Assuming those are final, the ~10% of GA ACA enrollees currently paying full price will see their premiums spike by around 1/3 on average. That's pretty bad. But not as bad as what most of the other 90% are likely facing...not "after the midterms" but in just FOUR MONTHS.
With the improved subsidies expiring on 12/31/25 and CMS's so-called "Integrity Rule" being implemented, this is what it will likely look like for the ~1.3 million enrollees currently receiving federal subsidies. (caveats apply; see blog post for details)
A single 50-yr old could see their premiums triple. A single parent could see theirs increase 3.5x. A family of four could see theirs go up 3.7x. And an older couple could go from paying $638/mo to over $3,300...FIVE TIMES what they pay today for the same policy.
🚨 NEXT UP: TEXAS. acasignups.net/ira-subsidy-...
TEXAS had over 4 MILLION residents enroll in ACA market plans this year, with ~3.8 million receiving federal subsidies & another ~250K paying full price either on or off the exchange. With attrition, the total is down to more like 3.8 million total as of today...still 12% of the total population.
Whoa!
Texas carriers plan on increasing average premiums by a collective 31% statewide... ...except, again, for Aetna, which is definitely dropping out, as is CHRISTUS (at least I think they are). ~250,000 full-price enrollees are looking at paying ~31% more starting in January.
As for the ~3.5 MILLION Texans who are currently receiving federal subsidies: Once again, it's not gonna be pretty. AGAIN: THIS IS NOT HAPPENING AFTER THE MIDTERMS. THIS IS CURRENTLY SET TO HAPPEN STARTING IN JANUARY 2026.
Well it starting in January is actually beneficial, it might get people thinking.
How so? Considering get cancer at a different time or in a different state?
I think he's talking politically, as in it's happening well before the midterms until being buried until afterwards.
Ah, I failed to discern. *hat-tip
I should note that the example on the right side of the graph above (the 64-yr old couple who earn $90,000/yr) would cost them $38,664/year in premiums alone, or 43% of their gross income.
OK, next up: CALIFORNIA. Despite having 1/3 higher population than Texas, California actually has ~40% *fewer* ACA enrollees. Why? CA expanded Medicaid under the ACA; TX hasn't, which means a lot of Texans who should be on Medicaid are in ACA plans instead. acasignups.net/ira-subsidy-...
Expansion only explains part of it While I don't know what Medicaid coverage/charity care gets you in Texas (underfunded seems a good bet), California's "safety net" hospitals are pretty good options, unless you wish to avoid Zuck General on political grounds
CA still has a LOT of ACA enrollees, however: Around 2.45 million, give or take. The good news (such as it is)? CA carriers are only asking for avg. rate hikes of around 10.2%. Any other year that would be considered high; for 2026, it's actually among the *lowest* statewide increases nationally.
The other good news is that along with several other states, California has their own *supplemental* financial subsidy program for ACA enrollees, which will help mitigate SOME of the massive rate hikes. However, they're completely retooling this program so I couldn't include it in my analysis:
Holy fucking Moly!
Merry Christmas!