Understanding the Future of Premium Tax Credits in the Health Insurance Marketplaces
In 2021, significant reforms to the premium tax credit were enacted by Congress to enhance affordability for individuals purchasing health insurance through the Health Insurance Marketplaces. As lawmakers debate extending these advantageous provisions set to expire at year-end, the potential consequences loom large. Should the extensions not occur, a considerable reduction in federal subsidies could lead to a rise in enrollment costs, potentially pushing an estimated 3.8 million individuals out of coverage and saving the federal government around $35 billion over the next decade.
The Impact of Proposed Changes on Insurance Coverage
Proposed Changes to the Premium Tax Credit
Reports indicate lawmakers are contemplating modifications to the premium tax credit that may include provisions preventing it from reducing enrollees’ premiums to zero. This adjustment may significantly influence low-income individuals who, under existing guidelines, can at times secure coverage at no cost. Evidence suggests that if such a provision had been enacted in 2025, around 430,000 individuals would have lost their Marketplace insurance coverage, mainly due to increased administrative hurdles tied to enrollment.
Why Do Some Marketplace Enrollees Pay $0?
Individuals enrolled in health coverage through the Marketplaces often benefit from a tax credit designed to offset their premiums. This credit, determined by the cost of a “benchmark” plan (the second-lowest silver plan available), varies based on the enrollee’s income and family size. Those with incomes below 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) can fully cover the cost of the benchmark plan, leading some to enjoy a $0 net premium if they select budget-friendly options.
Effects of Removing $0 Premiums on Enrollment
Extensive research indicates that requiring even a nominal premium can lead to a notable decline in insurance enrollment. Studies in states like Massachusetts and Colorado underline that the transition from $0 to even $1 in premiums resulted in significant drops in coverage, estimated between 8% to 12%. This trend suggests that introducing a minimum premium policy in the Marketplaces would inadvertently exacerbate the number of uninsured individuals.
Estimating the Future: Insurance Coverage and Federal Costs
Projected Outcomes for Insurance Coverage
Based on available data from past Marketplace enrollments, approximately 15.2% of enrollees may utilize plans with $0 net premiums. This translates to an estimated 3.6 million individuals currently benefiting from this provision. If an obligatory minimum premium were enforced, we might expect as many as 430,000 of these individuals to fall out of coverage, as they would no longer qualify due to the added financial burden.
Financial Implications for the Federal Government
The loss of coverage among 430,000 individuals would yield significant savings for the federal budget. If these enrollees typically had an average gross premium comparable to the Marketplace average of $618.76, federal costs could decrease by around $3.2 billion. Nonetheless, it’s essential to consider that this figure may be overestimated due to the likelihood that enrollees with $0 premiums generally select less expensive plans.
Addressing Concerns of “Phantom” Enrollees
Critics assert that many Marketplace enrollees might be “phantom” participants—individuals unaware of their enrollment status. Some legislators advocate that a minimum premium requirement could help filter out these enrollees while minimizing disruption for those relying on Marketplace coverage. However, evidence suggests that implementing such a policy could inadvertently strip legitimate participants of their coverage, as research consistently shows that increased premiums negatively impact retention of real enrollees.
The Evolving Landscape of Marketplace Enrollment
The federal government has taken steps to tackle issues concerning phantom enrollments, indicating ongoing reforms may already be keeping these unintentional enrollees in check. Legislative changes and enhanced enrollment procedures have further advanced these objectives, aiming to streamline coverage without inadvertently impacting genuine enrollees.
Conclusion: Balancing Savings and Coverage
In summary, mandating all Marketplace enrollees to contribute a minimum premium could lead to substantial reductions in coverage among low-income individuals. While this would correspondingly lower federal expenditures, the approach mirrors other direct reductions in government assistance and may not offer the anticipated savings without substantial harm. Policymakers must weigh these potential savings against the real-world implications for the millions relying on accessible health insurance.
Stay Informed
For further insights and updates on health insurance policies, consider exploring more articles from The Brookings Institution, where we are dedicated to providing unbiased and impactful research.
