SD Senate supports ‘forever chemical' labels on firefighting protective gear
A federal wildland firefighter at work in a forest. (Photo by U.S. Forest Service)
South Dakota senators unanimously endorsed a bill Monday at the Capitol in Pierre to require protective firefighting equipment purchased by fire departments in the state to be labeled with its 'forever chemical' status.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s and don't break down easily in the environment or in the human body. The chemicals can be found in everything from firefighting foam to thermal and water-resistant clothing to soil and water. Research indicates PFAS exposure may be linked to negative developmental and reproductive effects, and an increased risk of some cancers.
PFAS pollution a growing problem for U.S. farmers
The federal government finalized phased-in limits on some types of PFAS in drinking water earlier this year. PFAS has been found in preliminary testing of Mount Rushmore drinking water and in the Big Sioux River.
Sioux Falls Democratic Sen. Liz Larson introduced Senate Bill 163, requiring South Dakota fire departments' future purchases of coats, coveralls, footwear, gloves, helmets, hoods and trousers to have a permanent label from the manufacturer identifying whether the material includes PFAS.
Occupational cancer is the leading cause of line-of-duty death in the fire service, Larson told lawmakers. She added that the International Association of Firefighters attributes 66% of firefighter deaths between 2002 and 2019 to cancer.
The legislation would drive awareness and encourage the development of PFAS-free protective gear 'so that our firefighting departments have the information they need to manage their gear over time, as we hope safer gear becomes available in the future,' Larson said. Similar bills have passed in other states.
The National Fire Protection Association, a nonprofit organization that develops and publishes safety codes and standards, issued new standards in August 2024. The standards require manufacturer-suppliers of firefighting safety gear to test their materials for some types of PFAS.
The bill heads to the House of Representatives next.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Kathy Hochul's gutless silence on assisted suicide is a betrayal: Rep. Stefanik
Last month, Gov. Kathy Hochul attacked Republicans for their budget bill that aims to rein in wasteful and fraudulent federal spending. 'I believe that we should try to prevent our constituents from dying,' she declared. Now, just two weeks later, New Yorkers have proof that these words from Hochul's lips are a cruel lie. My heart shatters for our state: Hochul's gutless silence on the so-called assisted suicide bill passed by Albany's far-left Democrats isn't just cowardice; it's a betrayal of every New Yorker clinging to hope, a dagger in the backs of the vulnerable she swore to protect. In the last days of this year's legislative session, New York state Senate Democrats forced through a despicable measure, in a 35-27 vote, empowering doctors to prescribe lethal drugs to the terminally ill. This isn't 'dignity' or 'choice,' but a death sentence cloaked in deception, telling our elderly, our disabled and our sick that their lives aren't worth fighting for. The bill now sits on Hochul's desk, and where is she? Hiding. Silent. Dodging with a spineless 'she'll review the legislation' statement from her team. All while families of all political and spiritual backgrounds, all across New York, weep at the thought of our state allowing companies to profit off death. Hochul's hypocrisy knows no bounds. New York ranks dead last in access to palliative care, a compassionate lifeline that eases suffering and restores dignity for the terminally ill. Palliative care envelops patients in holistic support to manage pain and address emotional and spiritual needs, and it helps families navigate the unthinkable. It's doctors and nurses sitting bedside, listening to fears and crafting plans that honor life. It's the hand squeezed during a sleepless night, the reassurance that no one faces the end alone. Yet in Hochul's New York, only a fraction of those who need palliative services can access them — leaving the suffering to beg for comfort while leftist Democrats under her watch push a culture of death and despair. This failure compounds a broader crisis caused by Kathy Hochul's worthless leadership. One in five New Yorkers battles mental illness yearly, and hundreds of thousands go untreated. Those who live with disabilities are crushed by a cruel bureaucratic maze, worsened by Hochul's heartless overhaul of the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program, which put the desires of politically connected contractors over the needs of suffering families and caregivers. Again and again, her policies destroy hope for those in need — and yet she stands mute and inept as her party peddles a bill that whispers 'Give up' to a depressed veteran, tells a grandmother with cancer 'You're a burden' and screams to a disabled New Yorker, 'Your life isn't worth saving.' It's anti-human, it's anti-American, and it's a betrayal of the values that bind us as New Yorkers. Hochul's silence here speaks volumes, and it isn't indecision but complicity, trading vulnerable lives for political points with her far-left Democrat base. New Yorkers are heartbroken and furious. Under Hochul's catastrophic reign, crime surges, costs crush families, corruption festers — and now the sanctity of life itself is under assault. People are fleeing to Florida and other states, driven out by the worst governor in America who fails them at every turn. Hochul has the power to veto this moral travesty. She could champion life by investing in palliative care that wraps the suffering in dignity and love. Instead, her silence screams surrender. I won't stay silent. My heart burns for the mother praying for one more day with her child, for the disabled New Yorker fighting for respect, for every soul this bill would discard. New York needs real leadership — robust palliative-care programs, accessible mental-health services and dignified support for the disabled — not a state-encouraged push toward the grave. In 2026, New Yorkers will reject this failed governor at the ballot box and restore principled leadership that cherishes every life. Kathy Hochul, the clock is ticking. Veto this bill or you'll be remembered as the governor who truly let hope die. New Yorkers are watching — and we won't forget. Republican Elise Stefanik represents New York's 21st District in Congress.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
The chemicals in your drinking water that are harming your health (and how to avoid them)
Forever chemicals are part and parcel of modern life. Whether you're pulling on a waterproof jacket, grabbing a coffee in a paper cup, or unwrapping a takeaway, chances are your body's absorbing them. There's more than 10,000 of these synthetic compounds today, which are prized for their resistance to water, oil and stains. That makes them incredibly useful, but nearly impossible to avoid. First developed in the 1930s in both Germany and the United States, PFAS became widely commercialised in the 1950s when US company DuPont used PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) to create Teflon, the world's first non-stick coating. Their chemical structure – bonding carbon with fluorine – makes them nearly impossible to break down. As a result, they can persist in the environment for hundreds or even thousands of years, earning them the nickname 'forever chemicals'. This persistence means PFAS are now ubiquitous. They are found in soil, air, drinking water, rainwater, and even the blood of nearly every person on Earth. The use of the most dangerous PFAS chemicals, PFOA and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonic acid), were phased out in the United States, the UK and many other countries beginning in the early 2000s, after studies linked them to cancer, immune system suppression, thyroid disease, liver damage, developmental delays in children, and fertility issues. However, although they are not used in the manufacture of new products in the UK, those toxic, banned chemicals will never disappear from our environment. They exist in the water we drink and the soil that grows our food. More worrying is that these banned substances have been replaced by newer, supposedly less harmful, forever chemicals. These haven't been shown to cause health problems yet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried. Dr Dave Megson, a chemistry and environmental forensics scientist at Manchester Metropolitan University, says: 'I'm still concerned about them. We've banned the two chemicals we know the most about, but the replacement chemicals are very similar. They're just less understood and their toxicity hasn't been fully confirmed. That seems to be the loophole because we haven't proven they're harmful yet, they're still allowed.' He thinks they will be banned in time and 'we're just waiting for the toxicological data to catch up. We need time to prove how harmful these new PFAS are.' Ian Cousins, professor of environmental organic chemistry at Stockholm University, thinks that most uses are unnecessary. 'We should not be using them because they're so persistent, and there are alternatives on the market.' Last month, the UK's Environmental Audit Committee launched a formal inquiry into PFAS contamination and regulation across the UK. They're concerned that the evidence showing they harm human health is not being taken seriously enough. The UK is lagging behind most other developing countries when it comes to regulating forever chemicals. The EU is moving forward with a comprehensive proposal to restrict the manufacture, use and marketing of approximately 10,000 PFAS. Currently, the UK has banned several specific PFAS chemicals found in firefighting foams, such as Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), banned over a decade ago, and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), which will be banned from July this year. It's no surprise, given the UK's lack of regulation that a global study assessing blood serums containing PFAS, found UK concentrations to be amongst some of the highest in the world. But while we are waiting for the UK government to catch up with the rest of the world, there are measures that worried consumers can take to reduce their exposure. Despite water companies having to dilute contaminated water with purer water or use an alternative source, PFAS are still getting into drinking water. PFAS were found in more than half of samples of Scottish drinking water taken in 2023. PFAS have also been found in both bottled and tap water samples in the UK. The Environment Agency has identified over 10,000 sites across England as high-risk for PFAS contamination, many associated with firefighting foam which contained now banned PFAS. Prof Cousins says that people should be especially concerned if they live near an industrial or military site that may have used firefighting foam in the past. 'That is a particularly nasty PFAS and you don't want to be exposed to it. So if you live in that [kind of] area I would consider getting my water tested and install a water filter.' Several UK sites are under investigation for PFAS contamination from firefighting foam. At AGC Chemicals in Thornton-Cleveleys, Lancashire, over 100 tonnes of PFOA (now a banned chemical) were released between 1950 and 2012, prompting soil and water testing. In Norfolk, RAF Marham is being examined after PFAS were found in local drinking water, with bottled water now being supplied to residents. Duxford's former RAF base, now an Imperial War Museum site, is also being monitored due to potential contamination of nearby aquifers. The most effective water filters for removing PFAS use reverse osmosis, activated carbon, or ion exchange. Reverse osmosis systems can remove up to ninety-nine per cent of PFAS, while activated carbon filters also work well if the filters are changed regularly. Good examples include Berkey Water Filters, which use carbon elements tested for PFAS removal, and the Aquasana OptimH2O, which combines reverse osmosis and carbon filtration. Dr Megson offers some reassurance. 'The UK has some of the most tested and regulated water in the world. In known hotspots water is regularly blended and monitored to stay within guidelines. Carpets might be cosy and warm underfoot but increasingly researchers are raising concerns over them as a hidden source of PFAS. They are often added to carpets to make them stain and water resistant. Walking on them creates dust that can reach breathing height. 'People think of contamination as something outside, but indoor dust is significant. For example, carpets treated with Scotchgard in the 1990s are now breaking down releasing PFAS as the fibres degrade,' says Dr Megson. A recent study led by Dr Scott Bartell at the University of California, Irvine, found that people living with carpets consistently showed higher blood PFAS levels than those with bare floors. His conclusion? Carpets are a significant and underestimated source of exposure. Oliver Jones, professor of chemistry, at RMIT University in Melbourne says that 'if you really want to reduce exposure, you should start by looking at where the largest sources of PFAS to humans are. Evidence suggests it's dust in the air.' He recommends getting an air filter. While a standard mechanical air filter, known as an HEPA filter can trap particulate-bound PFAS (like those stuck to dust), a better choice would be an activated carbon air filter. The critical difference: they can remove gaseous PFAS from the air. For broader protection, a combination of both HEPA and activated carbon filtration is ideal. Activated carbon works by adsorbing chemicals at a molecular level, capturing many volatile PFAS compounds that might otherwise circulate freely in your home. Not all air purifiers are created equal, though. Look for units with large activated carbon beds and a high Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR). Vacuum with a HEPA filter: a high-efficiency vacuum can reduce PFAS-laden dust. Models like Dyson's Gen5outsize (£1,000) or the more affordable Shark Detect and Empty (£350) both offer strong filtration, though only some include activated carbon filters to trap gases. Parchment paper, wax paper and foil are regular fixtures in most kitchens. They are the kind of supplies people use without thinking twice. But research has found that some of these everyday items may be coated with PFAS. When exposed to high temperatures, especially in ovens or on grills, PFAS can break down and potentially seep into the food. That means cooking something as simple as vegetables in foil, or lining a tray with treated paper, could become a source of unwanted chemical exposure over time. 'There are lots of kitchen items with PFAS, including baking paper, non-stick pans and even dishwasher tablets,', says Dr Megson. 'Not all of them transfer large amounts to your food, but some still do. Some parchment paper contains PFAS. But if you're baking a cake once a month, the exposure is minimal compared to what you get from your diet or potentially your water.' 'It's death by a thousand paper cuts. It might be small amounts, but it all adds up in burger wrappers, coffee cups, dishwasher tablets, makeup and workout clothes,' he says. A simple solution that creates a similar non-stick effect is to coat your pan with butter and cover it with flour. The following retailers provide some PFAS-free alternatives: Green Safe Products, Clondakin Group, Nordic Paper. PFAS are also found in a lot of athletic clothing including popular Lycra leggings. They are added to fabrics to make them water and stain resistant, or to help wick sweat away from the skin, which is common in performance gear. A 2022 investigation by Toxic Free Future found that more than 70 per cent of sportswear tested contained PFAS, including items from well-known brands. Researchers at Birmingham University also found that sweating makes it easier for the body to absorb these chemicals into the body. There are plenty of PFAS-free options. Look for those made from natural fabrics, such as organic cotton, hemp and bamboo. These selections represent a range of PFAS-free sportswear options from reputable brands: Patagonia has been working to eliminate PFAS from its products, and offers items like the Cap Cool Daily Shirt. Sweaty Betty's Ultimate Studio Twin Strap Bra Vest is designed without PFAS. PFAS can be used to waterproof outdoor clothing. The performance clothing company Rab has been actively working to eliminate PFAS from its products. As of autumn/winter 2024, approximately 95 per cent of Rab's fabrics with durable water repellent (DWR) treatments are PFAS-free. Patagonia Torrentshell 3L rain jacket and North Face's Resolve 2 jacket are PFAS- free. 'I think the cosmetics industry has got away [with it] pretty lightly at the moment, whereas the clothing industry has had to do quite a lot,' said Dr Megson. He is worried about gym users applying make-up. 'I'd expect people to get more exposure through make-up than clothes. A lot of people now wear make-up in the gym because they want to look good while exercising. So they go for the really tough 72-hour formulas because they don't want it to run. The reason it stays on so well is because it's packed with PFAS, which resist sweat and water.' Many everyday cosmetics like nail polish, lipstick, mascara, and foundation contain chemicals PFAS, added because they help make products more durable, waterproof, and longer-lasting. Natural and organic beauty products often avoid these synthetic chemicals altogether. Several UK brands now offer PFAS-free nail varnishes and polishes that focus on safer, non-toxic ingredients. Popular options include Zoya, known for formulas free from harmful chemicals like PFAS and Piggy Paint, which provides non-toxic, water-based polishes safe for sensitive skin. Axiology offers clean beauty products with PFAS-free nail polishes. 'Fast food packaging is another unnecessary use of PFAS. It's done purely for convenience. It's there to stop grease from soaking through. We don't want a greasy stain on our shorts or trousers when we're eating a burger. But in warm, moist conditions, like with a wrapped burger, more chemicals can transfer. So it's an extra load we really don't need,' says Dr Megson. 'Pizza boxes are some of the worst and most unnecessary use of PFAS,' says Prof Cousins. 'Instead of using chemicals to stop the fats from the pizza escaping the box, they should make thicker boxes.' Some PFAS-free alternatives include uncoated paper and cardboard, which are suitable for dry foods like sandwiches and pastries and can be recycled or composted. Bioplastic-coated paper, made with plant-based polylactic acid (PLA), offers compostable options. Containers made from sugarcane byproducts, known as bagasse, are naturally grease- and water-resistant, microwave-safe, and home compostable, making them ideal for takeaway plates and containers. However, the raised awareness about PFAS is having an impact on businesses. McDonald's has committed to eliminating them from its food packaging globally by 2025. While US Tex-Mex chain Chipotle committed to eliminating PFAS from all packaging by 2024 and has made significant progress. To keep hot drinks from soaking through paper cups, they are lined with a thin layer of plastic-like material. 'These cups contain PFAS,' said Prof Cousins. 'Remember though that not all PFAS are the same. They have short chains unlike the older ones that were banned. These substances have not so far been linked to human health effects. However, they are persistent and will accumulate in the environment, which is not a good thing. Toxicity is about dose, so if they continue to accumulate, they are likely to be a problem in the future.' If you're concerned, a simple way to steer clear is to carry a reusable cup made from materials like stainless steel, glass or silicone. Both Dr Megson and Prof Cousins says that we absorb a lot of PFAS through the food chain. 'I wouldn't eat any fish or shellfish from Morecambe Bay. I wouldn't touch the estuary because it is terribly contaminated, says Prof Cousins. I'd be suspicious of eggs reared at home or in these areas, and home-grown vegetables if you live near a hot spot. I would avoid freshwater fish from polluted rivers.' Strawberries sold in the UK have been found to contain high levels of pesticide residues that include PFAS. A 2022 review of government testing data, analysed by Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK), found that nearly all of the strawberry samples, 95 per cent, contained traces of PFAS-related pesticides. Strawberries appear to be particularly vulnerable due to the types of pesticides used, and the fruit's porous surface. Other fruits and vegetables, including grapes, spinach, cherries, and tomatoes were also found to carry PFAS residues. 'We get a lot of our PFAS in our bodies from our diet,' says Dr Megson. Wastewater sludge or slurry which is used as a fertiliser is packed full of PFAS. Animals grazing on contaminated land or drinking polluted water can accumulate PFAS in their tissues, which then passes up to the food chain to humans. Going organic is the best solution to avoid PFAS. Washing fruit and vegetables thoroughly to try to remove as much of them as possible. Recent research has shown that donating blood or plasma and taking specific medications can help reduce PFAS levels in the body. A 2022 Australian study found that regular blood donations lowered PFAS concentrations by about 10 per cent, while plasma donations, which remove more of the protein-bound PFAS, reduced levels by up to 30 per cent over a year. Additionally, clinical trials are exploring the use of cholestyramine, used to lower cholesterol. This medication binds to PFAS in the digestive system, helping eliminate them through the liver. While these methods don't eliminate PFAS entirely, they offer promising ways to reduce the body's chemical burden, especially for those with high exposure. PFAS and microplastics can be linked. Microplastics are tiny plastic particles (less than 5mm) that result from the breakdown of larger plastic waste or are manufactured at that size, commonly polluting oceans, soil, and even food. PFAS can bind to or coat microplastics in the environment, effectively hitching a ride on these tiny plastic particles. This combination may increase the potential for PFAS to enter the food chain, as microplastics are ingested by marine life and other organisms. So while they are chemically distinct, they can interact and amplify each other's environmental impact. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
4 ways Trump's ‘one big beautiful bill' would undermine access to Obamacare
Major changes could be in store for the more than 24 million people with health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, including how and when they can enroll, the paperwork required, and, crucially, the premiums they pay. A driver behind these changes is the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' the name given to spending and tax legislation designed to advance the policy agenda of President Donald Trump. It passed the House on May 22 and is pending in the Senate. The changes also would come from regulations the Trump administration proposed in March and the potential expiration of larger premium subsidies put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Millions of people might drop or lose coverage by 2034 as a result, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Combined, the moves by Trump and his allies could 'devastate access' to ACA plans, said Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the O'Neill Institute, a health policy research group at Georgetown University. States that run their own Obamacare marketplaces and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners have also raised concerns about added costs and reduced access. But House Republicans and some conservative think tanks say the ACA needs revamping to rein in fraud, part of which they pin on certain Biden administration changes the measures would undo. Senate Republicans must now weigh whether to include the House's proposals in their own bill, with the aim of getting it through the chamber by July 4. Here are four key ways Trump's policies could undermine Obamacare enrollment and coverage. The House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which runs more than 1,000 pages, would create paperwork requirements that could delay access to tax credits for some enrollees, potentially raising the cost of their insurance. More than 90% of ACA enrollees receive tax credits to defray monthly premiums for their coverage. There are two key provisions for them to watch. One would end automatic reenrollment for most ACA policyholders each year. More than 10 million people were automatically reenrolled in their coverage for the 2025 plan year, with their eligibility for tax credits confirmed via a system that allows ACA marketplaces to check government or other data sources. The House bill would instead require every new or returning policyholder each year to provide information on income, household size, immigration status, and other factors, starting in 2028. If they don't, they won't get a premium tax credit, which could put the price of coverage out of reach. Louisiana Legislature targets out-of-state doctors who provide abortion pills 'Everyone who wants to either purchase or renew a marketplace plan will have to come with a shoebox filled with documents, scan in and upload them or mail them in, and sit and wait while someone reviews and confirms them,' said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. She and other policy experts fear that many consumers will become uninsured because they don't understand the requirements or find them burdensome. If too many young and healthy people, for example, decide it's not worth the hassle, that could leave more older and sicker people for ACA insurers to cover — potentially raising premiums for everyone. But supporters of the House bill say the current approach needs changing because it is vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse. 'This would ensure that enrollees need to return to the exchange to update their information and obtain an updated eligibility determination for a subsidy — best protecting the public against excess subsidies paid to insurers that can never be recovered,' the conservative Paragon Institute wrote in an April letter to top Department of Health and Human Services officials. Today, people who experience life changes — losing a job, getting married or divorced, or having a baby, for instance — are considered provisionally eligible for tax credits to reduce their premiums if they sign up or change their ACA plans. That means they would be eligible to receive these subsidies for at least 90 days while their applications are checked against government data or other sources, or marketplaces follow up with requests for additional information. The House bill would end that, requiring documentation before receiving tax credits. That could create particular hardship for new parents, who can't confirm that babies are eligible for premium subsidies until they receive Social Security numbers weeks after they're born. Policy experts following the debate 'did not expect the end to provisional eligibility,' Corlette said. 'I don't know what the reaction in the Senate will be, as I'm not sure everyone understands the full implications of these provisions because they are so new.' It can take up to six weeks for the Social Security Administration to process a number for a newborn, and an additional two weeks for parents to get the card, according to a white paper that analyzed provisions of the House bill and was co-authored by Jason Levitis, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, and Christen Linke Young, a visiting fellow with Brookings' Center on Health Policy. Without a Social Security number, any application to add a newborn to an ACA policy would automatically generate a hold on premium tax credits for that family, they wrote — increasing their out-of-pocket costs, at least temporarily. 'It puts consumers on the hook for any delays the marketplace is taking,' while the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the ACA marketplaces, 'is cutting staff and adding a lot more paperwork to burden the staff they have,' Levitis said. Provisions in the House bill that would require ACA enrollees to provide information each year that they reenroll — or when seeking to add or change a policy due to a life circumstance — would increase the number of people without health insurance by 700,000 in 2034, according to the latest CBO estimate. The House bill would turn into law a Trump proposal to shorten the ACA open enrollment period. The start date would continue to be Nov. 1. But the window would be shortened by about a month, with an end date of Dec. 15. This affects people in states that use the federal marketplace as well as the 19 states and the District of Columbia that run their own, most of which offer open enrollment into at least mid-January. Also, as soon as the end of this year, a special enrollment period the Biden administration created would be done away with. It allowed people with lower incomes — those who earn up to 1.5 times the 2024 federal poverty level, or about $38,730 for a family of three — to sign up anytime during the year. Critics, including the Paragon Institute, argue that this enrollment opening led to fraud, partly blaming it for a steep increase last year in instances of insurance agents seeking commissions by enrolling or switching consumers into plans without their consent, or fudging their incomes to qualify them for tax credits so large they paid no monthly premiums at all. But supporters — including some states that run their own ACA exchange — say there are other ways to address fraud. 'We anticipate that much of the improper activity can be prevented by security and integrity upgrades to the federal marketplace, which we understand the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is implementing,' the National Association of Insurance Commissioners wrote in a May 29 letter to congressional leaders. The reason? Enhanced tax credits created during the pandemic expire at the end of the year. The House bill doesn't extend them. Those more generous payments are credited with helping double ACA enrollment since 2020. The CBO estimates that extending the subsidies would cost $335 billion over 10 years. The House bill instead funds an extension of Trump's tax cuts, which largely benefit wealthier families. If the enhanced credits are allowed to expire, not only would premium subsidies be smaller for many people, but there would also be an abrupt eligibility cutoff — an income cliff — for households above four times the federal poverty rate, or about $103,280 for a family of three for this plan year. Taking into account the smaller subsidies and the cliff, KFF estimates a national average premium increase of 75% for enrollees if the enhanced subsidies expire. The CBO expects that about 4.2 million more people will be uninsured in 2034 as a result. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF and subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.
