What are the income limits for full ACA subsidies in 2026?

1. Why the “subsidy cliff” claim is front‑and‑center — and what it actually means

Multiple analyses identify a single statutory trigger: the enhanced Premium Tax Credits enacted during the pandemic are scheduled to expire December 31, 2025, after which the tax credit schedule reverts to the pre‑enhancement framework that limits eligibility to households between 100% and 400% of FPL. The practical effect described is binary: those below 100% FPL generally remain ineligible for PTCs in states without Medicaid expansion, while households above 400% FPL would lose premium tax credit eligibility altogether, creating a sharp cutoff often called the “subsidy cliff” ^{[2] [6] [3]}. Sources emphasize that this is a statutory change unless Congress takes action; the analyses treat the return to a 400% cap as the baseline legal outcome for 2026 ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What numbers the summaries give — concrete income cutoffs cited

Analysts provide concrete 400% FPL dollar examples for 2026 eligibility: $62,600 for an individual, $84,600 for a two‑person household, $106,600 for three, and $128,600 for a family of four, which are presented as the maximum incomes to qualify for credits under the 400% FPL ceiling ^[4]. Those same summaries set 100% FPL income floors — for example, roughly $15,650 for an individual and $32,150 for a family of four — to indicate the typical income range where subsidies are available absent enhancements ^{[4] [5]}. The publications differ in emphasis: some stress the dollar thresholds, others stress the policy mechanics and resulting premium shares by income band ^{[5] [7]}.

3. How premiums are expected to change by income band if enhancements lapse

Several analyses model required enrollee premium shares under the standard schedule: required contributions rise with income, such as roughly 2.0% of income at 100% FPL, about 6.6% at 200% FPL, and near 9.96% for households between 300% and 400% FPL, versus the enhanced structure that capped many enrollees at no more than 8.5% of income under the pandemic expansions ^{[7] [6]}. Summaries warn that reversion to these higher contribution percentages would increase monthly premiums for mid‑income households and eliminate any subsidy for those above 400% FPL, sharply altering affordability for many who gained coverage under the enhancements ^{[7] [8]}.

4. Disagreement, emphasis, and possible policy agendas in the analyses

The provided sources converge on the legal baseline but diverge in tone and emphasis: some pieces foreground the immediate financial pain for middle‑income households and label the cliff a looming coverage loss ^{[6] [9]}, while fiscal policy analyses frame the situation as a return to statutory rules and model the dollar impacts and contribution percentages in technical terms ^{[7] [5]}. These emphases reflect likely agendas: consumer‑oriented outlets prioritize affordability impacts, while budget‑focused groups stress statutory mechanics and cost projections. All analyses, however, treat the reversion to 100%–400% FPL eligibility as the default legal outcome for 2026 absent congressional action ^{[2] [3]}.

5. Bottom line for consumers and policymakers heading into 2026

Factually, the consensus across the analyses is firm: 2026 subsidy eligibility will default to the 100%–400% FPL range and the enhanced protections will lapse unless Congress extends them, producing both a hard income cutoff at 400% FPL and higher required premium percentages for those who remain eligible ^{[1] [2] [4]}. For consumers, that means many who experienced lower premiums under the enhanced credits could see substantial increases or lose eligibility entirely; for policymakers, it frames a clear choice point—extend enhancements, modify the schedule, or accept the statutory reversion and its fiscal and coverage consequences. The provided summaries consistently present these outcomes as the baseline facts policymakers and enrollees must reckon with heading into 2026 ^{[3] [7]}.