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 might federal policy changes (subsidies, reinsurance, Medicaid expansion) mitigate future ACA premium spikes?
Executive summary
If Congress does not extend the enhanced premium tax credits, federal estimates and analysts say Marketplace premiums and consumer costs could jump sharply in 2026 — KFF and CNBC project average enrollee costs could more than double for some people and the CBO estimates millions could become uninsured [1] [2]. Policymakers have three main levers to blunt that shock — extend or re-design subsidies, fund reinsurance or risk‑stabilization programs, and expand Medicaid — and each has tradeoffs in cost, coverage reach, and political feasibility [3] [4] [5].
1. Why premiums would spike: the subsidy cliff and insurer responses
The immediate driver of the projected 2026 premium shock is the scheduled sunsetting of enhanced premium tax credits first enacted in ARPA and extended by later legislation; analysts say insurers priced 2026 assuming those enhancements would expire, which both raises submitted rates and increases insurers’ expectations of a sicker risk pool if healthier people drop coverage [4] [3]. KFF and reporting cite scenarios where average recipient premiums jump dramatically — the headline numbers range from big percentage increases in what people pay to a national average premium rise of roughly 20–26% before subsidies are applied — with many analyses flagging an outsized effect on middle earners near the 400% federal poverty level “cliff” [2] [6] [7].
2. Option A — Extend or redesign premium tax credits: fastest relief, federal cost
Extending ARPA/IRA-era enhanced premium tax credits directly prevents the “cliff” and caps household contributions as a share of income, which analysts say both reduces consumer sticker shock and tends to lower gross premiums over time by keeping a healthier mix in the risk pool [5] [8]. The Bipartisan Policy Center and CBPP point to CBO and KFF estimates that permanent or extended enhancements would reduce average gross premiums (because of a healthier pool) and blunt coverage losses; advocates like Medicare Rights urge Congress to act quickly to preserve affordability [8] [9]. The tradeoff is fiscal: these credits are costly and have become a political flashpoint in budget negotiations [3] [1].
3. Option B — Reinsurance or “buy‑down” strategies: targeted market stabilization
States, the federal government, or carriers can use reinsurance/risk‑sharing or “buy‑down” tactics to reduce premiums for specific groups. Private analyses and insurers’ playbooks show that buy‑downs (paying down benchmark plan premiums) or reinsurance can materially reduce net premium increases for those targeted — an example analysis found a buy‑down in one city cut a hypothetical enrollee’s additional monthly cost by roughly two‑thirds relative to no mitigation [10]. Reinsurance is less expensive than broad subsidies but requires up‑front funding and often benefits populations in higher‑cost states or specific age brackets; its reach is narrower than extending credits [10] [4].
4. Option C — Medicaid expansion: structural, long‑term coverage gains
Medicaid expansion closes coverage gaps for low‑income adults and removes them from the individual market, which can stabilize Marketplace risk pools and reduce uninsured rates. Sources note that policy changes around eligibility (including recent and proposed tightening for some immigrants) interact with Marketplace dynamics and that expanding Medicaid remains one of the most direct ways to cover lower‑income people who would otherwise face rising Marketplace premiums [3] [5]. However, Medicaid expansion is state‑level and politically contested; it cannot replace immediate federal subsidies for millions already enrolled in Marketplace plans [3].
5. Mixed strategies and political constraints: what combinations might work
Analysts and advocates emphasize combinations: partial subsidy extensions focused on middle‑income households, targeted reinsurance to lower premiums in volatile states, plus expanded Medicaid where feasible could together blunt both headline premium spikes and coverage losses [4] [10] [8]. Policymakers face tight timelines: open enrollment began while Congress debated extensions, so short‑term fixes (temporary subsidy extensions or emergency reinsurance funding) buy time for longer bipartisan design work [11] [12].
6. Limits, tradeoffs and uncertainties to watch
Available reporting stresses uncertainties: actuaries built 2026 rates under different assumptions about whether credits would sunset, utilization trends (including new drug use), and enrollment churn — any of which can alter outcomes [4] [6]. Sources differ on magnitude (some focus on national average premium increases, others on what enrollees actually pay after credits), so the practical effect varies by state, age and income [11] [2]. Finally, political will and budget choices will determine which levers are used; advocates call for permanency while some lawmakers seek narrower, cheaper fixes [9] [3].
Conclusion: policymakers have three practical federal levers — extend/redesign subsidies, fund reinsurance/buy‑downs, and push Medicaid expansion — and each mitigates premium spikes in different ways and scopes. The immediate fastest relief is subsidy extension, targeted programs can reduce costs more cheaply but less broadly, and Medicaid expansion addresses structural coverage gaps; the ultimate path will depend on budget tradeoffs and political negotiations now underway [5] [10] [3].