A map and table showing the number of people now receiving premium subsidies who would lose them if the Court finds for the challengers; the total amount of federal subsidy dollars; the average subsidy (or average premium tax credit) that subsidized enrollees have qualified for; and the average increase in premiums that subsidized enrollees would face if the subsidies are disallowed.
- view as grid
- view as list
This analysis estimates the range of repayment or refund amounts of the advanced premium tax credits issued to enrollees who experience income volatility between the time of enrollment and tax credit reconciliation. Using a simulation model among all households eligible for advance payments of the premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act, it estimates that half would owe a repayment while 45 percent would be issued a refund of some or all of premium subsidies received.
New Analysis: Half of U.S. Households Eligible for a Tax Subsidy Under the Health Law Would Owe a Repayment, While 45 Percent Would Receive a Refund
Estimated Average Repayment is $794. Estimated Average Refund is $773. Half of U.S. households eligible for a 2014 tax subsidy under the Affordable Care Act would owe a repayment to the government, while 45 percent would receive a refund, according to estimates from a new analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The…
Larry Levitt’s March 2015 post explores what could happen if the U.S. Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs in the King v. Burwell case, the lawsuit that challenges the federal government’s authority to provide financial assistance to people who buy insurance in federally-operated marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act.
In this column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman explores a practical timetable for state action if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in King V. Burwell and ponders what Republicans in Congress might do.
New Kaiser Policy Insight and Issue Brief Examine Policy Implications and Legal Arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell Case
With the Supreme Court set to hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell on March 4, a new Policy Insight from the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Larry Levitt and Gary Claxton explores the policy implications for consumers and insurance markets if the Court were to side with the plaintiffs in the…
This perspective addresses how insurance markets might respond if the US Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs in the King v. Burwell case. The case challenges the legality of premium and cost-sharing subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying insurance in states where the federal government rather than the state is operating the marketplace under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Charts Examine Savings from Subsidies at Stake in U.S. Supreme Court Case Cost-sharing subsidies under the Affordable Care Act can substantially reduce deductibles and other cost sharing for people with low incomes purchasing coverage in the federally-facilitated insurance marketplace serving 37 states, a new analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation…
This brief and the accompanying slides examine reduction of cost sharing – deductibles, copayments and coinsurance – in the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) federally-facilitated marketplaces. The analysis shows how cost-sharing subsidies reduce the cost of deductibles, out-of-pocket limits, physician visits, emergency room visits and prescription drug costs in silver plans for low-income people (people whose income is 250 percent of the federal poverty level or below).
This analysis provides an early look at premium changes for individuals in the health insurance marketplaces, created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), in major cities across 15 states plus DC. Although premium changes vary across and within states, premium changes for 2015 in general are modest when looking at low-cost plans. On average, individuals will pay slightly less in premiums for the benchmark silver plan in 2015 than in 2014.