Which programs use 250% FPL as an eligibility cutoff in 2025 (e.g., SNAP, CHIP, subsidies)?

1. What claimants said — pulling the central assertions into focus

The collected analyses assert a handful of specific points: that Medicaid, in at least some descriptions, is evaluated against FPL thresholds and that ACA Marketplace premium assistance and cost‑sharing reductions reference 250% FPL as a meaningful threshold ^{[2] [1]}. One analysis directly lists Medicaid and CHIP among programs discussed with FPL references but does not establish 250% as a uniform CHIP cutoff; instead, it notes state variation and the standard Medicaid expansion level near 138% FPL ^{[5] [3]}. Another cluster of notes emphasizes that SNAP typically uses much lower percentages (around 130% FPL) for gross income tests, arguing SNAP does not employ 250% FPL as an eligibility cutoff ^{[4] [6]}. These collated claims therefore present a mixed picture: specific marketplace subsidy rules tie to 250% FPL in guidance, while major means‑tested programs often use different thresholds ^{[1] [4] [7]}.

2. Where 250% FPL appears affirmatively in the sources — subsidies and CSR rules

The clearest affirmative references to 250% FPL in the material relate to ACA Marketplace mechanics: cost‑sharing reduction eligibility tied to Silver plans and expected premium contribution schedules use income bands that pivot around 250% FPL, making that level functionally important for subsidy design ^[1]. One source frames premium assistance thresholds as working with the 250% benchmark when calculating household expected contributions toward premiums, and the CSR “Silver 73% AV” eligibility references that same band ^[1]. This establishes that marketplace subsidy rules and cost‑sharing protections explicitly incorporate the 250% mark into benefit math and thresholds, even if other programs do not mirror that exact cutoff ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Where 250% FPL is absent — SNAP, standard Medicaid expansion, and typical CHIP limits

Multiple analyses underscore that SNAP uses substantially lower income limits — notably gross income tests around 130% FPL — and does not use 250% FPL as a programwide eligibility cutoff in the cited material ^{[4] [6] [8]}. Likewise, Medicaid expansion commonly sets eligibility near 138% FPL for adults in expansion states, not 250% ^{[5] [3]}. CHIP income eligibility varies by state and frequently extends beyond Medicaid levels but is described in the analyses as often at 200% FPL or set by state policy, with the sources here not presenting 250% as a standard national CHIP cap ^{[7] [3]}. These findings indicate 250% FPL is not a default eligibility ceiling for these core programs according to the materials provided.

4. State variation, program mechanics, and where ambiguity remains

The analyses repeatedly highlight state variation and program design differences as key reasons the 250% FPL question lacks a single answer. CHIP income limits vary by state and can exceed federal percentages in places; Medicaid rules differ between expansion and non‑expansion states; and marketplace subsidy mechanics depend on income calculations using prior‑year or current‑year FPL figures, adding complexity ^{[5] [3] [2]}. Several source notes stress that some sources use different FPL bases (current vs. prior year) and that program guidance can reference percentage bands like 200%, 250%, or 300% in different contexts, leaving operational ambiguity about when 250% is decisive ^{[2] [9]}.

5. Missing evidence, important caveats, and next steps for verification

The collected materials lack a definitive, consolidated list of programs that uniformly apply 250% FPL in 2025 and often omit explicit citations tying 250% to CHIP or Medicaid nationwide; they instead present partial or state‑specific references and clear statements that SNAP and standard Medicaid expansion use other thresholds ^{[5] [4] [7]}. To confirm program‑by‑program application of 250% FPL in 2025, the next step is to consult primary federal rule texts, state CHIP plan documents, and current HHS/Marketplace guidance dated in 2024–2025; the provided analyses point to where 250% matters (Marketplace subsidies/CSR) and where it typically does not (SNAP, Medicaid expansion) but do not supply exhaustive primary documentation ^{[1] [8] [9]}.