What income levels gained the most ACA subsidy increases after the American Rescue Plan?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and its extension in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) sharply increased ACA premium subsidies for 2021–2025, fully subsidizing a benchmark Silver premium for households between 100%–150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and removing the 400% FPL eligibility cliff through 2025 [1] [2]. Analyses and government data show the largest subsidy gains concentrated at low- and moderate-income levels — especially those at 100–150% and up through roughly 200–400% of FPL — while ARPA also briefly extended help to some higher-income households above 400% FPL [1] [3] [4].
1. How the Rescue Plan changed the math: policy mechanics that drive who benefited
ARPA lowered the “applicable percentage” households must pay of their income toward the benchmark Silver plan and eliminated the 400% FPL cutoff for 2021–2025; the IRA extended those same enhanced premium tax credits through 2025. That formula change is why households at 100–150% of FPL could have a $0 premium and why people above 400% could—at least temporarily—receive credits if premiums exceeded the now-capped percentage of income [2] [1] [5].
2. Biggest winners by income band: low-income households saw the largest absolute generosity
Multiple sources say the biggest subsidy boosts went to the lowest income enrollees. ARPA’s reductions in required premium shares mean people at 100–150% of FPL often pay nothing for a benchmark plan; analysts repeatedly flag that group as receiving the steepest relative and often the largest absolute subsidy increases [1] [6] [3].
3. Middle incomes gained meaningful relief too — and that matters politically
Those in the 150–400% FPL range also received substantially larger subsidies than under pre-ARPA rules because applicable percentages were reduced across income bands. Organizations tracking enrollment and premiums link record marketplace uptake — enrollment roughly doubled from about 12 million in 2021 to about 24 million by 2025 — in part to those more generous subsidies that helped middle-income purchasers afford coverage [5] [7] [8].
4. High earners: ARPA’s temporary elimination of the “cliff” changed the distribution, but limitedly
Policy changes allowed some households above 400% FPL to receive assistance when their required premium would otherwise exceed the capped share of income, and CMS/Bipartisan Policy Center data show roughly 1.6 million enrollees were above 400% FPL in 2025 (not all received credits). The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that if enhancements continued, 85% of federal spending on the credits would go to those earning $150,000 or less — indicating only a small share of dollars flowed to very high earners [4].
5. Magnitude in dollar terms and what “largest gains” means
Reports give two ways to read “gained the most”: relative percentage reduction in premium burden and absolute subsidy dollars. Low-income households gained the largest proportional drop (e.g., $0 premiums at 100–150% FPL), while middle-income enrollees saw large absolute increases in dollars because their premiums before ARPA were higher and ARPA lowered their required contribution percentages [1] [9].
6. What happens if the enhancements expire — who loses most?
Analysts warn that if the enhanced credits sunset after 2025, people at the lowest incomes would lose $0 premium status and see notable increases (for example, KFF and other groups forecast large percentage jumps in premiums; specific scenarios include a family at 140% FPL moving from $0 in 2025 to paying substantial annual premiums if enhancements end). Households above 400% would lose eligibility entirely under pre-ARPA rules [4] [9] [5].
7. Conflicting framings and hidden agendas in coverage
Advocates emphasize the public‑health and coverage gains from making subsidies more generous and permanent; fiscal watchdogs emphasize the cost — net spending for subsidies rose over the past decade and enhanced credits were deficit financed initially — and propose offsets or targeting if extensions proceed. Each side’s framing affects which income groups they highlight as “winners” [1] [10].
8. Limits of available reporting and what remains unclear
Available sources document who became newly eligible or saw lower required contributions and give enrollment and spending aggregates, but they do not provide a single, universally comparable table in these excerpts that ranks income bands strictly by average dollar increase per household across every state and age group — detailed microdata or JCT tables would be required for that precise ranking (available sources do not mention a single definitive per‑household ranked table in the cited excerpts) [4] [2].
Bottom line: ARPA’s formula changes delivered the largest relative subsidy boosts to the lowest-income enrollees (100–150% FPL) and meaningful dollar increases across the 150–400% range, while temporarily extending limited help to some above 400% FPL; who “gained the most” depends on whether you measure by percentage reduction in premium burden or by absolute dollars of subsidy received [1] [2] [4].