Premiums for health insurance sold on the Affordable Care Act's marketplaces will rise an average of 13 percent next year, according to new figures reported by The New York Times, delivering a second consecutive year of steep increases to millions of Americans who buy individual coverage through the law known as Obamacare.

The increase lands on top of an earlier sharp rise in premiums, compounding cost pressures for households that rely on the marketplaces because they do not receive insurance through an employer and earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. The Times reported that the increases add to the broader problems facing the program, which the Trump administration has weakened.

The story circulated widely across U.S. outlets, with USA Today running the headline “Obamacare insurance costs set to increase again in 2027,” while New Jersey's Asbury Park Press (app.com) localized the news under the headline “Here's why NJ consumers face double-digit Obamacare premium hikes,” and CNBC framed it around household budgets: “Your health insurance premiums may take a big jump in 2027 — here's why.” Full text from those outlets was not accessible, but the headlines alone signal how the story is being framed differently across the country — as a national policy story, a state-level consumer story, and a personal-finance story.

Why premiums keep climbing

Insurers set marketplace rates each year through state filings that typically become public in the summer and fall before the November open enrollment period. Carriers weigh a mix of factors: the underlying cost of medical care, the health profile of the people buying plans, and the structure of federal subsidies and reinsurance programs that cushion risk.

Several forces have converged in recent years to push rates higher:

• Medical inflation. Hospital, physician and specialty drug costs have risen faster than general inflation, and insurers pass a large share of those increases through to premiums.
• Subsidy uncertainty. Enhanced federal premium tax credits — originally enacted during the pandemic — have been the subject of intense political wrangling. When the future of that assistance is unclear, insurers must price for the possibility that healthier customers drop coverage, leaving a sicker, costlier risk pool behind.
• Risk-pool composition. Enrollment in marketplace plans has fluctuated as outreach funding, navigator programs and enrollment windows have changed, altering the mix of healthy and high-cost members.
• Prescription drug spending. Newer, high-cost therapies, including widely used weight-loss and diabetes drugs, have become a significant driver of claims costs across the individual market.

The 13 percent average figure is a national benchmark; actual changes vary substantially by state, insurer and plan tier. That variation explains why local outlets like app.com are treating the story as a New Jersey-specific consumer alert, while national outlets emphasize the aggregate effect.

A program under political pressure

The Times' characterization that the Trump administration has weakened the program is central to how the story is being received. Since the ACA's passage in 2010, the law has survived a Supreme Court challenge, repeated congressional repeal attempts and years of administrative retooling. Each administration has used regulatory levers — funding for enrollment outreach, the length of open enrollment, the enforcement of the individual mandate penalty (zeroed out by Congress in 2017), and the approval of state waivers — to shape how the market functions.

“Premiums will increase an average 13 percent next year for millions of Americans, on top of an earlier steep increase. It adds to the problems facing the program, which the Trump administration has weakened.” — The New York Times

Supporters of the administration argue that reduced federal spending and greater state flexibility are the right approach, and that subsidy-driven enrollment expansions mask underlying cost problems. Critics counter that pulling back on outreach and marketing shrinks the pool of healthy enrollees, mechanically driving rates upward for everyone who remains — a dynamic often described as a “death spiral” risk, though most analysts say the marketplaces are far from that outcome because federal subsidies absorb much of the premium increase for lower-income enrollees.

Who actually pays

A crucial nuance in the coverage is the gap between the sticker price and what consumers pay. Most marketplace enrollees qualify for premium tax credits that cap their contribution as a share of income. For them, a 13 percent headline increase may translate into a much smaller change in monthly bills — or none at all if their benchmark plan's subsidy adjusts upward.

The people most exposed are those who earn too much to qualify for subsidies, often self-employed workers, small-business owners, early retirees and freelancers. For this group, back-to-back double-digit increases can mean thousands of dollars a year in additional costs, and it is this cohort that tends to dominate state-level coverage of the rate filings.

What happens next

Rate filings will continue to be finalized in the coming weeks, and consumer advocates are urging enrollees to shop rather than auto-renew, since plan-level variation means switching tiers or carriers can offset much of the average increase. Open enrollment for 2027 coverage is expected to follow the customary fall timetable, though any administrative changes to the enrollment window could affect that schedule.

Politically, the numbers land in a difficult environment. Health care costs remain one of the most consistent concerns for voters across party lines, and premium notices arriving in mailboxes have a way of converting abstract policy debates into kitchen-table politics. Both parties are likely to cite the 13 percent figure — one side as evidence that the marketplaces need restructuring, the other as evidence that withdrawal of federal support has consequences.

For now, the clearest takeaway is that the Affordable Care Act's insurance marketplaces are entering another year of significant price increases, and the burden will fall unevenly: lightly on those shielded by subsidies, heavily on those who are not.