Affordable Care Act

Enhanced Premium tax credits

2025 KFF Marketplace Enrollees Survey

If their premium payments double, about one in three ACA enrollees say they would be “very likely” to look for a lower-premium Marketplace plan.

Timely insights and analysis from KFF staff

Subscribe to KFF Emails

Choose which emails are best for you.
Sign up here

Filter

1,931 - 1,940 of 2,758 Results

  • Data Note: Predictors Of Positive And Negative Attitudes Towards The ACA Among Non-Group Insurance Enrollees

    Poll Finding

    One of the groups perhaps most affected by changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are people who purchase their own health insurance in the non-group market. In this Data Note, we examine data from the Kaiser Family Foundation Wave 2 Survey of Non-Group Health Insurance Enrollees to explore the characteristics of non-group enrollees that are associated with positive and negative attitudes towards the ACA, including feeling personally benefited or negatively affected by the law.

  • Year Two of the ACA Coverage Expansions: On-the-Ground Experiences from Five States

    Issue Brief

    This brief provides an on-the-ground view of ACA implementation after completion of the second open enrollment period. It is based on 40 in-person interviews conducted in five states that have made different implementation choices, including three states (Colorado, Kentucky, and Washington) that have developed a State-based Marketplace and adopted the Medicaid expansion and two states (Utah and Virginia) that rely on the Federally-facilitated Marketplace (FFM) for enrollment of individuals into qualified health plans (QHPs) and that have not adopted the Medicaid expansion to date. The interviews were conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured and Perry Undem Research/Communication with a range of stakeholders in each state, including Medicaid and Marketplace officials, consumer advocates, assisters, and hospital and community health center representatives, during April and May 2015. The report presents key findings related to enrollment systems; enrollment and renewal; outreach, marketing, and enrollment assistance; and access to and utilization of care. It concludes with key priorities identified by stakeholders looking ahead.

  • Facing the Fallout From a King v. Burwell Ruling

    From Drew Altman

    With a Supreme Court decision on King v. Burwell looming, this Drew Altman column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank plays out the politics of a ruling for the two major parties.

  • Analysis of 2016 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplaces

    Issue Brief

    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 in 10 states plus DC. Premium changes for the benchmark silver plans vary significantly across the sample cities. The benchmark rates will increase 4.4 percent on average in 2016 without accounting for tax credits, a relatively modest amount but greater than the average increase for 2015.

  • Early Analysis In Eleven States Finds Modest Increases For ACA Silver Plans

    News Release

    A Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans in major metropolitan areas in 11 states where data are available, including the District of Columbia, finds that preliminary 2016 premiums for benchmark silver plans grew modestly, but increased more sharply this year than last year. The average increase for benchmark plans across the cities is 4.4 percent for 2016 compared with a 2 percent increase nationwide in 2015.

  • Media Availability on the U.S. Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell Decision

    Event Date:
    Event

    The Kaiser Family Foundation held a media-only conference call with key experts on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), state marketplaces and more to explain the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the King v. Burwell case and to answer questions about its implications. The petitioners in the case are challenging the legality of premium and cost-sharing subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying health plans in 34 states where the federal government rather than the state is operating an insurance marketplace established by the Affordable Care Act.