More changes lie ahead that make it important for those getting subsidies in 2026 to track their income and take steps to protect against that kind of financial hit.

First, the basics of how the subsidies work.

Enrollees pay a percentage of their household income toward their health insurance premiums based on a sliding scale, ranging in 2025 from nothing for very low-income people to 8.5% at higher income levels. Subsidies, usually paid directly to insurers, cover the rest.

The income calculation done during open enrollment is an estimate of what a household thinks it will earn in the coming year. At tax time, ACA enrollees must reconcile what they received in subsidies with what they actually earned. If their income rose, they might owe some of the subsidies back.

But don’t skip filing! People who get ACA subsidies must file tax returns no matter their income, and that is becoming even more important: The Trump administration people from subsidy eligibility if they have gone two consecutive years without filing, and it is proposing lowering that to one year.

Beware Surprise Tax Bills

All enrollees who received subsidies for ACA coverage in 2025 — — need to include a special form, the , with their tax filings. That form is used to reconcile a person’s actual income with the amount of subsidies they received, information the IRS mails them on a separate, . Subsidy amounts are based in part on the income projections they made when they enrolled in their ACA plans.

And that can lead to surprises. Some may find they get money back if their income was less than they estimated. But, if their income went above their initial or updated estimates, they probably qualify for less in assistance and will have to pay money back.

Groups that help people file their taxes say it’s not always easy for people to accurately estimate their income for the year ahead, especially those who run their own businesses, work multiple jobs, or have work that comes with varying hours.

Clients will say, “I can make anywhere between $20,000 and $45,000 next year. I just don’t know,” said Katie Alexander, director of training and volunteers for the health and economic opportunity program at Pisgah Legal Services, a western North Carolina nonprofit that provides free tax and health insurance help to people with low incomes.

Still, for taxes being filed now for the 2025 tax year, on what many people must repay.

That cap is $375 for a single individual who earned less than $31,300 in 2025, or . The maximum owed under that sliding scale for people whose income is on the higher end of the range is $1,625 for an individual and $3,250 for a family.

There is no repayment cap for people earning more than four times the federal poverty level — totaling $62,600 in 2025 for an individual or $106,600 for a family of three — so they could owe back all amounts that exceeded their eligibility.

“The amount is just so staggering for folks,” Alexander said.

One woman whom Pisgah staff helped with pulling together her taxes for 2025 made just above $50,000, which was more than she initially estimated. Her repayment was capped at $1,625, Alexander said. Without that cap, she would have owed $4,000, a substantial chunk of her annual income.

Plan Ahead: The Rules Will Be Tougher Next Tax Season

Congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump last summer, . That means come next year’s tax season, there will be no sliding-scale limit to how much people could owe back in subsidies for 2026 if their income exceeds their projections.

“That’s just going to be absolutely devastating,” Alexander said.

There are at least two other things to keep in mind, both stemming from covid-era enhanced tax credits, which expired at the end of last year because Congress did not extend them. One is that the amount of household income people must pay toward their premiums this year before subsidies kick in has risen to just over 2% on the low end of the income scale and up to nearly 10% for higher-income earners.

The second is that households earning over four times the federal poverty level no longer qualify for ACA subsidies.

The biggest financial hit could be felt by enrollees whose income rises enough during the year to exceed four times the poverty level. In that case, they would owe back all the subsidies they receive in 2026.

And that could be a lot.

In 2025, for example, the average monthly premium for ACA coverage was $619, but the average enrollee received subsidies worth enough to offset all but $74 of that, according to the .

There’s another twist for some. Because the enhanced credits were not extended, people are paying, on average, double the amount toward their premiums this year, so they may be looking to add to their incomes to cover the cost. A found that 43% of people who remained enrolled in coverage this year are planning to work more hours or get additional work to cover those costs.

“That makes sense, but it can also present a risk of being eligible for less subsidy money than they thought, or even mean they would have to repay the entire tax credit,” said Cynthia Cox, senior vice president and director of the Program on the ACA at Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

People can update their projected income at the marketplace website as it changes during the year.

Pisgah staff are calling people they’ve worked with and saying, “Please, please, please, if your income changes, call us so we can adjust your income through the marketplace,” Alexander said.

As much as possible, keep track of income during the year. This isn’t easy, especially for workers who don’t have a job with regular paychecks.

“If you’re meeting with a CPA to talk about taxes, have a conversation to make sure you’re making enough money to afford your costs, but not too much to lose eligibility for a subsidy,” Cox said. “Contributing toward a retirement plan or a health savings account can lower part of your income that counts toward subsidy eligibility.”

Others might choose to dial back their work hours or forgo a new client contract.

“If taking that extra shift means putting you over the line of 400% of the federal poverty level and that’s going to cost you $10,000 in repayments, maybe don’t take that shift,” said Jason Levitis, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute who follows ACA and tax policy issues.

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and share your story.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Now, the Trump administration in reducing the problem while simultaneously saying more controls are needed.

It has proposed a for next year, including stepped-up requirements for some applicants to prove eligibility for subsidies or enrollment and new scrutiny of sales agents and marketing practices.

While there is a general acknowledgment that there is fraud in the ACA marketplace, some health policy analysts say these new requirements miss that mark and instead will make it harder for people who are eligible to enroll.

“There is a trade-off, particularly with the provisions focused on consumers, that maybe it will prevent some fraudulent enrollment, but also potentially a large number of valid applicants,” said Matthew Fiedler, a senior fellow with the Center on Health Policy at the Brookings Institution.

In its proposal, though, the administration expresses optimism that efforts already in place will continue to pay off, despite the fact that the number of complaints about unauthorized enrollment or switching rose to 341,906 in 2025, compared with 229,734 the year before Donald Trump took office. Still, according to the rule, “program integrity measures implemented during the past year,” along with the expiration of enhanced tax credits, “are likely to lead to a decrease” in complaints in 2026.

The end of those tax credits also means the amount people pay toward their coverage has increased. Data released Jan. 28 by federal officials showed a year-over-year  enrollments across the federal healthcare.gov marketplace and those run by states. And from Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News, found that of those who remained covered this year, 80% said their premiums or other costs are higher than they were last year, with 51% saying they are “a lot higher.”

Katie Keith, a director at Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, said the administration was sending mixed messages, on one hand “talking about its fraud-fighting efforts” being successful, but releasing a proposed rule “that says we have to have all these restrictions on consumers because of fraud.”

Closing Consumer Windows

Last year, the Trump administration reversed some of the Biden administration’s ACA efforts, including eliminating a special enrollment period for low-income people that let them sign up year-round.

This year’s rule includes proposed changes aimed at preventing people from fudging their incomes — higher or lower — to qualify for subsidies.

For instance, applicants whose federal data shows they were previously below the poverty level — and thus not eligible for subsidies — would have to submit additional income verification to show they expect to earn above the poverty level in the coming year.

Another part of the proposed rule would require the federal marketplace, used by 30 states, to step up verification efforts for people who want to sign up outside of the ACA’s annual open enrollment period, for reasons including getting married, adopting a baby, or losing other coverage. Currently, the marketplaces conduct such reviews only when people say they qualify because they lost other insurance, according to an .

The income verification requirements “will be burdensome,” she said.

Some ACA applicants, especially those running small businesses or working several part-time jobs, find it more difficult to estimate or document their anticipated income and might find they’re prevented from getting subsidies, Keith and other analysts said.

These proposals are among policies reprised from last year’s ACA rule and initially intended to take effect in 2026. But several cities filed a lawsuit to challenge those regulations. The judge overseeing the case pending its outcome.

In his order issuing a temporary stay, questioned whether the government adequately responded to questions about the accuracy of data it used in citing widespread fraud.

Additionally, many of the provisions purportedly targeting fraud are “unsupported by data showing that if enacted, they will, in fact, reduce any such fraud,” the judge wrote.

The proposal for 2027 has “new supporting information since the original policies were established” that includes clarifying what documentation is needed for some of the verification processes, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spokesperson Catherine Howden said in an email. In addition, she said that CMS is now reviewing public comments that have been submitted before finalizing the provisions.

Targeting Fraud by Agents, Marketers

Critics of the ACA argue that more-generous subsidies put in place as a response to the covid pandemic, in addition to other changes during the Biden administration, led rogue brokers to enroll or switch people without their consent, seeking to collect commissions. That could be done easily, critics say, because with many plans, subsidies covered the entire premium. The lack of a monthly bill made it easier to sign people up without their knowledge — a long-running problem that ramped up in 2024. When that happens it can leave people unable to access their coverage or with tax bills they did not expect.

Those expanded subsidies have now expired, but the administration’s proposed rule would still add requirements for agents. For example, they would be barred from providing cash or most other freebies as incentives to enroll, have to use a standard consent form that must be signed by the consumer, and be held responsible if they hired a marketing firm that used questionable advertising to lure customers. That includes touting nonexistent gift cards or making websites look like official government ACA portals. Such websites would have to be removed.

“This would help ensure no additional consumers would see the advertisement and be misled,” the proposal says.

Insurance agents told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News that some of the proposals, such as delineating what counts as a misleading marketing effort, are good first steps but might not fully address concerns about unauthorized enrollment.

It doesn’t “address all the system vulnerabilities,” said Jason Fine, who runs a brokerage in Florida. He said he has filed more than 100 reports about unauthorized rivals accessing his clients’ coverage over the past two years but has yet to see any of those agents removed from the federal marketplace.

More than 850 agents had their certification suspended with little notice in late 2024 under the Biden administration, which said it was looking into complaints about them. The Trump administration told the Government Accountability Office in May that it had reinstated all or most of those agents to fulfill its “statutory and regulatory” responsibilities, according from the independent oversight group. The report, which outlined long-running fraud problems in the ACA, noted that CMS would continue to monitor those agents and could take “further enforcement action” against them.

Another Biden rule, this one aimed at combating unauthorized sign-ups, remains in place and requires agents to have three-way calls with the client and a federal marketplace call center representative for some enrollments or plan changes.

But Fine and other agents said bad actors are finding ways around that requirement, including by faking that they are the customer during the calls. That contention is backed up in the administration’s new proposal, which notes that federal regulators have received reports that some brokers “may be using artificial intelligence to impersonate consumers and falsely attest to household income.”

Still, the proposal does not include some of the measures agents say would improve the situation.

Fine, for example, said the federal marketplace should more proactively flag unusual activity on consumer accounts, such as multiple agent changes or switches to new insurers within a short period of time, or changes made in the dead of night.

“Overnight is when a lot of this fraud occurs,” Fine said. “No one is changing their insurance at 4 a.m., and that should trigger an automatic fraud alert.” He also wants to see a proposal to rein in overseas call centers that contact U.S. residents — often repeatedly, sometimes making claims about free gift cards or other nonexistent perks — then send their information to agents looking to enroll them or switch their ACA plans.

Others, including Ronnell Nolan, president of Health Agents for America, have also long called for two-factor authentication, similar to what banks require, to confirm that enrollments or switches are approved by the consumer. The 20 states, plus the District of Columbia, that run their own marketplaces incorporate additional measures, including two-factor authentication, few of the types of problems that the federal market has seen, Nolan said. The administration’s proposed rule does not call for this protection.

A conservative think tank, the , estimates there are several million fraudulent enrollments, but other groups — including the GAO, using a different methodology — have put the estimate far lower.

Based on its preliminary analysis, the GAO estimated there were “at least 160,000 applications in plan year 2024 that had likely unauthorized changes,” representing about 1.5% of all applications.

Meanwhile, Brookings’ Fiedler said the debate around the proposal highlights an ongoing question — not just how much fraud exists or what to do about it, but “how much government should help people get covered at all.”

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

“I call it the unaffordable care act,” he said. He reprised the line in his address, blaming “the crushing cost of health care” on Obamacare.Ìý

Trump’s words play off an ongoing congressional debate that began late last year, ahead of the expiration of the enhanced tax subsidies that had lowered the cost of ACA insurance for millions of Americans.Ìý

Democrats, looking toward the November midterm elections, continue to use that lapse to focus public attention on affordability.Ìý

Republicans take a different view, routinely pointing to specific provisions as culprits. Among them, the law’s essential health benefits mandate, which says Obamacare plans must cover certain basic services — including emergency care, hospitalization, maternity care, and prescription drugs — without annual or lifetime dollar limits while enrolled.Ìý

But my colleague Sarah Boden and I found that connecting EHBs to the premium increases consumers are feeling is not a straight line.Ìý

For starters, it’s clear that ACA premiums have increased.Ìý

An analysis by the right-leaning Paragon Health Institute shows that the average Obamacare premium for a 50-year-old since 2014. The average premium for employer-based plans grew 68% during the same period.Ìý

Still, that’s not the whole picture.

Pre-ACA, coverage offered by employer plans was generally more generous and, therefore, costlier than coverage under individual market plans. Individual plans were cheaper also because they could bar applicants with health problems. Beginning in 2014, the ACA forced individual policies to look more like employer plans. As a result, premiums rose — sometimes faster than those of job-based plans.Ìý

, however, were on the rise before the ACA took effect.Ìý

An analysis by Jonathan Gruber at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that premiums grew by at least 10% a year from 2008 to 2010.Ìý

So do EHBs raise premiums? In some ways, yes, compared with pre-ACA plans that might not have covered now-required services like maternity care or prescription drugs.Ìý

But in other ways, EHBs can save money because they’ve increased access to preventive care, said , a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health.Ìý

Joseph Antos, a senior fellow emeritus at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said other parts of the ACA — such as requiring insurers to accept anyone, regardless of health status, and limiting insurers’ ability to charge older people more — also played roles in boosting premiums.Ìý

“It’s practically impossible to tease any one thing out,” Antos said.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Still, 69% of those enrolled last year signed up again this year, often for less generous coverage. About 9% said they had to forgo insurance, according to the survey by Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

The Â鶹ŮÓÅ poll revisited the people who responded to of Affordable Care Act enrollees during open enrollment for ACA plans.

Steve Davis, a 64-year-old retired car salesman in Rogersville, Tennessee, who participated in both polls, said he was looking at an annual premium of about $14,000 to renew his ACA coverage this year. He didn’t qualify for enough of a tax credit to defray the cost, he said, after Congress gridlocked on an extension of more-generous subsidies put in place under President Joe Biden.

But things worked out for Davis. He landed a job at a convenience store that came with insurance, with his share costing about $100 more a month than the $300 he paid for an ACA plan last year, before the enhanced tax credits expired.

“As it happened, the Lord provided and my insurance kicked in through my employer,” he told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

In the November survey, many respondents were not sure what they would do for their health insurance in the coming year.

Some were waiting to see whether Congress would extend the enhanced premium subsidies, which had helped many people get lower-cost — or even zero-cost — health premiums.

Congress’ inaction left some consumers in a bind.

Now, the new poll found, affordability issues are hitting home as the midterm election approaches. And that might play a role in competitive districts, creating headwinds for Republicans.

Midterm Signals

Across all respondents who were registered to vote, the poll found more than half place “a lot” of blame for rising costs on Republicans in Congress (54%), with a similar share putting the same level of blame on President Donald Trump (53%). A smaller group placed a lot of the blame on congressional Democrats (34%). Among independents, a group expected to be a key factor in many districts, the percentages putting a lot of the blame on the GOP (56%) and Trump (58%) were higher.

Among Republicans, 60% placed a lot of the blame on Democrats in Congress.

“Those who have marketplace coverage, who remained on it, they’re really struggling with health care costs,” said Lunna Lopes, senior survey manager for Â鶹ŮÓÅ.

While more than half (55%) of returning ACA enrollees said they will have to pare back on other household expenses to cover health care costs, about 17% said they might not be able to continue paying insurance premiums throughout the year.

Overall, 80% of those who reenrolled for 2026 said their premiums, deductibles, or other costs are higher this year than last, with 51% saying they are “a lot higher.”

About three-quarters of ACA enrollees in the survey who were registered voters said the cost of health care will have an impact on their decision to vote — and on which party’s candidate they support.

Democrats were more than twice as likely as Republicans to say those costs will have a major impact on their decision.

“Democrats seem particularly more energized by health care costs than their Republican counterparts,” Lopes said.

Enrollment Tally Down

Data released Jan. 28 by federal officials showed that about 23 million people enrolled in Obamacare plans across the federal healthcare.gov marketplace and those run by states, about 1.2 million fewer than in 2025.

But it isn’t yet known how many are paying their monthly premiums on time, and many analysts expect overall enrollment numbers to fall as that data becomes available in the coming months.

For most people, having to pay more for premiums this year was mainly due to the expiration of the enhanced tax cuts, pollsters noted. Because the subsidies that remain are less generous, households have to pay more of their income toward coverage. Congressional inaction also meant the restoration of an income cap for subsidies at four times the poverty level, or $62,600 for an individual, sticking people like Davis with higher bills.

Not everyone saw increases.

Matthew Rutledge, a 32-year-old substitute teacher in Apple Valley, California, who participated in both Â鶹ŮÓÅ polls, said he qualified as low-income and his subsidies fully offset his monthly premium payment, just as they did last year. He does have copayments when he sees a doctor or accesses other medical care, but he told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News that “as long as the premium doesn’t go up, I’m fine with it.”

Rising premiums are fueled by a variety of factors, including hospital costs, doctors’ services, and the prices of drugs.

To lower premiums, insurers offer plans with higher deductibles or copayments. In the ACA, plans with lower premiums but higher deductibles are called “catastrophic” or “bronze” plans. “Silver” plans generally balance premiums and out-of-pocket spending, while the highest-premium plans with lower deductibles are “gold” or “platinum.”

About 28% of those who stayed in the ACA marketplaces switched plans, the pollsters noted.

One 56-year-old Texas man told pollsters that his family’s income exceeded the cap for subsidies, so they switched down from a gold plan to a bronze. “Even doing that, our premiums are three times what they were in 2025, with lower plan features and a higher deductible,” he said, according to a Â鶹ŮÓÅ poll news release.

For some, reenrolling was not a viable option.

In addition to the 9% who said they are now uninsured, about 5% said they switched to some type of non-ACA coverage.

Some people, like Davis, landed job-based coverage, while others found they qualified for Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for low-income residents.

Such churn in and out of ACA coverage is not unusual, Lopes noted. “People get a job. They get married. They age into Medicare,” the program for older or disabled people, she said.

The poll highlighted that many people dropping coverage were younger, between 18 and 29. About 14% of people in that range now say they are uninsured.Ìý

That’s not surprising, given that younger people tend to use health coverage less. ACA insurers said one reason they raised premiums this year was because they expected more young or healthy people to drop out, leaving them with a higher share of older, more costly enrollees. Among those 50 or older, the poll found that only 7% are now uninsured.

GOP critics of the now-expired enhanced subsidies say they were always meant to be temporary. Extending them would have cost about $350 billion from 2026 to 2035, .

But not extending them means more people will become uninsured. The CBO said the extension would have meant 3.8 million more people having insurance coverage in 2035.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ pollsters, in February and early March, surveyed 1,117 U.S. adults, more than 80% of the ACA enrollees originally polled in November, online and by telephone. The margin of error is plus or minus four percentage points for the full sample.

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and share your story.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

“I call it the unaffordable care act,” he said. He reprised the line in his address, blaming “the crushing cost of health care” on Obamacare.

Trump’s words also play off an ongoing congressional debate that began late last year with the expiration of the enhanced tax subsidies that had lowered the cost of ACA insurance for millions of Americans — and thrust the issue of ACA-related costs back to center stage.

Without those enhanced subsidies, the amount people pay toward monthly Obamacare premiums doubled, on average. The number of people enrolled in ACA coverage for this year has dropped by more than a million, and experts say more people could abandon coverage once premiums come due. Democrats are using this development to crank up the heat on Republicans ahead of the November elections and steer the conversation on the affordability issue.

Republicans fault the law itself for driving up these costs. For instance, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) that premiums “skyrocketed across the country since it took effect.”

Critics routinely point to several provisions within the ACA as the culprits — among them, essential health benefits, or EHBs. Under the law, Obamacare plans must cover certain essential services, including emergency care, hospitalization, maternity, and prescription drugs, without annual or lifetime dollar limits. But connecting EHBs to the premium increases felt by consumers is not straightforward.

Here’s a primer on key issues involved.

Checking the Numbers

It’s clear that Obamacare premiums have increased.

An analysis by the right-leaning Paragon Health Institute shows that the average premium for a 50-year-old with Obamacare since 2014. The average premium for employer-based plans grew 68% during that same time.

Paragon’s president, , told Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News that this shows the ACA has made health care on the individual market more expensive.

Still, the comparison overlooks a couple of points. Pre-ACA, employer plans generally offered more generous coverage than individual market plans, so work-based coverage cost more. And individual plans were cheaper in part because they could bar applicants with health problems. Beginning in 2014, the ACA forced individual policies to look more like employer plans, covering a broader range of benefits and accepting both healthy and unhealthy applicants. As a result, premiums rose that first year. In the years that followed, ACA plans often experienced faster growth in premiums than job-based plans. Some policy analysts say this isn’t surprising because ACA plans started at a lower dollar base and had more room to rise.

States that saw less dramatic post-ACA premium increases, such as Massachusetts and New York, already mandated that individual-market plans provide EHB-like coverage, noted , a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. These states also had higher premiums due to that and other provisions, such as not allowing plans to exclude people with preexisting conditions.

“It was a combination of things,” he said.

Blase acknowledges that the two types of insurance started at different price points. But he said the percentage change over time shows that the ACA faces “underlying inflationary pressures” — including the now-expired, more generous, covid pandemic-era subsidies — that affect its policyholders more so than employer plans.

Aside from that point, however, were on the rise even before the ACA took effect.

An analysis by Jonathan Gruber at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that between 2008 and 2010, premiums grew by at least 10% a year and were highly variable across states and insurers.

Consumers’ Other Costs

Over time, ACA deductibles — the amounts policyholders must satisfy in a given year before insurance kicks in — have seen large increases, with “bronze” plans now averaging $7,476 annually, up from $5,113 in 2014, according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News. Bronze plans tend to have lower premiums than the other metal-level categories — “silver,” “gold,” and “platinum” — in part because of their higher deductibles.

The Trump administration is doubling down on high-deductible plans as part of its emphasis on affordability, making it easier this year for people age 30 and up to qualify for what are called “catastrophic plans.” These come with even larger deductibles than bronze plans.

The administration pitched a broad regulatory plan for 2027 to cement those changes, saying it was designed to lower premiums and expand choices. It would raise next year’s deductibles for catastrophic plans to $15,600 a year for an individual or around $30,000 for a family. It isn’t clear how popular such plans would be. Detailed enrollment figures for this year are not yet available, but estimates indicate only about 54,000 people chose catastrophic plans in 2025, and consumers can’t use federal subsidies to purchase them.

Before this Trump proposal, though, recent data showed that the rising rate of ACA plan deductibles had not outpaced deductibles for employer plans.

The weighted average — a calculation that gives more weight to ACA plans with the most people enrolled — shows in annual deductible amounts since 2014, from $1,881 to $2,912. During that same period, deductibles in plans offered by 59%, from $1,186 to $1,886, according to Â鶹ŮÓÅ’s annual employer survey.

Essential What?

To be clear, the ACA’s catastrophic and bronze plans must cover essential health benefits, as do all Obamacare plans. These EHBs fall into 10 categories of medical services and were included in the ACA to ensure individual policies meet a minimum standard of coverage and are comparable to employer-based health insurance.

Preventive services, such as annual checkups, vaccines, and certain cancer screenings, must be covered at no additional cost to patients. All plans must completely cover the cost of specific vaccines, including the annual flu shot. And insurers cannot refuse to pay for emergency care provided at an out-of-network hospital. Other EHBs are subject to out-of-pocket costs, such as copays at the doctor’s office or pharmacy counter.

In some ways, EHBs save money because they’ve increased access to preventive care, said , a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Services such as cancer screenings and lab tests can lead to earlier detection of serious conditions, when treatment is less costly, and positive outcomes are more likely.

“If you look down the list of essential health benefits, I think most people would reach the judgment that those are health care services that people should have access to,” said Larry Levitt, Â鶹ŮÓÅ’s executive vice president for health policy.

Joseph Antos, a senior fellow emeritus at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said ACA requirements — such as requiring insurers to accept anyone, regardless of their health status, and limiting insurers’ ability to charge older people more for coverage — also have played roles in boosting premiums.

“Really, it’s practically impossible to tease any one thing out,” Antos said.

States do have latitude to add benefits that fall under the EHB umbrella. For example, bariatric surgery is covered as an EHB in , but not in . Pennsylvania’s EHBs also don’t include hearing aids, but do.

But the Trump administration’s 2027 regulatory proposal : When “states enact benefit mandates, plan premiums must generally increase to account for the additional coverage,” it reads. It also signals that added benefits can raise consumer costs and proposes that states be required to use their own funds to offset some of those costs.

Paragon’s Blase echoed this take in his bottom line. Mandating that plans cover EHBs without annual or lifetime caps, as required under the ACA law, encourages clinicians to overbill and overprescribe, he said. That drives up premiums and means a bigger check for insurers and medical providers at the expense of taxpayers. “You just turn patients into money factories,” he said.

, a senior research fellow at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, disagrees, saying that whatever EHBs’ role, they aren’t to blame for the year-over-year premium hikes.

People aren’t consuming medical care at exponential rates just because certain services are now covered: “Me not paying anything for that colonoscopy doesn’t make me want to get more of them,” she said.

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and share your story.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

While lawmakers continue to disagree on a way forward, keeps the issue front and center, it would be understandable to think these are the only taxpayer-funded health insurance subsidies in the U.S. system.

But .

“The vast majority of people with health insurance for it, from Medicaid to Medicare to the ACA to employer-sponsored insurance,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at Â鶹ŮÓÅ, a health information nonprofit that includes Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News.

These broad taxpayer supports are rarely discussed, though, as they apply to work-based coverage. So, let’s take a look.

Adding Up the Tax Breaks

of the more than on Medicare, the second-largest program in the federal budget behind Social Security, comes from general federal funds. The rest comes from payroll taxes and the monthly premiums paid by enrollees, who number .

Medicaid — the nation’s largest health insurer, covering more than 70 million low-income people — costs annually. It’s jointly financed by the federal government (65%) and states (35%).

For both programs, expenses are partially funded with taxpayer dollars. A less obvious form of federal support comes through employer-sponsored health coverage. Here, the impact on the federal bottom line is less visible, as hundreds of billions of dollars never reach the U.S. Treasury because it takes the form of tax breaks for employers and workers.

“It’s a world apart from Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare — from the government writing checks to people,” said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Job-based insurance provides coverage for under age 65. (By comparison, about 23 million people enrolled in Affordable Care Act plans for this year, generally because they don’t have job-based insurance. Extending the enhanced ACA subsidies that expired at the end of 2025 over a decade, or roughly $35 billion annually.)

In fact, contributions to employer-sponsored health plans are the single-largest “exclusion” — a tax policy that allows certain income to be exempt from taxes — in the federal budget. For this fiscal year, the , according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office.

The money employers spend to offer health coverage to their employees can be written off as a business expense. And workers who receive this benefit don’t have to pay income or payroll taxes on its value.

or even thousands of dollars a year for workers. The amount varies, with the biggest breaks going to those with the most expensive health plans and those whose wages put them in the upper tax brackets. Contributions to health savings accounts related to health insurance.

But the exclusion can be a difficult concept for insured workers to wrap their heads around, as most employees still contribute a portion of their pay to health coverage.

Even though they’re not taxed on that, “it doesn’t necessarily feel like a subsidy to people,” Levitt said. “They do feel like they’re paying.”

Baked Into the Tax System

The tax treatment evolved along with work-based health insurance policies in the U.S., fueled during World War II, when wage and price controls spurred interest in offering health coverage to lure workers. It was enacted into tax law in 1954.

Backers, which often include labor unions and employers, say it encourages companies to offer health insurance, as most large companies do. Because of the cost, smaller companies are less likely to do so, even with the tax incentive. Also, for workers, getting $1 of health care coverage is worth more than an extra dollar in wages, which would be taxed and, thus, worth less.

Opponents of the tax break, however, note the lost revenue to the Treasury and that the tax exclusion, according to some economists, leads employers and workers to choose the most generous — and expensive — health insurance offered, which they say drives up health care spending. The tax break benefits wealthier workers more than those in lower-income tax brackets, and economists also say the amounts employers pay for health insurance might otherwise be spent on boosting workers’ wages.

While there is currently no pending legislation to modify the tax break, the growing federal deficit has some the policy will change. Benefit experts say the outcome would vary.

“It’s not clear that it would wind up in increased wages for everyone,” said Â鶹ŮÓÅ’s Levitt. “Some workers have more negotiating leverage than others.”

to cap or eliminate the exclusion have all failed.

“It’s had a bipartisan target on its back for 40 years,” said Paul Fronstin, a director at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization.

Any change, however, “would raise some revenue, but it’s also a tax increase for workers,” Fronstin noted. “What would that mean, if their taxes go up? Do wages go up because they’re not getting the same tax breaks? There will be winners and losers in that equation.”

Still, because job-based coverage is the way so many Americans get health insurance, some policy experts warn that eliminating or even lowering the exclusion could remove an incentive for employers to offer coverage. While some employers would likely keep offering coverage even without the tax break — because it is a benefit that helps attract and retain workers — it is a huge expense, so others might drop it. Average family premiums cost an employer nearly $27,000 last year, .

“These are businesses, which weigh the costs of offering insurance, which have gone up dramatically,” said Elizabeth Mitchell, CEO of the , an organization of large public and private employers that offer health insurance to their workers. “If there’s not some sort of tax incentive, I would expect them to revisit whether they would bear those costs.”

Cannon, of the Cato Institute, considers the tax policy bad because it takes choice away from workers, who might rather have increased wages, even if they are taxed. Those additional wages, he argues, could then be invested in tax-advantaged health savings accounts, used to pay medical costs.

Under the current tax break approach, “you are effectively saying let the employer control a huge chunk of your earnings and enroll in the plan the employer chooses,” he argues.

Employers counter by saying they are better able to negotiate higher-quality, lower-cost health insurance packages than individuals could on their own.

Mitchell, at the employer group, said, “It is challenging for an enormous employer to negotiate fair prices with the large consolidated systems. So it’s hard to imagine how an individual would be able to navigate our current system.”

She also disputes arguments that the tax break leads to higher health care prices, driven by overly generous employer plans that lead insured workers to use more health services.

“That’s a tired economic theory that doesn’t apply in health care,” she said. “People don’t shop for health care because they want more of it. They use health care because they need it. It’s fundamentally different.”

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News and share your story.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Según el gobierno, el objetivo es ofrecer más opciones y primas más bajas.

Sin embargo, la iniciativa también contempla un fuerte aumento de algunos gastos de bolsillo anuales  —que podrían superar los $27.000 en un tipo de cobertura— y podrían hacer que casi pierdan su seguro médico.

Los cambios se producen en un momento en que el costo de la atención de salud es una preocupación clave para muchos estadounidenses: algunos están teniendo dificultades para pagar sus primas de ACA desde que los subsidios mejorados vencieran a finales del año pasado. Las cifras iniciales de inscripción para este año muestran una caída de más de un millón de personas.

La cobertura médica y su accesibilidad se han convertido en de cara a las elecciones de medio término de noviembre.

Los cambios propuestos por la administración Trump forman parte de una extensa norma que modifica distintos aspectos del sistema, incluidos los paquetes de beneficios, los gastos de bolsillo y las redes de proveedores de salud. Las aseguradoras usan estas reglas  como base para fijar las primas para el año siguiente.

Después de un período de comentarios públicos —en el que personas, organizaciones y distintos sectores pueden opinar sobre el proyecto— la norma se oficializará esta primavera.

La propuesta “pone a los pacientes, contribuyentes y estados en primer lugar al reducir costos y reforzar la rendición de cuentas sobre el dinero de los contribuyentes”, dijo Mehmet Oz, administrador de los Centros de Servicios de Medicare y Medicaid (CMS, por sus siglas en inglés), en un .

Una de las formas en que lo haría es impulsando un tipo de cobertura —los — que, , el año pasado atrajeron apenas a unos 20.000 asegurados, elevan esa cifra a cerca de 54.000.

“Para mí, esta propuesta indica que la administración ha encontrado su próximo gran objetivo en los planes catastróficos”, dijo Katie Keith, directora de la Iniciativa de Política de Salud y Derecho en el O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law del Georgetown University Law Center.

Estos planes tienen costos anuales de bolsillo muy altos para el asegurado, pero suelen ofrecer primas más bajas que otras opciones de ACA. Antes estaban limitados a personas menores de 30 años o a quienes enfrentaban ciertas dificultades económicas, pero el gobierno de Trump permitió que se inscribieran personas de más edad que perdieron la elegibilidad para subsidios para la cobertura de 2026. Aún no se sabe cuántas personas eligieron esta opción.

La norma consolida este cambio porque hace elegibles a quienes tengan ingresos por debajo del nivel de pobreza ($15.650 este año) y a quienes ganen más de dos veces y media esa suma siempre que hayan perdido el acceso a un subsidio de ACA que reducía sus gastos de bolsillo. El texto también señala que una persona que cumpla con estos criterios sería elegible en cualquier estado, un punto importante porque esta cobertura actualmente .

Además, la propuesta exigiría que el límite máximo de gastos de bolsillo en estos planes alcanzara $15.600 al año para una persona y $27.600 para una familia esta semana en Health Affairs.

Actualmente, el tope de gastos de bolsillo para planes catastróficos es de $10.600 para una persona y $21.200 para cobertura familiar. Salvo la atención preventiva y tres consultas cubiertas con un médico de atención primaria, ese monto debe alcanzarse antes de que el resto de la cobertura entre en vigencia.

En el texto presentado, la administración afirma que los cambios propuestos ayudarían a diferenciar los planes catastróficos de los planes “Bronce”, el siguiente nivel, y posiblemente impulsarían una mayor inscripción en los primeros. Según el mismo documento, hoy esa diferencia no siempre es significativa cuando las primas son similares. Elevar el tope de gasto de bolsillo de los planes catastróficos a esos niveles, argumentan, serviría para establecer esa distinción.

“Cuando existe una diferencia tan clara, los consumidores más sanos —que suelen ser los candidatos ideales para inscribirse en planes catastróficos— se sienten más motivados a elegir uno de estos planes, en lugar de un plan Bronce”, señalan.

Sin embargo, como los subsidios de ACA no pueden usarse para pagar las primas de los planes catastróficos, es posible que esto desaliente a los posibles beneficiarios.

La inscripción en los planes Bronce, que actualmente tienen un deducible anual promedio de $7.500, se ha duplicado desde 2018 hasta alcanzar unos 5,4 millones de consumidores el año pasado. Este año es probable que la cifra sea mayor.

Los datos de inscripción en algunos estados muestran un desplazamiento hacia los planes Bronce, ya que los consumidores fueron dejando los planes “Plata”, “Oro” o “Platino”, que tienen primas más altas, tras el vencimiento de subsidios mejorados a finales de 2025.

La iniciativa del gobierno también permitiría que las aseguradoras ofrezcan planes Bronce con niveles de copagos y deducibles que superen lo que hoy permite ACA, pero solo si esa misma aseguradora también vende otros planes Bronce con niveles más bajos de costos compartidos.

En lo que describen como un enfoque “novedoso”, las nuevas regulaciones permitirían que las aseguradoras ofrezcan planes catastróficos multianuales, en los que las personas podrían permanecer inscritas hasta por 10 años. Durante ese período, los límites de gastos variarían. Por ejemplo, los costos podrían ser más altos en los primeros años y luego bajar a medida que el plan se mantenga vigente. La presentación solicita comentarios específicos sobre cómo podría estructurarse un plan de este tipo y qué efecto tendrían los planes multianuales en el mercado en general.

“Por lo que entendemos hasta ahora, las aseguradoras podrían ofrecer la póliza por un año o por períodos consecutivos de hasta 10 años”, explicó Zach Sherman, director gerente de política de cobertura y diseño de programas en HMA, también conocida como Health Management Associates, una firma de consultoría en políticas de salud que trabaja para estados y aseguradoras. “Pero aún estamos analizando los detalles de cómo funcionaría”, añadió.

Matthew Fiedler, investigador principal del Centro de Políticas de Salud de Brookings Institution, advirtió que el paquete regulatorio que propone el gobierno incluye muchas disposiciones que podrían “exponer a los inscritos a gastos de bolsillo mucho más altos”.

Además de los cambios previstos para los planes Bronce y catastróficos, Fiedler señaló otra disposición que permitiría vender en el mercado de ACA planes que no tengan redes fijas de proveedores de salud. Es decir, la aseguradora no habría firmado contratos con médicos ni hospitales específicos para aceptar su cobertura.

En su lugar, estos planes pagarían a los proveedores un monto fijo por sus servicios médicos. Podría ser una tarifa única o un porcentaje de lo que paga Medicare. La iniciativa establece que las aseguradoras tendrían que garantizar “acceso a una variedad de proveedores” dispuestos a aceptar esas sumas como pago total. Sin embargo, los asegurados podrían quedar expuestos a gastos inesperados si un médico o centro de salud no acepta esas condiciones y le cobra al paciente la diferencia.

Debido al amplio alcance de la norma —que incluye muchas otras disposiciones— se espera que reciba cientos, si no miles, de comentarios públicos hasta principios de marzo.

El corredor de seguros de Pennsylvania Joshua Brooker dijo que le gustaría que se exija a las aseguradoras que venden planes catastróficos con gastos de bolsillo muy altos que también ofrezcan otros planes catastróficos con límites anuales más bajos.

En términos generales, agregó, una mayor variedad de opciones podría resultar atractiva para personas en ambos extremos de la escala de ingresos.

Según explicó, algunos consumidores con mayores ingresos —especialmente quienes ya no califican para subsidios para las primas de ACA— preferirían pagar una prima más baja, como la que se espera en los planes catastróficos, y asumir de su propio bolsillo los gastos médicos hasta alcanzar ese tope máximo.

“Están más preocupados por un infarto que cueste medio millón de dólares”, reflexionó Brooker.

La situación es más difícil para quienes están por debajo de la línea de pobreza, no califican para subsidios de la ACA y, , muchas veces tampoco cumplen los requisitos para Medicaid, opinó. “En esos casos, es probable que se queden sin seguro médico”. Al menos un plan catastrófico, dijo, podría permitirles acceder a la atención preventiva y limitar un desastre financiero si terminan en un hospital. “A partir de ahí, incluso podrían calificar para programas de atención caritativa del hospital que ayuden a cubrir los gastos de bolsillo”, dijo.

En general, afirmó: “ofrecer más opciones en el mercado no perjudica, siempre que la propuesta se divulgue de manera adecuada y el consumidor la entienda”.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

While more Americans enrolled than , the number was  what it was at the same time last year. And experts say it will be months until the numbers are final.ÌýThe timing will depend on how many of those people who signed up for coverage actually pay their premiums and remain enrolled.Ìý

In coming weeks, “consumers may find they really can’t afford the premiums and cancel their plans, while carriers may also cancel coverage for nonpayment,” said Pat Kelly, executive director of Your Health Idaho, a state-based ACA marketplace, during a Jan. 22 call with reporters.Ìý

The drop comes after several years of record-breaking enrollment, with 24.2 million sign-ups for the 2025 enrollment year.ÌýEnrollment growth took off after enhanced subsidies — which lowered the amount most households had to pay out of their own income toward premiums and removed an upper-income cap — went into effect during the Biden administration. Lawmakers, in adopting the enhanced subsidies, set an expiration date of Dec. 31, 2025.Ìý

Congressional debate over extending those more generous subsidies was heated, even .ÌýNow, the subsidies are back to their original level, and people who earn more than four times the federal poverty rate (about $62,600 for an individual or $84,600 for a couple) can’t qualify for any at all.Ìý

 in most states this year, with the biggest drop in North Carolina, where sign-ups fell by nearly 22%, .Ìý

In a few places — including New Mexico, Texas, and Maryland, as well as the District of Columbia — the number of people selecting ACA plans increased.Ìý

The jump was largest in New Mexico, with its tally of people selecting plans up by nearly 18%. Increases were in the single digits in the other states and Washington, D.C.Ìý

New Mexico — uniquely — used its own tax dollars to fully offset the loss of the more generous federal tax subsidies for all consumers.Ìý, including California, Colorado, Maryland, and Washington, used state money to help some enrollees.Ìý

We’ll keep watching to see how this unfolds over the coming weeks.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The changes come as affordability is a key concern for many Americans, some of whom are struggling to pay their ACA premiums since enhanced subsidies expired at the end of last year. Initial enrollment numbers for this year fell by more than 1 million.

Health care coverage and affordability have in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.

The proposed changes are part of a lengthy rule that addresses a broad swath of standards, including benefit packages, out-of-pocket costs, and health care provider networks. Insurers refer to these standards when setting premium rates for the coming year.

After a comment period, the rule will be finalized this spring.

It “puts patients, taxpayers, and states first by lowering costs and reinforcing accountability for taxpayer dollars,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz .

One way it would do so focuses heavily on a type of coverage — — that last year attracted only about 20,000 policyholders, , although put it closer to 54,000.

“To me, this proposal reads like the administration has found their next big thing in the catastrophic plans,” said Katie Keith, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

Such plans have very high annual out-of-pocket costs for the policyholder but often lower premiums than other ACA coverage options. Formerly restricted to those under age 30 or facing certain hardships, the Trump administration allowed older people who lost subsidy eligibility to enroll in them for this year. It is not yet known how many people chose to do so.

The payment rule cements this move by making eligible anyone whose income is below the poverty line ($15,650 for this year) and those earning more than 2.5 times that amount who lost access to an ACA subsidy that lowered their out-of-pocket costs. It also notes that a person meeting these standards would be eligible in any state — an important point because this coverage is in only 36 states and the District of Columbia.

In addition, the proposal would require out-of-pocket maximums on such plans to hit $15,600 a year for an individual and $27,600 for a family, Health Affairs. (The current out-of-pocket max for catastrophic plans is $10,600 for an individual plan and $21,200 for family coverage.) Not counting preventive care and three covered primary care doctor visits, that spending target must be met before a policy’s other coverage kicks in.

In the rule, the administration wrote that the proposed changes would help differentiate catastrophic from “bronze” plans, the next level up, and, possibly, spur more enrollment in the former. Currently, the proposal said, there may not be a significant difference if premiums are similar. Raising the out-of-pocket maximum for catastrophic plans to those levels would create that difference, the proposal said.

“When there is such a clear difference, the healthier consumers that are generally eligible and best suited to enroll in catastrophic plans are more motivated to select a catastrophic plan in lieu of a bronze plan,” the proposal noted.

However, ACA subsidies cannot be used toward catastrophic premiums, which could limit shoppers’ interest.

Enrollment in bronze plans, which currently have an average annual deductible of $7,500, has doubled since 2018 to about 5.4 million last year. This year, that number will likely be higher. Some states’ sign-up data indicates a shift toward bronze as consumers left higher-premium “silver,” “gold,” or “platinum” plans following the expiration of more generous subsidies at the end of last year.

The proposal also would allow insurers to offer bronze plans with cost-sharing rates that exceed what the ACA law currently allows, but only if that insurer also sells other bronze plans with lower cost-sharing levels.

In what it calls a “novel” approach, the proposal would allow insurers to offer multiyear catastrophic plans, in which people could stay enrolled for up to 10 years, and their out-of-pocket maximums would vary over that time. Costs might be higher, for example, in the early years, then fall the longer the policy is in place. The proposal specifically asks for comments on how such a plan could be structured and what effect multiyear plans might have on the overall market.

“As we understand it thus far, insurers could offer the policy for one year or for consecutive years, up to 10 years,” said Zach Sherman, managing director for coverage policy and program design at HMA, also known as Health Management Associates, a health policy consulting firm that does work for states and insurance plans. “But the details on how that would work, we are still unpacking.”

Matthew Fiedler, senior fellow with the Center on Health Policy at the Brookings Institution, said the proposed rule included a lot of provisions that could “expose enrollees to much higher out-of-pocket costs.”

In addition to the planned changes to bronze and catastrophic plans, he points to another provision that would allow plans to be sold on the ACA exchange that have no set health care provider networks. In other words, the insurer has not contracted with specific doctors and hospitals to accept their coverage. Instead, such plans would pay medical providers a set amount toward medical services, possibly a flat fee or a percentage of what Medicare pays, for example. The rule says insurers would need to ensure “access to a range of providers” willing to accept such amounts as payment in full. Policyholders might be on the hook for unexpected expenses, however, if a clinician or facility doesn’t agree and charges the patient the difference.

Because the rule is so sweeping — with many other parts — it is expected to draw hundreds, if not thousands, of comments between now and early March.

Pennsylvania insurance broker Joshua Brooker said one change he would like to see is requiring insurers that sell the very high out-of-pocket catastrophic plans to offer other catastrophic plans with lower annual maximums.

Overall, though, a wider range of options might appeal to people on both ends of the income scale, he said.

Some wealthier enrollees, especially those who no longer qualify for any ACA premium subsidies, would prefer a lower premium like those expected in catastrophic plans, and could just pay the bills up to that max, he said.

“They’re more worried about the half-million-dollar heart attack,” Brooker said. It’s tougher for people below the poverty level, who don’t qualify for ACA subsidies and, in . So they’re likely to go uninsured. At least a catastrophic plan, he said, might let them get some preventive care coverage and cap their exposure if they end up in a hospital. From there, they might qualify for charity care at the hospital to cover out-of-pocket costs.

Overall, “putting more options on the market doesn’t hurt, as long as it is disclosed properly and the consumer understands it,” he said.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Todo esto es parte del complejo panorama durante el período de inscripción abierta de ACA para 2026. El debate en el Congreso sobre si extender los subsidios mejorados que se otorgaron durante la administración Biden provocó y centró la atención pública en el aumento de los costos de atención médica y en el problema de quién puede pagarlos.

Los subsidios mejorados, que redujeron el porcentaje del ingreso familiar que se debía pagar por la atención médica y eliminaron el límite de ingresos para calificar, expiraron a fines del año pasado. Como resultado, casi todas las personas que compran cobertura de ACA enfrentaron un aumento en los costos. Para algunos, las primas se duplicaron o incluso más, aunque aún se mantienen subsidios menos generosos.

Muchos expertos esperaban que la inscripción en ACA disminuyera este año, después de alcanzar un récord de 24 millones de inscritos en 2025.

“Si aumentas mucho el precio de algo, la economía nos dice que muchas personas comprarán menos o simplemente no lo comprarán”, dijo Katherine Hempstead, oficial de políticas de la Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Lo que hay que ver ahora:

Los números iniciales no son definitivos

La (CBO, por sus siglas en inglés) advirtió al Congreso en diciembre de 2024 que si no se renovaban los subsidios mejorados, 2,2 millones de personas perderían su seguro médico en 2026, y esa cifra aumentaría en los años siguientes. Analistas del Wakely Consulting Group también optarían por no tener seguro este año.

Datos publicados el 28 de enero por funcionarios federales de aproximadamente 1.2 millones de inscripciones en comparación con el año anterior, tanto en el mercado federal de cuidadodesalud.gov como en los mercados manejados por los estados. En total, hubo 23 millones de personas inscritas, incluyendo 3.4 millones nuevas en la cobertura de ACA.

En la misma fecha del año pasado, , con 3.9 millones de nuevos participantes.

Pero hay más detrás de esos números iniciales.

Por un lado, los datos de ambos años se basan en las inscripciones hasta el 15 de enero para el mercado federal, que cerró ese día su periodo de inscripción abierta. En cambio, los datos de los mercados estatales, en la mayoría de los casos, solo incluyen inscripciones hasta el 10 o el 11 de enero, aunque algunos permitieron inscripciones . Así que los números no reflejan lo que pudo haber pasado en esos últimos días. ¿Hubo un repunte en las inscripciones en los estados? ¿O, por el contrario, aumentaron las cancelaciones?

Además, los datos iniciales incluyen tanto a personas que se inscribieron por primera vez como a quienes ya tenían cobertura y fueron reinscritos automáticamente para 2026, lo cual plantea otras dudas.

En el caso de los asegurados que fueron reinscritos, los números reales no se conocerán hasta dentro de varias semanas o meses, cuando se sepa cuántos pagaron efectivamente sus primas. Algunos tal vez no prestaron atención a los costos de su reinscripción o esperaban que el Congreso extendiera los subsidios.

Ese es un factor importante a considerar porque las estimaciones de la CBO y de Wakely sobre cuántas personas perderían su seguro se basan en proyecciones de cobertura durante todo el año, no solo en las inscripciones iniciales.

En las próximas semanas, “algunos consumidores podrían darse cuenta de que realmente no pueden pagar las primas y cancelar sus planes, mientras que las aseguradoras también podrían cancelar coberturas por falta de pago”, dijo Pat Kelly, director ejecutivo de Your Health Idaho, el mercado estatal de ACA, durante una llamada con periodistas el 22 de enero.

Grandes diferencias entre los estados

También hay cambios importantes en los otros 19 estados (y el Distrito de Columbia) que , algunos de los cuales han publicado datos más detallados sobre las inscripciones que el gobierno federal.

La mayoría de los estados registró una disminución en la inscripción para 2026 respecto al año anterior, siendo Carolina del Norte el que presentó la mayor caída, con una reducción del 22%, según datos federales.

En unos pocos estados —incluidos Nuevo México, Texas, California y Maryland—, además del Distrito de Columbia, aumentó el número de personas que eligieron planes de ACA.

El mayor incremento se dio en Nuevo México, con un aumento cercano al 14% en las personas que seleccionaron planes. En los otros estados y en Washington, D.C., los aumentos fueron de un solo dígito.

Nuevo México, de manera particular, usó fondos estatales para compensar por completo la pérdida de los subsidios federales mejorados para todos los consumidores. , como California, Colorado, Maryland y Washington, usaron fondos estatales para ayudar a algunos inscritos.

La (State Marketplace Network), un colectivo de 22 mercados estatales apoyado por la Academia Nacional de Políticas Estatales de Salud, dijo que las . Comparado con el mismo período del año anterior, las cancelaciones de planes aumentaron 83% en Colorado, las bajas se cuadruplicaron en Idaho y se duplicaron en Virginia.

Las nuevas inscripciones respecto al mismo período del año pasado, según datos estatales. En Pennsylvania, personas de 55 a 64 años —el grupo con las primas más altas— y adultos jóvenes de 26 a 34 años en mayor proporción que otros grupos de edad, según datos del estado.

“Estamos viendo tasas mucho más altas de personas que abandonan su cobertura”, señaló Devon Trolley, director ejecutivo de la Autoridad del Intercambio de Seguros de Salud de Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Health Insurance Exchange Authority). “En los últimos dos meses tuvimos 70.000 bajas, desde personas que se jubilaron anticipadamente hasta pequeños empresarios y agricultores que no saben cómo llegar a fin de mes”.

Algunos republicanos atribuyen esta disminución a medidas contra el fraude respaldadas por la administración Trump, que incluyeron .

Aunque algunas de esas acciones fueron frenadas por un tribunal federal y no han entrado en vigencia, críticos de ACA —algunos de los cuales han publicado sobre millones de personas que habrían sido inscritas de manera inapropiada— dicen que esas medidas explican la baja. Previamente de fomentar inscripciones no autorizadas o cambios de plan motivados por comisiones de corredores de seguros.

No obstante, los estados que administran sus propios mercados de ACA informaron que había muy pocos o ningún caso de cambios no autorizados. A diferencia del mercado federal, las plataformas estatales aplican controles adicionales para evitar que los corredores accedan a la cobertura de los consumidores sin autorización.

Entre quienes no regresaron al mercado, la razón principal es el costo, dijo Mila Kofman, directora ejecutiva de la Autoridad del Intercambio de Beneficios de Salud de DC (DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority), que administra el mercado de ACA en el distrito.

“Cuando analizamos quiénes son estas personas, vemos que la mitad son pequeños empresarios”, dijo Kofman. “No se trata de personas que estén cometiendo fraude”.

Primas más bajas, deducibles más altos

En lugar de quedarse con la reinscripción automática, muchos asegurados en distintos estados optaron por cambiarse a planes “Bronce”, que tienen primas más bajas pero deducibles más altas que los planes Plata, Oro o Platino.

California reportó que el 73% de los miembros que renovaron y cambiaron de plan eligieron uno bronce, en comparación con solo el 27% en el mismo período del año pasado, según la Red de Mercados Estatales. En Maine, los planes Bronce ahora representan casi el 60% de todas las pólizas compradas.

“Las personas tienen que ver qué se ajusta a su presupuesto mensual y buscar primas más bajas”, dijo Stacey Pogue, investigadora sénior del Centro para Reformas del Seguro de Salud de la Universidad de Georgetown. “Algunos cruzan los dedos esperando no tener que usar el deducible”.

En promedio, los planes Bronce tienen un . Todos los planes de ACA están obligados a cubrir ciertos servicios preventivos —como algunas vacunas, pruebas de detección de cáncer y otros exámenes— sin copago ni deducible, pero la mayoría de los demás servicios se cubren solo después de cumplir con el deducible anual.

Los deducibles altos pueden hacer que algunos pacientes eviten buscar atención médica, señaló Hempstead.

“Tienen miedo de usar su cobertura”, dijo. “Pueden posponer algo hasta que se vuelve más grave”.

Agregó que los proveedores médicos, incluidos hospitales y doctores, se están preparando para un aumento de pacientes asegurados que no pueden pagar sus deducibles.

“Todos anticipan que los hospitales tendrán que dar más atención caritativa, lo cual afectará sus finanzas y podría obligarlos a despedir personal, cerrar o reducir servicios”, dijo.

¿Tienes dificultades para pagar tu seguro médico? ¿Has decidido renunciar a la cobertura? Haz clic aquí para contactar a Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News y compartir tu historia.

Â鶹ŮÓÅ Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at Â鶹ŮÓÅ—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).