How would the 2026 proposals change premium tax credit amounts for households at 100%, 200%, and 400% of the federal poverty level?

1. What changed under the “enhanced” credits and how that affects the math

The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and later the Inflation Reduction Act temporarily lowered the percentage of income households must pay toward a benchmark plan and removed the 400% FPL eligibility cap through 2025; those changes are the “enhancements” that would end for 2026 unless extended (Congressional Research Service summary and bill texts). Under the enhanced rules, people at low and moderate incomes saw required contributions fall sharply — for some income bands to near zero — which is why a rollback raises their net premiums so steeply ^{[4] [3]}.

2. Households at 100% of FPL: near-zero contributions under enhancements; meaningful increases if expired

Analysts report that with ePTCs in place, many enrollees at the bottom of subsidy eligibility pay very little or nothing toward benchmark plans — KFF specifically notes that enrollees between 100%–150% FPL may be fully subsidized for benchmark silver plans under the enhanced formula. If the enhancements expire, those same households would face nontrivial required contributions (examples show monthly and annual premium jumps), producing the largest percentage increases because their baseline payments had been extremely low under ePTCs ^{[5] [6]}.

3. Households at 200% of FPL: still subsidized but hit hard by formula rollback

People around 200% FPL benefited from much lower applicable‑percentage caps under the enhancements; CBPP and Urban Institute analyses show families in this range could see several‑thousand‑dollar annual increases in premiums if enhancements lapse. For instance, CBPP calculates a family of four at ~217% FPL could face about $3,182 more annual premium cost in 2026 if the enhanced credits end, illustrating the steep dollar impact for middle‑low incomes ^[7].

4. Households at 400% of FPL: cliff, eligibility and big swings

Under pre‑ARPA rules, 400% FPL was the traditional upper limit for PTCs. ARPA/IRA removed that cap temporarily so some households above 400% received help; many analyses warn that households near 400% will see large swings depending on policy choices. If the enhancements expire, households above the 400% line generally would no longer be eligible for credits and could face fully unsubsidized premiums — Urban Institute and KFF show that older enrollees near or above 400% (especially ages 50–64) would confront large absolute premium bills because unsubsidized premiums are high for older people ^{[8] [9] [5]}.

5. Typical quantified examples from reporting and models

KFF’s modeling finds average marketplace premium payments would increase 114% from $888 to $1,904 in 2026 if ePTCs lapse — a convenient headline for the average enrollee effect ^[1]. CBPP and Urban Institute provide household examples: CBPP’s family of four at 217% FPL facing a roughly $3,182 increase and Urban Institute noting that people above 400% would lose credits entirely, with older individuals facing the biggest dollar increases because of age‑rated premiums ^{[7] [9]}.

6. Political options and how they would change the outcome

Lawmakers are proposing multiple paths: a “clean” one‑year extension of ePTCs through 2026 (H.R.5145), shorter extensions with guardrails, and alternative Republican proposals that redirect aid into HSAs or limit eligibility/introduce floors — each would alter who benefits and by how much. Proposals that keep the ePTC formula intact would largely prevent the big premium spikes; those that add caps or floors could blunt costs or shrink the population eligible, shifting who gets relief ^{[4] [10] [11]}.

7. Limitations, disagreements and where to watch for precise numbers

Available sources provide modelled examples and averages but numbers vary by age, family size, state and insurer rate filings; some insurers submitted alternate rate filings assuming extensions, producing different percent increases. KFF, CBPP, Urban Institute and Bipartisan Policy Center use different models and emphasize different outcomes (coverage loss vs. fiscal cost), so specific dollar impacts for a given household require an individualized subsidy calculation or KFF’s interactive tool ^{[12] [1] [2] [13]}.

8. Bottom line for consumers deciding now

If Congress does not act, the rollback of enhanced PTCs will raise required contributions across income bands, with the largest percentage increases hitting households near 100%–200% FPL and the most severe dollar increases falling on older enrollees and those who lose eligibility above 400% FPL. Consumers planning 2026 coverage should use marketplace calculators and consider plan choices now; policy decisions between now and year‑end will determine whether the models’ worst‑case premium spikes materialize ^{[1] [3] [7]}.