CSR forgone: Long- and short-term changes in the ACA marketplace

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. 

When considering how the most seismic changes in the ACA marketplace’s 13-year history have shaken out, it’s important to keep in mind that the market mainly serves very low-income people. Consider*:

• 64% of all marketplace enrollees in 2026 had income in the 100-200% FPL range. In the U.S. population at large, just 15% were in that income range as of 2024.

• 54% of all marketplace enrollment (12,487,037) in 2026 is in ten states that have refused to enact the ACA Medicaid expansion, where eligibility for marketplace subsidies begins at 100% FPL. In expansion states, Medicaid is available to all adult citizens and qualified noncitizens with income up to 138% FPL.

• More than half of enrollment in nonexpansion states (6,543,435) is in an income bracket (100-138% of the Federal Poverty Level, or FPL) that would qualify those enrollees for Medicaid in expansion states. Those should-be-in-Medicaid enrollees account for 28% of all marketplace enrollment.

• In 2026, 83% of silver plan enrollees nationally had income in the 100-200% FPL range, qualifying them for strong Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) that raises the actuarial value (AV) of a silver plan to 94% (at incomes up to 150% FPL) or 87% (at income from 150-200% FPL). Nationally, the average AV obtained by silver plan enrollees was 88.6%, justifying the presumption now enforced by several states that silver plans should be priced at a roughly platinum level (90% AV), well above gold (80% AV).

With that low-income skew in mind, I’d like to examine both long-term enrollment trends and shifts in metal selection in 2026, the latter driven mainly (presumably) by expiration of the enhanced ARPA subsidies.

Trends include:

To silver-load or not: Arkansas vs. New Jersey marketplace, 2026

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.

Does the NJ marketplace need a Huckabee-sting?

The looming expiration of the enhanced Premium Tax Credits in the ACA marketplace (ePTC) increases the salience of the extent to which different states encourage or enforce strict “premium alignment,” A.K.A. silver loading, the pricing of the full value of Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) into silver plans.

Here, we’ll contrast current plan offerings in a state marketplace with some of the most extreme silver loading effects, Arkansas, with a state where the effects are among the weakest, New Jersey.

If you are unfamiliar with how silver loading works or why it exists, see the explanation at bottom.

To defend against the looming expiration of the enhanced ACA subsidies funded only through 2025, Arkansas implemented the nation’s strictest “premium alignment,” requiring insurers to price silver at 1.46 times what it would be priced at the baseline silver actuarial value of 70%. That is, Arkansas requires insurers to price silver plans as if all silver plan enrollees have income under 200% FPL and so obtain plans with actuarial value of 94% (the AV of CSR-enhanced silver for enrollees with income up to150% FPL) or 87% (silver AV for enrollees in the 150-200% FPL income bracket) — an average AV of 91%. For a convoluted tale of how Arkansas arrived at this point, see Charles Gaba.

Pricing silver as if all enrollees have income under 200% FPL is meant to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. A “CSR factor” like Arkansas’ ensures that gold plans will be cheaper than silver plans with the same provider network, making silver plans an illogical choice for enrollees with income over 200% FPL, since gold plans have a higher AV than silver for enrollees above that income threshold. That assumption has been borne out in the Texas marketplace, where in 2025, just 1% of the state’s 1.9 million silver plan enrollees had income over 200% FPL.* In 2025, 78% of silver plan enrollees in Arkansas obtained 94% AV or 87% AV. The average weighted AV for silver plan enrollees in the state was 86.8%. It’s not a great leap to assume average silver plan AV of 91% under the current pricing regime.

Thanks to this pricing formula for silver plans, Arkansas has the nation’s widest premium spread between the average lowest-cost bronze plan and the average benchmark (second cheapest) silver plan. On average, the premium for the lowest-cost bronze plan in Arkansas is just 57.8% of the benchmark silver premium. Gold coverage in Arkansas is also very cheap, averaging just 83.6% of the benchmark. On that front, Arkansas is tied with Pennsylvania for fourth-lowest in the nation.

How the Trump administration handled the ACA marketplace, Part 1

 Note: All xpostfactoid subscriptions are now through Substack alone (still free), though I will continue to cross-post on this site. If you're not subscribed, please visit xpostfactoid on Substack and sign up.

In the wake of Trump’s vow to repeal the ACA if elected, Larry Levitt, Kaiser Family Foundation, outlines the former president’s past and purported future healthcare agenda.

One of Trump’s biggest political failures as president was his inability to persuade Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, the Trump administration did make significant changes to the ACA, including repealing the individual mandate penalty, reducing federal funding for consumer assistance (navigators) by 84% and outreach by 90%, and expanding short-term insurance plans that can exclude coverage of preexisting conditions. And, the Trump administration supported an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit to overturn the ACA.

In one of the stranger policy twists, the Trump administration ended payments to ACA insurers to compensate them for a requirement to provide reduced cost sharing for low-income patients. At the time, Trump said this would cause Obamacare to be “dead” and “gone.” But, insurers responded by increasing premiums, which in turn increased federal premium subsidies and costs to the federal government, likely strengthening the ACA.

In the current campaign, Trump has vowed several times to try again to repeal and replace the ACA, saying he would create a plan with “much better health care.”

Trump certainly meant harm to the ACA. His comments in the wake of abruptly cutting off direct reimbursement of insurers for the value of Cost Sharing Reduction, cited by Levitt above, show his intent, as does his pressure on Republicans in Congress to pass legislation gutting its core programs. Should Trump regain the presidency, there is no question that he will pursue the agenda that Levitt outlines in his conclusion, including the ACA-related parts:

Trump’s record as president from 2017 to 2021, combined with recent comments on the campaign trail, suggest he would pursue policies to weaken the ACA, reduce federal spending on Medicaid, restrict access to abortion and family planning, and scale back benefits for immigrants if reelected as president in 2024.

Moreover, should Trump regain the presidency, he would lead a Republican party even more subservient to his will than in his first term. A Republican Congress would almost surely roll back the ACA Medicaid expansion and impose sharp spending caps on surviving Medicaid programs, as well as deregulating and largely defunding the ACA marketplace, as failed Republican legislation aimed to do in 2017. Should Democrats control one or both houses of Congress, an HHS Department filled with MAGA partisans, in line with plans currently being laid by well-funded right-wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation to root out technocratic expertise and install Trump loyalists at every level in all federal departments, would doubtless pull out all stops to undermine the marketplace and reduce Medicaid enrollments.

In Trump’s first administration, his appointments to HHS and CMS also were hostile to the structure of the ACA marketplace and the Medicaid expansion. Most notably, CMS administrator Seema Verma encouraged states to impose work requirements on “non-disabled, working age Medicaid enrollees — with some success, although the measures were largely checked by the courts. She also pushed states to conduct more frequent income and eligibility checks on Medicaid enrollees, encouraging the kind of procedural disenrollments (often of people who never received demands for information) now plaguing the post-pandemic Medicaid unwinding. '

But Verma and HHS Secretaries Tom Price and Alex Azar were also more constrained by conventional political incentives and the needs of corporate, state and individual constituents than their successors in a second Trump administration would likely be. The administration’s record with respect to ACA marketplace administration was mixed. Some measures harmed product quality and enrollment; some measures boosted enrollment and retention.

A "premium alignment" bill advances in NJ legislature

 Note: All xpostfactoid subscriptions are now through Substack alone (still free), though I will continue to cross-post on this site. If you're not subscribed, please visit xpostfactoid on Substack and sign up!

Will NJ's ACA marketplace glow as goldenly as its rest areas?

In June, I flagged a bill introduced in the New Jersey legislature this past spring, S3896/A5626, that would require silver plans in the state’s ACA marketplace to be priced roughly on par with gold plans in year 1 and on par with platinum plans in year two — reshaping a market in which gold plans have been priced out of reach for more than 98% of enrollees.

The bill’s logic is simple (though it has a complicated back story): On average, silver plans have a higher actuarial value than gold plans, since most silver plan enrollees qualify for the Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) that attaches only to silver plans.

The bill was abruptly posted early this month for a December 11 hearing in the Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee, a committee chaired by one of the bill’s lead sponsors, John McKeon. The bill passed out of committee with no amendments on an 11-0 vote with one abstention. That’s first step in a gauntlet of three Assembly and two Senate committees’ consideration.

I testified in favor on behalf of BlueWave New Jersey, a progressive state advocacy group, along with Laura Waddell of New Jersey Citizen Action. My testimony is below.

- - -

TESTIMONY BEFORE SENATE BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
December 11, 2023

A5626/S3896 would correct a severe pricing imbalance in New Jersey’s ACA marketplace that weakens coverage for middle-income enrollees in health plans offered on GetCoveredNJ.

New Jersey is unique among U.S. state marketplaces in that in New Jersey gold-level plans – the metal choice that offers a coverage level closest to the average employer-sponsored plans – are priced out of reach for almost all enrollees.  In New Jersey in 2023, just 1.5% of on-exchange enrollees selected gold plans, versus a national average of 11.9% (see CMS Public Use Files, Note 3).  Nationally, according to tables published by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the lowest-cost gold plan premium in each state market is 4% higher than the lowest-cost silver premium in 2024. In New Jersey, the lowest-cost gold premium is priced 37% above the lowest-cost silver plan.

In New Jersey's ACA marketplace, a "premium alignment" bill would turn gold plan pricing on its head

 Note: All xpostfactoid subscriptions are now through Substack alone (still free), though I will continue to cross-post on this site. If you're not subscribed, please visit xpostfactoid on Substack and sign up!

Gold skies, but almost no gold Obamacare, in New Jersey

On May 22, New Jersey state Senator Joseph Vitale, chair of the Health, Human Services, and Seniors Committee, introduced a bill (S3896) that mandates “premium alignment” — a.k.a. strict silver loading — in the state’s individual and small group health insurance markets. That is, insurers would be required to comply with the letter of the ACA statute that requires them to price plans at different metal levels in strict proportion to the actuarial value of each metal level. (Actuarial value refers to the percentage of the average enrollee’s costs the plan is designed to pay for, according to a formula promulgated by CMS.)

In effect, mandating that strict proportionality means pricing gold plans below silver plans with the same network (or, in New Jersey in the first year after enactment, roughly at par with silver plans, as explained below). That’s been the case since 2018, the first plan year after Trump cut off direct reimbursement of insurers for the value of Cost Sharing Reduction (CSR) subsidies, which attach to silver plans only. The cutoff induced most states to direct insurers to price CSR into silver plan premiums only, a practice that came to be known as silver loading. CSR raises the actuarial value of a silver plan to a roughly platinum level** for enrollees with income up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level — — that is, for about 80% of on-exchange silver plan enrollees nationally (though far less in New Jersey, as discussed below). In 2023, the average actuarial value among silver plan enrollees on all ACA exchanges was about 87%, compared to 80% for gold plans.*