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.
Fact check: How much would Medicare Part B and Part D premiums rise if COVID-era or temporary federal subsidies end in 2025?
Executive Summary
Congressional and policy analyses offer no single authoritative estimate tying the end of COVID-era or temporary federal subsidies in 2025 directly to a fixed dollar or percentage increase in Medicare Part B and Part D premiums. Available reporting and government announcements outline baseline 2025 costs and independent projections for 2026 that show varying increases—for example, a widely circulated projection of an 11.6% Part B premium rise to $206.50 and statutory limits that could cap Part D growth at about 6%—but sources disagree on attribution and mechanism [1] [2] [3] [4]. The evidence indicates uncertainty: some analyses present concrete percentage changes for 2026, while others focus on program design changes, stabilization mechanisms, or note that COVID-era subsidies were not the sole driver of premium trends [1] [3] [5].
1. What advocates and outlets are actually claiming — a jumble of projections and missing links
Multiple articles and policy summaries make specific claims about 2026 Medicare premiums while simultaneously acknowledging gaps tying those changes to the expiration of COVID-era or temporary subsidies. One prominent projection cites an 11.6% increase in the Part B monthly premium from $185 to $206.50 and a Part B deductible rise of 12% from $257 to $288, plus an average 4.2% increase in Part D deductibles; that projection is presented as a straightforward forecast for 2026 without explicitly proving causation to expiring subsidies [1]. Other sources present the 2026 Part D base beneficiary premium of $38.99 and frame it as a 6% increase versus 2025, while emphasizing that statutory features such as the Inflation Reduction Act’s cap on Part D premium growth and program redesign elements can blunt upward pressure; these pieces therefore present facts about projected dollars and policy constraints but stop short of attributing the full increase to subsidy expirations [2] [3].
2. Government baseline numbers show what premiums did heading into 2025 — useful but not causal
CMS and reporting about 2025 Medicare premiums and cost-sharing offer a baseline against which 2026 changes are measured, and several sources summarize those 2025 figures in detail. The 2025 announced Part A and Part B premiums, deductibles, and income-related Part D adjustments provide concrete reference points for year-to-year comparisons, but these official notices do not model a counterfactual in which COVID-era or temporary federal subsidies continue; they simply state policy-set amounts for 2025 [4] [6] [7]. Analysts therefore use those baselines to compute percentage changes for 2026, but that arithmetic alone does not establish the magnitude of effect attributable specifically to ending temporary subsidies, leaving room for divergent interpretations and competing explanations in the media and policy community [4] [6].
3. Why some analyses show limited Part D increases despite subsidy changes — law and design matter
Several analyses stress that policy design choices, such as statutory caps or benefit redesigns, materially influence Part D premium outcomes and can counteract some upward pressure that might follow subsidy changes. The Inflation Reduction Act’s mechanism to cap Part D base beneficiary premium growth at 6% is highlighted as a binding constraint likely to limit premium increases in 2026 regardless of subsidy expirations; this statutory feature explains why one authoritative projection lists a modest 6% increase in the Part D base premium to $38.99 for 2026 [3] [2]. Sources arguing limited Part D impact are effectively saying that legislative fixes and program redesigns matter more than temporary subsidy transitions alone, and therefore headline premium changes should be interpreted in the context of those legal constraints and administrative rules [3].
4. Where projections diverge — politics, assumptions, and messaging
Discrepancies in reported premium increases trace to differences in assumptions, timeframes, and agendas. Some outlets present a single-year arithmetic increase (e.g., 11.6% for Part B) framed as a policy failure or unavoidable fiscal consequence, while others note regulatory levers and multi-year smoothing that mute immediate impacts [1] [5]. Organizations with explicit policy aims or partisan perspectives may emphasize either the size of the increase to press for relief or downplay it to defend existing law; the pieces that discuss ending enhanced Premium Tax Credits or COVID-era payments often concentrate on marketplace dynamics rather than Medicare’s actuarial mechanisms, producing incomplete linkages between subsidy sunsets and Medicare premium paths [8] [5].
5. The verdict: what can be stated with confidence and what remains speculative
Firm conclusions are limited: we can state the projected 2026 numbers reported by analysts and agencies, such as the cited 11.6% Part B increase to $206.50 and the 6% cap on Part D base premium growth to $38.99, while also stating that official 2025 baseline figures are published and used for comparisons [1] [2] [4]. What remains speculative is the share of any increase that is causally attributable specifically to the end of COVID-era or temporary federal subsidies; the provided analyses do not deliver an apples-to-apples counterfactual quantifying that share, and different policy mechanisms and legislative constraints are identified that would either amplify or blunt the effect [5] [3]. Readers should treat single-number claims about subsidy-driven premium increases as conditional projections, not settled causal findings, unless accompanied by transparent modeling showing the subsidy effect isolated from other drivers [1] [3].