How would ending premium tax credits change premium costs by metal tier and age in 2026?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
If enhanced premium tax credits (PTCs) expire at the end of 2025, multiple independent analyses project dramatic premium increases and large coverage losses in 2026: average annual premium payments for subsidized enrollees would more than double (from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026, a 114% rise) [1], and net premiums for many lower‑income subsidized enrollees could rise from $169 to $919 on average (over fourfold) under standard PTCs [2]. Models from Urban Institute, Commonwealth Fund, KFF, CBO and others estimate 4–7 million Americans would lose coverage or become uninsured as a result [3] [2] [1].
1. Premium shocks by metal tier: silver and bronze will matter most
Analysts emphasize that the PTC design ties subsidies to the benchmark second‑lowest‑cost silver plan, so ending the enhanced PTCs raises the out‑of‑pocket price of silver plans sharply and shifts relative value across metal tiers. KFF’s national estimate shows average marketplace premium payments would more than double if enhancements lapse, implying large across‑the‑board increases for benchmark silver plans that determine subsidy scale [1]. RWJF’s county‑level work finds that, for some enrollees, a bronze plan with standard PTCs could cost more than a silver plan with enhanced PTCs in 70% of congressional districts—meaning consumers would face stark trade‑offs between lower premiums and less comprehensive coverage [4]. Available sources do not provide a complete, nationwide table of 2026 premium changes by metal tier; instead they show the mechanism (silver benchmark) and example comparisons [1] [4].
2. Age effects: older enrollees face much bigger dollar hits
PTCs are calculated against age‑rated premiums, so older adults—who pay higher sticker premiums—lose more in dollar terms if subsidies shrink. Bipartisan Policy Center and CRS documents underscore that benchmark premiums vary widely by age and location, and that examples show older couples could face very large annual bills without enhanced credits—one illustration finds a 60‑year‑old couple at 402% FPL might see annual premiums near $22,600 in 2026 instead of a cap near 8.5% of income under enhanced rules [5]. Urban Institute’s model also shows net premiums for subsidized enrollees below 250% FPL rising substantially (from $169 to $919 on average), a change that will hit older adults within those income bands particularly hard because their baseline premiums are higher [2]. Sources do not provide an exhaustive age‑by‑age table of 2026 premium changes, but they consistently report larger absolute dollar increases for older enrollees [5] [2] [1].
3. Income and eligibility interactions drive who pays what
Enhanced PTCs expanded eligibility above 400% of the federal poverty level; if they expire, many higher‑income enrollees will lose eligibility entirely and see sticker premiums rather than subsidized amounts [6] [7]. CBPP and Thomson Reuters reporting stress that some households will lose full subsidy coverage and others will simply pay a much larger share of premiums, producing an average premium increase exceeding $1,000 annually for current recipients [8] [9]. Urban Institute quantifies that average net premiums for subsidized enrollees under standard rules will be over four times larger for people under 250% FPL—illustrating how income bands determine the magnitude of the shock [2].
4. Market‑level dynamics: premiums could rise further through adverse selection
Beyond the subsidy math, insurers and modelers warn about behavioral and market responses: if healthier people decline marketplace coverage because of higher net premiums, the remaining pool will be sicker and costlier to cover, prompting additional premium increases in 2026 [7] [10]. Bipartisan Policy Center and Georgetown/insurer filings signaled proposed rate increases already — insurers’ filings suggested an approximate 18% increase in 2026 before behavioral effects fully play out [5] [11]. Thus the subsidy change could trigger both a mechanical rise in what individuals pay and a secondary insurer reaction that raises sticker prices further [5] [7].
5. Scale: millions affected and broader economic impacts
Multiple reputable organizations project millions losing subsidies or coverage: Urban Institute estimates 7.3 million fewer people would receive subsidized marketplace coverage in 2026 if enhanced PTCs lapse [2]; Commonwealth Fund and others cite projections of roughly 4–7 million becoming uninsured or losing ACA coverage [3]. Health Affairs and Commonwealth Fund analyses connect those coverage losses to wider economic effects—job impacts, reduced state and local tax revenue, and pressure on rural hospitals—underscoring that premium changes cascade beyond individual balance sheets [12] [3].
6. Conflicting framings and political context
Sources agree on direction and large magnitude but differ on precise totals and emphasis. KFF highlights the average dollar increase (about $1,016 per subsidized enrollee) and a 114% jump in average premium payments [1]. Urban Institute focuses on enrollment and net‑premium multipliers by income band [2]. Policymakers weigh fiscal cost against affordability; Bipartisan Policy Center frames any extension as affecting the federal deficit and marketplace rates for 2026 [5]. Readers should note agendas: advocacy groups emphasize coverage and economic harms [3] [12], while policy centers and CRS stress tradeoffs between budgetary impact and premiums [5] [6].
Limitations: available sources do not supply a full, nationwide matrix showing 2026 premium changes broken out simultaneously by metal tier, every age, and every income band; instead, they provide representative examples, aggregate averages, and modeled scenarios [2] [1] [4].