Five Key Facts About People Experiencing Homelessness

Published: Sep 8, 2025

President Trump recently signed an executive order on homelessness, mental health, and substance use that leverages federal funding priorities and other administrative tools to encourage states to ban public drug use, remove unhoused people from public spaces, and broaden civil commitment laws to permit involuntary psychiatric civil commitments in more circumstances. The Trump administration also invoked the Home Rule Act to place D.C.’s police force under federal control and deployed the National Guard to clear homeless encampments in the city and address crime. These actions follow nationwide passage of court-backed state laws making it easier for law enforcement to ticket, fine, or arrest people sleeping on public property.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), more than 770,000 people were experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2024, the highest ever recorded. The links between homelessness and health are complex, and past KFF research found that people with prior experiences of homelessness have disproportionate physical and mental health needs and face greater socioeconomic challenges compared to those who have never experienced homelessness. People experiencing homelessness who are unsheltered also experience higher rates of chronic homelessness, chronic disease, mental illness, and substance abuse than those who are sheltered.

This data note reviews trends in homelessness and characteristics of people who are homeless using data from HUD’s Point-in-Time (PIT) count of sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness. The PIT count is generally conducted on a single night during the last ten days of January. These estimates may undercount the total number of people experiencing homelessness, particularly among the unsheltered.

1. From 2018-2024, the number of people experiencing homelessness on a single night increased nearly 40% to over 771,000 people, with nearly four in ten (36%) staying in unsheltered locations.

The HUD PIT survey counts people experiencing homelessness in both sheltered and unsheltered settings on a single night. People are counted as unsheltered if they sleep in locations not ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation, such as cars, parks, abandoned buildings, or campgrounds. The remainder of people experiencing homelessness were in sheltered locations, with nearly six in ten (56%) staying in emergency shelters and nearly one in ten (9%) in transitional housing, which is temporary housing with supportive services (Figure 1). Between 2018 and 2024, the number of people experiencing homelessness rose by nearly 40%. This increase was primarily driven by the growth in the number of people staying in emergency shelters and experiencing unsheltered homelessness, while the number of people in transitional housing declined over the same period. Nearly half of the overall increase occurred between 2023 and 2024, during which the total number of people experiencing homelessness increased by 18%. According to HUD, rising housing costs and the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency in May 2023, which ended the eviction moratorium and other income and safety net programs, drove these recent increases.

Beyond shifts in sheltered and unsheltered homelessness, the number of people experiencing “chronic homelessness”—defined by HUD as long-term or repeated homelessness among people with a disability—increased 73% between 2018 and 2024 (from about 97,000 to 168,000). However, the number of adults experiencing homelessness who were veterans fell 13% from 2018 to 2024, making up 5% of the share of all adults experiencing homelessness in 2024, similar to their share of the general adult population (6%). An increase in housing assistance programs from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in recent years likely drove this decrease.

From 2018-2024, The Number of People Experiencing Homelessness Increased Nearly 40%, With Nearly 40% Unsheltered in 2024

2. In 2024, over eight in ten (81%) people experiencing homelessness were adults, but the number of children experiencing homelessness grew at double the rate of adults.

On a single night in January 2024, there were over 623,000 adults and 148,000 children experiencing homelessness, with adults consistently representing about eight in ten of all people experiencing homelessness since 2018 (Figure 2). However, from 2023 to 2024, the number of children experiencing homelessness grew by 33% (from about 112,000 to 148,000), double the percentage increase among adults, which increased by 15% (from about 541,000 to 623,000). Most households with children experiencing homelessness are sheltered, as children made up less than one in ten unsheltered people in 2024. Housing insecurity during childhood is associated with negative health outcomes later in life, including anxiety and depression. Older adults also represented a growing share of the number of people experiencing homelessness, with the share of people experiencing homelessness ages 55 and older increasing by 6% from 2023 to 2024. Research found that this aging population of older adults has comprised a disproportionate share of single adults experiencing homelessness, which may drive future increases in the share of older adults experiencing homelessness.

While Eight in Ten People Experiencing Homelessness Are Adults, the Number of Children Experiencing Homelessness Grew More Rapidly from 2023-2024

3. In 2024, Southern and Western states had higher shares of people who were experiencing homelessness who were unsheltered compared to other parts of the country.

States in the Northeast and West had higher rates of people experiencing homelessness per 10,000 people than elsewhere in the country on a single night in January 2024 (Figure 3). The share of people experiencing homelessness who were unsheltered by state were highest in Southern and Western states, including in California (66%), Oregon (62%), Alabama (59%), and Florida (54%). In contrast, the shares of people who were experiencing homelessness who were unsheltered were lowest in New York (4%) and Vermont (5%), despite these states having relatively high rates of people experiencing homelessness per 10,000 people. These patterns may reflect a combination of local factors, including climate, housing costs, shelter capacity, right to shelter laws, and law enforcement that bring more people into emergency shelters.

In 2024, Shares of People Experiencing Homelessness Who Were Unsheltered Were Highest in Southern and Western States

4. In 2024, about seven in ten (68%) people experiencing homelessness were people of color.

White (32%), Hispanic (31%), and Black (30%) people each accounted for about three in ten of people experiencing homelessness on a single night in January 2024, with other racial and ethnic groups making up smaller shares (less than 5%) (Figure 4). Black, Hispanic, AIAN, and NHPI people made up a disproportionate share of the people experiencing homelessness compared to their share of the total population.

In 2024, About Seven in Ten People Experiencing Homelessness Were People of Color

5. In 2024, adults experiencing homelessness were more likely to have serious mental illness (SMI), substance use disorder (SUD), and HIV/AIDS than the general population.

In 2024, over two in ten (22%, or 140,000) adults experiencing homelessness on a single night in January met HUD’s SMI definition, compared to about 5-6% of adults overall according to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) (Figure 5). A similar share (18%, or 113,000) of adults were identified as having a chronic substance use disorder (SUD) according to HUD’s definition in the point-in-time count, compared to about 3% of adults in the general population who met NSDUH criteria for severe SUD. These shares are also higher among adults experiencing unsheltered homelessness, with the share of those with chronic SUD increasing in recent years. SMI and SUD often co-occur—about one-quarter of people with SMI also has an SUD—but HUD’s publicly available data do not report the overlap of these conditions. About 2% (11,000) of adults experiencing homelessness had HIV/AIDS, compared to less than 1% of the general population living with HIV. Recent changes to the Ryan White Program under the Trump administration may reduce federal funding and access to care, treatment, and support services for people with HIV.

In 2024, 22% of Adults Experiencing Homelessness Had a Serious Mental Illness, 18% Had a Substance Use Disorder, and 2% Had HIV/AIDS

U.S. Foreign Aid Freeze & Dissolution of USAID: Timeline of Events

Published: Sep 8, 2025

Starting on his first day of his second term in office, President Trump and his administration have taken several executive actions that directly impact U.S. global health efforts. This timeline, which is a companion resource to components of KFF’s Overview of President Trump’s Executive Actions on Global Health, provides a detailed overview of actions, including counter-actions, related to the administration’s efforts to freeze all U.S. foreign aid, dissolve the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which implements most U.S. global health programs, and reorganize the Department of State. It will be updated as needed to reflect additional developments. 


Overview of President Trump’s Executive Actions on Global Health

Published: Sep 8, 2025

Note: Originally published on Jan. 28, 2025, this resource is updated as needed, most recently on September 8, 2025, to reflect additional developments. 

Starting on the first day of his second term, President Trump began to issue numerous executive actions, several of which directly address or affect U.S. global health efforts.* This guide provides an overview of these actions, in the order in which they were issued. The “date issued” is date the action was first taken; subsequent actions are listed under “What Happens/Implications.” See an accompanying timeline of events specific to the foreign aid review and USAID dissolution.

President Trump’s Executive Actions on Global Health

Initial Rescissions Of Harmful Executive Orders And Actions, January 20, 2025
PURPOSE: Initial rescissions of Executive Orders and Actions issued by President Biden.

Among these orders are several that addressed the COVID-19 pandemic and global health security, such as Executive Order 13987 (Organizing and Mobilizing the United States Government To Provide a Unified and Effective Response To Combat COVID-19 and To Provide United States Leadership on Global Health and Security),  which among other things established the National Security Council Directorate on Global Health Security and Biodefense and a Senior Director position to oversee it.

What Happens Next/Implications: Given that most of the provisions in the COVID-19 and Global Health Security actions issued by President Biden are no longer current or relevant, the rescissions of these actions are likely to have minimal effect on government policies. One exception may be the elimination of the Directorate of Global Health Security and Biodefense and its Senior Director at the National Security Council, which were responsible for interagency coordination on global health security matters during the Biden Administration. The elimination of this office echoes a similar move made during the first Trump Administration to eliminate an NSC Directorate for Global Health Security, and raises questions about who and which offices at NSC (and across the government) will fill this coordination role in the new Administration. More rescissions of other Biden administration Executive Actions may be issued at a later date.
Withdrawing The United States From The World Health Organization, January 20, 2025
PURPOSE: To withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO).

“The United States noticed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2020 due to the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.  In addition, the WHO continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries’ assessed payments.  China, with a population of 1.4 billion, has 300 percent of the population of the United States, yet contributes nearly 90 percent less to the WHO.”

ACTIONS: The United States intends to withdraw from the WHO. 
The Presidential Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations signed on January 20, 2021, that retracted the United States’ July 6, 2020, notification of withdrawal is revoked.
Executive Order 13987 (Organizing and Mobilizing the United States Government to Provide a Unified and Effective Response to Combat COVID–19 and To Provide United States Leadership on Global Health and Security), which, among other things, called for “engaging with and strengthening the World Health Organization” is revoked.
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs shall establish directorates and coordinating mechanisms within the National Security Council apparatus as necessary and appropriate to safeguard public health and fortify biosecurity.
The Secretary of State and Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall take actions to pause future transfer of any U.S. funds, support, or resources to WHO; recall and reassign U.S. government personnel or contractors working in any capacity with WHO; and identify credible and transparent U.S. and international partners to assume necessary activities previously undertaken by WHO.
The Director of the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy shall review, rescind, and replace the 2024 U.S. Global Health Security Strategy.
The Secretary of State shall immediately inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations, any other applicable depositary, and the leadership of the WHO of the withdrawal.
While the withdrawal is in progress, Secretary of State will cease negotiations on the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the amendments to the International Health Regulations, and states that “actions taken to effectuate such agreement and amendments will have no binding force on the United States.”
What Happens Next/Implications: President Trump initiated a process to withdraw from the WHO during his first term in office, a process that takes a year to finalize, and halted funding. This time period was not met when President Biden took office and he reversed this decision and restored funding. Now, after issuance of a formal letter of withdrawal United Nations and WHO, the process will be initiated once again. Such a letter has been issued, indicating that membership will end as of January 22, 2026.

Per the Executive Order, U.S. government representatives may not work with WHO. While U.S. representatives attended the Executive Board meeting in February (the U.S. previously held a seat on the Executive Board), no representatives attended the World Health Assembly in May, where world leaders adopted the Pandemic Agreement. On May 30, the White House released details on the President’s Budget Request for FY 2026, requesting eliminated funding for WHO. Further, on June 3, the administration asked Congress to rescind funds previously appropriated for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, including contributions to WHO. However, for both the FY 2026 appropriations and FY2024-25 rescissions, Congress will determine the final funding levels.

As the largest donor to WHO providing approximately 16%-18% of the organization’s revenue, the absence of U.S. funding will have an impact WHO’s operations, as will the loss of U.S. technical expertise. See: KFF Fact Sheet and Quick Take
Reevaluating And Realigning United States Foreign Aid, January 20, 2025
PURPOSE: To pause funding and review all U.S. foreign assistance to assess alignment with American values.

The U.S. “foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values. They serve to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries.”

“It is the policy of United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.”

Calls for:

90-day pause in U.S. foreign development assistance (new obligations or disbursements) to assess programmatic efficiencies and consistency with U.S. foreign policy.
Review of U.S. foreign assistance programs by the responsible department and agency heads under guidelines provided by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of OMB.
Responsible department and agency heads, in consultation with the Director of OMB, will make determinations within 90 days of this order on whether to continue, modify, or cease each foreign assistance program based upon the review recommendations, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.
New obligations and disbursements may resume for a program prior to the end of the 90-day period if a review is conducted, and the Secretary of State or his designeein consultation with the Director of OMB, decide to continue the program in the same or modified form.  Additionally, any other new foreign assistance programs and obligations must be approved by the Secretary of State or his designee, in consultation with the Director of OMB.
The Secretary of State may waive the pause for specific programs.
What Happens Next/Implications: Almost all global health programs are funded through foreign aid appropriations and are therefore subject to this order. The order temporarily freezes any new U.S. government spending (obligations or disbursements) through these programs, which could interrupt implementation of programs for which funds have not yet been obligated. It also calls for a 90-day review of all foreign aid programs. Key developments are as follows:
On January 24, 2025, A Notice on Implementation of the Executive Order was issued by USAID which, among other things, calls for stop-work orders to be issued for all existing foreign assistance awards (not just new obligations and disbursements). It notes that waivers have been granted for: foreign military financing for Israel and Egypt and emergency food assistance (and related expenses) and, on a temporary basis, salaries and related administrative expenses, including travel, for U.S. direct hire employees, personal services contractors, and locally employed staff. The stop-work order on existing awards halted U.S. global health (and other foreign assistance) programs that were already underway, placing key programs at risk of not being able to provide critical services, and affecting access for individuals on the ground, unless a waiver was received.
On January 28, the Secretary of State  issued a blanket waiver for life-saving humanitarian assistance programs, which also lays out a process for requesting additional waivers (more information is here). This guidance also states that the waiver does not apply to “activities that involve abortions, family planning, conferences, administrative costs [unless associated with waived activities], gender or DEI ideology programs, transgender surgeries, or other non-life saving assistance.”
On February 1, PEPFAR, the global HIV/AIDS program, was granted a limited waiver enabling it to resume or continue “urgent life-saving HIV treatment  services”, defined as a set of care and treatment services and prevention of mother-to-child transmission services.
On February 4, some additional services for other global health programs  – tuberculosis; malaria; acute risks of maternal and child mortality, including severe acute malnutrition; and other life-threatening diseases and health conditions – deemed to be “lifesaving” were also granted a limited waiver to allow them to resume or continue.
On February 6, a lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward and Public Citizen Litigation Group, on behalf of the American Foreign Service Association and American Federation of Government Employees, challenging the foreign aid funding freeze, the plan to put most staff on leave, and the fact that staff had already been placed on leave; on February 7, they filed a temporary restraining order (TRO). That same day, a temporary restraining order was issued by the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia preventing the government from placing additional staff on leave or evacuating staff back to the U.S., and requiring reinstatement of all staff already placed on leave, until February 14. The court did not grant a TRO on the funding freeze, on the grounds that the plaintiffs in this case did not demonstrate that the freeze caused them irreparable harm. On February 13, the court extended the TRO through February 21 (further actions are described below, as this case was combined with another for purposes of the court’s consideration).
On February 10, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of two U.S. organizations seeking emergency relief from the freeze on funding for foreign assistance (AVAC v. United States Department of State).
On February 11, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of several U.S. organizations challenging the executive order and subsequent actions freezing foreign aid and dissolving USAID, and asking the court to temporarily restrain and preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing these actions (Global Health Council v. Trump).
On February 13, the court, in a ruling pertaining to the February 10 and February 11 lawsuits brought by numerous U.S. organizations, issued a TRO preventing the Trump administration from “suspending, pausing, or otherwise preventing the obligation or disbursement of appropriated foreign-assistance funds in connection with any contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, or other federal foreign assistance award that was in existence as of January 19, 2025; or issuing, implementing, enforcing”, or “otherwise giving effect to terminations, suspensions, or stop-work orders in connection with any contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, or other federal foreign assistance award that was in existence as of January 19, 2025.”
On February 14, the parties filed a joint status report proposing an expedited preliminary injunction briefing schedule.
On February 18, the government filed a required status report stating that, despite the TRO, it had the authority to cancel contracts and suspend grant awards.
This was followed by a February 19 request by the February 10 plaintiffs (AVAC v. Department of State) for an emergency motion to enforce the TRO and to hold the defendants in civil contempt.
The defendants filed a required response on February 20, stating that they have not violated the TRO and should not be held in contempt, which was again opposed by the plaintiffs. Also on February 20, the February 11 plaintiffs (Global Health Council v. Trump) filed a response to the defendant’s status report with a motion to enforce the TRO.  The court reaffirmed the TRO on February 20 (but did not hold the defendants in contempt), stating it was prepared to hold a hearing on the preliminary injunction motions in both cases by March 4, 2025 and that the TRO would be in place through March 10, 2025, or the date the Court resolves the preliminary injunction motions, whichever is sooner.
The plaintiffs filed an emergency order to enforce the TRO on February 24, due to continued lack of payment, and the court issued a motion to enforce on February 25. The government appealed, (asking for a stay pending appeal) but this was denied by the court. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted a stay until February 28 while the case was considered.
On March 5, the Supreme Court denied the government’s request to vacate the federal district court’s TRO, sending the order back to the district court to clarify the government’s obligations for ensuring compliance with the TRO.
On March 6, the federal district court judge ordered the government to release all payments that were due to plaintiffs as of February 13, by Monday, March 10 at 6pm, and on March 10, the federal district court judge preliminarily enjoined the government from taking certain actions related to the foreign aid freeze.
On March 10, Secretary Rubio announced that a six-week review had been completed and that 83% of programs at USAID (5,200 contracts) had been cancelled. That same day, the court  preliminarily enjoined the government from enforcing actions taken to implement the foreign aid freeze (requiring it to reverse any terminations, suspensions, and stop-work orders and to pay for any work completed by February 13). The court stated that the government was “enjoined from unlawfully impounding congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds and shall make available for obligation the full amount of funds that Congress appropriated for foreign assistance programs in the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024.”
On April 1, the government filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the preliminary injunction issued on March 10.
On April 17, the administration extended the foreign aid review for another 30 days from the original deadline of April 20, 2025.
On May 2 and May 30, the White House released information on its budget request for FY 2026, proposing significant decreases, and in some cases eliminations, of funding for global health activities. However, Congress will determine the final funding levels.
On June 3, the administration asked Congress to rescind previously appropriated funds for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, including $8.3 billion in foreign assistance, of which at least $1.2 billion was designated for global health. However, Congress will need to approve any potential rescissions.
• On August 13, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit partially vacated the March 10 preliminary injunction in the cases GHC v. Trump and AVAC v. State Department which required the government to make congressionally appropriated foreign assistance funds available for obligation. The appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have the authority to challenge the President’s impoundment of funds. Instead, the court ruled that challenges of impoundment should be brought forward by the Comptroller General.
• On August 28, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit amended its opinion, clarifying that while plaintiffs did not have the authority to challenge impoundment of foreign assistance funds through the Impoundment Control Act, they could seek relief through the Administrative Procedures Act. Following this amended opinion, plaintiffs in GHC v. Trump and AVAC v. State Department cases motioned for a preliminary injunction in the U.S. district court on September 1. On September 3, the U.S. district court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering defendants to obligate expiring foreign assistance funds before the end of the fiscal year on September 30. On September 4, defendants appealed this preliminary injunction and requested a stay on the preliminary injunction pending the resolution of the appeals case, from both the district court and appeals court. These requests were both denied on September 5. On September 8, defendants requested a stay of the preliminary injunction from the U.S Supreme Court.

The 90-day review of foreign assistance was initially supposed to go through April 19, 2025, however, has been granted a 30-day extension.
America First Policy Directive To The Secretary Of State, January 20, 2025
PURPOSE: To put core American interests first in foreign policy.

The foreign policy of the United States “shall champion core American interests and always put America and American citizens first.”

“As soon as practicable, the Secretary of State shall issue guidance bringing the Department of State’s policies, programs, personnel, and operations in line with an America First foreign policy, which puts America and its interests first.”
What Happens Next/Implications: The State Department is responsible for the supervision and overall strategic direction of foreign assistance programs administered by the State Department and USAID, which includes the vast majority of global health assistance. It also directly oversees PEPFAR, the global HIV/AIDS program, and many aspects of global health diplomacy for the U.S. Priorities and approaches for these and other global health programs are likely to be shaped by how the White House and State Department leadership define “America First” foreign policy and American interests, and how that definition is implemented in practice.

In the President’s Budget Request for FY 2026, the request proposes eliminated funding for several global health activities, including family planning and reproductive health (FPRH), neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), and nutrition, stating these are “programs that do not make Americans safer”. However, Congress will determine final funding levels and whether to include these eliminations in its appropriations bills.

Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government, January 20, 2025
PURPOSE: To define sex as an immutable binary biological classification and remove recognition of the concept of gender identity.

The order states that “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female” and directs the Executive Branch to “enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality”. Elements of the order that may affect global health programs are as follows:

Defines sex as “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female”.  States that “sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity” and that gender identity “does not provide a meaningful basis for identification and cannot be recognized as a replacement for sex.”
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide the U.S. Government, external partners, and the public clear guidance expanding on the sex-based definitions set forth in the order within 30 days.
Directs each agency and all Federal employees to “enforce laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations to protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes, including when interpreting or applying statutes, regulations, or guidance and in all other official agency business, documents, and communications.
Directs each agency and all Federal employees, when administering or enforcing sex-based distinctions, to use the term “sex” and not “gender” in all applicable Federal policies and documents.
Directs agencies to remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages “that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology”, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages. Directs agencies to take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the Federal funding of gender ideology.
Requires that Federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology and directs agencies to ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology.
Rescinds multiple executive orders issued by President Biden, including: “Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation” (13988) and “Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals” (14075).
What Happens Next/Implications: This order is broad, directed to all federal agencies and programs. Because PEPFAR, and some other U.S. global health programs, serve people who are members of the LGBTQ community, guidance and implementation could affect the ability of these programs to reach individuals and organizations and provide them with services. In addition, the order will likely result in the removal of existing protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity, which had been provided in agency guidance for global health and development programs. Implementation guidance has been issued and all federal agencies must comply.
Memorandum For The Secretary Of State, The Secretary Of Defense, The Secretary Of Health And Human Services, The Administrator Of The United States Agency For International Development, January 24, 2025
PURPOSE: To reinstate Mexico City Policy and direct review of programs per the Kemp-Kasten Amendment.
• Revokes President Biden’s Presidential Memorandum of January 28, 2021 for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad)
Reinstates President Trump’s Presidential Memorandum of January 23, 2017 for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (The Mexico City Policy).
Directs the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to the extent allowable by law, to implement a plan to extend the requirements of the reinstated Memorandum to global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies.
Directs the Secretary of State to take all necessary actions, to the extent permitted by law, to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs that support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.
What Happens Next/Implications: The Mexico City Policy is a U.S. government policy that – when in effect – has required foreign NGOs to certify that they will not “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” using funds from any source (including non-U.S. funds) as a condition of receiving U.S. global family planning assistance and, when in place under the Trump administration, most other U.S. global health assistance. First announced in 1984 by the Reagan administration, the policy has been rescinded and reinstated by subsequent administrations along party lines since; it was widely expected that the President Trump would reinstate it in his second term. The new memorandum calls for the implementation of a plan to extend the requirements to global health assistance furnished by all departments or agencies; until the plan is ready, the scope of the new memorandum is unknown.

The new memorandum also directs the Secretary of State to review programs under the Kemp-Kasten amendment, a provision of U.S. law that states that no U.S. funds may be made available to “any organization or program which, as determined by the [p]resident of the United States, supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.” It has been used in the past to prevent funding from going to UNFPA.

See: KFF Mexico City Policy explainer and related resources and Kemp-Kasten explainer.
Renewed Membership in the Geneva Consensus Declaration on Promoting Women’s Health and Strengthening the Family, January 24, 2025
PURPOSE: To rejoin the Geneva Consensus Declaration.

The United States informed signatories of the Geneva Consensus Declaration of its intent to rejoin immediately. Established in 2020, the declaration, led by the United States, has the following objectives: “to secure meaningful health and development gains for women; to protect life at all stages; to defend the family as the fundamental unit of society; and to work together across the UN system to realize these values.”

What Happens Next/Implications: The Geneva Consensus Declaration, initially crafted and signed by the U.S. – along with 31 other countries at the time – was meant to enshrine certain values and principles related to women’s health and family, including a rejection of the “international right to abortion.”  The Biden administration withdrew from the Consensus in 2021.
Review of and Changes to USAID, January 27, 2025
Reorganization of the Department of State, April 22, 2025
PURPOSE: To review and potentially reorganize USAID “to maximize efficiency and align operations with the national interest,” which may include the suspension or elimination of programs, projects, or activities; closing or suspending missions or posts; closing, reorganizing, downsizing, or renaming establishments, organizations, bureaus, centers, or offices; reducing the size of the workforce at such entities; and contracting out or privatizing functions or activities performed by federal employees.What Happens Next/Implications: Related to but separate from the Executive Order on reevaluating and realigning foreign aid and on the America first policy directive to the Secretary of State, the administration has made changes to and begun a review of USAID, the U.S. government’s international development agency which oversees and/or implements most U.S. global health programs (see, The U.S. Government and Global Health). Key developments are as follows:
On January 27, senior USAID career staff were placed on leave and hundreds of other staff were let go.
On February 2, the USAID website was taken down.
On February 3, the USAID building in DC was closed, which has prevented other staff from accessing it.
The President appointed Secretary of State Rubio as Acting USAID Administrator on February 3. Secretary Rubio has said that the agency has “conflicting, overlapping, and duplicative functions that it shares with the Department of State” and that its systems and processes are not “well synthesized, integrated, or coordinated, and often result in discord in the foreign policy and foreign relations of the United States.” President Trump and other administration officials have called for dissolving the agency altogether. Formal notification of the intent to review the agency was sent by Secretary Rubio to Congress on February 3.
On February 4, a notice was posted on the USAID website stating that on February 7, all USAID direct hire personnel would be placed on administrative leave globally, with the exception of “designated personnel responsible for mission­ critical functions, core leadership and specially designated programs.” The notice also said that staff posted outside the United States would need to return to the U.S. within 30 days.
On February 6, a lawsuit was filed by Democracy Forward and Public Citizen Litigation Group, on behalf of the American Foreign Service Association and American Federation of Government Employees, challenging the foreign aid funding freeze, the plan to put most staff on leave, and the fact that staff had already been placed on leave; on February 7, they filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO). That same day, a temporary restraining order was issued by the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia preventing the government from placing additional staff on leave or evacuating staff back to the U.S., and requiring reinstatement of all staff already placed on leave, until February 14. The court did not grant a TRO on the funding freeze, on the grounds that the plaintiffs in this case did not demonstrate that the freeze caused them irreparable harm. On February 13, the court extended the TRO through February 21, at which time, the court determined that further preliminary injunctive relief was not warranted and the TRO was ended, allowing the government to dismiss USAID staff.
On February 11, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of several U.S. organizations challenging the executive order pausing foreign aid, and subsequent actions freezing foreign aid and dissolving USAID, and asking the court to temporarily restrain and preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing these actions. In a February 13 ruling, a federal court issued a TRO preventing the Trump administration from freezing foreign aid assistance but stated that the proposed injunctions related to USAID were overbroad (in a separate case, the district court ended the TRO on dismissing USAID staff – see above).
On February 13, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by 26 former and current employees of USAID, suing Elon Musk and DOGE for taking actions to control and dissolve the agency. On February 18, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. The defendants responded on February 24 and the plaintiffs replied on February 26. On March 18, the court granted a preliminary injunction, requiring the defendants to reverse many of the actions taken to dissolve USAID, and on March 21, the defendants filed an appeal on the preliminary injunction. On March 25, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the defendants’ motion for a temporary stay on the preliminary injunction, allowing DOGE to resume its efforts to dissolve USAID, until March 27. The following day on March 28, the court granted defendants’ motion for a stay, clearing the path for DOGE to continue its work dissolving USAID.
On February 18, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of the Personal Services Contractor Association (representing USAID personal service contractors) challenging the suspension of foreign assistance and the actions related to USAID, including “steps to dismantle USAID, cripple its operations, or transfer its functions to the State Department without Congressional authorization”. On February 19, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. On March 6, the court denied the TRO request.
On March 28, Secretary Rubio announced that the Department of State and USAID have notified Congress on their intent to “undertake a reorganization that would involve realigning certain USAID functions to the Department by July 1, 2025, and discontinuing the remaining USAID functions that do not align with Administration priorities.” Additionally, nearly all the remaining USAID staff received notice that they would be subject to a final reduction-in-force.
On April 22, Secretary Rubio announced the Department of State’s reorganization plan and new organization chart. The plan states that it would consolidate functions and remove non-statutory programs that are “misaligned with America’s core national interests.”
On April 28, a lawsuit was filed by a group of labor unions, non-profits, and local governments challenging the administration’s moves to drastically reshape several federal agencies without congressional approval (American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump). The district court issued a TRO on May 9 and preliminary injunction on May 22 ordering the administration to pause large-scale reductions in force, program eliminations, and other actions related to federal agency restructuring. An emergency motion by the government for a stay pending appeal of the district court’s preliminary injunction was denied on May 30.
On May 2 and May 30, the White House released information on its budget request for FY 2026, noting the reorganization of USAID into the Department of State.
On May 29, the Department of State notified Congress of its reorganization plans, including absorbing USAID’s continued functions.
On June 13, the district court in American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump ruled that the actions of the Department of State, including the reorganization announcement and notification to Congress, were in violation of the preliminary injunction.
On July 8, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s request for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending resolution of the appeals case in American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump, allowing the government to move forward with large-scale reductions to federal agency operations and workforces, including at the State Department.

While initially created through Executive Order in 1961 as part of the State Department, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 established it as an independent agency within the executive branch. As such, the Executive branch does not have authority to dissolve it without Congress, and Congress also requires notification first as well as consultation on any proposed changes.
Withdrawing the United States From and Ending Funding to Certain United Nations Organizations and Reviewing United States Support to All International Organizations, February 4, 2025
PURPOSE: To review United States participation in all international intergovernmental organizations, conventions, and treaties and to withdraw from and end funding to certain United Nations (U.N.) organizations.

The U.S. “helped found” the U.N. “after World War II to prevent future global conflicts and promote international peace and security.  But some of [its] agencies and bodies have drifted from this mission and instead act contrary to the interests of the United States while attacking our allies and propagating anti-Semitism.”
States that the U.S. “will reevaluate our commitment to these institutions,” including three organizations that “deserve renewed scrutiny”:
the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC; the U.S. will not participate in and withhold its contribution to the budget of the body),
the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO; the U.S. will conduct a review of its membership in the body within 90 days), and
the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA; reiterates that the U.S. will not contribute to the body).

    Requires that within 180 days:
  • • the Secretary of State, with the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., conduct a review of all international intergovernmental organizations of which the U.S. is a member and provides any type of funding or other support, and all conventions and treaties to which the United States is a party, to determine which organizations, conventions, and treaties are contrary to the interests of the United States and whether such organizations, conventions, or treaties can be reformed; and
the Secretary of State to report the findings of the review to the President, through the National Security Advisor, and provide recommendations as to whether the U.S. should withdraw from any such organizations, conventions, or treaties.
What Happens Next/Implications: With a long history of multilateral global health engagement, the U.S. is often the largest or one of the largest donors to multilateral health efforts (i.e., multi-country, pooled support often directed through an international organization). It provided $2.4 billion in assessed or core contributions in FY 2024 – 19% of overall U.S. global health funding – as well as more funding in voluntary or non-core contributions.

The U.S. is also a signatory or party to numerous global health-related international conventions, treaties, and agreements; these include those that played a role in the global COVID-19 response (such as the International Health Regulations). It often has participated in negotiations for new international instruments, although the Trump administration indicated in a Jan. 20, 2025, Executive Order, listed above, that the U.S. would no longer engage in the Pandemic Agreement (sometimes called the “Pandemic Treaty”) negotiations.

This Executive Order will have immediate impacts via the ordered actions related to the three U.N. organizations specified, much as the impacts of the Jan. 20, 2025, Executive Order on the World Health Organization (WHO, which initiated U.S. withdrawal from membership and halted U.S. funding) are already being seen. Beyond these, additional impacts of this Executive Order will be determined by the findings and recommendations of the international organizations and conventions review, particularly if U.S. support for or membership in some international organizations is recommended to be reduced or eliminated and if it recommends the U.S. withdraw from any international agreements.

Congressional notification and oversight of any proposed changes will also be important to watch, including debates about whether advice or consent or congressional notification periods are or may be required prior to withdrawing the U.S. from international instruments such as treaties.

The administration has already signaled plans to discontinue support for several international organizations in its budget request for FY 2026 by proposing eliminated funding for Gavi, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the World Health Organization (WHO). However, Congress will determine final funding levels and whether to include these eliminations in its appropriations bills.

The 180 day review of all international intergovernmental organizations goes through August 3, 2025.
Memorandum For The Heads Of Executive Departments And Agencies, February 6, 2025
PURPOSE: The memorandum seeks to “stop funding Nongovernmental Organizations that undermine the national interest and administration priorities”.

The memorandum:

States: it is Administration policy “to stop funding NGOs [Nongovernmental Organizations] that undermine the national interest.”
Directs heads of executive departments and agencies to review all funding that agencies provide to NGOs and “to align future funding decisions with the interests of the United States and with the goals and priorities of my Administration, as expressed in executive action; as otherwise determined in the judgment of the heads of agencies; and on the basis of applicable authorizing statues, regulations, and terms.”
What Happens Next/Implications: This memo aligns with other Executive actions that target federal funding for global health and foreign assistance programs. Implementation of this memo could result in the Administration halting funding to global health NGOs they determine “do not align with administration priorities.” No criteria for how this determination will be made has been provided.

The majority of U.S. global health assistance is channeled through NGOs. In FY22, for example, 62% of U.S. global health funding was provided to NGOs as prime partners (45% to U.S.-based NGOs and 17% to foreign-based NGOs) and others are likely sub-recipients of U.S. assistance.* As such, this Order could have a significant impact on NGOs if it is determined that they do not align with administration policies.

*Source: KFF analysis of data from www.foreignassistance.gov.
Addressing Egregious Actions of The Republic of South Africa, February 7, 2025
PURPOSE: To stop U.S. support for South Africa due to its “commission of rights violations in its country or its ‘undermining United States foreign policy, which poses national security threats to our Nation, our allies, our African partners, and our interests.”

“It is the policy of the United States that, as long as South Africa continues these unjust and immoral practices that harm our Nation:
(a)  the United States shall not provide aid or assistance to South Africa; and
(b)  the United States shall promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation.”

ACTIONS:

All executive departments and agencies, including USAID, shall, to the maximum extent allowed by law, halt foreign aid or assistance delivered or provided to South Africa, and shall promptly exercise all available authorities and discretion to halt such aid or assistance.
The head of each agency may permit the provision of any such foreign aid or assistance that, in the discretion of the relevant agency head, is necessary or appropriate.
The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take appropriate steps, consistent with law, to prioritize humanitarian relief, including admission and resettlement through the United States Refugee Admissions Program, for Afrikaners in South Africa. A plan shall be submitted to the President through the Assistant to the President and Homeland Security Advisor.
What Happens Next/Implications: South Africa receives a significant amount of global health assistance, particularly for HIV/AIDS, from the United States government. The executive order allows the heads of U.S. agencies to permit the provision of foreign aid or assistance under this order at their discretion. On February 10, the U.S. Embassy and Consulates in South Africa announced that PEPFAR would not be impacted by this Executive Order and could continue under the limited waiver already granted to the foreign aid funding freeze. No other exceptions have yet been announced.

The Government of South Africa has issued a statement in response to the Executive Order that, among other things, expresses concern “by what seems to be a campaign of misinformation and propaganda aimed at misrepresenting our great nation.”

Notes and Sources:

*There are several other Executive Actions issued by the President that instruct all government agencies on a variety of topics and as such broadly affect global health program operations but are not specific to global health. These include, for example, Executive Actions withdrawing from the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and ending DEI programs. These are not included in this resource.

Sources: White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/; State Department, www.state.gov.

How Healthcare Prices and Utilization in the United States Compare to Peer Nations?

Authors: Delaney Tevis, Matt McGough, Juliette Cubanski, Matthew Rae, and Cynthia Cox
Published: Sep 4, 2025

This updated chart collection compares indicators of health care utilization and prices in the United States and 11 similarly wealthy countries to investigate whether higher prices or higher utilization of healthcare services drives the high health care expenditures in the U.S. relative to peer nations.

The U.S. spends nearly twice as much on health care per person as peer nations ($13,432 vs. $7,393 per person), meanwhile health care utilization in the U.S. — from doctor visits to surgeries — is generally lower than in other wealthy countries. The evidence continues to support the finding that higher prices – as opposed to higher utilization – explain the United States’ high health spending relative to other high-income countries.

The analysis is part of the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an online information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system.

Medicaid Enrollment and Unwinding Tracker

Published: Sep 4, 2025

Enrollment Data

Note: The data presented below are updated monthly as new Medicaid/CHIP enrollment data become available.

The Medicaid Enrollment and Unwinding Tracker presents the most recent data on monthly Medicaid/CHIP enrollment reported by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) as part of the Performance Indicator Project as well as archived data on renewal outcomes reported by states during the unwinding of the Medicaid continuous enrollment provision. The unwinding data were pulled from state websites, where available, and from CMS.

Medicaid/CHIP enrollment trends generally use February 2020 as the baseline month because it was the month prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and implementation of the continuous enrollment provision. During continuous enrollment, which was in place during the three years of the pandemic, states paused Medicaid disenrollments. As a result, when the continuous enrollment provision ended in March 2023, national Medicaid/CHIP enrollment had increased to a record high of 94 million enrollees. Beginning April 1, 2023, states could resume disenrolling people after conducting renewals to verify eligibility for the program, though some states delayed the start of their unwinding periods until May, June, or July 2023. Most states took 12 months to complete unwinding renewals and nearly all states completed renewals by August 2024.

The figures below show Medicaid and CHIP enrollment from February 2020 through the most current month of available data. Some figures also include enrollment for adults and children in Medicaid/CHIP. Key enrollment trends as of May 2025 include:

  • There are 78.1 million people enrolled in Medicaid/CHIP nationally (Figure 1). This represents a 17% decline from total Medicaid/CHIP enrollment in March 2023, but is still 9% higher than Medicaid/CHIP enrollment in February 2020, prior to the pandemic (Figure 2 and Table 1).
  • Several factors likely explain why national Medicaid/CHIP enrollment is higher than pre-pandemic enrollment. The pandemic may have encouraged some people who were previously eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled to newly enroll in the program. During the unwinding, many states took steps to improve their renewal processes, which reduced the number of people who were disenrolled despite remaining eligible. In addition, some states expanded eligibility for certain groups since the start of the pandemic, such as the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion.
  • Medicaid/CHIP enrollment is higher than pre-pandemic levels in all but eleven states (AR, CO, ID, IA, LA, MT, NM, SC, TN, TX, and WV). Enrollment changes from pre-pandemic baseline vary from a 15% decrease in Montana to a 54% increase in North Carolina (Figure 2). Many of the states with the largest increases in enrollment expanded eligibility since the start of the pandemic. For example, five states (NE, OK, MO, SD, and NC) implemented the Medicaid expansion between October 2020 and December 2023 and Maine increased the income limit for children to qualify for Medicaid.
  • In the 49 states and DC with complete enrollment data by age, there are 36.4 million children (48%) and 39.9 million adults (52%) enrolled, a change from pre-pandemic (February 2020) enrollment patterns when children made up a slight majority (51%) of Medicaid/CHIP enrollees (Figure 1).
  • Child enrollment in Medicaid/CHIP is below pre-pandemic enrollment in 15 states, while adult enrollment is below pre-pandemic levels in 8 states (Figure 2).
  • There are 70.8 million people enrolled in Medicaid and 7.3 million people enrolled in CHIP (Figure 1). More states report Medicaid enrollment above their pre-pandemic baselines compared to the number reporting CHIP enrollment above the baseline (Figure 2).
National Enrollment in Medicaid/CHIP, February 2020 to April 2025
Cumulative Percent Changes in Enrollment from February 2020 to April 2025
Total Medicaid/CHIP Enrollment, Selected Time Periods

Unwinding Data – Archived

Note: The data on unwinding renewal outcomes presented below were last updated on September 12, 2024; since most states have now completed the Medicaid unwinding, the information will not be updated again.

As of September 12, 2024 and with nearly complete unwinding data for most states: 

  • Over 25 million people were disenrolled (31% of completed renewals) and over 56 million people had their coverage renewed (69% of completed renewals).  
  • Disenrollment rates varied across states from 57% in Montana to 12% in North Carolina, driven by a variety of factors including differences in renewal policies and procedures as well as eligibility expansions in some states.  
  • Among those who were disenrolled, nearly seven in ten (69%) were disenrolled for paperwork or procedural reasons while three in ten (31%) were determined ineligible.  
  • Among those whose coverage was renewed during the unwinding, 61% were renewed on an ex parte, or automated, basis, meaning the individual did not have to take any action to maintain coverage. 

State Data on Renewal Outcomes

The data on unwinding-related renewal outcomes presented in this section rely primarily on monthly reports that states were required to submit to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) during the unwinding period. The data also reflect updates to the monthly reports that states submit three months after the original report submission to account for the resolution of pending cases and any other changes in renewal metrics. For 13 states, data were pulled from dashboards or reports published on state websites that provide more complete information, and for a few additional states, updated monthly reports were pulled from state websites because they were more timely than what is reported on the CMS website. 

To view archived data for specific states, click on the State Data – Archived tab.

 

As of August 1, 2024, States Have Reported Renewal Outcomes for Over Eight in Ten People who were Enrolled in Medicaid/CHIP Prior to the Start of the Unwinding

 

Medicaid Disenrollments

  • As of September 12, 2024, at least 25,198,000 Medicaid enrollees had been disenrolled during the unwinding of the continuous enrollment provision. Overall, 31% of people with a completed renewal were disenrolled in reporting states while 69%, or 56.4 million enrollees, had their coverage renewed.
  • There is wide variation in disenrollment rates across reporting states, ranging from 57% in Montana to 12% in North Carolina. A variety of factors contribute to these differences, including differences in renewal policies and system capacity. Some states adopted policies that promote continued coverage among those who remain eligible and/or have automated eligibility systems that can more easily and accurately process renewals while other states have adopted fewer of these policies and have more manually-driven systems. In addition, North Carolina and South Dakota adopted Medicaid expansion and other states increased eligibility levels for certain populations (e.g., children, parents, etc.) during the unwinding, which may have lowered disenrollment rates in these states.

At least <b>24,838,000</b> Medicaid enrollees have been disenrolled with publicly available unwinding data, as of August 1, 2024

 

  • Across all states with available data, 69% of all people disenrolled had their coverage terminated for procedural reasons. However, these rates vary based on how they are calculated (see note below). Procedural disenrollments are cases where people are disenrolled because they did not complete the renewal process and can occur when the state has outdated contact information or because the enrollee does not understand or otherwise does not complete renewal packets within a specific timeframe. High procedural disenrollment rates are concerning because many people who are disenrolled for these paperwork reasons may still be eligible for Medicaid coverage. 

(Note: The first tab in the figure below calculates procedural disenrollment rates using total disenrollments as the denominator. The second tab shows these rates using total completed renewals, which include people whose coverage was terminated as well as those whose coverage was renewed, as the denominator. And finally, the third tab calculates the rates as a share of all renewals due, which include completed renewals and pending cases.)

Of all people who were disenrolled, 69% were terminated for procedural reasons, as of August 1, 2024

Medicaid Renewals

  • Of the people whose coverage has been renewed as of September 12, 2024, 61% were renewed on an ex parte basis while 39% were renewed through a renewal form, though rates vary across states. Under federal rules, states are required to first try to complete administrative (or “ex parte”) renewals by verifying ongoing eligibility through available data sources, such as state wage databases, before sending a renewal form or requesting documentation from an enrollee. Ex parte renewal rates varied across states from 90% or more in Arizona, North Carolina, and Rhode Island to less than 20% in Pennsylvania and Texas. 

Overall, 61% of people who retained Medicaid coverage were renewed through ex parte processes, as of August 1, 2024

Federal Data on Renewal Outcomes

The data presented here are cumulative unwinding metrics published by CMS. These counts and percentages may differ from the above data, which present renewal metrics reported on state websites when state-reported data are more complete.  

Figure 1 below shows cumulative renewal data reported by CMS during states’ unwinding periods. Renewal data for the months after the end of states’ unwinding period are excluded. The data reflect updated unwinding data reported by states three months after the original monthly reports as they become available.   

Cumulative Medicaid Renewal Outcomes for Reporting States through April 2023

For questions about this tracker, please contact KFFTracker@kff.org

State Data – Archived

Note: The state data presented below were last updated on September 12, 2024; since most states have now completed the Medicaid unwinding, the information will not be updated again. 

The data presented here provide state-level data on enrollment trends and renewal outcomes during the unwinding period. Figure 1 shows total Medicaid enrollment by month starting in January 2023 and, once disenrollments resumed in a state, the cumulative percent change in Medicaid enrollment relative to the month before Medicaid disenrollments started (this baseline month will differ across states). Figure 2 shows renewal metrics for each month of a state’s unwinding period (or cumulative data for the unwinding period for some states). 

For total national Medicaid enrollment, click on the Enrollment Data tab.

Related Resources

Resources on unwinding data

Resources on state policies and preparations for the unwinding

Resources on pre-pandemic enrollment patterns and coverage transitions

KFF’s unwinding explainer

5 Key Facts about Medicaid’s Share of National Health Spending

Published: Sep 3, 2025

Medicaid, as the primary program providing comprehensive coverage of health care and long-term services and supports to about 80 million low-income people in the United States, accounts for one-fifth of all personal health care spending in the United States and a large share of state budgets. During its 60 years since enactment, Medicaid’s share of health insurance coverage and health care spending have incrementally increased; the program has evolved over time through a series of legislative and judicial actions, within the context of broader changes in the health care landscape. Now, landmark changes to Medicaid coverage and enrollment policies are set to roll out over the next several years.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the recently enacted reconciliation package is estimated to reduce federal Medicaid spending by $911 billion over 10 years (after accounting for interactions that produce overlapping reductions across different provisions of the law), and to increase the number of uninsured people by 10 million in 2034. The most recent projections for national health spending do not account for the changes in the law; but changes in the law are expected to have big implications for Medicaid coverage and spending that could reverse longstanding incremental trends. Policy changes in the reconciliation package that lead to more uninsured people are likely to increase out-of-pocket spending as a share of national health care spending. Shifts in spending patterns are likely to be more profound over time and beyond the ten year projection period if there are no other changes in federal laws that affect health spending.

To provide historical context for how changes to Medicaid spending may impact national health spending trends, this brief explores how Medicaid spending contributes to national health spending and how different service areas contribute to Medicaid costs. This brief uses National Health Expenditures (NHE) historic data, published annually by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which provide estimates of national spending on health care, by payer and by type of service. The analyses in this brief focus on spending for personal health care, which excludes the costs of public health programs and payers’ administrative spending (see Methods).

1. Over time, Medicaid has covered an increasing share of the population and health care costs.

Over the past two decades, the percent of the population enrolled in Medicaid increased by more than 10 percentage points (from 12% in 2000 to 25% in 2023 by NHE enrollment estimates). During the same time, Medicaid’s share of national health spending increased by only 3 percentage points, from 16% to 19%. Medicaid spending is driven by multiple factors, including the number and mix of enrollees, their use of health care and long-term services and supports, the prices of Medicaid services, and state policy choices about benefits, provider payment rates, and other program factors. Some of the faster growth in Medicaid enrollment relative to spending is that enrollment growth over the past two decades was driven by increased enrollment stemming from the Great Recession, implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Each of those events spurred increased enrollment of working-age adults and their families, groups that tend to have lower per-enrollee Medicaid costs than older adults and people who come into Medicaid because they need long-term care. CBO estimates predict that changes to Medicaid enacted in the reconciliation package will result in a downward shift in future Medicaid spending and in enrollment. KFF analyses show how these recent changes to Medicaid policy are likely to reduce federal Medicaid spending and impact enrollment, with varying impacts to different states or areas.

Medicaid Covers an Increasing Share of the Population and Health Care Costs

2. Medicaid’s share of spending has grown, but remains lower than that of private insurance and Medicare.

Prior KFF analysis has shown that generally, third party payers cover a greater share of total health spending than in previous decades because more people have gained coverage, especially public coverage, and payers’ spending per enrollee has grown. The total share of national health care spending for each type of coverage reflects the number and mix of enrollees and the amount spent to cover each enrollee. The share of health care spending paid by people out-of-pocket decreased as more spending was paid by Medicare and private insurance. Out-of-pocket spending includes payments for care from people who are not insured, and payments for care from people with health coverage when coverage requires enrollees to pay some of the costs. Common types of out-of-pocket spending among people with coverage include copayments (a flat fee per service), coinsurance (a percentage of the total costs), and deductibles (an amount enrollees pay before coverage kicks in). Historically, one difference between Medicaid and other forms of health coverage was the low out-of-pocket spending. Estimated increases in the uninsured following implementation of the reconciliation package could reverse incremental declines in out-of-pocket costs.

Medicaid’s Share of Spending Has Grown, but Remains Lower Than That of Other Insurance Types

3. Over 70% of Medicaid spending pays for hospital services and long-term care.

Over the last 23 years, the largest share of Medicaid spending paid for hospital services, which accounted for 38% of Medicaid spending on average and varied between 37% and 39% during the 2000-2023 period. Medicaid mirrors broader hospital spending trends; spending on hospitals makes up the largest share of all health care spending, a trend projected to continue. During the same period, long-term care accounted for an average of 37% of Medicaid spending, although it declined somewhat from a high of 40% in 2007 to 36% in 2023. The category with the greatest relative growth was payments to providers such as physicians which increased from 11% in 2000 to 17% in 2023. The percent of spending that paid for prescription drugs decreased from 11% in 2000 to 7% in 2023, which is likely attributable to the enactment of the Medicare prescription drug benefit which took effect in 2006. Prior to that point, Medicaid paid for prescription drugs for low-income Medicare beneficiaries who were also enrolled in Medicaid (e.g., dual-eligible individuals).

Over 70% of Medicaid Spending Pays for Hospital Services and Long-Term Care

4. Medicaid pays for nearly 20% of hospital spending.

Medicaid pays for nearly 20% of hospital spending, a share that has changed little since 2000. During that time, Medicare’s share of national spending on hospital care decreased from 30% in 2000 to 25% in 2023, while the share paid by private health insurance rose from 33% to 37%. People pay a much smaller percentage of hospital spending out-of-pocket compared with other types of health care. Medicaid covered 41% of all U.S. births in 2023; births are the most common reason for a hospital inpatient stay. Medicaid financing for hospitals is complex, but Medicaid studies have shown that Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion is associated with improved hospital financial performance and lower likelihood of hospital closure, particularly in rural areas.

Medicaid Pays for Nearly 20% of Hospital Spending

5. Medicaid is the primary payer of long-term care, most of which is now provided in people’s homes and the community.

Medicaid continues to be the primary payer of long-term care, comprising an increasing share of all spending on long-term care. Medicaid’s share of spending on long-term care rose nine percentage points, growing from 52% in 2000 to 61% in 2023. Since 2000, Medicaid’s spending on care delivered in people’s homes and communities (e.g., home care) increased faster than spending on institutional care such as nursing facilities. In 2000, the 52% of long-care spending that was paid by Medicaid included 29% on home care and 23% on institutional care. In 2023, the 61% that was paid by Medicaid included 47% on home care and only 14% on institutional care. Prior KFF analysis has shown that in 2021, three-quarters of the 5.7 million people who used Medicaid long-term care were receiving home care, although that percentage varies across the states widely. The larger share of people receiving care in the community as opposed to in an institution reflects initiatives to make home care more widely available in recent years and to remove what has been referred to as the “institutional bias” in Medicaid. 

Medicaid is the Primary Payer of Long-Term Care, Most of Which Is Now Provided in People’s Homes and the Community

Methods

This analysis uses National Health Expenditures (NHE) historic data. Unlike other sources of information on health care spending, the NHE data use an accounting structure that captures all expenditures of health care goods and services and investment in the health care sector. Expenditures are classified into high-level service categories and by source of payment. Data sources include federal administrative data, household and individual surveys, surveys of businesses, and economic data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Medicaid spending estimates are derived from financial reporting through Form CMS-64, except for durable medical equipment estimates which are developed from person-level payment data.

See the NHE Accounts Methodology documentation for additional information including definitions, sources, and methods; CMS publishes both complete documentation and short definitions.

Enrollment: This KFF analysis uses NHE Accounts enrollment data to estimate Medicaid’s share of total health insurance enrollment (Figure 1). NHE Accounts data estimates Medicaid enrollment using the Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS) for years 2000-2013, and enrollment projections reported on form CMS-64 for years 2014-2023. The NHE Accounts data estimates for total health insurance enrollment include private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and the Departments of Defense and of Veterans Affairs.

Personal Health Care Services: Personal health care services in the NHE Accounts data represent aggregate revenue received by health care providers and retail providers of medical goods and services. Cost estimates for personal health care services expenditures exclude administrative costs, government public health activities, or investments in structures or equipment. KFF analyzes NHE personal health care data using service categories (i.e. “hospitals,” “providers,” or “prescription drugs,”) that align with the classification system used within the NHEA, except for Long-Term Care.

Spending by Payer: NHE Accounts data estimate spending attributable to certain payer categories. KFF uses the payer categories defined by the NHE Accounts data and defines “Other” spending (Figures 2 and 4) below. For personal health care services:

  • Medicaid spending estimates include both state and federal spending on both fee-for-service and managed care enrollees but exclude Children’s Health Insurance Programs (CHIP) spending.
  • Medicare spending estimates include Medicare Parts A, B, and C (Medicare Advantage). Medicare spending estimates also include Medicare Part D and Medicare Advantage Part D. Private supplemental Medicare insurance, i.e. Medigap and employer-sponsored Medicare Part D, is excluded from Medicare spending and included in private insurance spending.
  • Private Insurance spending estimates include premiums and benefits from traditional fully-insured health coverage whether purchased individually or through an employer, self-insured employer health benefit plans, plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, and indemnity plans such as those covering hospital care or long-term care. Private insurance spending estimates also include supplemental Medicare plans (e.g., Medigap).
  • Out-of-Pocket spending estimates include direct consumer spending including coinsurance, deductibles, and any other amounts not covered by insurance. Premiums are included in private insurance spending and excluded from out-of-pocket spending.
  • Other: KFF defines “Other” spendingas personal health care expenditures by the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Indian Health Services, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Veterans Health Administration, federal spending through the Pre-Existing Conditions Insurance Plans (PCIP) or COVID-19 relief funds (e.g. the Provider Relief Fund), direct payments to the needy through general assistance programs (e.g. the State Pharmaceutical Assistance Program), certain state and local programs (e.g. temporary disability insurance or provider subsidies), and property or casualty insurance.

Spending by Service Category: KFF uses the NHE Accounts definitions for hospital care, provider care, and prescription drugs. KFF definitions for “Other” services (Figure 3) and “Long-Term Care (Figures 3 and 5) are included below.

  • Hospital Care includes all services provided by hospitals to patients. These expenditures include the services of resident physicians, inpatient pharmacy, room and board and ancillary costs, hospital-based home health care, and other services billed by hospitals. Services rendered in a hospital by a physician who bills independently are considered Provider Care.
  • Provider Care includes services provided in non-hospital clinics and practices. These include physician-operated practices, outpatient care centers, and certain federally operated clinics and clinics operated by non-physician clinicians (such as private-duty nurses, podiatrists, optometrists, chiropractors, or occupational therapists). Provider care also includes certain medical laboratory services.
  • Prescription Drugs covers “retail” sales of products available only by a prescription, such as drugs, biologics, and diagnostic products.
  • Other: KFF defines Medicaid spending on “Other” services to include personal health care expenditures not attributable to hospitals, providers, prescription drugs, nor long-term care. This includes dental care, durable medical equipment, non-durable medical equipment (e.g. diagnostic tools or wound dressings and other medical supplies), and non-prescription drugs.
  • Long-Term Care: KFF defines long-term care to include spending for nursing care and continuing care retirement communities; home health; and other health, residential, and personal care if it is paid for by Medicaid, individuals who are paying out-of-pocket, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Indian Health Services, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Veterans Health Administration, general assistance, other federal programs, other state and local programs, school health. See 10 Things about LTSS for more information.

Global COVID-19 Tracker

Published: Sep 2, 2025

Editorial Note: The Policy Actions tracker will no longer be updated as the data source has ceased tracking government responses to COVID-19. For more information, please visit the Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker.

Cases and Deaths

This tracker provides the cumulative number of confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths, as well as the rate of daily COVID-19 cases and deaths by country, income, region, and globally. It will be updated weekly, as new data are released. As of March 7, 2023, all data on COVID-19 cases and deaths are drawn from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Prior to March 7, 2023, this tracker relied on data provided by the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) Coronavirus Resource Center’s COVID-19 Map, which ended on March 10, 2023. Please see the Methods tab for more detailed information on data sources and notes. To prevent slow load times, the tracker only contains data from the last 200 days. However, the full data set can be downloaded from our GitHub page. While the tracker provides the most recent data available, there is a two-week lag in the data reporting.

Note: The data in this tool were corrected on March 18, 2024, to clarify that they represent new cases and deaths over a full week rather than the average per day over a seven-day period.

Policy Actions

Editorial Note

The Policy Actions tracker will no longer be updated as the data source has ceased tracking government responses to COVID-19. For more information, please visit the Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker.

This tracker contains information on policy measures currently in place to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy categories currently being tracked include social distancing & closure measures, economic measures, and health systems measures. Policies are tracked at the country-, income-, and region-level. Please see the Methods tab for more detailed information on data sources and notes.

Social Distancing and Closure Measures

As countries continue to implement policies to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, these tables and charts show which social distancing and closure measures are currently in place by country.

Global COVID-19 Policy Actions

Economic Measures

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed an unprecedented strain on country economies. These tables and charts show which economic-related measures, namely income support and debt relief, are currently in place by country.

Global COVID-19 Policy Actions

Health Systems Measures

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to strain and disrupt global health systems. These tables and charts show which health systems measures are currently in place by country.

Global COVID-19 Policy Actions

Methods

Cases and Deaths

SOURCES

As of March 7, 2023, all data on COVID-19 cases and deaths are drawn from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. Prior to March 7, 2023, this tracker relied on data provided by the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) Coronavirus Resource Center’s COVID-19 Map, which ends on March 10, 2023. Population data are obtained from the United Nations World Population Prospects using 2021 total population estimates. Income-level classifications are obtained from the latest World Bank Country and Lending Groups. Regional classifications are obtained from the World Health Organization.

Policy Actions

NOTES

Policy actions data include the measure that was in place for each indicator at the country-level as of the end of 2022. Policy actions data will no longer be updated as the data source has ceased tracking government responses to COVID-19. For more information, please visit the Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker.

Social Distancing and Closure Measures

Under ‘Stay At Home Requirements’, exceptions for leaving the house may include anything from being able to leave for daily exercise, grocery shopping, and essential trips, to only being allowed to leave once a week, or one person may leave at a time, etc. Under ‘Workplace Closing’, partial closing includes instances in which a country recommends closing the workplace (or working from home); businesses are open but with significant COVID-19-related operational adjustments; or when workplaces require closing for only some, but not all, sectors or categories of workers. Under ‘School Closing’, partial closing includes instances in which a country has recommended school closures; all schools are open but with significant COVID-19-related operational adjustments; or some schools, but not all, are closed; full closing includes schools that are in session but operating virtually. Under ‘Restrictions On Gatherings’, partial restrictions include restrictions on gatherings of more than 10 people; full restrictions include restrictions on gatherings of 10 people or less. Under ‘International Travel Controls’, partial restrictions include screening and quarantine requirements for those entering the country. Values for ‘Cancel Public Events’ were not recodified.

Economic Measures

Under ‘Income Support’, narrow support includes instances in which a country’s government is replacing less than 50% of lost salary (or if a flat sum, it is less than 50% median salary); broad support includes instances in which a country’s government is replacing 50% or more of lost salary (or if a flat sum, it is greater than 50% median salary). Under ‘Debt/Contract Relief’, narrow support includes instances in which a country’s government is providing narrow relief, such as relief specific to one kind of contract.

Health Systems Measures

Under ‘Vaccine Eligibility’, partial availability includes availability for some or all of the following groups: key workers, non-elderly clinically vulnerable groups, and elderly groups, or for select broad groups/ages. Under ‘Facial Coverings’, recommend/partial requirement includes instances in which a country’s government recommends wearing facial coverings, requires facial coverings in some situations, and requires facial coverings when social distancing is not possible. 

SOURCES

Data on and descriptions of government measures related to COVID-19 provided by the Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker (OxCGRT). For more detailed information on their data collection and methodology, please see their codebook and interpretation guide.

VOLUME 29

Better Prompting May Help Reduce AI Hallucinations, False Vaccine Claims Spread, and Industrial Solvent Promoted as Hidden Cancer Cure


Summary

This volume highlights new research showing that certain prompting techniques can help reduce the risk of AI chatbots amplifying false medical information when users include fabricated terms in their queries. It also examines false claims linking vaccines to sudden infant death syndrome and the promotion of the industrial solvent dimethyl sulfoxide as an allegedly suppressed cancer cure despite a lack of clinical evidence. Lastly, it explores misunderstandings among first responders about the risks of overdose from fentanyl exposure and ongoing myths about sunscreen safety.


The Problem Isn’t Trust in Vaccines, It’s That People Don’t Know Who to Trust

In last week’s “Beyond the Data” column, KFF’s CEO, Dr. Drew Altman, draws on years of KFF polling about vaccines and writes that uncertainty about vaccines stems not from lack of confidence in their safety but from eroding trust in sources of health information, leaving many unsure where to turn for reliable guidance. As Altman notes in the column, just 16% of the public believe mRNA vaccines are unsafe, but only 14% of the public say they have a lot of trust in federal health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. The result: the majority of Americans are uncertain and unsure what to believe.


AI & Emerging Technology

Chatbots Prone to Hallucinations When Prompted with Fabricated Terms

KFF / Getty Images

Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots can convincingly amplify false claims when false medical information is embedded within user questions, according to new research published in Communications Medicine. The study, conducted by researchers at Mount Sinai Medical Center, tested how leading large language models (LLMs) respond when fictional medical terms are included in patient scenarios. The researchers created 300 hypothetical cases containing fabricated diseases, symptoms, or medical tests to evaluate whether chatbots would identify and reject the false information. 

Without additional safety prompts, the AI responses regularly contained hallucinations, a phenomenon that occurs when an LLM fabricates false information instead of relying on evidence. In 65.9% of responses, the chatbot expanded on the fictional medical details, generating confident explanations about treatments for non-existent conditions like “Faulkenstein Syndrome.” Researchers suggested that users may unknowingly include false information in their health queries to AI chatbots, from unreliable sources or misremembered medical terms, and may receive responses that not only repeat but expand upon those inaccuracies.

The study also demonstrated, however, that including additional safeguards in the prompt could reduce this risk. By asking the AI models to use only clinically validated information and acknowledge uncertainty, the rate of hallucinations dropped to 43.1%. The researchers suggested that additional safeguards built into AI models, or included in user prompts, help mitigate the risks of chatbots amplifying false health information. The findings demonstrate the need for further education about AI, including around proper prompting techniques. An August 2024 KFF poll found that most adults (56%) were not confident in their ability to tell the difference between what is true and false when it comes to information from AI chatbots. Users may benefit by developing new prompting strategies, particularly when using AI for health information where falsehoods can cause particular harm. Framing prompts with accurate, verified details, or including safeguards in the prompts, could help prevent chatbots from repeating false information, enhancing their reliability and usefulness.


Recent Developments

False Claims Link Vaccines to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

Karl Tapales / Getty Images

Widely-shared social media posts in early August repeated unsubstantiated claims that routine childhood immunizations are associated with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The claims circulated online this summer following the publication of a review, authored by a researcher who has previously published studies claiming that vaccines are unsafe, that alleged without evidence that vaccines cause SIDS. One X user, with nearly 800,000 followers, falsely alleged that children who died of SIDS were killed by the vaccine industry. Another account, with more than 100,000 followers, called for a ten-year ban on all vaccines, implying that such a ban would lead to “a society without SIDS” and other illnesses like cancer and autism.

Claims of an association between childhood vaccinations and SIDS have persisted for decades, largely citing the temporal association between the recommended vaccination schedule and incidence of SIDS. Cases of SIDS peak around 2-4 months of age, coinciding with the timing of recommended early childhood vaccines. Multiple large-scale studies, though, have found no causal link between childhood vaccines and SIDS. Research has identified multiple factors that may contribute to SIDS risk, including sleep position, maternal smoking, and premature birth, but vaccination is not among them. Rates of SIDS sharply declined after the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced safe sleep guidelines for infants, then stabilized in the 2000s during the same timeframe that the childhood vaccination schedule expanded. Some studies have found that vaccinations may in fact be associated with a lower risk of SIDS. 

Polling Insights: Recent KFF polling has found that notable shares of parents are coming across vaccine-related content on social media. In KFF’s July Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust four in ten parents (41%) reported seeing information about vaccines on social media in the past 30 days. Previous KFF polling has found that about a third of parents (36%) say they are “not too confident” or “not at all confident” that they can tell what is true versus what is false when it comes to information on social media.

As parents are exposed to vaccine information online, the July Tracking Poll also found that many express distrust in the CDC and in local public health departments when it comes to providing reliable information about vaccines. Overall, four in ten parents say they trust the CDC “not much” or “not at all” to provide reliable information about vaccines and a similar share (38%) express distrust towards their local public health department.

About Four in Ten Parents Report Little to No Trust in the CDC and Their Local Public Health Department To Provide Reliable Vaccine Information

Dimethyl Sulfoxide, An Industrial Solvent, Promoted as Suppressed Cancer Cure

Irfan Setiawan / Getty Images

Some influential X accounts with large followings have promoted dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), an industrial solvent and byproduct of paper production, as a “miracle cure” for a range of health issues, often portraying past regulatory restrictions on the substance as evidence of a deliberate suppression of an effective treatment. Social media posts in late July and early August have claimed that the solvent can treat conditions including blindness, tinnitus, skin issues, and cancer. One X account, with more than 1.8 million followers, described a combination of DMSO and the histologic stain hematoxylin as “The 50-Year-Old Cancer Miracle Hiding in Plain Sight” and said that the FDA “chose to bury the evidence.” Other accounts also presented unsupported claims about DMSO as a cancer cure as evidence of a conspiracy, including one with more than 300,000 followers who claimed that the FDA banned the substance despite knowing that it “cured cancer” and “made chemo more likely to work.”

DMSO, which penetrates the skin quickly and is used in some transdermal drug delivery systems, was tested in the 1960s as a pain reliever, but trials were halted after research showed abnormal changes in the eyes of laboratory animals. Research has since continued into DMSO’s potential for pain relief, including for pain from osteoarthritis, but has yielded inconsistent results. The FDA has approved DMSO for treating symptoms of interstitial cystitis, which remains the only FDA-approved use of the substance. While its effectiveness in treating cancer has also been investigated, claims that it is a “cure” overstate the available evidence. Some research in laboratory settings has shown that it may have anti-cancer properties, but other studies have found it may increase the rate at which cancer cells multiply, and no large-scale clinical trials have demonstrated its effectiveness for treating cancer in humans. DMSO has also been shown in some research to adversely interact with effective cancer treatments, including platinum-based chemotherapy drugs like cisplatin, carboplatin, and oxaliplatin.

It has nonetheless been promoted by alternative medicine advocates for decades, and some science communicators have theorized that the FDA’s effective ban of the chemical may have contributed to advocacy for its use. The substance’s promotion as a cancer cure, despite a lack of evidence, may cause patients to delay treatment, which is known to lead to higher mortality rates. Its popularity mirrors unsupported claims about ivermectin’s ability to treat cancer and demonstrates the potential for unproven and potentially harmful treatments to gain attention as trust in health authorities declines.

Police Video Highlights Ongoing Misunderstandings About Fentanyl Overdose Risk

Adobe Stock

Widespread misunderstandings about brief skin contact with fentanyl continue to shape public perception and emergency protocols, despite a decline in opioid deaths that began in mid-2023 and continued through 2024.In early August, a video of a police officer collapsing after handling evidence during an arrest was widely shared on social media, contributing to discussion about the risk of fentanyl exposure among law enforcement. According to the local sheriff’s office, the officer handled a dollar bill containing fentanyl without gloves and was administered naloxone and transported to a local hospital. The sheriff’s description has not confirmed fentanyl as the cause, but it has reinforced misconceptions about the drug, with some commenters falsely suggesting that brief skin contact with fentanyl could cause an overdose. A former narcotics officer repeated the claim on cable television, saying that merely touching fentanyl “could kill someone.” Others, though, including an X user who identified himself as a medical doctor, stated that physical absorption of fentanyl through such brief contact was not possible.

The misunderstanding that brief skin contact with fentanyl can cause an overdose can be traced to a 2016 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) video that warned law enforcement officers that such contact could be fatal. Fentanyl can be absorbed through the skin, but a joint statement from the American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT) and the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology (AACT) clarified that small, unintentional skin exposures to fentanyl powder or tablets are “very unlikely” to cause significant opioid toxicity. According to the statement, it would take 14 minutes with both hands covered with high-absorption fentanyl patches to receive a therapeutic dose. Risk may be greater for workers in certain high-risk situations, like a drug storage or distribution facility where the potential for longer duration exposure is higher, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recommended higher levels of personal protective equipment (PPE) when larger quantities may be encountered. 

Studies have found no confirmed cases of fatal overdoses among first responders due to contact with the drug, and there have been no documented cases of harm from incidental exposure. Still, the perceived risk among first responders remains high, and misunderstandings about the potential of accidental overdose have shaped emergency response protocols. These concerns may result from conflating brief contact during routine emergency calls with prolonged, high-concentration exposures which carry higher risks. A KFF Health News article reported that these misconceptions may have contributed to some first responders being warned to proceed with caution when responding to an overdose. This has prompted concern among some public health advocates that misunderstandings of risk could lead to delayed interventions such as CPR and rescue breaths, techniques that are recommended by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) as essential steps in responding to opioid overdoses. 

Sunscreen Claims Persist as UV Protection Remains Important

ljubaphoto / Getty Images

Misleading claims that sunscreen is ineffective or toxic have circulated on social media through late summer, with some influencers promoting the idea that chemical sunscreens cause more harm than sun exposure itself. One post, from an account with more than 1.1 million followers, claimed that an increase in melanoma rates was associated with the “toxic chemicals” found in commercially available sunscreen. Others promoted alternative sun protectants, like beef tallow, and claimed that vitamin D from sun exposure helped reduce cancer risk. 

Claims that ingredients in sunscreen are toxic may have originated with a 2020 study that found some chemical ingredients, including oxybenzone and avobenzone, were systematically absorbed by the body in concentrations that exceed the FDA’s limit for requiring further safety testing. The FDA has requested further safety data on these chemicals, but the agency has noted that the fact that an ingredient is absorbed does not mean it is unsafe, nor does its request for additional information. There has been no conclusive evidence that these chemicals are harmful, and dermatologists have noted that they have been safely used for decades. The FDA continues to recommend the use of sunscreen, along with other sun-protective measures, like limiting time in the sun. Some posts also referenced recent recalls of sunscreen products containing benzene, a known carcinogen, incorrectly associating it with oxybenzone and avobenzone. Melanoma diagnosis rates have risen alongside increased use of sunscreen, but this trend also coincided with greater public awareness and improved diagnostic tools. Exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from sun exposure is a known risk factor for developing skin cancers like melanoma, and trials have shown that regular use of sunscreen significantly reduces this risk. There is no evidence that vitamin D reduces the risk of skin cancers, and evidence shows that regular sunscreen use does not cause vitamin D deficiency.

Ongoing myths about supposed harms of sunscreen may lead some to discontinue use, resulting in higher rates of the most common and preventable forms of cancer. UV rays remain a year-round concern, as fall and winter months can still present significant UV exposure. Damage from sun exposure is cumulative, and contributes both to skin cancer risk and accelerated aging. The FDA recommends use of broad spectrum sunscreens with SPF values of 15 or higher. 

About The Health Information and Trust Initiative: the Health Information and Trust Initiative is a KFF program aimed at tracking health misinformation in the U.S., analyzing its impact on the American people, and mobilizing media to address the problem. Our goal is to be of service to everyone working on health misinformation, strengthen efforts to counter misinformation, and build trust. 


View all KFF Monitors

The Monitor is a report from KFF’s Health Information and Trust initiative that focuses on recent developments in health information. It’s free and published twice a month.

Sign up to receive KFF Monitor
email updates


Support for the Health Information and Trust initiative is provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of RWJF and KFF maintains full editorial control over all of its policy analysis, polling, and journalism activities. The data shared in the Monitor is sourced through media monitoring research conducted by KFF.

Policy Tracker: Exceptions to State Abortion Bans and Early Gestational Limits 

Last updated on August 26, 2025

states have abortion bans or early gestational limits in effect

states have no health exception

states have no rape or incest exception 

states have no fatal fetal anomaly exception 

Abortion is currently banned in 12 states and 6 states have early gestational limits between 6 weeks and 12 weeks in effect. Nearly all of these bans include exceptions, which generally fall into four categories: to prevent the death of the pregnant person, when there is risk to the health of the pregnant person, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and when there is a lethal fetal anomaly. Some states have more than one abortion ban or restriction in place. The maps below illustrate the exceptions in each state’s most restrictive gestational limit or total ban. For details hover over each state to read the rollover.  

For more information on the status of state abortion bans, please visit our Abortion in the United States Dashboard

Exceptions to State Abortion Bans and Early Gestational Limits in Effect, as of April 1, 2024
Exceptions in Abortion Bans and Gestational Limits, as of April 15, 2024