The final 2027 review puts average unsubsidized premiums at $845 a month, up 14.1% from 2026 and below the preliminary estimate.
The final national estimate for 2027 individual-market health insurance premiums is lower than the preliminary projection, but it still points to a substantial increase for people paying the full premium. Average unsubsidized rates are up 14.1%, or $104 a month, bringing the average monthly premium to $845.
Those figures are down from preliminary estimates of a 15.3% increase, a $113 monthly jump and an $854 average premium. The difference shows why rate projections need to be distinguished from final summaries: carrier filings can change as the review proceeds, and a preliminary average can shift when more complete figures are included.
The 2027 figures are the result of an annual review of individual and small-group health plan rate filings. The project tracks insurers’ proposed changes across states and turns them into a national estimate. Its focus is the individual market, where consumers may buy coverage directly, rather than employer-sponsored plans as a whole.
What the final averages measure
The 14.1% figure describes the change in unsubsidized premiums. It does not, by itself, say what any particular enrollee will pay. A person’s final cost can differ from the national average because premiums vary by plan, location and enrollee circumstances. The source’s headline figures are averages across the market, not a quote for an individual policyholder.
The dollar change and the percentage change tell related but different parts of the story. The 14.1% rate increase compares average premiums across the two years; the $104 figure expresses the average monthly difference in dollars. Together with the $845 average monthly premium, they give readers a clearer sense of the scale of the projected change than a percentage alone.
These numbers also concern gross premiums—the amount before any premium tax credits are applied. The project’s final national averages do not provide a separate calculation of what each enrollee will owe after financial assistance. As a result, the unsubsidized increase should not be read as a prediction that every household’s net bill will rise by the same percentage or dollar amount.
Why the filing review takes time
Building a national estimate requires more than collecting one percentage from each insurer. The analysis needs the number of people enrolled in ACA-compliant plans, the average proposed rate change for those plans and, where available, the insurer’s stated reasons for the change. Enrollment matters because a carrier with more covered members has a different weight in a market-wide average than a carrier with fewer.
That information can be difficult to assemble consistently. Insurers may enter or leave a market, revise their requests, and report details across filing forms that are not always easy to compare. The review draws on SERFF, the System for Electronic Rates & Form Filing, as well as state insurance department websites. It follows the filings over several months rather than treating an initial request as the last word.
Insurers’ explanations can also vary in detail. Some filings cite broad factors such as increased morbidity, meaning a change in the health needs of the insured population. Others identify a specific development that affected pricing. Knowing the stated reason helps explain what may be behind a proposed change, though it does not make every carrier’s filing directly comparable to another’s.
Context for the 2027 review
The previous year brought a major change in the source of consumers’ costs. Enhanced premium tax credits introduced in 2021 and extended through 2025 expired at the end of that year. Those credits had increased financial assistance and removed the income threshold known as the subsidy cliff, which had left households above 400% of the federal poverty level ineligible for any federal premium assistance.
The source reports that, following the expiration, gross ACA premiums rose nearly 20% in 2026 and net premiums increased 58% on average. It also reports that at least 3 million ACA enrollees had lost coverage by April 2026, with the total expected to rise by year-end. Those 2026 figures provide important context for the next set of rate filings: the 2027 average follows a year in which both gross premiums and the amount many people paid after assistance changed sharply.
Past rate reviews have also tracked distinct factors in particular years, including the end of federal reinsurance and risk corridor programs in 2017, the end of cost-sharing reduction reimbursement payments in 2018, repeal of the individual mandate penalty in 2019 and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on claims in 2021. These examples show why a rate filing is more useful when it includes an explanation alongside the proposed percentage.
What to watch in state-level figures
A national average can mask substantial differences from one state or insurer to another. The project’s state-by-state results are available through the page’s state menu, offering a closer view of how the national figure is distributed. Readers comparing those results should check whether a figure is preliminary or final and whether it refers to unsubsidized premiums.
For policyholders, the practical takeaway is to look at the renewal notice and compare the specific plan’s new premium and coverage details with the current year. The national average provides context, but the final cost depends on the plan and the financial assistance available to the household. The review’s final numbers give a firmer national benchmark; state and carrier details show how closely that benchmark matches a particular enrollee’s experience.
