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: Which states will see the largest increases in premiums when subsidies expire in 2025?
Executive Summary
The available analyses converge on a clear pattern: states with large shares of marketplace enrollees and high underlying baseline premiums will face the largest percentage increases when the enhanced premium tax credits expire at the end of 2025, with multiple reports flagging Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Arizona, West Virginia, and Wyoming among the most exposed. Estimates of the magnitude vary sharply — from national averages of roughly 26–30% to catastrophic local spikes exceeding 100% in warnings that millions could drop coverage — reflecting differences in methodology between aggregate averages and state- or insurer-level rate filings [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The remainder of this analysis extracts the key claims, compares methodologies and timelines, and highlights where partisan framing or differing data scopes create divergent impressions about who will be hit hardest in 2026 [6] [7].
1. What every source agrees on: a big rollback will raise costs and push people off plans
All sources presented here agree that the scheduled end of enhanced premium tax credits will produce substantial increases in what many marketplace enrollees pay in 2026, raising premiums and out-of-pocket costs materially and prompting significant dropout from the marketplaces. Broad national summaries place the average premium jump in the mid‑20s to 30 percent range and warn that the roughly 22 million enrollees who currently receive enhanced credits would face much larger gross premium levels without subsidies [1] [2]. Independent analyses and press outlets project that millions could forgo coverage entirely if credits lapse, underscoring the direct linkage between the federal subsidy design and marketplace participation [3]. These convergent findings establish a baseline consensus that the policy change will be consequential across states, ages, and income brackets [6].
2. Where the largest percentage increases show up: regional and state-level hot spots
State- and insurer-level filings and mapped studies identify specific states where percentage increases will be largest, and these lists overlap but are not identical across reports. One mapping study highlights Arkansas, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Arizona with proposed rate increases in the 42.5–59% range, signaling substantial insurer rate pressure in those markets [4]. Other analyses single out West Virginia and Wyoming as states with high underlying premiums that magnify the effect of subsidy removals, and KFF-based district mapping emphasizes Texas, Florida, and Georgia as having many congressional districts where marketplace reliance and subsidy impacts are concentrated [6] [5]. The variation reflects whether analysts report insurer-proposed rate changes, state-averaged benchmark impacts, or district-level exposure.
3. Why estimates differ so much: methodology, scope, and the subsidy math
Differences among the cited numbers stem from three mechanics: [8] whether the figure is an average across all enrollees versus a local or insurer-level percent change, [9] whether analyses compare premiums with today’s enhanced credits already folded in or compute gross premium changes without any credits, and [10] use of proposed insurer rate filings versus enacted final rates. National averages from KFF and linked reporting center on benchmark plan increases (about 26–30% nationally), while media pieces amplifying headline 114% figures compute the change for certain enrollee profiles by removing credits entirely and comparing gross premiums to subsidized payments [1] [2] [3]. State regulatory approvals and insurer filings capture heterogeneity that averages obscure and explain why Arkansas/New Mexico appear far worse in some datasets [4] [7].
4. The timeline and political framing matter: what’s near-term versus what’s hypothetical
Publication dates show most analyses were released in October–November 2025, during annual rate filing disclosure and open enrollment reporting, which means many figures reflect preliminary filings or modeled scenarios tied to the policy cliff at year-end 2025 [1] [7]. Some outlets emphasize immediate, headline-grabbing worst-case scenarios to underscore the stakes of congressional action to extend credits, while others present moderated state averages to illustrate system-wide shifts. That contrast signals evident policy advocacy incentives: organizations and outlets urging legislative fixes accentuate high-end impacts and enrollment losses, whereas insurers’ or regulators’ filings focus on actuarial justifications for proposed rate changes [3] [6].
5. Bottom line for which states will see the largest premium jumps and why it matters
Synthesizing the evidence, the largest percentage premium increases will concentrate in states with high baseline marketplace premiums and high shares of subsidy-dependent enrollees — specifically states repeatedly named across analyses include Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, New Mexico, Arizona, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Wyoming [5] [4] [6]. The practical impact will vary: some states will see insurer-proposed hikes above 40–50%, others will experience large effective increases for specific households once credits vanish, and some national averages will mask that spatial inequality [4] [1]. Policymakers and consumers should treat headline national percentages as informative but incomplete; state- and plan-level scrutiny is necessary to know who will actually bear the biggest sticker shock [7] [11].