Premiums

Read it this way The benchmark-premium line runs below both wages and inflation in 2021 and 2022, then crosses above both in 2023 and 2024. The caveat explains the early years reflect enhanced subsidies suppressing the sticker premium, so the crossover marks when sticker growth resumed outpacing both wages and prices. Use this chart to distinguish sticker price from what households actually pay, and to see why the recommendation focuses on net exposure rather than premiums in isolation.

Caveat The subsidized benchmark premium fell in 2021 and 2022 as enhanced subsidies took effect, then grew faster than wages and inflation in 2024. The premium series starts in 2021 because it needs a 2020 base to compute a 2021 change.

KFF benchmark premiums and US Bureau of Labor Statistics ECI and CPI-U · 2024 · source

Read it this way All three tier lines rise across the period, and the Gold-Silver gap narrowing from $59 to $20 is visible as those two lines converge toward the end. This is the pre-subsidy sticker price, so it does not reflect what most subsidized enrollees actually pay. Use this chart to distinguish sticker price from what households actually pay, and to see why the recommendation focuses on net exposure rather than premiums in isolation.

Caveat Platinum and Catastrophic tiers are omitted because KFF does not publish a national average for them.

KFF State Health Facts, marketplace premiums by metal tier · 2024 · source

Read it this way Darker states pay a higher benchmark premium. The caveat flags these are 2026 values from the 16 states KFF had published at collection, not the 2024 figure used in the national trend lines, so the map's shade should not be blended with the national trend chart beside it. Use this chart to distinguish sticker price from what households actually pay, and to see why the recommendation focuses on net exposure rather than premiums in isolation.

Caveat These are 2026 values, the most recent state-level snapshot, not 2024. Only the 16 states KFF published at collection are shown, and they should not be blended with the national 2020-2024 trend.

KFF State Health Facts, Marketplace average benchmark premiums · 2026 · source

Read it this way Wyoming and West Virginia sit far above the rest of the ranked states, both flagged as small rural markets. Ranking makes the 3.4x gap between Wyoming's $1,090 and New Hampshire's $325 concrete, though with only 16 states published this is not yet a complete national picture. Use this chart to distinguish sticker price from what households actually pay, and to see why the recommendation focuses on net exposure rather than premiums in isolation.

Caveat 16 states, 2026 values. Wyoming and West Virginia are small rural markets highlighted as the high-cost driver, and the grouping is interpretive.

KFF State Health Facts, Marketplace average benchmark premiums · 2026 · source

Read it this way The share of subsidized enrollees rises every year shown, reaching 93 percent by 2024. That steadily widening base is exactly the population that would be exposed to the sticker increases charted in the other tab if enhanced credits are not extended. Use this chart to distinguish sticker price from what households actually pay, and to see why the recommendation focuses on net exposure rather than premiums in isolation.

CMS, Effectuated Enrollment and average APTC · 2024 · source

Read it this way The two lines move in near lockstep for most of the period, which is why the note says net premiums stayed roughly flat even as the sticker climbed. Where the lines separate is where the subsidy is doing less work to offset the sticker increase. Use this chart to distinguish sticker price from what households actually pay, and to see why the recommendation focuses on net exposure rather than premiums in isolation.

CMS effectuated enrollment and KFF benchmark premiums · 2024 · source

Read it this way The worker's slice of the bar grows every year, from $5,726 to $6,492, while the total bar also grows. Because the worker share is climbing both in dollars and against a rising total, workers are absorbing a growing part of the increase, not just a fixed share of it. Use this chart to distinguish sticker price from what households actually pay, and to see why the recommendation focuses on net exposure rather than premiums in isolation.

Caveat Private-sector establishments, MEPS-IC. The employer share is derived arithmetically as total premium minus worker contribution.

AHRQ, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS-IC) · 2022 · source

Read it this way Family coverage costs roughly three times single coverage, and the worker's family contribution alone, $6,492, is close to a full year of the Marketplace benchmark premium charted in another tab. Job-based coverage is not a flat-fee benefit; its cost to the worker scales steeply with family size. Use this chart to distinguish sticker price from what households actually pay, and to see why the recommendation focuses on net exposure rather than premiums in isolation.

AHRQ, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS-IC) · 2022 · source

Read it this way Underinsurance is more common on individual and marketplace coverage than on employer coverage, but more than a quarter of employer-covered adults are still underinsured. Having a card from either source does not guarantee the coverage itself is adequate. Use this chart to distinguish sticker price from what households actually pay, and to see why the recommendation focuses on net exposure rather than premiums in isolation.

Caveat Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, not MEPS. MEPS publishes no comparable share-of-income burden figure.

Commonwealth Fund, Biennial Health Insurance Survey · 2022 · source

Read it this way Out-of-pocket dollars rise with income, so the high-income bar is the tallest, but the note points to the opposite conclusion once income is accounted for: the same $86 is a far larger share of a poor family's income than $868 is of a high-income family's. Read the dollar bars together with income, not on their own, and note this data is from 2015, not re-published since. Use this chart to distinguish sticker price from what households actually pay, and to see why the recommendation focuses on net exposure rather than premiums in isolation.

Caveat 2015 data (MEPS SB #507), median only, and out-of-pocket excludes premiums. AHRQ has not re-published this income cut for 2019-2022.

AHRQ, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS-HC Statistical Brief 507) · 2015 · source