No, Obamacare Premiums Are NOT Doubling in 2026
A copy of this document in PDF format is available here…
Misleading Talking Point from Leftist Think Tank
- KFF (formerly Kaiser Family Foundation) knows this talking point is false—it had to stealth-edit a claim that “premiums would more than double on average” without enhanced subsidies.
- KFF’s deceptive terminology—which focuses on “premium payments” rather than “premiums”—conflates total premiums with out-of-pocket costs—the latter term excludes the sizable federal subsidies most enrollees will still receive.
- A separate KFF report “show[ed] a median proposed premium increase of 18%” among Exchange plans for 2026—far from a doubling of premiums. Ironically, the Obamacare subsidy regime insulates most enrollees from the impact of these projected premium increases.
The Federal Government Will Still Pay Most Premium Costs
- A KFF analysis from last year found that, without enhanced subsidies, the average share of enrollee premiums paid by federal dollars in 2024 would have declined from 88% to “only” 78%.
- Other studies reinforce the concept that the federal government will still pay the lion’s share of total premiums for most enrollees if the enhanced subsidies expire.
Most Out-of-Pocket Increases Will Be Modest
- The Left’s focus on percentages obscures the modest nature of most increases in dollar terms.
- KFF estimates an average annual increase for Exchange enrollees of $1,016, or $84.67 monthly.
- An Urban Institute study found that, for enrollees with incomes below 250% of poverty—who receive the richest subsidies, and represent roughly three-quarters of enrollees—increases will average $750 per year, or $62.50 per month.
- KFF declined to publicly disclose median or other percentile estimates of the raw dollar impact on enrollees. However, most households should face increases of roughly $50-100 per month.
- Given sizable estimates of Exchange fraud—CBO found 2.3 million who “improperly claimed [subsidies] via intentional overstatement of income” in 2025, costing an estimated $13.9 billion per year, while Paragon found an estimated 6.4 million potentially fraudulent enrollees, costing an estimated $27.1 billion per year—eliminating “free” premiums, and requiring all enrollees to pay something towards their health coverage, is a reasonable and necessary anti-fraud measure.
- Some enrollees with incomes just above four times poverty will face sizable cost increases, as they will lose eligibility for premium subsidies. However, these enrollees comprise a mere 7% of all Exchange enrollees, and the Urban Institute estimated the uninsured rate for this cohort would rise by only 5%, because they “are more likely to pick up coverage from an employer” and “are more willing to pay the full premium.”
Given $38 trillion in federal debt, some conservatives may question the wisdom of spending $350 billion (plus interest) to lower out-of-pocket costs by an average $50-100 per month for a small segment (about 6 percent) of the population that receive Exchange subsidies.