Cost of Obamacare expected to soar as subsidies expire and insurers hike premiums
Insurers that offer plans through the ACA are planning an average premium increase of 15% for 2026 — the largest increase in seven years, according to an analysis published Friday from KFF, a health policy research group. The analysis is based on filings from more than 100 insurers in 19 states and Washington, D.C.
The increase will likely come on top of the loss of enhanced subsidies that helped people pay for ACA health plans by capping the costs at a certain proportion of their income.
The finalized plans — including how much more people will be expected to pay each month — are usually published around August.
The enhanced subsidies came out of the 2021 American Rescue Plan and broadened the number of people eligible, including many in the middle class. The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, extended the subsidies through 2025.
The domestic policy bill that President Donald Trump signed into law earlier this month, however, did not extend them further. (Subsidies for people with very low incomes that were put in place when the ACA was enacted will still be available.) The bill also added more hurdles for people who get their health insurance through the ACA, such as adding new paperwork requirements to renew coverage each year.
Nearly 4 million people were projected to lose their coverage next year if the subsidies weren't extended, according to a 2024 analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency that provides budget and economic information to Congress.
A loss of coverage would also have implications for the cost of insurance.
With fewer people enrolled, insurers would have to spread the costs among a smaller group of people, pushing premiums higher, said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy.
An earlier analysis from KFF, published this month, found that more than 22 million people could see a sharp premium increase starting Jan. 1.
'This is not a repeal [of the ACA], but it's certainly an attempt to move in that direction,' Park said. 'It'll be much more costly, so that means it'll be less affordable for you to purchase a plan or renew your coverage.'
Chris Meekins, a health policy research analyst at the investment firm Raymond James who served in the first Trump administration, said the chances that Congress will extend the subsidies in time for next year are slim, as Trump and other Republicans have signaled that they don't support them.
Higher out-of-pocket costs
ACA enrollment reached a record high last year, totaling more than 24 million people, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Much of that growth was from the extended subsidies, the agency said. The average monthly premium was $113, compared with $162 in 2020.
According to KFF's latest analysis, most ACA insurers are proposing premium increases of 10% to 20% for 2026. More than a quarter, the group said, are proposing premium increases of 20% or more.
What people actually end up paying out of pocket for their monthly premiums could increase, on average, by more than 75%, Larry Levitt, the executive vice president for health policy at KFF, said on a call with reporters last week.
A family of three earning $110,000 a year and enrolled in a silver ACA plan — which usually comes with moderate monthly premiums — could see their monthly cost jump from $779 this year to $1,446 in 2026 when the enhanced subsidies expire, according to KFF. If insurers raise premiums by 15%, the monthly bill could climb even higher, to $1,662.
Some people may be able to keep their coverage by paying more in premiums each month or dropping down to so-called high-deductible plans, which have lower monthly premiums but require people to pay more out of pocket before coverage kicks in, Cynthia Cox, director of the program on the ACA, said on the same call.
Along with the other changes in the domestic policy bill, 'it amounts to what is effectively a partial repeal of the ACA, erasing a lot of its gain in health coverage,' Levitt said.
The subsidies on track to expire, however, aren't the only factor insurers are taking into account in their premium proposals, KFF's analysis found.
They're also concerned about the potential impact of tariffs on some drugs, medical equipment and supplies.
Earlier this month, Trump threatened to impose up to 200% tariffs 'very soon' on pharmaceuticals imported into the U.S. The majority of prescription drugs that people take in the U.S. are manufactured overseas.
Insurers also cited the anticipated growth in the cost of health care services, according to KFF. They also mentioned the cost of GLP-1 drugs, a class of medications that include the blockbuster drugs Ozempic and Wegovy. The drugs can cost more than $1,000 for a monthly supply.
On Thursday, a group of Democratic attorneys general filed a lawsuit to block a separate rule by the Trump administration that also makes changes to the ACA.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
10 minutes ago
- Reuters
Russia will still prop up rouble in August as Trump deadline looms
MOSCOW, Aug 5 (Reuters) - Russia will continue to support the rouble with net sales of foreign currency, according to new figures from the Finance Ministry released on Tuesday, ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump's deadline to show progress towards peace in Ukraine. The Finance Ministry said it will cut its foreign currency sales from its rainy day National Wealth Fund to 0.3 billion roubles ($3.75 million) a day from August 7 to September 4, down from 0.82 billion roubles previously. The measure will reduce the state's overall daily net forex sales, which combine forex operations by the ministry and the central bank, by 5% to 9.24 billion roubles a day from August 7. Under a complex set of foreign currency operations, the central bank buys and sells forex to ensure a steady supply on the domestic market and also on behalf of the finance ministry, which runs the National Wealth Fund. The ministry said it will sell 6.2 billion roubles of foreign currency during this period, compared with 18.77 billion roubles previously. Trump has said that from August 8 he will impose new sanctions on Russia as well as on countries that buy its energy exports, unless Moscow takes steps to end its 3-1/2 year war with Ukraine. The rouble weakened initially in response to Trump's threats but has since rebounded. The rouble traded 0.2% weaker at 79.95 to the U.S. dollar at 0930 GMT on Tuesday. ($1 = 79.9000 roubles)
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump to punish banks for dropping customers
Donald Trump is preparing to punish big banks over their alleged discrimination against conservative customers. The White House is drafting an executive order that will impose penalties on financial institutions for dropping customers based on political grounds. A draft of the order, which was seen by the Wall Street Journal, directs regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions breach the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws. Under the order, which could be signed as early as this week, violators face severe monetary penalties and other disciplinary measures. It also calls on regulators to strike policies that might have contributed to banks dropping certain customers – a practice known as debanking. In the UK, the debanking of Nigel Farage, the Reform leader, by Coutts in the summer of 2023 led to a national scandal. His accounts were closed down after the private bank, which serves the Royal family, decided his views 'do not align with our values' and that he posed a 'reputational risk'. A dossier – which Mr Farage described as a 'Stasi-style surveillance report' – later revealed the bank had cited his Brexit comments, his closeness with Mr Trump and his views on LGBT rights among many reasons he was not 'compatible with Coutts'. NatWest, which owns Coutts, paid Mr Farage an undisclosed sum in March this year to settle the long-running dispute. US banks have been fearful about being the next target of the Trump administration, following his attacks on universities and big law firms. The draft executive order did not name a specific bank, however Mr Trump in January accused the CEOs of JP Morgan Chase and the Bank of America, the largest US banks, of refusing to provide services for conservatives. Both banks denied making banking decisions based on politics. 'Woke capitalism' The criticism of Wall Street giants comes amid growing accusations from conservatives that financial institutions were engaging in 'woke capitalism' and unfairly cutting ties with businesses perceived to be aligned with the political right. Cryptocurrency companies have also said they were shut out of banking services under the Biden administration. Banks have said their decisions are based on financial, legal or reputational risks. In March, the Trump Organisation, which serves as a holding company for most of Mr Trump's business and investments, said it was 'debanked' by Capital One, America's ninth largest bank. The conglomerate sued the bank, alleging it was guilty of 'egregious conduct' by closing more than 300 of its accounts – which it called a 'clear attack on free speech and free enterprise'. The Trump administration is pursuing a broad reform agenda aimed at modifying rules governing financial institutions, including capital requirements, arguing that such action will boost economic growth and unleash innovation.
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Ed Miliband is teeing Labour up for yet another Scottish pummelling
It would come as too great a shock to the Government to admit that Donald Trump is right and Ed Miliband wrong. But it's true anyway, at least in terms of the recognition by the US president of the massive national resource that the North Sea's oil and gas fields are to the UK. This is a recognition that the Labour Energy Secretary seems to be resisting. Miliband has presided over a calamitous decline in the number of jobs in the North Sea in the year since his party regained power at the 2024 general election. More than 13,000 jobs – about 37 every day – have gone, even as the Government chooses to stand firm on its commitment not to grant any new oil and gas exploration licences in the North Sea and our dependence on foreign energy supplies grows. According to the Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) trade association, 57,200 out of a total of 117,900 jobs, both directly and in the broader supply chain, were lost in the decade after 2013. In almost any other industry, such devastation for families and the economy would have been marked by protest marches, a Government lobbying campaign and at least a handful of folk songs. But oil workers are not miners, even if their industry looks to be heading the same way. Preventing the issuing of new exploration licences might please the small number of teenagers and bored pensioners who have the time and energy to throw soup around art galleries and close off main thoroughfares as part of their campaign against oil, but it has also led to a significant dependence on foreign imported oil and gas – 47 per cent of our total energy needs in the first quarter of this year, according to Miliband's own department. That's nearly ten per cent higher than in 2019. It threatens to be a vicious economic cycle: fewer domestic jobs in the North Sea oil sector means less tax revenue for the Treasury, while increased imports of oil and gas risk Britain's carbon emissions targets because of the very act of transporting it across the globe. Never was the temptation for a department – or a cabinet minister – to virtue signal their green credentials greater, even at the risk of losing high-skilled, well-paid jobs in a sector that has proved indispensable to Scotland and the wider country in the last 50 years. The chief political problem for Miliband and his officials – and indeed the entire political class – is that the real narrative about climate change, if told honestly, is not one that would prove popular with voters. Reducing our carbon footprint was always going to be expensive and painful. So in order to sweeten that pill, politicians of all parties started talking about a 'just transition'. This essentially means the replacement of old jobs that are dependent on oil with new, shiny jobs that are carried out by smiling university graduates with hard hats standing in fields full of windmills. The reality, however, is that that transition will not be as smooth or as painless as our political leaders want it to be. The modern job market is not subject to the whims of governments, except at the margins, and the transition, as amply shown by the job loss figures in the last decade, will be messy and painful. Yet the pretence is seen as necessary, otherwise voters simply won't vote for parties that support saving the planet, and so the greater good must be prioritised over short-term goals like employment and prosperity. Miliband could ameliorate the damage done to the North Sea jobs market by easing up on his ideological opposition to new drilling licences. During his recent visit to Scotland, president Trump described the North Sea as a 'treasure chest', but observed also that the Government 'have essentially told drillers and oil companies that 'we don't want you'.' This is evidently true. So long as the Government maintains its North Sea windfall tax on the industry, refuses to grant new drilling licences and depends on increasing volumes of foreign oil imports, there is very little for the industry, and the individuals and families that rely upon it, to look forward to. With the imminent winding down of the Grangemouth oil refinery and the loss of hundreds of jobs there – the site is to be converted to an import terminal for finished fuel – Scotland is set to be hit hardest by this Government's energy strategy. And Scottish voters may well severely punish Labour in the next election: could 2029 be another 2015? Historically, Labour in office has frequently found ways of compromising its high-minded socialist principles if that was what was necessary for defending the livelihoods for working people. Such compromises were swiftly condemned by those on the party's Left. Now we have a cabinet minister who, in another age, would have been one of those critics. If a new, imaginative and economically serious path is to be charted out of the industrial vandalism currently being wrought on the North Sea, a new Energy Secretary might have to lead the way.
