Five Million People Drop ACA Marketplace Coverage After Republicans Let Enhanced Subsidies Expire

Details

On June 26, 2026, NPR reported that about 5 million people had dropped Affordable Care Act marketplace health insurance for 2026—they either actively disenrolled, never signed up, or signed up and then failed to pay premiums—after the enhanced premium tax credits that had subsidized their coverage since 2021 expired at the end of 2025. Enrollment across the 29 states using the federal Healthcare.gov marketplace is down 13% from 2025, initial sign-ups fell by about a million from the prior year, and the premiums people actually pay roughly doubled on average, with millions facing double- or even triple-digit percentage increases. "The main takeaway is that enrollment is down 13% from last year," Cynthia Cox, director of KFF's Program on the ACA, told NPR. "When their costs went up, many of them dropped their coverage."

The coverage losses were not the product of a recession, a pandemic, or an act of nature. They followed directly from a set of policy choices made by congressional Republicans and the Trump administration: the decision not to extend the enhanced subsidies despite a government-shutdown standoff fought explicitly over the question; a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services rule that shortened enrollment windows and added verification hurdles in the name of fraud prevention; and, running alongside both, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act's roughly $1 trillion reduction in Medicaid spending. Together, the Congressional Budget Office and independent analysts project these choices will leave well over 10 million more Americans uninsured by 2034—what KFF's Elizabeth Williams has called the "largest rollback in federal support for health coverage ever."

The administration does not dispute that enrollment collapsed. It disputes what the collapse means. In its telling, the missing millions are largely "phantom" enrollees—people improperly signed up, often without their knowledge, by commission-chasing brokers exploiting fully subsidized zero-premium plans—and their removal is a fraud-cleanup success. Health policy researchers across several institutions say the data points the other way: toward ordinary people who looked at a premium that had doubled and decided, as Georgetown's Stacey Pogue put it, "based on what they can pay each month."

The Subsidies, and the Decision to Let Them Die

The enhanced premium tax credits were created by the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021 and extended through 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act. They did two things, as the Congressional Research Service explains: they increased subsidy amounts across the board, bringing many low-income enrollees' premiums to zero, and they eliminated the ACA's original "subsidy cliff" at 400% of the federal poverty level, capping premiums at 8.5% of income for middle-income buyers who had previously received no help at all. Under the enhanced structure, marketplace enrollment roughly doubled, reaching about 24 million plan selections for 2025.

The credits carried a statutory expiration date of December 31, 2025—meaning that extending them required an affirmative act of Congress, and letting them lapse required only inaction. Republicans, who controlled both chambers and the White House, chose inaction. The fight came to a head in October 2025, when Democrats forced a government shutdown in an attempt to negotiate an extension and lost; the credits expired on schedule at year's end.

The consequences were predicted in advance, specifically and publicly. The Urban Institute estimated that 4.8 million people would lose coverage in 2026 if the credits expired. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities warned of imminent premium spikes. The Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker documented insurers building the expiration into sharply higher 2026 rate filings. The Commonwealth Fund projected ripple effects including hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. And the CBO, in a September 2025 analysis, estimated that a permanent extension would have increased the number of insured Americans by 3.8 million in 2035—at a cost of $350 billion to the deficit over ten years. That cost figure is the strongest plank of the Republican case for expiration, and it is a real number; the coverage figure attached to it is equally real.

The Administration's Rule: Shorter Windows, More Paperwork

While Congress declined to act, the administration acted affirmatively. In June 2025, CMS finalized the Marketplace Integrity and Affordability rule, published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2025. Its provisions reshaped how people get and keep marketplace coverage:

• A shorter open enrollment period. Beginning with plan year 2027, all exchanges must complete open enrollment within nine weeks, and the federal marketplace's window runs November 1 through December 15—ending the mid-January deadline used in recent years.
• Stricter income verification. The rule removed an automatic 60-day extension for resolving income data mismatches, required exchanges to run additional checks when IRS data is unavailable or shows income below the poverty line, and made enrollees ineligible for advance subsidies after a single year of failing to file and reconcile taxes, rather than two.
• Repeal of the monthly low-income special enrollment period, which had allowed people below 150% of poverty to enroll year-round; CMS said it "has been exploited to enroll consumers or change their plans without their knowledge."
• A $5 monthly charge for auto-re-enrolled zero-premium enrollees starting in 2026, eliminated only once the enrollee confirms eligibility—a deliberate friction designed to force passive enrollees to raise their hands.
• Exclusion of DACA recipients from marketplace eligibility.

CMS framed every provision as protecting "program integrity"—its stated concern being that the "temporary expansion of premium subsidies resulted in conditions that were exploited to improperly gain access to fully-subsidized coverage." Whatever one makes of that rationale, the rule's mechanics push in one direction: fewer opportunities to enroll, more documentation required to stay enrolled, and affirmative action required to keep zero-premium coverage. The rule and the subsidy expiration therefore compounded each other in 2026: prices rose sharply at the same moment the process for staying covered got harder.

What the Data Shows

KFF's May 2026 analysis—the most comprehensive accounting so far—fills in the picture behind NPR's headline number.

Plan selections fell to 23.1 million for 2026, the sharpest single-year drop since the marketplaces launched in 2014. But plan selections overstate actual coverage, because signing up is free and staying covered is not: per Wakely Consulting Group data cited by KFF, only about 86% of January 2026 enrollees paid their first premium. Accounting for nonpayment and mid-year attrition, KFF projects average effectuated enrollment could fall 17–26% from 2025—to roughly 17.5 million people, about 4.8 million fewer than the prior year's 22.3 million. (Counting methods differ across analysts: Families USA, using its own approach, puts the figure at "nearly 4 million"; NPR's ~5 million combines those who never signed up with those who dropped after enrolling. KFF cautions that all the data isn't in yet.)

The price mechanism is visible throughout. Average out-of-pocket premium payments, net of remaining tax credits, rose 58%—from $113 to $178 a month. KFF had projected a 114% increase if people kept identical plans; the actual rise was smaller only because enrollees traded down. Bronze plans—cheaper premiums, thinner coverage—jumped from 30% to 40% of selections while silver plans fell below half for the first time ever, and as a result the average marketplace deductible surged 37%, or $1,027, to $3,786: the steepest deductible increase since the markets opened. Millions who kept coverage are thus paying more for insurance that covers less before it kicks in.

Who left is equally telling. Consumers above 400% of poverty—the middle-income group that lost all subsidy eligibility when the cliff returned—made up just a few percent of 2025 sign-ups but 48% of the enrollment decline. Young adults 18–34, the healthiest and most price-sensitive group, accounted for 46% of total losses. Enrollment fell in 41 states, with the largest drops in North Carolina (-22%), Ohio (-20%), and West Virginia (-17%)—while New Mexico, which layered state-funded assistance on top of the federal credits, saw enrollment rise 18%. That last data point functions as a natural experiment: where the subsidy loss was backfilled, coverage grew.

As for where the leavers went: a March 2026 survey found that 9% of prior ACA enrollees were uninsured after the subsidies expired, with others moving to employer plans, Medicaid, or skimpier non-ACA products.

The Administration's Case: Cost, Fraud, and "Original ACA Levels"

The administration and its allies make a three-part argument, and an honest account has to present it.

First, cost. The enhanced credits were enacted as pandemic-era measures, and making them permanent would have added $350 billion to deficits over 2026–2035 by CBO's estimate. Republicans argue Democrats built a temporary program, deliberately timed its expiration, and cannot now treat its scheduled end as sabotage. On this view, 2026 is not a collapse but a return to the ACA's original, congressionally enacted subsidy design—"original ACA levels"—and enrollment remains far above what it was before the enhancements: an HHS analysis notes February 2026 enrollment was still 85% higher than February 2019.

Second, fraud. In late June 2026, HHS's Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation released a report—promoted by Paragon Health Institute president Brian Blase, the former Trump adviser whose think tank originated the theory—concluding that the year-over-year enrollment decline it measured (2.9 million, on its counting) "results from removal of improper and phantom enrollees." Paragon has long argued that zero-premium plans plus lightly verified income attestation created an industry of broker-driven fraudulent enrollment: it points to roughly 5.6 million allegedly improper enrollees in February 2025, a million current enrollees lacking valid Social Security numbers, enrollment growth concentrated implausibly at 100–150% of poverty, and high rates of enrollees who never used any care. On this account, the people who vanished from the rolls were disproportionately never really there, and the verification paperwork in the CMS rule is the cure rather than the disease.

Third, generosity. Blase's analysis argues remaining subsidies are still "extraordinarily generous"—the median subsidized enrollee pays about $42 a month, with taxpayers covering roughly 94% of premiums—so affordability cannot explain a multimillion-person exodus.

The Rebuttal: The Data Points at Prices

Health policy researchers largely reject the fraud explanation as an account of the 2026 losses, while acknowledging that some improper enrollment existed. "I don't see data that point to that conclusion—that a 5 million person drop can be explained by allegations of fraud," Georgetown's Stacey Pogue told NPR; there is instead, she said, "lots of evidence pointing to people making decisions based on what they can pay each month." The dispute has continued into July, with CNBC reporting that the administration and independent experts remain at odds over attribution.

Several features of the data are hard to square with the fraud story. Nearly half the enrollment decline came from people above 400% of poverty—full-freight customers whom no one alleges were phantom enrollees, and who left because the repeal of the subsidy cliff exposed them to unsubsidized premiums that insurers had raised sharply. The losses skew young and healthy, which is what economists predict when prices rise (the sick stay at any price), not what one expects from purging fictitious enrollees, who have no health profile at all. New Mexico's enrollment increase under state-funded supplemental subsidies is difficult to explain by fraud enforcement, which applied nationally. And the record 37% deductible spike reflects millions of real people actively choosing worse coverage to save money—behavior phantom enrollees do not exhibit. The fraud and affordability explanations are not mutually exclusive: brokers' fraudulent enrollment schemes in 2023–2024 were genuinely documented, and some share of the decline surely reflects tightened verification. The contested question is proportion, and the administration's claim that essentially the entire decline is fraud removal is an outlier position among analysts who study the market.

The Medicaid Cuts and the Total Uninsured Picture

The subsidy expiration is one layer of a larger structure. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025, cut Medicaid by roughly $1 trillion and imposed 80-hour-per-month work or community-service requirements on most adults under 65—taking effect in January 2027, after the midterm elections. CBO estimated in August 2025 that the work requirements alone will add 5.3 million people to the uninsured by 2034, and that the law's health provisions in total will strip coverage from about 10 million. Stacking the law's Medicaid cuts, the subsidy expiration (CBO: 3.8 million fewer insured in 2035 than under extension), and the marketplace rule's enrollment frictions, the combined federal projections point to the largest coverage reversal since the ACA passed—the basis for KFF's "largest rollback ever" characterization.

The geography of the losses has political salience. The Daily Yonder documented in July 2026 that rural Americans—who rely disproportionately on marketplace coverage and Medicaid, and who vote heavily Republican—are losing insurance at high rates, and the state-level KFF data shows the steepest marketplace declines in states like West Virginia, North Carolina, and Ohio.

Market Consequences: Insurer Exits and 2027 Rates

The people leaving the marketplaces are disproportionately the young and healthy, which changes the arithmetic for everyone who stays. A risk pool that skews sicker forces insurers to raise rates or leave, which drives out the next-healthiest tier of customers—the dynamic insurers call a death spiral. The early signs are present: Cigna has announced an exit from ACA markets, other insurers are scaling back, and preliminary 2027 rate filings point to another round of double-digit premium increases. The 2027 plan year will also be the first under the compressed November 1–December 15 federal enrollment window and the first with Medicaid work requirements in force—meaning the coverage losses recorded through June 2026 are a floor, not a ceiling.

What Is Established and What Is Contested

The established facts: the enhanced credits expired because Republicans, controlling the elected branches, declined to extend them after an explicit political fight over the question; out-of-pocket premiums roughly doubled on average; marketplace enrollment suffered its worst one-year decline ever, with effectuated coverage down by roughly four to five million people depending on counting method; deductibles rose more than in any prior year; and the administration separately tightened enrollment rules in ways designed to shrink the rolls. The administration's stated rationale—the credits' $350 billion ten-year cost and documented broker-fraud abuses in the zero-premium segment—is a genuine policy argument, and the fraud problem it invokes was real enough that even critics of the administration acknowledge it required a response.

What is contested is the composition of the losses—the administration says fraud removal, most independent analysts say prices—and what remains unknowable yet is the human toll: how many of the newly uninsured will delay care, face medical debt, or get sick without coverage, and how far the market deterioration runs before it stabilizes. What distinguishes this entry from a natural disaster is that every element of it was forecast, in public, with numbers attached, before it happened. The Urban Institute predicted 4.8 million coverage losses; the observed figure is about that. Insurers predicted premium spikes; premiums spiked. CBO priced the trade-off between $350 billion and millions of insured Americans, and the governing party took the deal. Voters will render their own verdict on that choice—but no one can say the consequences were a surprise.