Warning: This isn't just gonna get deeply wonky, it also requires digging deep into histroy. You've been warned.
Chapter 1: The (simplified) Backstory:
The ACA includes two types of financial subsidies: Advance Premium Tax Credits (APTC), which reduce monthly premiums; and Cost Sharing Reductions (CSR), which cut down on deductibles, co-pays & other out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses for low-income enrollees.
In 2014, then-Speaker of the House John Boehner filed a lawsuit on behalf of Congressional Republicans against the Obama Administration, in part because they claimed that CSR payments were unconstitutional because they weren't explicitly appropriated by Congress in the text of the Affordable Care Act.
A long legal process ensued, the end of which resulted in a federal judge ruling in the GOP's favor and ordering that CSR payments stop being made...but also staying that same order pending appeal of her decision by the Justice Department (then still run by the Obama Administration).
(sigh) So, moments ago I received the following press release from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS):
Today, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) unveiled details on how states can apply to receive funding from the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program created under the Working Families Tax Cuts Act to strengthen health care across rural America. This unprecedented investment is designed to empower states to transform the existing rural health care infrastructure and build sustainable health care systems that expand access, enhance quality of care, and improve outcomes for patients.
Amusingly (and sadly), the link itself goes to the WhiteHouse.Gov page describing not the "Working Families Tax Cuts Act" (which doesn't exist) but rather the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" which is what Trump and Republicans insisted on calling it for months, right up until they realized that it's about as popular as a turd in a punchbowl, at which point they decided that simply rebranding it as a "tax cut" for "working families" will solve all their problems at the midterms next year.
If you've been following my state-by-state 2026 avg. rate change project, you may have noticed that after filling in the final, approved rate filings for a bunch of states over the past month or so, these tapered off to just three more last week (Illinois, Washington and Connecticut).
California has ~1.98 MILLION residents enrolled in ACA exchange plans, over 88% of whom are currently subsidized. They also have an estimated ~470,000 off-exchange enrollees. Combined, that's over 2.4 million people, or 6.2% of their total population.
State Highlights Rising 2026 Health Insurance Rate Proposals
SAINT PAUL, MN: Minnesotans are facing unnecessarily higher health insurance rate hikes, and the blame lies with new Republican-led federal policy changes passed in Washington, says Minnesota Commerce Commissioner Grace Arnold.
“While HR1 has been dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” by Republicans, many in our state will find nothing beautiful in health insurance premium increases they’ll experience for 2026,” Arnold said. “These will be the highest rate hikes since 2017 for individual and group markets.”
The Connecticut Insurance Department has posted the initial proposed health insurance rate filings for the 2026 individual and small group markets. There are 8 filings made by 7 health insurers for plans that currently cover approximately 224,000 people (158,000 individual and 66,000 small group).
Anthem has filed rates for both individual and small group plans that will be marketed through Access Health CT, the state-sponsored health insurance exchange. ConnectiCare Benefits Inc. (CBI) and ConnectiCare Insurance Company, Inc. have filed rates for the individual market on the exchange.
Before I continue, note that yes, I'm aware the 17.8% average shown below doesn't match the 22.9% average in the headline above. There's a reason for this which should be obvious if you read on:
The 2026 rate proposals for the individual and small group market are on average higher than last year:
Last week I noted that Colorado legislators passed (and Gov. Polis signed) legislation to scrape together up to $100 million in emergency funding to backfill perhaps 40% or so of the federal tax credits the state expects their ~225,000 subsidized enrollees to lose in 2026 when the enhanced IRA credits expire this December:
...The Senate then approved House Bill 25B-1006, which would sell tax credits to bring in money for the Health Insurance Affordability Enterprise fund. That pays for programs to reduce individual insurance market premiums.
The bill aims to raise $100 million for that enterprise to soften the impact of the expiration of federal enhanced premium tax credits. Health insurance premiums for people who buy insurance on the individual market are expected to face an average of a 28% increase next year, with higher increases along the Western Slope.
OLYMPIA, Wash. — Fourteen health insurers have requested an average rate change of 21.2% for Washington state's 2026 Individual Health Insurance Market. Insurers base their requested rate changes on assumptions they make about the services their policyholders will use and the cost to deliver that care. The health plans and proposed rate changes are currently under review by the Office of the Insurance Commissioner.
Wellpoint Washington, Inc. is new to the market and plans to sell in Grays Harbor, King and Spokane counties.
Back in June I ran an analysis to try and break out just how many Americans are likely to lose healthcare coverage in every Congressional District nationally under the recently-passed MAGA Murder Bill, officially known as H.R.1, the One Big Beautiful Bill.
As I showed at the time, while there's around 65% more people enrolled in Medicaid via ACA expansion in House districts held by Democrats (roughly 12.7 million in blue districts vs. 7.7 million in red districts), there's around 34% more ACA exchange enrollees in red districts (around ~13.9 million vs. ~10.4 million in blue districts).
I then went a step further and broke out the House districts into 10 tiers based on what percent of the vote Donald Trump received last year to take a more granular look and found that, shocker, there's no "winners" here; every district is a loser across the ideological spectrum.
