Note: Free xpostfactoid subscription is available on Substack alone, though I will continue to cross-post on this site. If you're not subscribed, please visit xpostfactoid on Substack and sign up
 |
| To have or have not..or have a lot less |
My last post delved into CMS’s spin on the expiring enhanced ACA subsidies — that is, the agency’s focus on a) the comparatively modest increase in subsidized enrollees’ premiums for the lowest-cost bronze plan available in 2026 (up a mere 35%, compared to the 114% increase for benchmark silver calculated by KFF) and b) on a relative reduction in the lowest-cost bronze premium compared to 2020 (seven OEPs ago!).
I am sorry to see this distorted frame adopted in the Washington Post by a veteran ACA reporter, Paige Cunningham. The article is not factually inaccurate (though I can’t quite make some of the premium quotes work), but it downplays the impact of expiration of the enhanced subsidies on those who remain subsidized.
Here are the select facts Cunningham reports through the CMS filter:
