Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Just the Facts: What Happens If Enhanced Health Care Tax Credits End in 2025

The expiration of pandemic-era tax credits may double costs for middle-class and low-income families.

News

A stethoscope lying on top of credit cards.

Enhanced health care tax credits expire at the end of 2025 unless Congress acts. Learn who benefits, what’s at risk, and how premiums could rise without them.

Getty Images, yavdat

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

There’s been a lot in the news lately about healthcare costs going up on Dec. 31 unless congress acts. What are the details?

The enhanced health care premium tax credits (ePTCs) are set to expire at the end of 2025 unless Congress acts to extend them.


What is the breakdown of what they are and who benefits?

Premium tax credits are subsidies created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to help people afford health insurance purchased through the ACA marketplaces. They reduce the monthly premium cost based on your income and household size.

  • Original ACA credits: Available to people earning between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level.
  • Enhanced credits (ePTCs): Introduced in 2021 via the American Rescue Plan and extended through 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act. These:
    • Made coverage free or nearly free for those under 150% of the poverty level.
    • Removed the 400% income cap, allowing middle-income earners (e.g., up to $128,600 for a family of four) to qualify.
    • Capped premiums at 8.5% of household income for higher earners.

Who gets these credits?

  • Low-income individuals and families: Those earning between 100%–150% of the federal poverty level often pay $0 for benchmark plans.
  • Middle-income earners: Previously excluded, now eligible if they earn above 400% of the poverty level.
  • Self-employed and small business owners: Especially benefit if they don’t have access to employer-sponsored coverage.

What happens if they expire?

  • Premiums could double for many enrollees in 2026.
  • Millions may drop coverage due to affordability issues.
  • Insurers are already planning rate hikes, anticipating a drop in healthy enrollees and a rise in average claims costs.

What is the impact depending on income level?

  • Income $14,580–$21,870 (100%–150% FPL) – Current Premium: $0 – New Premium if Credits Expire: $387/year
  • Income $21,870–$29,160 (150%–200% FPL) – Current Premium: ~$160/year – New Premium if Credits Expire: $905/year
  • Income $29,160–$36,450 (200%–250% FPL) – Current Premium: ~$1,033/year – New Premium if Credits Expire: $2,615/year
  • Income $36,450–$58,320 (250%–400% FPL) – Current Premium: Capped at ~8.5% of income – New Premium if Credits Expire: $1,400/year (varies by state)
  • Income above $58,320 (>400% FPL) – Current Premium: ~$2,900/year (with credits) – New Premium if Credits Expire: Full cost of benchmark plan (often $3,000+ increase)

What are the arguments by Republicans for allowing the credits to expire?

  • COVID-era spending should sunset: Many Republicans argue that the enhanced credits were part of emergency pandemic relief and should not be made permanent without broader reform. As Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-VA) put it, “It is time to end all COVID-related incentives,” though she also acknowledged the need to protect families from sudden cost increases.
  • Opposition to expanding Obamacare: The enhanced credits were created and extended through Democratic legislation (American Rescue Plan and Inflation Reduction Act), which Republicans opposed. Some view extending these subsidies as entrenching a policy they’ve long sought to repeal or reform.
  • Need for structural reform: Fiscal conservatives argue that the ACA subsidies distort the insurance market and should be revisited holistically. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said, “I think in all likelihood, they need to be reformed. But this is an overreach to try to do this on a permanent basis.”

What are Democrats’ arguments on why it is wrong to allow the credits to expire?

  • Coverage Loss and Rising Uninsured Rates: Democrats warn that millions of Americans would lose coverage or face unaffordable premiums. The expiration would disproportionately affect working families, older adults, and communities of color. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) called it “a recipe for disaster for families who are already stretched thin.”
  • Middle-Class Protection: The enhanced credits removed the income cap, helping middle-income earners afford coverage for the first time. Democrats argue that reversing this would punish people who earn just above the poverty threshold but still struggle with high premiums.
  • Moral and Equity Imperative: Many Democrats see health care as a right, not a privilege. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said, “We should be expanding access to health care, not ripping it away from millions of Americans.”
  • Political Accountability: Democrats argue that Republicans are playing politics with people’s lives by refusing to extend the credits. They point out that the credits were popular and effective, and letting them expire would be a deliberate choice to increase hardship.
  • Cost of Inaction: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that premiums could double for some enrollees. Democrats argue that the fiscal cost of increased uninsured rates and emergency care far outweighs the cost of maintaining the credits.

What is the impact on the deficit if the credits are allowed to continue?

The CBO has estimated an increase of $350 billion to the deficit. There are possible offsetting factors that are not included in the deficit score, such as lower uncompensated care costs for hospitals, improved public health outcomes, and increased labor market participation due to coverage stability, but there is no way of determining the extent of any savings.

Have Democrats offered any suggestions to address the deficit issues?

Democrats and health policy allies are offering suggestions to offset the projected $350 billion cost of permanently extending the enhanced ACA premium tax credits, though formal negotiations remain politically stalled. Some of the proposals are:

  • Targeted Eligibility Limits: Scale back eligibility from the current uncapped income threshold to a ceiling like 600% of the federal poverty level (about $200,000 for a family of four).
  • Progressive Phase-Out Model: Extend full subsidies only up to 300% of poverty, then gradually phase out assistance for higher incomes.
  • Smaller Alternative Subsidy Formula: Set new subsidies halfway between the original ACA formula and the enhanced version.
  • Health System Reforms as Offsets: Democrats and budget experts have floated ideas like prescription drug pricing reforms, site-neutral payment policies, Medicare Advantage payment adjustments, and reducing waste and fraud in ACA enrollment systems.

David Nevins is publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.


Read More

An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less