The Brief

For the millions of Americans who buy Affordable Care Act insurance, there’s still time left to enroll for 2026. But premium increases and the expiration of enhanced tax subsidies have led to larger-than-expected costs.

Concerned shoppers, wondering if there’s anything they can do, are consulting insurance brokers or talking to representatives at ACA marketplace call centers.

“We’re hearing from people with complex medical conditions who don’t think they can survive if they don’t have access to medical care,” said Audrey Morse Gasteier, executive director of the Massachusetts Health Connector, that state’s insurance marketplace.

And some are considering going outside the ACA to find more affordable options. But that requires caution.

Congress looks increasingly unlikely to extend the enhanced subsidies before the year’s end. Late Wednesday, the House passed a package of measures favored by conservatives that does not address the subsidies and is largely viewed as dead on arrival in the Senate. Earlier Wednesday, however, four GOP moderates joined with Democrats to sign a discharge petition to force a vote — likely in January — on a three-year extension. The Senate and President Donald Trump would also have to approve the measure, but if extended the subsidies could be applied retroactively.

Meanwhile, the deadline for choosing a health plan is quickly approaching. The official end of open enrollment is set for Jan. 15 for coverage starting Feb. 1. In most states, it’s already too late to enroll for coverage starting Jan. 1.

Here are five considerations in the decision-making process:

1. Short-Term Plans: ‘You Have To Be Healthy’

Some ACA shoppers might find themselves considering short-term insurance plans sold outside the government-run marketplaces — or steered toward the plans by insurance brokers. Be wary.

Short-term plans are just that: insurance originally designed as temporary coverage for situations like changing jobs or attending school. They can look a lot like traditional coverage, with deductibles, copayments, and participating networks of hospitals and doctors. Still, they are not ACA-compliant plans and are not available on the official ACA marketplaces.

They are often less expensive than ACA plans. But they cover less. For example, unlike ACA plans, they can impose annual and lifetime caps on benefits. The vast majority do not cover maternity care. Some might not cover prescription drugs.

Short-term plans require applicants to complete a medical questionnaire, and insurers can exclude coverage or cancel a policy retroactively for those with preexisting medical conditions. Also, depending on the terms of the particular plan, a person who develops a medical condition during the coverage period might not be accepted for renewal.

In addition, short-term plans are not required to cover care on the ACA’s checklist of essential benefits, such as preventive care, hospitalization, or emergency services.

The shortcomings of the plans, which critics say are sometimes marketed in misleading ways, have led Democrats to label them “junk insurance.” The Trump administration argues they’re suitable for some people and has sought to make them more widely available.

“We recommend it when it makes sense,” said Joshua Brooker, a Pennsylvania insurance broker. “But if you’re going to enroll in short-term coverage, you need to know which boxes are unchecked.”

“They’re not for everyone. You have to be healthy,” said Ronnell Nolan, the president and CEO of Health Agents of America, a trade group.

And they’re available in only 36 states, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. Some states, such as California, prohibit them. Others set tight restrictions.

2. Beware of Coverage That’s Not Comprehensive

There are other types of health coverage offered by sales brokers or other organizations.

One kind, called an indemnity plan, is meant to supplement a traditional health insurance plan by paying toward deductibles or copayments.

Those plans do not have to follow ACA coverage rules, either. Generally, they pay a fixed dollar amount — say a few hundred dollars a day — toward a hospital stay or a smaller amount for a doctor’s office visit. Typically those payments fall short of the full costs and the policyholder pays the rest. They generally also require consumers to fill out medical forms stating any preexisting conditions.

Another type, a faith-based sharing plan, pools money from members to cover their medical bills. The plans are not required to keep any specific amount of financial reserves and members are not guaranteed that the plans will pay their health expenses, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation that supports health care research and improvements to the health system.

Sharing plans expanded beyond faith communities after the ACA was adopted. Like short-term plans, they cost less than ACA plans but also don’t have to follow ACA rules.

They are not considered insurance, and some have been accused of fraud by state regulators.

“Yes, it is cheaper, and yes, it does work for some people,” Nolan said. “But you need to understand what that plan does. It would be my last resort.”

3. Consider a ‘Bronze’ or ‘Catastrophic’ Plan, But Be Aware of Deductibles

For those wanting to stay with ACA plans, the lowest premiums are generally in the categories labeled “catastrophic” or “bronze.”

Jessica Altman, executive director of California’s ACA exchange, said her state has noticed an uptick in enrollments in bronze-level plans. They have lower premiums but high annual deductibles — the amount a customer must spend before most coverage kicks in. Deductibles for bronze plans average nearly $7,500 nationally, according to KFF.

Another option, new for 2026, is expanded eligibility for catastrophic plans, which used to be limited to people younger than age 30. As the name suggests, they’re intended for people who want health insurance just in case they suffer a catastrophic health condition, such as cancer or injuries from a car accident, and the plans can have deductibles as high as the ACA’s annual limit on out-of-pocket spending — $10,600 for an individual or $21,200 for a family.

But now people losing subsidies because of the expiration of the enhanced tax credits can also qualify for the plans. However, they may not be available in every region.

Lauren Jenkins, a broker in Oklahoma, said some of her clients earning less than $25,000 this year had qualified for very low-cost or free plans with the enhanced subsidies. Next year, though, their costs may rise to $100 or more per month for a “silver”-level plan, a step up from bronze.

So she is showing them bronze plans to bring down the monthly cost. “But they might have a $6,000, $7,000, or $10,000 deductible they now have to pay,” Jenkins said. “For people only making $25,000 a year, that would be detrimental.”

Both bronze and catastrophic plans are eligible to be linked with health savings accounts, which can be used to save money tax-free for medical expenses. They are more popular with higher-income households.

4. Another Plan May Have Lower Premiums

It can pay to shop around. Some people may be able to find a lower premium by shifting to a different plan, even one offered by the same insurer. There are also different levels of coverage, from bronze to “platinum,” where premiums also vary. Brooker said that in some locations “gold”-level plans are less expensive than silver, even though that seems counterintuitive.

Also, some people who run their own businesses but have only one employee might qualify for a group plan rather than an individual policy. Sometimes those can be less expensive.

Not every state allows this, Nolan said. But, for example, Nolan said, she has a client whose only employee is his wife, so she’s going to see whether they can get a group plan at lower rates.

“That might work out for them,” she said.

ACA rates for small group plans (fewer than 50 employees) vary regionally and are not always less expensive than individual coverage, Brooker said.

“It’s pretty all over the board as to where the rates are better,” he said.

5. Other Rules of the Road

Insurance experts encourage people not to wait until the last minute to at least take preliminary steps. Shoppers can go onto the official federal or state marketplace website and fill out or update an application with required income and other information necessary to determine what the 2026 plan year holds for them.

For instance, even without congressional intervention, subsidies will not go away entirely. They will be smaller, though, and there is an upper income limit — a cutoff for households earning more than four times the poverty level, which comes to $62,600 for an individual and $84,600 for a couple for 2026.

When shopping, consumers should make sure they land on an official ACA website, because there are look-alikes that may not offer ACA-compliant plans. Healthcare.gov is the official federal site. From there, people can find websites serving the 20 states, along with the District of Columbia, that run their own ACA exchanges.

The government sites can also direct consumers to licensed brokers and other counselors who can help with an application.

And a reminder: Consumers also need to pay their first month’s premium for coverage to take effect.

Federal agencies responsible for immigration enforcement are set to receive tens of billions more dollars after Congress voted to fund them not just for the year, but through the rest of President Trump's term.

The House narrowly voted on Tuesday to direct roughly $70 billion to the Department of Homeland Security for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, the second multi-billion dollar infusion of money to the agencies in the last year muscled through by Republicans alone.

The measure passed by a vote of 214 to 212.

The vote marks the end of a 115 day standoff over immigration policy. After federal officers shot and killed two protesters in Minneapolis earlier this year, Democrats refused to back more funding for ICE and Border Patrol, with the goal of forcing changes to immigration enforcement tactics.

But as negotiations fell apart, Republicans moved to circumvent Democrats using a special procedure known as reconciliation to fund the agencies without acquiescing to any of the reforms they were demanding.

In the Senate last week, one Republican joined all Democrats in an unsuccessful attempt to block the measure. The lopsided votes highlighted a Republican caucus continuing to endorse Trump's immigration agenda as Democrats warn that Congress has ceded its ability to provide oversight by funneling these agencies billions of dollars with few strings attached.

ICE gets more than three times its annual funding

Through this legislation, Congress is giving ICE more than three times its last annual budget. Though technically this funding is meant to cover three years, unlike a traditional annual funding bill, the money comes with few stipulations on how and when it should be spent.

While most annual spending measures provide funds for just that fiscal year, this measure includes lump sums that need to be spent only by the end of fiscal year 2029, including:

• $38 billion for ICE to hire, pay, train and equip its officers and agents. That includes $7 billion for Homeland Security Investigations and $31 billion for immigration enforcement work like hiring more attorneys, supporting local law enforcement who coordinate with ICE and technology like body cameras;
• $22 billion for Border Patrol to pay, train, recruit and equip agents and personnel. That includes $13 billion specifically for immigration enforcement work;
• $5 billion for border security technology and screening, including artificial intelligence;
• $350 million for enforcement in localities that do not coordinate directly with ICE.

Legislation passed in April to fund most of DHS except ICE and Border Patrol did include provisions that would provide funding for the agency to purchase body cameras, stipulate congressional oversight of detention centers and deescalation training for officers and agents.

Lawmakers agreed to separate funding for ICE and Border Patrol as Republicans and Democrats struggled to reach a compromise on reforms even as a record-long DHS shutdown dragged on.

But now ICE and Border Patrol will be funded without the changes Democrats were demanding, including requiring judicial warrants to enter homes and prohibiting officers from wearing masks. The package also lacks reforms with bipartisan support, such as requiring officers to wear body cameras.

Neither measure included funding for internal oversight offices that conduct investigations into detention center conditions; however, the April measure to fund all of the agency included $20 million for the DHS inspector general to specifically conduct oversight of detention facilities.

Not only is this standoff ending without Democrats achieving the reforms they pressed for, the agencies will be insulated from additional pressure through the appropriations process for three years.

More dollars after an unprecedented boost

Both ICE and CBP received a massive influx of funding last year, also passed by Republicans through the budget reconciliation process, that has allowed both agencies to largely continue operating even as Democrats refused to provide them annual funding for the last several months.

ICE's usual annual budget is about $10 billion. The $75 billion boost last summer made ICE the highest funded federal law enforcement agency and enabled a hiring surge that doubled its ranks in a matter of months.

Former agency leaders, Democrats and even some Republicans have warned that the surge of money limits the ability of Congress to provide oversight when it comes to how that money is spent and how the agency operates.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, was the only Republican to vote against this latest funding measure in the Senate last week. She wrote in a statement that by appropriating funding for three fiscal years instead of the usual one, the measure "weakens the normal budgeting process and sets another precedent for avoiding it when we find ourselves in disagreement."

"In doing so, it reduces Congress' ability to apply reasonable checks on immigration policy for the remainder of this administration and into the next," she wrote.

Other Republicans say they were left with no choice once Democrats decided to withhold funding for these agencies as leverage to extract reforms.

"We're attempting here to fund ICE and CBP at last year's operating budget plus inflation, that's all we're talking about here," House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said shortly before the vote. "This is not a slush fund, it's regular, normal funding. And we're going to do it not for one year, but for three years so we don't end up here again."

ICE "got a shopping list" 

ICE officials have been gearing up for the potential new cash for months.

"Apparently we're going to get more reconciliation money, so I got a shopping list," said Matt Elliston, ICE assistant director for law enforcement systems and analysis, speaking on a panel at the Border Security Expo in Arizona last month.

Among the items on his list are wearable headset displays so that officers do not need to be on their phones during an operation and data to help identify where someone targeted for arrest lives.

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott said absent the reconciliation funds, the agency was struggling to correctly pay its employees and fulfill contracts.

While the agencies welcome the funds, immigration advocates are concerned that funding the agency outside the normal appropriations process means provisions that tell the agency how to do its work are not included.

ICE agents confront protesters as they gather outside the federal immigration center at Delaney Hall on June 8, 2026, in Newark, New Jersey. The agency will receive tens of billions in new funding through the end of Trump's term under a GOP bill passed by Congress.

(

Spencer Platt

/

Getty Images

)

Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Coalition, said in the past DHS annual funding bills included specific guardrails on the spending including requirements for the agency to report data on who it is detaining and specific treatment of pregnant women in custody.

"It's very dangerous," Altman said. "And it means that the agency will move forward with even fewer accountability mechanisms than we've seen in the past."

Altman also raised concerns about the $350 million dedicated to immigration enforcement in areas that are not "qualified cooperating jurisdictions," meaning a locality that is not a part of programs that allow local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.

"The DHS secretary has wide discretion to just say these are not sufficiently cooperating with the White House's mass deportation agenda," she said. "So it's concerning in terms of where the money will go."

Politics of immigration enforcement 

President Trump shakes hands with the newly sworn in Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin in the Oval Office on March 24, 2026. Mullin has dialed back some of the aggressive enforcement operations that drew the national spotlight.

(

Jim Watson

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

After the two killings in Minneapolis, Democrats and a contingent of Republicans in Congress said they wanted to take action to reign in the tactics of federal immigration officers.

For weeks this winter, debate over President Trump's immigration policy consumed Capitol Hill. But despite the protracted fight over immigration enforcement funding, that discussion has largely subsided.

Republicans criticized Democrats for pushing an unserious list of demands. Democrats criticized Republicans for dismissing attempts at meaningful reform.

A new DHS secretary, Markwayne Mullin, has dialed back some of the aggressive enforcement operations that drew the national spotlight. And other controversies, like the war in Iran, have overtaken the immigration policy debate.

So much so that when Senate Republicans finally moved to approve the $70 billion for ICE and Border Patrol, much of the debate focused on an unrelated fund proposed by the Trump administration to compensate people who claim to have been wrongfully targeted by the government.

Reflecting on what followed after the two deaths in her home state, Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., says it has been hard for her personally to come to terms with the reality that Democrats were unable to extract the policy changes they demanded.

And meanwhile, Smith says Minnesotans are still dealing with the fallout from the crackdown — like kids who did not return to school or businesses that never reopened — even as public attention shifted away.

"This is the way it goes, Americans have really busy complicated lives, they're trying to figure out how to pay rent and buy groceries, but what they saw, I don't think they're going to forget it," Smith says. "And that's what I mean when I say we've lost these votes but that doesn't mean we've lost the fight."

Even if public opinion on Trump's immigration agenda does help Democrats' take control of Congress next year, Democrats' ability to extract changes through the appropriations process will be limited now that the agencies have resources to last until 2029.
Copyright 2026 NPR

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

For the first time since California insurance commissioner became an elected position, two Democrats will vie for the job in November.

The top two vote-getters in the June primary were former San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Jane Kim and state Sen. Ben Allen, who received about 27% and 20% of the vote, respectively. One of them will succeed Ricardo Lara, the former Democratic lawmaker who has served two terms as insurance commissioner. Lara has presided over the Insurance Department in the past eight years, during which the state saw its deadliest and most devastating fires.

Kim or Allen will be taking on complicated, enormous challenges that have implications for local communities, people’s ability to buy homes and start businesses, and the state’s economy.

In the past few years, insurance companies stopped writing new policies or renewing old ones, especially in high-risk areas, citing increasing wildfire risk from climate change and inflation that followed the COVID-19 pandemic. This caused homeowners to turn to the last-resort FAIR Plan, which is mandated by law to provide fire insurance. The plan, run by an alliance of insurers, has grown to more than 684,000 policies in force as of March, an increase of 152% since September 2022. It has warned about its ability to keep paying claims after major disasters.

Proposition 103, a law approved by voters in 1988, means that among many other things, the elected commissioner has the power to approve rate increases. It has kept the state’s rates from rising too much over the years — Californians’ homeowners insurance premiums have hovered around the middle of the pack nationwide — but that could change. Last year, the commissioner put in place regulations that include new factors insurers can use when setting their premiums, such as catastrophe modeling and reinsurance costs. Some companies have applied for and received approval to raise their rates, so they’re starting to write policies again.

Keeping insurance available but affordable will be the most pressing issue for either Kim or Allen, whose responsibilities will also include regulating auto, pet and some aspects of health insurance, plus workers’ compensation.

Another problem that will need plenty of attention: making sure insurance companies pay their claims in a timely manner that helps communities to rebuild. The L.A.-area fires shed a light on insurer practices that delay and deny claims, as well as underinsurance and the lack of standards for smoke damage, which have held up recovery. Pending legislation — such as those authored by Allen, whose district was hit by the fires last year — and lawsuits will address some of those issues. Well-organized fire survivors who called for Lara’s resignation over his department’s response to their concerns will surely keep up the pressure on his successor.

Here’s a look at each candidate’s record and how she or he would approach the job, based on their interviews with CalMatters and what they have said publicly, including at candidate forums.

Jane Kim

Kim’s proposal to create “natural disaster insurance for all,” inspired by a program in New Zealand, has gotten a lot of attention. She plans to fund such a system with a portion of policyholder premiums that insurance companies would collect and divert to the state. The state would then guarantee fire and flood coverage, while insurance companies would continue to cover other risks.

Naysayers, including consumer advocates, wonder why she hasn’t released any specifics about how much capital such a fund would require. Kim told CalMatters that it would need to be studied, but that at its core her proposal would generate revenue.

Opponents of her proposal also say it’s a bad idea to shift catastrophic burden onto the state, pointing to what they say is the failure of splitting off earthquake insurance from homeowner insurance — most California homeowners now have no insurance coverage.

“We (taxpayers) already are on the hook,” Kim said. “When insurers and utilities refuse to pay, they just pass it on to us anyway. Sharing the risk is important.”

Kim also told CalMatters that an idea Merritt Farren, a Republican candidate for commissioner, proposed — that the state create a reinsurance authority to encourage insurers to write policies in the state — “may turn out to be a more efficient model.”

Among Kim’s shorter-term priorities if she wins:

• Create public dashboards to show how insurance companies are spending policyholder premiums, and that show their record on claims.
• Expand eligibility for a program that provides low-cost insurance to drivers who make less than $38,000 a year. 
• Tie a company’s ability to sell auto insurance in the state to its willingness to write homeowner policies.
• Make the FAIR Plan more transparent by requiring that its list of board members be public, and that its board meetings be public.
• Freeze rates when policyholders file claims.

The former San Francisco elected official, an attorney, touts among her accomplishments free community college for the city’s residents; the first $15 minimum wage ordinance in the state; and a tenant-protection ordinance to avoid unjust evictions. She worked as the California director for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2020 U.S. presidential campaign and most recently as California Director for the Working Families Party.

Kim has a long list of endorsers, including many unions such as SEIU California. Besides Sanders, another U.S. lawmaker, Rep. Ro Khanna of Silicon Valley, has also endorsed her.

Ben Allen

The state senator, who will be termed out of the Legislature, wants to bring together the state, insurers, builders, local governments and firefighters to work on risk-reduction strategies.

“I think that's ultimately going to be the way that we get ourselves out of this mess,” he told CalMatters.

What he calls a comprehensive approach includes thinking about where people live and build: “We shouldn't be building new construction that is irresponsible in high-risk areas. We should be looking for ways to carefully and sensitively encourage people to pull back from high-risk areas.”

If he wins, Allen’s other plans include:

• Create a consumer advocate position within the insurance department, and increase staff to handle customer service. 
• Require insurers to explain claim denials and provide real-time reports of delays and outstanding claims after a disaster.
• Increase oversight of the FAIR Plan and make sure it complies with commissioner orders.
• Ban the insurance commissioner and staff from working for the industry immediately after they leave the department.

Allen has played up his experience as a legislator, including writing and passing bills related to holding insurance companies accountable. For example, a law he wrote now requires insurers to pay 60% of policyholders’ contents coverage without a detailed inventory, and gives consumers more time to provide that inventory. He also touts writing Proposition 4, the bond measure approved by the state’s voters in 2024 “for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention and protecting communities and natural lands from climate risks.”

Other pending bills authored by him include one that would require insurers to give homeowners 90 days notice before they intend not to renew their policies, along with a clear explanation. Another would penalize insurance companies that fail to correct their practices after the insurance department finds that they have violated laws and regulations.

Allen also has many endorsements, including the two leaders of the state Legislature, Senate Pro Tem Monique Limon and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. U.S. Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, both from California, unions and the Consumer Federation of California also endorse him.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Children and teens across Long Beach will have access to free meals this summer through programs run by the city and Long Beach Unified School District.

Beginning June 12, the first day of LBUSD’s summer break, more than 60 locations across Long Beach will begin offering free meals through a federal program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The sites were selected to serve communities with the greatest need, in accordance with state guidelines.

The Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine will host lunch at 23 park and library locations. Children and teens ages 1 to 18 can receive lunches on a first-come, first-served basis and must eat them on site. No registration or proof of income is required. A full list of park locations and their service times and dates is available here.

Long Beach Unified will provide breakfast and lunch to more than 8,000 students enrolled in the district’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Program and school-age care programs. Those students can receive their meals at the site where they attend programming. Dates, times and locations of service at LBUSD sites are available here.

During the school year, Long Beach Unified participates in California’s Universal Meals Program and offers free breakfast and lunch to all students — regardless of family income. But options during the summer months are more limited. Offerings through the city’s Parks Department and LBUSD aim to fill that gap in a district where 61% of students are classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged, according to LBUSD’s most recent Local Control Accountability Plan.

The city’s arm of the program distributed nearly 27,000 meals last summer and may serve even more this year, after adding a location in Signal Hill. The program has served millions of children since launching in Long Beach in 1979.

Meals, which are all vended from Long Beach Unified, rotate on a biweekly menu schedule and include chicken tenders, hamburgers, mini corn dogs, bean burritos and pizza sticks. Meals will also include milk, juice, fruits and vegetables.

Meal service will be available from June 12 through Aug. 24, though dates and times vary by location. There will be no meal service on June 19 and July 3. Additional information on the city’s program is available here, and information on the school district’s program here.

Do you need food? See our guide to resources across Long Beach and L.A. County.