger absolute enrollment losses if subsidies lapse, but many lower‑income people also qualify for Medicaid in expansion states, which buffers some of the impact; analyses show low‑income enrollment growth accounted for the bulk of gains through 2024 and 2025, so ending enhancements will disproportionately shrink marketplace enrollment among lower‑income populations [4] [8]. The net effect varies sharply by state because Medicaid expansion status alters how many low‑income people rely on marketplace subsidies versus Medicaid [4].
4. Coverage and economic ripple effects: uninsured and unemployment risks
Models project millions will lose marketplace coverage and millions more will become uninsured if enhanced credits lapse — CBO and independent think tanks estimate marketplace enrollment could fall by several million and nearly 5 million could become uninsured in 2026 under no congressional action — producing more uncompensated care and stress on safety‑net providers and potentially reducing consumer spending and employment in the broader economy [3] [4] [7].
5. Geographic and demographic disparities: older adults and higher‑cost areas
Premium increases fall unevenly by age, household size and state; older adults and people in high‑cost states face the largest nominal increases, and rural areas and populations already at higher risk of uninsurance will be hit harder, according to policy briefs [8] [4]. That produces a patchwork of outcomes: two households with identical incomes can face very different premium shocks depending on where they live.
6. Politics and alternatives: what policy proposals were on the table
Congress considered competing proposals: Democrats pushed multi‑year extensions of the enhanced credits, while some Republican proposals offered smaller, targeted payments or means‑tested adjustments (for example, a Republican proposal to send up to $1,500 to certain individuals), but those plans differ on scope, immigration verification and permitted uses — and the Senate recently rejected rival proposals, leaving the expiration on course [9] [2] [10].
7. Limitations and unresolveds in reporting
Available sources quantify projected premium and enrollment changes and describe broad distributional effects, but they do not provide a single definitive household‑level calculator for every income, age, state and family composition; local insurer pricing and plan design choices could alter outcomes beyond the national averages cited [1] [4]. Sources also offer competing projections of enrollment declines (range varies by model) and differ in how quickly market adjustments will occur [3] [4].
Bottom line: letting the enhanced subsidies expire causes the largest relative dollar pain for middle‑income families who would lose eligibility entirely and face sudden, large premium bills, while low‑income households face substantial enrollment and access risks too — the magnitude and mix of outcomes depend on household income, age, state Medicaid policy and whether Congress intervenes [5] [4] [3].