Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How did the American Rescue Plan (2021) change ACA premium tax credits for people above 400% FPL?
Executive summary
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 temporarily eliminated the ACA’s previous 400%-of-FPL cutoff and made premium tax credits available to households with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level for 2021–2022 (and later extensions kept similar rules through 2025), while also capping the share of income any enrollee must pay for a benchmark plan at 8.5% of income — changes that increased subsidy generosity for many and removed the so‑called “subsidy cliff” [1] [2] [3]. Multiple policy analyses and federal guidance show these two effects — extended eligibility above 400% FPL and lower required contribution percentages — together produced larger subsidies and enrollment gains among people above the prior cutoff [4] [5].
1. What changed: removing the 400% cliff and an 8.5% cap
Before ARPA, the ACA limited premium tax credit (PTC) eligibility to households with incomes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL). ARPA “eliminated the maximum income limit (400% of FPL) for PTC eligibility” for 2021 and 2022, effectively allowing higher‑income households to qualify for subsidies when premium costs exceeded a fixed share of income; ARPA also capped the maximum share of household income that must be spent on the benchmark plan at 8.5% of income [3] [2]. The Internal Revenue Service likewise states ARPA “temporarily expanded eligibility … by eliminating the rule that a taxpayer is not allowed a premium tax credit if his or her household’s income is above 400% of the Federal Poverty Line” for tax years 2021 and 2022 [1].
2. How the subsidy is practically calculated for those above 400% FPL
ARPA made subsidy eligibility for higher earners depend on the relationship between the benchmark plan premium and 8.5% of household income: if the benchmark premium would otherwise exceed 8.5% of income, the household can receive a PTC that reduces their net premium down to that cap. CMS explains that households above 400% FPL may get credits and that the law “caps how much of a family’s household income the family needs to pay towards their premiums at 8.5%,” though some above‑400% households still may not receive credits if the benchmark premium is less than 8.5% of their income [2].
3. Scale and impact: who benefited and how much
Analysts and advocacy groups report the combined ARPA changes both increased subsidy amounts for people under 400% FPL and extended assistance to some above 400% FPL, raising enrollment and lowering premiums for many. Commonwealth Fund notes the ARPA/extension “extend tax credits to people with annual income equivalent to 400 percent of the federal poverty level or higher,” helping erase the subsidy cliff and increasing enrollment among those groups [5]. Bipartisan Policy Center and other studies estimate hundreds of thousands to a few million people above 400% benefited from the expanded eligibility and that losing the enhancements would raise premiums substantially for those households [6].
4. Temporary nature, extensions, and what’s next
ARPA’s removal of the 400% cap was explicitly temporary: the IRS frames it as applying for tax years 2021 and 2022, and multiple sources note Congress later extended enhanced subsidies (e.g., via the Inflation Reduction Act) through 2025; absent additional legislative action, the 400% cutoff and less generous subsidy formulas would return after those extensions expire [1] [7] [8]. Several outlets point out that if enhanced PTCs lapse, many households — especially those between 400%–500% FPL — would lose PTC eligibility or face big premium increases [6] [9].
5. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Supporters of ARPA framed the change as fixing the “subsidy cliff” that left people just above 400% FPL with steep, unaffordable premiums; sources like CMS, Commonwealth Fund and Urban Institute emphasize increased affordability and enrollment gains [2] [5] [10]. Critics, including some policy shops, warned the expansion was temporary and pointed to distributional and budgetary effects if extended long‑term; analyses also stress that the size of benefit varies by age and local premiums — older people above 400% gained more because age‑rated premiums can be a larger share of income [9] [4]. Note that sources focusing on budgetary concerns may have policy or partisan perspectives, while federal agencies emphasize program intent and mechanics [2] [3].
6. Limitations in the sources and unanswered questions
Available sources reliably describe the mechanics (eliminate 400% cutoff for the covered years; cap required contribution at 8.5%) and document resultant enrollment/subsidy changes, but they differ in timeframes and projections: some focus on 2021–2022 (ARPA), others include subsequent Congressional extensions through 2025 or model impacts of expiration after 2025 [1] [7] [8]. Detailed, individual‑level dollar impacts vary by age, state, and local premiums and require actuarial or marketplace‑specific calculation not included in these summaries [4] [6]. Available sources do not mention precise household‑by‑household dollar examples beyond aggregate estimates in the cited analyses [5] [6].
Bottom line: ARPA removed the ACA’s 400% FPL eligibility cliff for PTCs in the covered years and set an 8.5% income cap people must pay toward benchmark premiums, expanding subsidies for some households above 400% FPL and increasing subsidy amounts broadly — but those changes were enacted as temporary and depend on subsequent Congressional action for continuation [1] [2] [3].