Health policy and politics are inextricably linked. Policy is about what the government can do to shift the financing, delivery, and quality of health care, so who controls the government has the power to shape those policies.

Elections, therefore, always have consequences for the direction of health policy – who is the president and in control of the executive branch, which party has the majority in the House and the Senate with the ability to steer legislation, and who has control in state houses. When political power in Washington is divided, legislating on health care often comes to a standstill, though the president still has significant discretion over health policy through administrative actions. And, stalemates at the federal level often spur greater action by states.

Health care issues often, but not always, play a dominant role in political campaigns. Health care is a personal issue, so it often resonates with voters. The affordability of health care, in particular, is typically a top concern for voters, along with other pocketbook issues, and, at over 17% of the economy, health care has many industry stakeholders who seek influence through lobbying and campaign contributions. At the same time, individual policy issues are rarely decisive in elections.

Health “reform” – a somewhat squishy term generally understood to mean proposals that significantly transform the financing, coverage, and delivery of health care – has a long history of playing a major role in elections.

Harry Truman campaigned on universal health insurance in 1948, but his plan went nowhere in the face of opposition from the American Medical Association and other groups. While falling short of universal coverage, the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 under Lyndon Johnson dramatically reduced the number of uninsured people. President Johnson signed the Medicare and Medicaid legislation at the Truman Library in Missouri, with Truman himself looking on.

Later, Bill Clinton campaigned on health reform in 1992, and proposed the sweeping Health Security Act in the first year of his presidency. That plan went down to defeat in Congress amidst opposition from nearly all segments of the health care industry, and the controversy over it has been cited by many as a factor in Democrats losing control of both the House and the Senate in the 1994 midterm elections.

For many years after the defeat of the Clinton health plan, Democrats were hesitant to push major health reforms. Then, in the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama campaigned once again on health reform, and proposed a plan that eventually became the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA ultimately passed Congress in 2010 with only Democratic votes, after many twists and turns in the legislative process. The major provisions of the ACA were not slated to take effect until 2014, and opposition quickly galvanized against the requirement to have insurance or pay a tax penalty (the “individual mandate”) and in response to criticism that the legislation contained so-called “death panels” (which it did not). Republicans took control of the House and gained a substantial number of seats in the Senate during the 2010 midterm elections, fueled partly by opposition to the ACA.

The ACA took full effect in 2014, with millions gaining coverage, but more people viewed the law unfavorably than favorably, and repeal became a Republican rallying cry in the 2016 campaign. After the election of Donald Trump, a high-profile effort to repeal the law was ultimately defeated following a public backlash. The ACA repeal debate was a good example of the trade-offs inherent in all health policies. Republicans sought to reduce federal spending and regulation, but the result would have been fewer people covered and weakened protections for people with pre-existing conditions. KFF polling showed that the ACA repeal effort led to increased public support for the law, which persists today.

While President Trump failed in his first term to repeal the ACA, his administration repealed the individual mandate penalty, reduced federal funding for consumer assistance (navigators) by 84% and outreach by 90%, and expanded short-term insurance plans that can exclude coverage of preexisting conditions.

In a strange policy twist, the Trump administration ended payments to ACA insurers to compensate them for a requirement to provide reduced cost sharing for low-income patients. But, insurers responded by increasing premiums, which in turn increased federal premium subsidies and federal spending, likely strengthening the ACA.

Between President Trump’s presidential terms, the Biden administration restored outreach funding and signed legislation increasing the premium tax credits that help ACA Marketplace enrollees pay their premiums, leading to record enrollment and historically low uninsured rates.

The increased premium tax credits are set to expire at the end of 2025 unless Congress and President Trump take action. If these tax credits do expire, people purchasing subsidized coverage will face significant increases in their monthly premium payments and some may become priced out of the market.

President Trump’s second term has already brought federal policy changes that will significantly alter ACA Marketplace operations, consumer protections, and premium tax credit eligibility. Key changes in the 2025 budget reconciliation law, such as ending auto-renewals, removing repayment limits for tax credits when income rises, and tightening eligibility verification, are projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to result in 2 million people becoming uninsured.

Since its establishment in 1965, Medicaid has evolved as states took up the optional joint federal-state program to the point that in the 1980s all 50 states were participating. Due to the nature of its federal and state management, there has been a give-and-take over the flexibility of and spending for the program, but it has generally expanded in its coverage of key population groups.

With the passage of the ACA, Medicaid experienced its largest federal policy coverage expansion with the addition of what was ultimately a state option to cover adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level in exchange for enhanced federal funding for the coverage. Much like the take-up of the original Medicaid program, states have gradually adopted the expansion so that only 10 states, mainly concentrated in the South, remain holdouts. However, recent federal actions may alter the expansion landscape.

Until 2025, the most serious attempt by federal policymakers to make cuts to the Medicaid program was during the 2017 failed attempt to repeal the ACA. Medicaid changes in the legislation included a rollback of enhanced federal matching funds for the Medicaid expansion and a per-enrollee cap of federal funds for most Medicaid enrollees. The 2025 budget reconciliation law includes the largest enacted cuts in Medicaid’s history, instituting Medicaid work requirements, tightening eligibility checks and reducing or capping types of provider funding. The CBO estimates that 7.5 million people will become uninsured due to the Medicaid provisions of the law. However, several of the Medicaid provisions will not be implemented until after the 2026 midterm elections.

One persistent feature of health care as an election issue is that it is fundamentally an economic issue for the country and for individuals. If you are uninsured, you not only experience access issues, but also the high cost of health care treatment. If you have health insurance, you worry about annual premium changes, deductibles, and cost-sharing related to health care services and prescription drugs whose prices continue to rise.

President Trump has often spotlighted the high price of prescription drugs, criticizing both the pharmaceutical industry and pharmacy benefit managers. Although he kept the issue of drug prices on the political agenda as president, in the end, his first administration accomplished little to restrain them. 

President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which requires the federal government to negotiate the prices of certain drugs in Medicare, which was previously banned. How aggressively the prescription drug negotiation program proceeds during the second Trump administration is an open question. While President Trump has issued an executive order calling for a “most favored nation” policy for drug pricing, with prices in the U.S. matching the currently lower prices in other countries, it remains unclear how drug companies will respond to the call and whether there will be any enforcement mechanism.

A feature of the second Trump administration has been the push to remake the executive branch of the federal government to reflect his priorities at a scale that hasn’t occurred in the recent past. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., announced a plan to restructure the department in March 2025 that would reduce the workforce substantially, create the new agency Administration for a Healthy America, reorganize and consolidate divisions and relocate offices.

HHS Secretary Kennedy is also leading the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission and making substantial changes to the vaccine approval process by remaking the roster for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and having CDC change recommendations for who should receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

These changes to the federal health care infrastructure could impact the accessibility of vaccines and other preventive services, as well as undermine the confidence the public has in the government, particularly its scientific agencies.

Ultimately, irrespective of the issues that get debated during the campaign, the outcome of federal elections – who controls the White House and Congress – has significant implications for the future direction of health care.

However, even with changes in party control of the federal government, generally incremental movement to the left or the right is the norm. Sweeping changes in health policy, such as the creation of Medicare and Medicaid or passage of the ACA, are rare in the U.S. political system and are usually preceded by one-party control of Congress and the presidency. More fundamental changes in health care financing and coverage, such as Medicare for All, face long odds. This is the case even though most of the public favors Medicare for All, though attitudes shift significantly after hearing messages about its potential impacts.

It has historically been politically difficult to take benefits away from people once they have them. That, and the fact that seniors are a strong voting bloc, has been why Social Security and Medicare have been considered political “third rails.” While Medicare and Social Security were largely untouched in the Republican tax and spending law passed in 2025, the law made substantial cuts to the ACA and Medicaid, and millions more people are projected to become uninsured in what will be the biggest rollback in federal support for health coverage ever. Looking toward the 2026 midterm election and beyond, changes to both the ACA and Medicaid, as well as fundamental changes to the health care infrastructure and public health policies of the federal government, may emerge as major campaign issues.

• Explaining the Muddle on ACA Tax Credits
• KFF Health Tracking Poll: ACA Enhanced Subsidies
• Make American Health Care Affordable Again
• We’ve Never Seen Health Care Cuts This Big
• Health Provisions in the 2025 Federal Budget Reconciliation Law
• ACIP, CDC, and Insurance Coverage of Vaccines in the United States

Levitt, L. & Singh, R., The Politics of Health Care and the 2024 Election. In Altman, Drew (Editor), Health Policy 101, (KFF, October 2025) https://www.kff.org/elections/health-policy-101-the-politics-of-health-care-and-elections/ (date accessed).

Polls and surveys are useful tools for understanding health policy issues. However, it takes time and training to understand how to interpret survey results and to decide which polls are useful and which might be misleading. The aim of this chapter is to help you learn how to be a good consumer of polls so they can be a valuable part of your toolkit for understanding the health policy environment. It begins by discussing why polls are an important tool in policy analysis and the caveats to keep in mind when interpreting them. It then discusses polling methodology and the questions you should ask to assess the quality and usefulness of a poll. The chapter ends with some real-world examples in which polling helped inform policy debates.

People sometimes ask if there is a difference between a “poll” and a “survey.” The quick answer is that every poll is a survey, but not every survey is a poll (for example, large federal surveys like the Census or surveys of hospitals or other institutions would not be called polls). For purposes of this chapter, we use the terms interchangeably.

Polls have gotten a bad rap over the past few years, particularly around election times when they don’t do a perfect job predicting who the winner of a given election will be. Given this, you may wonder why you should pay attention to polls when trying to understand health policy. There are six basic reasons why it’s important for health policy scholars to understand public opinion:

1. People vote, and elections can have important consequences for health policy at the local, state, and national levels. While polls may not always be perfect predictors of election outcomes, they are one of the best ways to understand the dynamics of how voters are thinking and feeling when weighing their vote choices, not only for high-profile offices like President and Congress, but for state and local races and ballot initiatives as well.

2. Public opinion can influence policy choices, particularly for highly salient issues, like health care, that touch pretty much everyone’s lives in some way. While the average member of the public may not be equipped to understand the details of most health policy legislation, their preferences and views can put constraints on lawmakers by identifying actions that would be deemed unacceptable by large majorities of the public or their constituents.

3. Polls can also provide information about the broader environment in which health policy issues or changes are being debated. They can help you understand the salience of a given issue (i.e., how much do people care about prescription drug prices and how closely are they paying attention to debates over how to lower them?) and identify other factors that might affect the likely success of a given policy (i.e., if the country’s attention is focused on a foreign policy crisis, how will that affect the public’s reaction to a major new proposal to overhaul Medicaid?).

4. Beyond measuring opinion, surveys can also be useful for understanding how health policy is affecting people. Survey questions about people’s experiences can offer context by providing information like the share of people who are struggling to afford their health insurance. Looking at questions like these at multiple points in time can also help you understand how experiences change in the months and years following enactment of major health legislation.

5. Surveys can help amplify the voices of real people in policy debates, particularly those that are often ignored or drowned out by special interests. Polling that includes adequate sample sizes to represent the voices of marginalized and underrepresented populations, such as members of racial and ethnic minority groups, immigrants, LGBTQ individuals, people living in rural areas, and those with lower incomes, may be especially useful for understanding the impact of health policy on people.

6. In this way, methodologically sound, non-partisan, transparent surveys can serve as a counterweight to polls sponsored by special interests that are conducted in private and used to craft public messages, design campaigns, or sell products.

Polls do not tell the whole story. Public opinion is just one part of the political and policymaking process. Public support for a given policy may seem clear based on a single survey question, but it can be quite malleable in the course of a public debate, and not all surveys measure this malleability. Small changes in survey question wording can sometimes lead to big changes in public support, so it’s important never to rely on a single question from a single poll to make a conclusion about what the public thinks or knows. When possible, look for multiple questions on the same topics from multiple polls conducted at various times. If the answers are consistent, you can be more confident that the conclusion is correct. Sometimes a poll finding conflicts with your best sense of political reality when all available information is considered. In those instances, there’s a good chance your “gut” is a better guide than what a given poll tells you.

There are limits to polling on complex topics like health care. When the public says they support a specific proposal for lowering health care costs, it doesn’t mean they have fully thought through the details of that proposal and its implications. Rather, it may signal how important they think it is for policymakers to address the high cost of health care. And while some polls test this by asking follow-up questions that probe the public about trade-offs to any given policy approach, some health policy topics are just too complicated to reasonably ask the average American to weigh in on in a short survey.

Public opinion can’t give you the “right” answer. While public opinion can tell you where the public stands on an issue, it cannot tell you what the right policy solution is in any given situation. For example, pollsters often ask people to rank the priority they give to different health issues before Congress. They may ask the public to rank the issues of prescription drug costs, the future of the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid expansion, the financial sustainability of Medicare, and so forth. But it turns out that real people aren’t organized like congressional committees and don’t put the issues neatly into policy buckets like pollsters do. What they are concerned about is the cost and affordability of health care, a concern that cuts across these issues. These ranking questions provide some information about what resonates most with the public, but that doesn’t mean they should be treated as a rank-ordered list for policymakers to address starting from the top down. In addition, beyond telling you what the public thinks, polls can be just as useful for pointing out what the public doesn’t understand about a given policy issue, allowing you to direct outreach and education efforts or figure out messaging that will resonate with the public if you are advocating for a policy change.

The science of survey research is complicated, but there are a few simple terms you can learn and questions you can ask when you encounter polls in your schooling and daily life. These include:

Population. Who is the population that the survey is claiming to represent? Polls can be conducted with many different populations, so it is important to know how researchers define the population under study. For example, a survey of voters may be useful for your understanding of a particular health care issue’s importance in the election, but it might not be as useful for estimating how many people have had problems paying medical bills, since lower-income people (who may be the most likely to experience bill problems) are less likely to be voters and may be left out of the study entirely.

Sampling. How did researchers reach the participants for their poll, and was it a probability or non-probability sample? In a probability-based sample, all individuals in the population under study have a known chance of being included in the survey. Such samples allow researchers to provide population estimates (within a margin of sampling error) based on a small sample of responses from that population. Examples of probability-based sampling techniques include random digit dialing (RDD), address-based sampling (ABS), registration-based sampling (RBS), and probability-based online panels. Non-probability sampling, sometimes called convenience or opt-in sampling, has become increasingly common in recent years. While non-probability surveys have some advantages for some types of studies (particularly their much lower cost), research has shown that results obtained from non-probability samples generally have greater error than those obtained from probability-based methods, particularly for certain populations.

Data collection (survey mode). While there are many ways to design a survey sample, there are also many ways to collect the data, known as the survey mode. For many years, telephone surveys were considered the gold standard because they combined a probability-based sampling design with a live interviewer. Survey methodology is more complicated now, but it is still important to know whether the data was collected via telephone, online, on paper, or some other way. If phones were used, were responses collected by human interviewers or by an automatic system, sometimes known as interactive voice response (IVR) or a “robocall”? Or were responses collected via text message? Depending on the population represented, different approaches might make the most sense. For example, about 5% of adults in the U.S. are not online, and many others are less comfortable responding to survey questions on a computer or internet-connected device. While young adults may be comfortable responding to a survey via text message, many older adults still prefer to take surveys over the phone with a live interviewer. Some populations feel a greater sense of privacy when taking surveys on paper, while literacy challenges may make a phone survey more appropriate for other populations. Many researchers now combine multiple data collection modes in a single survey to make sure these different segments of the population can be represented.

Language. Was the survey conducted only in English, or were other languages offered? If the survey is attempting to represent a population with lower levels of English language proficiency, this may affect your confidence in the results.

Survey sponsor. Who conducted the survey and who paid for it? Understanding whether there is a political agenda, special interest, or business behind the poll could help you better determine the poll’s purpose as well as its credibility.

Timing. When was the survey conducted? If key events related to the survey topic occurred while the survey was in the field (e.g., an election or a major Supreme Court decision), that might have implications for your interpretation of the results.

Data quality checks. During and after data collection, what data quality checks were implemented to ensure the quality of the results? Most online surveys include special “attention check” questions designed to identify respondents who may have fabricated responses or rushed through the survey without paying attention to the questions being asked. Inclusion of these questions is a good sign that the researchers were following best practices for data collection.

Weighting. Were the results weighted to known population parameters such as age, race and ethnicity, education, and gender? Despite best efforts to draw a representative sample, all surveys are subject to what is known as “non-response bias” which results from the fact that some types of people are more likely to respond to surveys than others. Even the best sampling approaches usually fall short of reaching a representative sample, so researchers apply weighting adjustments to correct for these types of biases in the sample. When reading a survey methodology statement, it should be clear whether the data was weighted, and what source was used for the weighting targets (usually a survey from the Census or another high-quality, representative survey).

Sample size and margin of sampling error. The sample size of a survey (sometimes referred to as the N) is the number of respondents who were interviewed, and the margin of sampling error (MOSE) is a measure of uncertainty around the survey’s results, usually expressed in terms of percentage points. For example, if the survey finds 25% of respondents give a certain answer and the MOSE is plus or minus 3 percentage points, this means that if the survey was repeated 100 times with different samples, the result could be expected to be between 22%-28% in 95 of those samples. In general, a sample size of 1,000 respondents yields a MOSE of about 3 percentage points, while smaller sample sizes result in larger MOSEs and vice versa. Weighting can also affect the MOSE. When reading poll results, it is helpful to look at the N and MOSE not only for the total population surveyed, but for any key subgroups reported. This can help you better understand the level of uncertainty around a given survey estimate. The non-random nature of non-probability surveys makes it inappropriate to calculate a MOSE for these types of polls. Some researchers publish confidence estimates, sometimes called “credibility intervals,” to mimic MOSE as a measure of uncertainty, but they are not the same as a margin of sampling error. It’s also important to note that sampling error is only one source of error in any poll.

Questionnaire. Responses to survey questions can differ greatly based on how the question was phrased and what answer choices were offered, so paying attention to these details is important when evaluating a survey result. Read the question wording and ask yourself – do the answer options seem balanced? Does the question seem to be leading respondents toward a particular answer choice? If the question is on a topic that is less familiar to people, did the question explicitly offer respondents the chance to say they don’t know or are unsure how to answer? If the full questionnaire is available, it can be helpful to look at the questions that came before the question of interest, as information provided in these questions might “prime” respondents to answer in a certain way.

Transparency. There is no “gold seal” of approval for high-quality survey methods. However, in recent years, there has been an increasing focus on how transparent survey organizations are about their methods. The most transparent researchers will release a detailed methodology statement with each poll that answers the questions above, as well as the full questionnaire showing each question in the survey in the order they were asked. If you see a poll released with a one or two-sentence methodology statement and can’t find any additional information, that may indicate that the survey organization is not being transparent with its methods. The American Association for Public Opinion Research has a Transparency Initiative whose members agree to release a standard set of information about all of their surveys. Some news organizations also “vet” polls for transparency before reporting results, but many do not. This means that just because a poll or survey is reported in the news doesn’t necessarily mean it’s reliable. It’s always a good idea to hunt down the original survey report and see if you can find answers to at least some of the questions above before making judgments about the credibility of a poll.

Election polling vs. issue polling. Election polls – those designed at least in part to help predict the outcome of an election – are covered frequently in the media, and election outcomes are often used by journalists and pundits to comment on the accuracy of polling. Issue polls – those designed to understand the public’s views, experiences, and knowledge on different issues – differ from election polls in several important ways. Perhaps the most important difference is that, in addition to the methodological challenges noted above, election polls face the added challenge of predicting who will turn out to vote on election day. Most election polls include questions designed to help with this prediction, and several questions may be combined to create a “likely voter” model, but events or other factors may affect individual voter turnout in ways pollsters can’t anticipate. Election polls conducted months, weeks, or even days before the election also face the risk that voters will change their mind about how to vote between the time they answer the survey and when they fill out their actual ballot. Issue polls do not generally face these challenges, so it’s important to keep in mind that criticisms about the accuracy of election polls may not always apply to other types of polls.

Example #1: Tracking the evolution of public opinion and experience through debate, passage, and implementation of the Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the largest health legislation enacted in the 21^st century. From the time the legislation was being debated in Congress through its passage, implementation, and efforts to repeal it, the ACA has been the subject of media coverage, political debate, campaign rhetoric, and advertising. In each of those stages, polls and surveys have provided important information for understanding what was happening with the law.

Prior to passage, polls showed the public’s desire for change in health care, particularly when it came to decreasing the uninsured rate and making health care and insurance more affordable. Despite this apparent consensus on the need for change, polls also helped shed light on some of the barriers to passing legislation. For example, survey trends demonstrated how the share of the public who expected health reform legislation to leave their families worse off increased over the course of an increasingly public debate in which opponents tapped into fears about how the proposed law might change the status quo.

After the law was passed, public opinion on the ACA was sharply divided along partisan lines, with majorities of Democrats viewing the law favorably and majorities of Republicans having an unfavorable view. However, surveys also painted a more nuanced picture beyond the overall partisanship, showing that majorities of U.S. adults across partisan lines favored many of the things the ACA did, including allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26, preventing health plans from charging sick people more than healthy people, and providing financial subsidies to help lower- and moderate-income adults purchase coverage. At the same time, polls showed that many adults were not aware that these provisions were part of the ACA, and that many others incorrectly believed the law did things it did not, such as creating a government-run insurance plan and allowing undocumented immigrants to receive government financial help to purchase coverage.

This combination of “the parts more popular than the whole” and incomplete public knowledge of the law provided some insight into why efforts to repeal the law were ultimately unsuccessful despite the relative unpopularity and deep partisan divisions on the law overall. When faced with the very real prospect of the popular parts of the law going away – particularly the protections for people with pre-existing health conditions – the public (and particularly Democrats and independents who had previously expressed lukewarm support) rallied to protect it. In fact, following concerted Republican efforts to repeal the law in 2017, the ACA has remained more popular than ever, with more adults expressing a favorable than an unfavorable opinion.

In addition to providing information about the public’s evolving opinion and awareness of the law, surveys also helped provide information about people’s experiences under the law. For example, a 2014 survey of people who purchase their own insurance found that 6 in 10 people enrolled in insurance through the new marketplaces were previously uninsured, and that most of this group said they decided to purchase insurance because of the ACA. Subsequent surveys showed that most marketplace enrollees were satisfied with their plans, but many reported challenges related to the affordability of coverage and care.

These are just a few examples of the ways surveys helped provide insights into the dynamics of a complex health policy at different points in time.

Example #2: Understand the limits of public support of Medicare-for-All proposals

Another health policy issue where polls have provided useful information is the debate over a national, single-payer health plan. While the idea has been discussed for decades, public discussion was prominent most recently during the 2016 and 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, when Senator Bernie Sanders made “Medicare-for-all” a centerpiece of his campaign. Since 2017, a majority of U.S. adults have supported the idea of a national Medicare-for-all plan, but once again, polls also indicated why such a proposal had never become a political reality. For example, the public’s reaction to the idea varies considerably based on the language used to describe it; while majorities view the terms “universal coverage” and “Medicare-for-all” positively, most have a negative reaction to “socialized medicine,” and many are unsure how they feel about the term “single-payer health insurance.” Surveys also demonstrate that while support starts out high, many people say they would oppose a Medicare-for-all plan if they heard common arguments made by opponents, such as that it would lead to delays in treatments, threaten the current Medicare program, or increase taxes. Polls like these and others that test different messages can help shed light on the public’s likely reaction to real-world debates over policies, helping us understand some of the reasons why certain policies that seem to attract majority support in the abstract face an uphill battle once public debate and discussion about them begin.

Example #3: Understanding the impact of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade

Polls can also help shed light when sudden events create policy changes that immediately affect individuals’ access to health care in different scenarios. A recent example is the Supreme Court 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson that overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the nationwide right to abortion that had been in place since 1973. The Dobbs decision opened the door for states to pass their own abortion regulations, and many states had previously established “trigger laws” that made abortion illegal as soon as Roe was overturned.

Polls before and after the 2022 midterm election indicated how the overturn of Roe affected voter motivation, turnout, and vote choice. For example, polling in October 2022 showed abortion increasing as a motivating issue for voters, particularly among Democrats and those living in states where abortion was newly illegal. And election polling of voters showed how the Supreme Court decision played a key role in motivating turnout among key voting blocs that likely contributed to the Democratic party’s stronger-than-expected performance in the midterms. Two years later, amid growing economic concerns, polls leading up to the 2024 election showed that while the economy and inflation were far and away the top issues for voters, some key groups of women voters as well as voters in states with abortion-related ballot initiatives continued to be motivated by the issue of abortion more than two years after the Dobbs decision.

Understanding the impact of Dobbs is an area where polling of specific populations (including grouping individuals by the abortion laws in their state) is more useful than looking at the U.S. population as a whole. For example, in addition to shedding light on the dynamics of abortion as an election issue, polling in 2023 indicated widespread confusion about the legality of medication abortion, particularly among people living in states that had banned or severely limited the procedure. Surveys also shed light on the experiences of people living in different states; for example, a 2024 survey found that 1 in 5 women of reproductive age (18-49) living in states with abortion bans said either they or someone they know had difficulty accessing an abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade due to restrictions in their state.

Example #4: Amplifying the voices and experiences of marginalized populations

Well-designed surveys of under-represented groups can provide important information about health policy by amplifying the opinions and experiences of those whose voices are often left out of policy debates. Examples include:

• A survey of 2023 Medicaid enrollees documented the coverage status of people who were disenrolled during the Medicaid “unwinding” process. Beginning in March 2020, states kept people enrolled in Medicaid without the need to renew or re-determine eligibility under a law passed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. When the law expired in March 2023, it was uncertain how individuals and families would be affected. Surveys like this helped document the impact of the policy change on people’s coverage status and access to care.
• A survey of U.S. immigrants shed light on the health and health care experiences of a group that makes up one-sixth of the adult population. Among other findings, this survey showed that half of all likely undocumented immigrants in the U.S. lacked health insurance coverage, information not previously available from other data sources. It also illustrated the importance of state policies in determining coverage rates for immigrant adults, documenting the much higher uninsured rate among immigrants living in states with less expansive coverage policies (like Texas) compared to those in states with more expansive policies (like California).
• A survey of trans adults documented this population’s struggles accessing appropriate health care. Among other findings, this survey found that almost 4 in 10 trans adults said it was difficult to find a health care provider who treats them with dignity and respect, 3 in 10 said they had to teach a provider about trans people in order to get appropriate care, and 1 in 5 had health insurance that would not cover gender-affirming treatment. Importantly, these survey findings help increase understanding of the health care experiences of a group that is often marginalized in U.S. society, and one that also faces other barriers, including economic challenges, higher rates of mental health challenges and unmet needs for mental health care.
• A survey focused on racism, discrimination, and health showed the extent of discrimination and unfair treatment in health care settings. This survey found that large shares of Black, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian and Alaska Native adults reported preparing for possible insults or being very careful about their appearance in order to be treated fairly during health care encounters. It also showed how individuals who have more visits with providers who share their racial and ethnic background report more positive health care experiences. These findings provide insights into possible policy solutions to improve care, highlighting the importance of a diverse health care workforce that is trained in culturally appropriate care.
• Surveys of areas impacted by natural disasters also help provide information to guide recovery efforts in these areas. For example, a survey of Hurricane Katrina evacuees living in Houston-area shelters documented the physical and emotional toll of the storm and the disproportionate impact on lower-income, African American, and uninsured residents. A series of surveys of New Orleans residents in the years following Katrina showed steady progress in many areas of recovery, but highlighted how the gap between the experiences of the city’s Black and White residents grew over time in many ways. Surveys of Puerto Rico residents following Hurricane Maria and Texas Gulf Coast residents following Hurricane Harvey provided similar insights to shine a lens on disparities and highlight the needs of the local populations in those areas.

• KFF Polling
• American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR): Student Resources, Best Practices, Election Polling Resources, and Transparency Initiative
• Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, including their iPoll database
• Pew Research Center: Short course on polling basics, Methods 101 videos, election polling explainer and Decoded blog

Brodie, M., Hamel, L., & Kirzinger, A., The Role of Public Opinion Polls in Health Policy. In Altman, Drew (Editor), Health Policy 101, (KFF, October 2025) https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-the-role-of-public-opinion-polls-in-health-policy (date accessed).

The federal government is not the only place health policy is made in the U.S., but it is by far the most influential. Of the $4.9 trillion the U.S. spent on health in 2023, the federal government was responsible for roughly a third of all health services. The payment and coverage policies set for the Medicare program, in particular, often serve as a model for the private sector. Many health programs at the state and local levels are also impacted by federal health policy, either through direct spending or rules and requirements. Federal health policy is primarily guided by Congress, but carried out by the executive branch, predominantly by the Department of Health and Human Services. 

No one is “in charge” of the fragmented U.S. health system, but the federal government probably has the most influence, a role that has grown over the last 75 years. Today the federal government pays for care, provides it, regulates it, and sponsors biomedical research and medical training.  

The federal government pays for health coverage for well over 100 million Americans through Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Veterans’ Health Administration, the Indian Health Service, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  It also pays to help provide insurance coverage for tens of millions who are active-duty and retired military and for civilian federal workers.

Federal taxpayers also underwrite billions of dollars in health research, mainly through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

Federal public health policy is spearheaded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its portfolio includes tracking not just infectious disease outbreaks in the U.S. and worldwide, but also conducting and sponsoring public health research and tracking national health statistics. 

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) funds critical health programs for underserved Americans (including Community Health Centers) and runs workforce education programs to bring more health services to places without enough health care providers. 

Meanwhile, in addition to overseeing the nation’s largest health programs, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) also operates the federal insurance Marketplaces created by the ACA and enforces rules made by the law for private insurance policies. 

While the federal government exercises significant authority over medical care and its practice and distribution, state and local governments still have key roles to play.  

States oversee the licensing of health care professionals, distribution of health care resources, and regulation of health insurance plans that are not underwritten by employers themselves. State and local governments share responsibility for most public health activities and often operate safety-net facilities in areas with shortages of medical resources. 

All three branches of the federal government – Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary – play important roles in health policy. 

Congress makes laws that create new programs or modify existing ones. It also conducts “oversight” of how the executive branch implements the laws Congress has passed. Congress also sets the budget for “discretionary” and “mandatory” health programs (see below) and provides those dollar amounts. 

The executive branch carries out the laws made by Congress and operates the federal health programs, often filling in details Congress has left out through rules and regulations. Federal workers in the health arena may provide direct patient care, regulate how others provide care, set payment rates and policies, conduct medical or health systems research, regulate products sold by the private sector, and manage the billions of dollars the federal government spends on the health-industrial complex.  

Historically, the judiciary has had the smallest role in health policy, but has played a pivotal role in recent cases. It passes judgment on how or whether certain laws or policies can be carried out and settles disputes between the federal government, individuals, states, and private companies over how health care is regulated and delivered.  Recent significant decisions from the Supreme Court have affected the legality and availability of abortion and other reproductive health services and the constitutionality of major portions of the ACA.

The Executive Branch – The White House

Although most of the executive branch’s health policies are implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services (and to a smaller extent, the Departments of Labor and Justice), over the past several decades the White House itself has taken on a more prominent role in policy formation. The White House Office of Management and Budget not only coordinates the annual funding requests for the entire executive branch, but it also reviews and approves proposed regulations, Congressional testimony, and policy recommendations from the various departments. The White House also has its own policy support agencies – including the National Security Council, the National Economic Council, the Domestic Policy Council, and the Council of Economic Advisors – that augment what the President receives from other portions of the executive branch.

Most federal health policy is made through the Department of Health and Human Services. Exceptions include the Veterans Health Administration, run by the Department of Veterans Affairs; TRICARE, the health insurance program for active-duty military members and dependents, run by the Defense Department; and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB), which provides health insurance for civilian federal workers and families and is run by the independent agency the Office of Personnel Management.  

The health-related agencies within HHS are roughly divided into the resource delivery, research, regulatory, and training agencies that comprise the U.S. Public Health Service and the health insurance programs run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Ten of the 13 operating divisions of HHS are part of the U.S. Public Health Service, which also plays a role in U.S. global health programs. They are: 

• The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR) 
• The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H)
  • The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 
  • The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 
  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 
  • The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
  • The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 
  • The Indian Health Service (IHS) 
  • The National Institutes of Health (NIH) 
  • The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is by far the largest operating division of HHS. It oversees not just the Medicare and Medicaid programs, but also the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the health insurance portions of the Affordable Care Act. Together, the programs under the auspices of CMS account for nearly a quarter of all federal spending in fiscal 2023, cost an estimated $1.5 trillion in fiscal 2023, and served more than 170 million Americans – more than half the population.

The current Trump administration has proposed a major restructuring of the health agencies under HHS, including creation of a new “Administration for a Healthy America.” As of September 2025, that restructuring has been blocked by court action.  However, a data analysis conducted by the news organization ProPublica found that as of August 2025, more than 20,500 workers – about 18 percent of the department’s workforce – had been laid off or left their jobs.

How Congress oversees the federal health care-industrial complex is almost as byzantine as the U.S. health system itself. Jurisdiction and responsibility for various health agencies and policies is divided among more than two dozen committees in the House and Senate (Tables 1 and 2). 

In each chamber, however, three major committees deal with most health issues.  

In the House, the Ways and Means Committee, which sets tax policy, oversees Part A of Medicare (because it is funded by the Social Security payroll tax) and shares jurisdiction over other parts of the Medicare program with the Energy and Commerce Committee. Ways and Means also oversees tax subsidies and credits for the Affordable Care Act and tax policy for most employer-provided insurance.  

The Energy and Commerce Committee has sole jurisdiction over the Medicaid program in the House and shares jurisdiction over Medicare Parts B, C, and D with Ways and Means. Energy and Commerce also oversees the U.S. Public Health Service, whose agencies include the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  

While Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce are in charge of the policymaking for most of the federal government’s health programs, the actual amounts allocated for many of those programs are determined by the House Appropriations Committee through the annual Labor-Health and Human Services-Education and Related Agencies spending bill.  

In the Senate, responsibility for health programs is divided somewhat differently. The Senate Finance Committee, which, like House Ways and Means, is in charge of tax policy, oversees all of Medicare and Medicaid and most of the ACA.  

The Senate counterpart to the House Energy and Commerce Committee is the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Public Health Service (but not Medicare or Medicaid).  

The Senate Appropriations Committee, like the one in the House, sets actual spending for discretionary programs as part of its annual Labor-HHS-Education spending bill. 

Under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is granted the exclusive power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, and to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and General Welfare of the United States.”  

In 1974, lawmakers passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act in an effort to standardize the annual process for deciding tax and spending policy for each federal fiscal year and to prevent the executive branch from making spending policy reserved to Congress. Among other things, it created the House and Senate Budget Committees and set timetables for each step of the budget process.  

Perhaps most significantly, the 1974 Budget Act also created the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This non-partisan agency has come to play a pivotal role in not just the budget process, but in the lawmaking process in general. The CBO issues economic forecasts, policy options, and other analytical reports, but it most significantly produces estimates of how much individual legislation would cost or save the federal government. Those estimates can and do often determine if legislation passes or fails.

The annual budget process is supposed to begin the first Monday in February, when the President is to present his proposed budget for the fiscal year that begins the following Oct. 1. This is one of the few deadlines in the Budget Act that is usually met. 

After that, the action moves to Congress. The House and Senate Budget Committees each write their own “Budget Resolution,” a spending blueprint for the year that includes annual totals for mandatory and discretionary spending. Because mandatory spending (roughly two-thirds of the budget) is automatic unless changed by Congress, the budget resolution may also include “reconciliation instructions” to the committees that oversee those programs (also known as “authorizing” committees) to make changes to bring the cost of the mandatory programs in line with the terms of the budget resolution. The discretionary total will eventually be divided by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees between the 12 subcommittees, each responsible for a single annual spending (appropriations) bill. Most of those bills cover multiple agencies – the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services, for example, also includes funding for the Departments of Labor and Education.  

After the budget resolution is approved by each chamber’s Budget Committee, it goes to the House and Senate floor, respectively, for debate. Assuming the resolutions are approved, a “conference committee” comprised of members from each chamber is tasked with working out the differences between the respective versions. A final compromise budget resolution is supposed to be approved by both chambers by April 15 of each year. (This rarely happens.) Because the final product is a resolution rather than a bill, the budget does not go to the President to sign or veto.  

The annual appropriations process kicks off May 15, when the House may start considering the 12 annual spending bills for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. By tradition, spending bills originate in the House, although sometimes, if the House is delayed in acting, the Senate will take up its own version of an appropriation first. The House is supposed to complete action on all 12 spending bills by June 30, in order to provide enough time to let the Senate act, and for a conference committee to negotiate a final version that each chamber can approve by October 1. 

That October 1 deadline is the only one with consequences if it is not met. Unless an appropriations bill for each federal agency is passed by Congress and signed by the President by the start of the fiscal year, that agency must shut down all “non-essential” activities funded by discretionary spending until funding is approved. Because Congress rarely passes all 12 of the appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year (the last time was in 1996, for fiscal year 1997), it can buy extra time by passing a “continuing resolution” (CR) that keeps money flowing, usually at the previous fiscal year’s level. CRs can last as little as a day and as much as the full fiscal year and may cover all of the federal government (if none of the regular appropriations are done) or just the departments for the unfinished bills. Congress may, and frequently does, pass multiple CRs while it works to complete the appropriations process. 

While each appropriations bill is supposed to be considered individually, to save time (and sometimes to win needed votes), a few, several, or all the bills may be packaged into a single “omnibus” measure. Bills that package only a handful of appropriations bills are cheekily known as “minibuses.”  

Meanwhile, if the budget resolution includes reconciliation instructions, that process proceeds on a separate track. The committees in charge of the programs requiring alterations each vote on and report their proposals to the respective budget committees, which assemble all of the changes into a single bill. At this point, the budget committees’ role is purely ministerial; it may not change any of the provisions approved by the authorizing committees.  

Reconciliation legislation is frequently the vehicle for significant health policy changes, partly because Medicare and Medicaid are mandatory programs. Reconciliation bills are subject to special rules, notably on the Senate floor, which include debate time limitations (no filibusters) and restrictions on amendments. Reconciliation bills also may not contain provisions that do not pertain directly to taxing or spending. 

Unlike the appropriations bills, nothing happens if Congress does not meet the Budget Act’s deadline to finish the reconciliation process, June 15. In fact, in more than a few cases, Congress has not completed work on reconciliation bills until the calendar year AFTER they were begun.   

Congress writes the nation’s laws, but it cannot account for every detail in legislation. So, it often leaves key decisions about how to interpret and enforce those laws to the various executive departments. Those departments write (and often rewrite) rules and regulations according to a very stringent process laid out by the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA is intended to keep the executive branch’s decision-making transparent and to allow public input into how laws are interpreted and enforced.

Most federal regulations use the APA’s “informal rulemaking” process, also known as “notice and comment rulemaking,” which consists of four main parts: 

• Publication of a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)” in the Federal Register, a daily publication of executive branch activities. 
• Solicitation to the public to submit written comments for a specific period of time (usually from 30 to 90 days). 
• Agency consideration of public reaction to the proposed rule; and, finally 
• Publication of a final rule, with an explanation including how the agency took the public comments into account and what changes, if any, were made from the proposed rule. Final rules also include an effective date, which can be no less than 30 days but may be more than a year in the future. 

In situations where time is of the essence, federal agencies may truncate that process by issuing “interim final rules,” which can take effect even before the public is given a chance to comment. Such rules may or may not be revised later.  

Not all federal interpretation of laws uses the APA’s specified regulatory process. Federal officials also distribute guidance, agency opinions, or “statements of policy.” 

Given how fragmented health policy is in both Congress and the executive branch, it should not be a surprise that major changes are difficult and rare.  

Add to that an electorate divided over whether the federal government should be more involved or less involved in the health sector, and huge lobbying clout from various interest groups whose members make a lot of money from the current operation of the system, and you have a prescription for inertia. 

Sometimes change does happen suddenly, however. In 2025, Republicans in control of the House, Senate, and White House narrowly passed a budget reconciliation bill that is projected to make deep cuts to the Medicaid program as well as add new barriers for people to maintain or enroll in health insurance under the ACA.

Another potential wildcard—in June of 2024, the Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old precedent, known as “Chevron deference,” that gave the benefit of the doubt in interpreting ambiguous laws passed by Congress to federal agencies rather than judges. Overturning Chevron will likely make it easier for outsiders to challenge federal agency actions, but it will be some time before the full ramifications become clear.   

Another problem is that when a new health policy can dodge the minefield of obstacles to become law, it almost by definition represents a compromise that may help it win enough votes for passage, but is more likely to complicate an already byzantine system further. 

Unless the health system completely breaks down, it seems unlikely that federal policymakers will be able to move the needle very far in either a conservative or a liberal direction, although the second Trump administration is attempting to circumvent Congress entirely to remake federal health agencies and how they work. Whether that will withstand review by the courts remains to be seen.

• FAQs on Health Spending, the Federal Budget, and Budget Enforcement Tools
• Medicare 101
• Medicaid 101
• The Affordable Care Act 101
• Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance
• The Regulation of Private Insurance
• U.S. Public Health
• The U.S. Government and Global Health
• The U.S. Congress and Global Health: A Primer

Rovner, J., Congress, the Executive Branch, and Health Policy. In Altman, Drew (Editor), Health Policy 101, (KFF, October 2025) https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-congress-and-the-executive-branch-and-health-policy/ (date accessed).

While there is currently no standard, agreed-upon definition of global health, the National Academy of Medicine (formerly Institute of Medicine) defines global health as having “the goal of improving health for all people in all nations by promoting wellness and eliminating avoidable diseases, disabilities, and deaths.” A key dimension of global health is an emphasis on addressing inequities in health status between rich and poor countries and also for those who are most marginalized within countries, as well as a recognition that the health of people around the world is highly interconnected, with domestic and foreign health inextricably linked. 

The U.S. government has long been the largest donor to and implementer of global health programs in the world. These efforts have aimed to help improve the health of people in low- and middle-income countries while also contributing to broader U.S. global development goals, foreign policy priorities, and national security concerns, including helping safeguard the health of Americans. These efforts began decades ago and saw major expansion in the early part of the current century with the creation of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and other programs. Since the beginning of the second Trump administration, however, the U.S. global health response has undergone significant change, disruption, and retraction, and the global health landscape has been altered in fundamental ways. This has included, as part of a major review of U.S. foreign aid, the dissolution of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the main implementing agency for U.S. global health programs, the elimination of numerous programs and projects, and the transition of remaining programs to the State Department.  As part of its review, the administration is seeking to assess whether U.S. foreign aid programs are aligned with U.S. national interests.

Historically, the U.S. role in global health is multifaceted and includes a broad range of activities. Its primary roles are as a supporter of bilateral (i.e., country-to-country) efforts, directly funding implementation of global health efforts in partner countries, and as a donor to multilateral health institutions (i.e., international organizations that pool support from multiple countries for one or more areas of global health). The U.S. also engages in global health diplomacy through its relationships with other governments, multilateral institutions, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. Specifically, the U.S. government:

• acts as a donor by providing financial and other health-related development assistance (e.g., commodities, like contraceptives or bed nets for protection from disease-carrying mosquitoes) to low- and middle-income countries;
• operates programs and delivers health services;
• provides technical assistance and other capacity-building support;
• participates in major international health organizations and coordinates health efforts with other stakeholders through global health diplomacy;
• conducts research;
• supports international responses to disasters and other emergencies; and
• partners with governments, non-governmental groups, and the private sector (Figure 1).

U.S. global health activities have targeted a variety of issues and used different intervention approaches such as:

• Health services and systems strengthening: improving basic and essential health services, systems, and infrastructure;
• Disease detection and response: supporting surveillance, prevention, and treatment of diseases, including both infectious (e.g., HIV, TB, malaria) and non-communicable diseases (e.g., cardiovascular disease, cancer);
• Population and maternal/child health: promoting maternal health; reproductive health and family planning; child nutrition, immunization, and other child survival interventions;
• Nutrition, water, and environmental health: providing non-emergency food aid and supporting dietary supplementation and food security; clean/safe water and sanitation; mitigation of environmental hazards; and
• Research and development: investigating and developing new technologies, interventions, and strategies, including vaccines, medicines, and diagnostics.

While the U.S. government’s involvement in global health currently faces an uncertain future – with a more limited scope, the dissolution of USAID, and cancelation of numerous U.S.-supported global health projects, as the Trump administration seeks to reorganize foreign aid more broadly –  the U.S. has historically supported global health through a wide array of bilateral and multilateral global health programs in countries around the world including:

HIV/PEPFAR

While the U.S. first provided funding to address the emerging global HIV epidemic in 1986, U.S. funding and attention for these efforts has grown significantly in the last two decades, particularly following President George W. Bush’s 2003 announcement of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the coordinated U.S. government response to global HIV. Now the largest commitment by any nation devoted to a single disease, the launch of PEPFAR led to substantially increased U.S. support for HIV prevention, treatment, and care efforts, as well as U.S. contributions to multilateral entities, including the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), and the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI).  PEPFAR, which is housed in the Department of State, has been credited with saving 26 million lives and contributing to broader health, educational, and economic gains.  Currently, PEPFAR faces significant change. While U.S. policymakers had been increasingly looking at when and how to transition PEPFAR services and financing to country governments, the current Trump administration has sought to narrow PEPFAR’s scope and significantly accelerate this timeline. See the “Status of PEPFAR” fact sheet for more information.

Tuberculosis (TB)

Since the 1998 launch of USAID’s global TB control program, the U.S. response to global TB has expanded, particularly after 2003 when PEPFAR highlighted the U.S. government’s commitment to addressing TB. Prior to the current Trump administration, these efforts focused on diagnosis, treatment, and control of TB (including multi-drug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant TB, or MDR/XDR TB) as well as on research. The U.S. was also a donor to the Global Drug Facility of the Stop TB Partnership.  With the dissolution of USAID, remaining TB programming has been moved to the State Department and its scope has been reduced. See the “Status of U.S. Global Tuberculosis Efforts” fact sheet for more information.

Malaria/PMI

Engaged in malaria work since the 1950s, the U.S. supported expanded malaria efforts in low- and middle-income countries through the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI), launched in 2005 and housed at and managed by USAID, as well as through research and other activities. PMI programs centered on expanding coverage of six key high-impact interventions to control or eliminate malaria, which included: diagnosis of malaria and treatment with artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs), entomological monitoring, intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp), indoor residual spraying (IRS) with insecticides, insecticide-treated mosquito nets (ITNs), and seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC). The U.S. has also supported the RBM Partnership to End Malaria.  Under the current administration, remaining PMI programming has been moved into the State Department. See the “Status of the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI)” fact sheet for more information.

Maternal and Child Health (MCH)

Involved in efforts to improve MCH since the 1960s,  U.S. global MCH activities, which had been housed at and managed by USAID, aimed to bring to scale a range of high-impact interventions that mitigate maternal, newborn, and under-five deaths; prevent and address the indirect causes of such deaths (such as HIV, TB, and malaria); strengthen integration of maternal health services with family planning; improve equity of access to and use of services by vulnerable populations; and strengthen health systems. The U.S. has also been a donor to global organizations and initiatives addressing MCH, such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI).Under the current administration, remaining MCH programming has been moved into the State Department. See the “Status of U.S. Global Maternal and Child Health Efforts” fact sheet for more information.

Nutrition

For more than 40 years, the U.S. had been involved in nutrition efforts in low- and middle-income countries that aimed to prevent undernutrition through support for effective interventions, such as nutrition education, nutrition during pregnancy, exclusive breastfeeding, and micronutrient supplementation. Housed at and managed by USAID, U.S. global nutrition efforts were coordinated with the U.S. Feed the Future Initiative (FtF, launched in 2009), which aimed to address global hunger and food security. Currently, remaining nutrition programming has been moved to the State Department. See the “Status of U.S. Global Maternal and Child Health Efforts” fact sheet for more information.

Family Planning and Reproductive Health (FP/RH)

Engaged since the 1960s in international research on family planning and population issues as well as other FP/RH efforts (including the purchase and distribution of contraceptives in developing countries),  U.S. global FP/RH activities were designed to decrease the risk of unintended pregnancies and maternal and child mortality through effective interventions, including contraception, counseling, and post-abortion care. The U.S. also provided funding to global organizations addressing FP/RH, such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), though in some years, funding for UNFPA was withheld. The current administration has moved to end U.S. bilateral and multilateral support for family planning efforts. See the “Status of U.S. Family Planning and Reproductive Health Efforts” fact sheet for more information

Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs)

Having historically worked on addressing NTDs through research and surveillance, attention to and funding for U.S. global NTD efforts increased markedly in 2006 with the launch of the USAID NTD Program and the subsequent announcement of expanded efforts across the U.S. government in 2008. These efforts had focused on five NTDs (soil-transmitted helminths,  lymphatic filariasis or elephantiasis, onchocerciasis or river blindness, schistosomiasis or snail fever, and trachoma) that are responsible for the overwhelming majority of the NTD burden but can be controlled and even eliminated with low-cost and effective interventions, such as an integrated control approach targeting multiple NTDs simultaneously through mass drug administration (MDA). The future of NTD efforts is uncertain amid the current Trump administration’s foreign aid freeze and dissolution of USAID.

Global Health Security (GHS)

While the U.S. has supported global health security work for more than two decades, its involvement has expanded over time, with attention to these efforts growing significantly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These efforts aimed to reduce the threat of emerging and re-emerging diseases by supporting preparedness, detection, and response capabilities worldwide. The U.S. had also played a key role in the development and 2014 launch of the “Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA).” Through this international partnership that now involves more than 70 countries and international organizations, the U.S. worked to help countries make measurable improvements in their GHS capabilities. The U.S. had also been a donor to the new Pandemic Fund, which seeks to provide sustained financing to help countries build their capacity to prevent, prepare for, and respond to epidemics and pandemics.  While the first U.S. global health security strategy had been developed by the first Trump administration, the current Trump administration has withdrawn this strategy, eliminated several global health security positions and some offices, and withdrawn from U.S. engagement in key international efforts. See the “Status of Global Health Security/Pandemic Preparedness” fact sheet for more information.

In FY 2025, U.S. funding appropriated by Congress for global health totaled $12.4 billion. While this funding has been appropriated to federal agencies, the current administration has withheld much of it from programming and sought to formally rescind (cancel) more than $1 billion in funding for global health, including some PEPFAR funding (Congress voted to amend the rescission package, reducing that amount to $500 million, and exempting PEPFAR and some other global health programs from cuts).  As such, funding amounts presented here for the current fiscal year may not reflect actual obligations or outlays of U.S. support. There is ongoing litigation federal court regarding these actions.

As Figure 2shows, U.S. appropriations for global health have grown significantly since the early 2000s, in large part due to funding for initiatives such as PEPFAR and PMI, but with spikes in some years due to emergency or supplemental funding for disease outbreaks such as Ebola, Zika, and COVID-19. Funding reached its highest level to date in FY 2021, largely due to the U.S. global response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although a large majority of the American public overestimates the share of the federal budget that is spent on foreign aid (with nearly half believing that the share is greater than 20%), U.S. foreign aid actually accounts for 1% or less of the federal budget, with U.S. funding for global health—which is part of the foreign affairs budget—accounting for an even smaller share.

U.S. Global Health Funding by Program Area

Looking across funding for the major global health program areas since FY 2006, most U.S. global health funding over time has been directed to HIV programs, accounting for approximately 50% of U.S. global health funding in most years (Figure 3). The Global Fund accounted for the next largest share over the period, followed by MCH and malaria. More recently, the U.S. has emphasized global health security more, with funding for these efforts increasing considerably during the COVID-19 pandemic and afterward. Consistent with this trend, most funding was provided to HIV efforts ($5.4 billion or 44%), followed by the Global Fund ($1.7 billion or 13%) and maternal and child health and global health security (both $1.3 billion or 10%) in FY 2025 (Figure 4).

Bilateral vs. Multilateral Aid

Most U.S. global health funding is provided bilaterally – that is, funding provided by the U.S. directly to or on behalf of a recipient country or region. In FY 2025, about 80% of the U.S. global health budget was provided through bilateral programs. The remainder (about 20%) is provided multilaterally through U.S. contributions to international institutions and organizations (see “What Multilateral Health Organizations Are Supported by the U.S.?”).

Historically, the U.S. government’s engagement in global health has been carried out and overseen by multiple executive branch departments and agencies and the legislative branch, including several congressional committees (Figure 5). The current administration has made significant changes to this infrastructure. See the “Proposed Reorganization of U.S. Global Health Programs” fact sheet for more information.

Executive Branch

In general, U.S. global health engagement has developed within two main structures of the Executive Branch of government: the foreign assistance structure, which is predominantly global development-oriented and has close links to foreign policy; and the public health structure, which has its roots in disease prevention, control, and surveillance efforts.

Most funding for and oversight of U.S. global health resides within the foreign assistance structure, including:

• Department of State (State): Established in 1789, the Department of State is the Cabinet-level foreign affairs agency of the United States. It advances U.S. objectives and interests worldwide through its primary role in developing and implementing the President’s foreign policy. Prior to the current Trump administration, it also provided policy direction to USAID, the lead federal agency for development assistance. The Trump administration has dissolved USAID and moved remaining global health activities into the Department of State. The Department of State’s Bureau for Global Health Security and Diplomacy (GHSD) coordinates the Department’s work on global health security, including HIV, and houses PEPFAR.
• U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID): Established in 1961, USAID was an independent U.S. federal government agency that received overall foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State. Its role was to support long-term and broad-based economic growth in countries and advance U.S. foreign policy objectives by supporting activities through each of its programmatic functional bureaus (e.g., Bureau for Global Health) and regional bureaus. Most USAID global health programs had been coordinated through the Bureau for Global Health, including HIV and other infectious diseases, MCH, nutrition, FP/RH, NTDs, and global health security. USAID has now been dissolved by the current administration.  
• Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC): Established in 2004, MCC administers the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), a U.S. government initiative providing development assistance to eligible countries to promote economic growth and reduce poverty in low- and middle-income countries. Although MCC supports several health-related programs, health is not the main focus or purpose of its work; its design is intended to link MCC contributions for development assistance (to reduce poverty through support for economic growth) to greater responsibility by low- and middle-income countries for successfully attaining certain governance and development benchmarks. The current Trump administration had sought to close down the agency but ultimately did not do so.

Agencies within the public health structure operate global health programs directly or in conjunction with foreign assistance agencies. They are represented most prominently by several agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including:

• Office of Global Affairs (OGA): OGA’s primary function is global health diplomacy – particularly coordinating and maintaining engagement across HHS and the U.S. government with foreign governments and ministries of health, multilateral organizations, civil society groups, and the private sector – exchanging best practices and sharing technical knowledge to advance U.S. global health priorities and research.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): With a long history of working on international health issues, prior to the current Trump administration, CDC focused on disease control and prevention and health promotion through operations, development assistance, basic and field research, technical assistance, training/exchanges, and capacity building. The current administration has eliminated many of the staff working on these issues and sought to eliminate the CDC’s global health center.
• National Institutes of Health (NIH): One of the world’s leading research entities on global health, NIH conducts biomedical and behavioral science research on diseases and disorders to enhance diagnosis, prevention, and treatment and provides technical assistance and training. Prior to the current Trump administration, all 27 of the agency’s institutes and centers engaged in global health activities, but these activities are already being curtailed or eliminated.
• Food & Drug Administration (FDA): The FDA screens pharmaceutical and biological products for safety and efficacy and helps oversee the safety of the U.S. food supply.
• Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA): HRSA builds human and organizational capacity and promotes health systems strengthening to deliver care in PEPFAR countries.

In addition to the foreign assistance and public health service agencies, other departments and agencies involved in global health have included the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Peace Corps, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Labor (DoL), the Department of Commerce (Commerce), the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), and the National Security Council (NSC). The NSC, which sits within the White House, plays a significant role across the U.S. government, as it is responsible for coordinating and reviewing the U.S. strategy and activities related to global health security, including its international response. However, the administration has eliminated many of the staff working on these issues, and is no longer operating the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response (OPPR), which had been responsible for domestic policy coordination related to health security.

Legislative Branch

The U.S. Congress introduces, considers, and passes global health-related legislation; oversees global health efforts, specifying how funds for these programs are to be (and not to be) spent; authorizes and appropriates funding; and confirms presidential appointees to key U.S. global health positions. Major committees of the House of Representatives (House) and Senate with jurisdiction over global health efforts include: the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the Senate and House Appropriations Committees.

The U.S. global health response has been defined by numerous governing statutes, authorities, and policy decisions. For instance, the legislation that created PEPFAR in 2003 and its subsequent reauthorizations in 2008, 2013, 2018, and 2024 are key statutes of U.S. global health policy, as they govern its bilateral HIV response, bilateral assistance for TB and malaria, and participation in the Global Fund. Other statutory requirements that shape the implementation and scope of U.S. global health activities are those governing U.S. global FP/RH efforts, such as those directing how U.S. funds may not be spent. For instance, the Helms Amendment (1973) prohibits the use of foreign assistance to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortion. The Kemp-Kasten Amendment (1985) prohibits funding any organization or program, as determined by the President, that supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization (it has been invoked at times to restrict funding to UNFPA).

While Congress has authority over many aspects of global health, the current administration has taken several actions without its direct consent (such as eliminating USAID and withholding Congressionally-directed appropriations), and has questioned the extent of Congressional authority in these areas. It is unclear if Congress will act on these issues and some of these questions are being litigated in federal court.

Prior to the current Trump administration, the U.S. provided bilateral support for U.S. global health programs in almost 80 countries, with additional countries reached through U.S. regional global health programs and U.S. contributions to multilateral organizations. Multiple factors determined where the U.S. channeled its global health support. While more U.S. support was generally directed to countries facing a higher burden of disease, it was also influenced by factors such as the presence of willing and able partner governments, a history of positive relations and goodwill with host countries, strategic and national security priorities, and funding and personnel availability. The majority of countries receiving U.S. bilateral support for global health (“partner countries”) were located in sub-Saharan Africa (35 countries), followed by the Western Hemisphere (14 countries), East Asia and Oceania (11 countries), South and Central Asia (9 countries), Europe and Eurasia (4 countries), and Middle East and North Africa (4 countries) (Figure 5). Most U.S. bilateral support for global health programs was provided in sub-Saharan Africa (84%) (Figure 6). Furthermore, the top 10 country recipients of U.S. global health funding, representing 59% of U.S. bilateral support for global health, were all in this region (Figure 7).

The U.S. typically operated more than one health program (HIV, TB, malaria, etc.) in each partner country. While in most countries, the U.S. operated programs in four or fewer global health areas, this number was generally higher in countries in sub-Saharan Africa (five or more).

In addition to its bilateral programs, the U.S. has a long history of engagement with multilateral health organizations and international institutions, beginning with its role in the development of the first such organizations, including the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) in the early 1900s and the World Health Organization (WHO) a few decades later. This involvement continued with, for example, the Global Fund (which the U.S. helped to launch in 2001), Gavi (launched in 2000), the GHSA (which the U.S. played a key role in developing and launching in 2014), and the Pandemic Fund (launched in 2022). Prior to the current Trump administration – which is carrying out a review of its engagement in international organization to determine the future of U.S. multilateral participation and support – U.S. support for multilateral global health efforts has taken various forms, including:

• Funding. The U.S. has often been the largest or one of the largest donors to multilateral health efforts, funding core (generally used to support essential functions and operations) and voluntary (used for specific projects or initiatives the U.S. seeks to support) contributions. About a fifth (19%) of U.S. global health funding supported U.S. contributions to multilateral health organizations (Figure 8). However, some global health support to multilateral organizations has already been reduced or eliminated by the current Trump administration, such as funding and engagement in the World Health Organization, UNFPA, and the Pandemic Fund.
• Governance. The U.S. has been active in the governance structures that oversee multilateral global health organizations and initiatives, including holding permanent or rotating seats on many of their boards.
• Technical assistance. The U.S. has offered technical assistance in support of grants to partner countries, providing additional staff capacity to international organizations (by detailing U.S. government employees to these organizations for periods of time).
• Standard setting. The U.S. has engaged in standard-setting, weighing in on global plans, treaties, and agreements to respond to a range of health issues as they are developed and considered for approval by the larger body.

The U.S. has engaged with a number of multilateral global health organizations, including health-focused specialty agencies of the United Nations (U.N.) and international financing mechanisms for global health. Key among these are eight to which Congress specifically directs funding (though the U.S. also reaches other multilateral health institutions without direct Congressional appropriations but rather through general support), of which the U.S. has been the top contributor to five (the Global Fund, PAHO, UNAIDS, UNICEF, and WHO):

U.N. Agencies

• World Health Organization (WHO): WHO, created in 1948, is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the U.N. system. WHO provides international leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, providing technical support to countries, and monitoring and assessing health trends. The U.S. has been involved in WHO since its creation, providing financial and technical support as well as participating in its governance structure. However, President Trump announced on the first day of his second term that the U.S. would withdraw as a member of WHO and halt funding to the organization.
• Pan American Health Organization (PAHO): PAHO is the oldest international health agency, founded originally as the International Sanitary Bureau in 1902. The U.S. joined PAHO as a member state in 1925. PAHO, the specialized international health agency for the Americas, “works with countries throughout the region to improve and protect people’s health” and serves as the WHO Regional Office for the Americas and as the health organization of the inter-American System.
• Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS): UNAIDS, created in 1996 as the successor organization to the WHO Global Programme on AIDS (GPA), is the leading global organization for addressing HIV/AIDS. Coordinating efforts across the U.N. system, it is made up of 11 U.N. co-sponsors and guided by a Programme Coordinating Board (PCB), which is a subset of its co-sponsors and government representatives. The U.S. currently serves on the PCB.
• United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF): UNICEF, created in 1946, aims to improve the lives of children, particularly the most disadvantaged children and adolescents, and is one of the largest purchasers of vaccines worldwide. The U.S. was a founding member that same year.
• United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA): UNFPA, created in 1969, is the largest purchaser and distributor of contraceptives worldwide. While the U.S. helped to found UNFPA and was a leading supporter for many years, its support has fluctuated significantly and sometimes been withheld entirely over the years, due to ongoing U.S. political debates about abortion. The Trump administration has announced that it is withholding funding from UNFPA.

Non-U.N. Financing Mechanisms

• Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (Gavi): Gavi, created in 2000, is a public-private partnership that aims to increase access to immunization in poor countries. The U.S. has been involved in Gavi since its creation through contributions, participation in Gavi’s governance, and technical assistance. The U.S. is the second largest donor to Gavi’s core programs and the top donor to Gavi’s COVAX Advance Market Commitment (COVAX AMC), a financial mechanism within COVAX that supports low- and middle-income countries through procurement and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.
• Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund): The Global Fund, created in 2001, is an independent multilateral financing entity that supports HIV, TB, and malaria programs in low- and middle-income countries. The U.S. was involved in creating the Global Fund and maintains a permanent seat on its Board. U.S. contributions and those of other donors are pooled and then provided by the Global Fund to country-driven projects based on technical merit and need.
• TB Global Drug Facility: The Global Drug Facility, created in 2001, is a financing mechanism of the Stop TB Partnership; it provides grants to countries for TB drugs.

U.S. support for multilateral institutions overall has fluctuated over time, reflecting, in part, changing U.S. leadership views on the relative value of bilateralism versus multilateralism. As a result, U.S. engagement in and contributions to specific multilateral health organizations and institutions may change over time. For example, the U.S. under the first Trump administration did not participate in the partnership to create  COVAX (an international partnership led by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations [CEPI], Gavi, and WHO) to facilitate greater global access to the COVID-19 vaccine, although Congress did provide $4 billion in emergency funding to Gavi in support of COVID-19 vaccine access. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. joined the COVAX partnership.

Multilateral initiatives complement U.S. bilateral global health efforts, helping make progress toward U.S. goals in various program areas. In some cases, U.S. multilateral global health support allows the U.S. to reach a larger number of countries; it also may help to leverage additional funding and provide opportunities for improved coordination and technical consultations. Additionally, U.S. policies related to funding can greatly influence other financial support for multilaterals. For instance, since U.S. law has required that the U.S. contribution to the Global Fund cannot exceed 33% of total contributions from all donors, the U.S. contribution has leveraged other donor contributions; in effect, this requirement encouraged increased support from other donors and prevented the U.S. from becoming the predominant donor to the Global Fund.

The U.S. has been the largest donor to global health, providing over 40% of all international health assistance among major donor governments (Figure 9).

In addition, the U.S. has historically devoted more of its foreign assistance to health than any other donor government, contributing over a quarter of its foreign assistance to global health in 2023 (Figure 10). The U.S. has also been the largest government donor to several specific global health areas, including HIV and family planning. Currently, however, the Trump administration is withholding global health funds in several areas and actual spending levels are still unknown.

While the U.S. has been engaged in international health activities for over a century and has historically been the largest funder and implementer of global health programs worldwide, it is currently undergoing a fundamental shift, with a significantly reduced footprint and role.  Given the prominence of the U.S. in global health, these actions have and will influence the larger global health ecosystem and the health of those in low and middle income countries. Among the key issues to watch are:

• The future direction of U.S. leadership in and degree of commitment to global health as the Trump administration reorganizes foreign assistance more broadly and seeks to permanently alter the U.S. role.
• The status of U.S. funding for global health, particularly given the interplay between Congress and the administration on whether and how that funding gets spent and ongoing litigation in this area.
• The ability of global health implementers to continue to deliver services to those who need them, given their loss of funding and future uncertainty.
• The future role of multilateral institutions in global health, as the U.S. bilateral role is reduced, but also its support for multilateral health efforts remains unclear.
• Whether other donors (governments, foundations, the private sector) will help to fill some of the gaps left by the U.S.
• Whether the nations that have been recipients of U.S. global health support will increase their own financing and delivery of health services to their populations.

• Overview of President Trump’s Executive Actions on Global Health
• KFF Resources on the Trump Administration’s Foreign Aid Review and Global Health Aid Cuts
• KFF Global Health Fact Sheets including The U.S. Government and Global Health and Breaking Down the U.S. Global Health Budget by Program Area
• U.S. Global Health Budget Tracker
• KFF Global Health Budget Summaries
• The Outlook for PEPFAR in 2025 and Beyond
• PEPFAR Policy Resource Hub
• KFF Dashboard: Progress Toward Global HIV Targets in PEPFAR Countries
• KFF Dashboard: Progress Toward Global Malaria Targets in PMI Countries
• The U.S. Congress and Global Health: A Primer
• U.S. Global Health Legislation Tracker
• Key Global Health Positions and Officials in the U.S. Government

Oum, S., Moss, K., & Kates, J., The U.S. Government and Global Health. In Altman, Drew (Editor), Health Policy 101, (KFF, October 2025) https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-the-u-s-government-and-global-health/ (date accessed).

Health systems aim to provide accessible, high-quality care that improves health outcomes at an affordable cost. One way to assess the performance of the United States’ health system is to benchmark it against those in similar countries.

Comparing health system performance internationally is complicated, though, as each country has unique political, economic, and social conditions. Because health spending and health outcomes are often correlated with a country’s wealth, this chapter focuses on comparisons between the U.S. and other large and wealthy OECD nations: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Despite spending far more money than any peer nation, Americans live shorter lives and often face more barriers to care. Some of this disparity can be attributed to aspects of the U.S. health system, but socioeconomic, health and other factors also play a role.

From the late nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries, many nations created health insurance systems that aimed to make health care accessible and affordable to their population. Some countries, like the United Kingdom, have health systems that are largely publicly funded and operated, while other countries, like Switzerland, have a compulsory private insurance system. Many countries’ health systems include a mix of private and public insurance. Regardless of financing mechanism, the health systems in many countries that are similarly large and wealthy as the U.S. are largely compulsory, resulting in universal or near-universal health coverage.

During this same period, the United States took a different approach, relying on a largely voluntary private insurance system that resulted in a substantial share of the population being uninsured. Despite decades of calls for a national public health insurance program, it was not until 1965 that two major public insurance programs were created – Medicare for people age 65 or older and Medicaid for low-income people – and it was not until the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010 that the U.S. health system was expanded to create near-universal eligibility for health insurance coverage for lawfully present residents. Even so, the U.S. health system is still largely voluntary and millions of people in the U.S. continue to go without insurance, often citing cost as a barrier.

Wealthy countries, including the U.S., tend to spend more per person on health care and related expenses than lower-income countries. However, even among higher-income countries, the U.S. spends far more per person on health.

Spending Growth

Over the past five decades, the health spending gap between the U.S. and peer nations has widened. In 1970, the U.S. spent about 7% of its GDP on health, which was similar to spending in several comparable countries (the average of comparably wealthy countries was about 5% of GDP in 1970). The U.S. was relatively on pace with other countries until the 1980s, when health spending in the U.S. grew at a significantly faster rate relative to its GDP. 

The United States spends more per capita on total health expenditures, including government spending and household payments. In 2020, the U.S. spent 19.5% of its GDP on health consumption (up from 17.5% in 2019), largely due to the increased spending during the COVID-19 pandemic, along with the economic downturn. By 2023, health spending as a share of GDP had declined to 17.6% in the U.S.—but remains substantially higher than in peer countries.

Drivers of Health Spending

The largest category of health spending in both the U.S. and comparable countries is spending on inpatient and outpatient care, which includes payments to hospitals, clinics, and physicians for services and fees such as primary care or specialist visits, surgical care, provider-administered medications, and facility fees. Americans spent $8,353 per person on inpatient and outpatient care, compared to $3,636 in peer countries, on average. The U.S.’s higher spending on providers is driven more by higher prices than higher utilization of care. Patients in the U.S. have shorter average hospital stays and fewer physician visits per capita, while many hospital procedures have been shown to have higher prices in the U.S. Higher spending on inpatient and outpatient care drives most of the difference in health spending between the U.S. and its peers. In fact, the U.S. spends more on inpatient and outpatient care than most peer nations spend on their entire health systems (including long-term care, prescription drugs, administration, prevention, and other services).

The cost of prescription drugs is another factor that partially explains the U.S.’s higher health spending. Many of the same medications cost more in the U.S. than they do in other comparable nations. In 2022, the U.S. spent $1,765 per capita on prescription drugs and other medical goods (including over-the-counter and clinically delivered pharmaceuticals as well as durable and non-durable medical equipment). However, because prescription drugs represent a relatively small share of total health spending, even if per capita prescription drug spending in the U.S. were closer to that of comparable countries, that would make only a small dent in closing the gap on health spending.

Spending on health administration is similarly much higher in the U.S. than in comparable countries: $1,078.44 per capita. Administrative costs include spending on running governmental health programs and overhead from insurers, but exclude administrative expenditures from health care providers. This includes administrative spending for private health insurance, governmental health programs (such as Medicaid and Medicare), as well as other third-party payers and programs.

The U.S. also spends more per capita on preventive care than peer nations. Activities captured in this spending category vary among countries, but in the U.S., it generally consists of public health activities, including preventive health programs and education for immunizations, disease detection, emergency preparedness, and more. In the U.S., preventive care spending more than doubled between 2019 and 2020, from $343 to $741 per capita, but subsequently declined to $649 by 2022.

Meanwhile, the only category of spending in which the U.S. spends less than most comparable countries on a per-person basis is long-term care. Long-term care spending includes health and social services provided in long-term care institutions such as nursing homes as well as home- and community-based settings. After an increase from 2019 to 2020 at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. spending on long-term care declined by 4.9% between 2020 and 2021 but increased again by 5.4% between 2021 and 2022. Long-term care spending was already lower in the U.S. than in peer countries before the pandemic.

Life Expectancy

Life expectancy is one of the most common measures of health outcomes. In 1980, the average American could expect to live 73.7 years – a similar life expectancy to residents of most wealthy countries. However, in subsequent years, life expectancy continued growing in most other nations at a pace far beyond that of the U.S.

In 1996, Japan became the first nation to report an average life expectancy of 80 years among its population. By 2012, all peer countries had also achieved this milestone. That same year, life expectancy in the U.S. was 78.5 years and began a decade-long plateau. By 2019, the life of the average U.S. resident would be almost four years shorter than the life of the average resident of these comparable nations (78.8 vs. 82.7 years).

This plateau and four-year gap were already highly concerning, but the health crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic made the situation in the U.S. much worse. For the first time ever recorded, life expectancy dropped by almost two years, from 78.8 in 2019 to 77.0 in 2020. The pandemic was not unique to the United States, but this stunning life expectancy drop was – the average comparable nation saw a decline of less than half a year (82.7 to 82.3). By 2023, life expectancy rebounded to 78.4 years, still a full 1.3 years below pre-pandemic levels and over four years below the average among peer nations.

The life expectancy data presented here are period life expectancy estimates based on excess mortality observed in each year. Period life expectancy at birth represents the mortality experience of a hypothetical cohort if current conditions persisted into the future, and not the mortality experience of a birth cohort.

Years of Life Lost

The causes of this decrease in life expectancy are multifaceted. When people die before a certain age, the difference between their age at death and the specified age is recorded as life years lost. For example, when looking at years of life lost before age 75, a person who dies at age 60 would be considered to have lost 15 years of life. Examining the causes of these years of life lost can point to the factors which are decreasing life expectancy.

The United States had the highest rate of years of life lost per 100,000 population aged 75 years old in 2021, by a large margin. However, by examining the cause of these years of life lost, it is possible to notice where the U.S. underperforms. For example, the U.S. has a significantly higher rate of years of life lost due to heart disease, transport accidents, and accidental poisoning (a category that includes drug overdose).

While cancer is a common cause of premature years of life lost in the United States, most other countries have a similar rate of years of life lost due to cancer. This indicates that cancer is not a main cause of the discrepancy between the U.S. and peer nations.

Overall, the United States’ higher rates of premature death and disease burden do not necessarily reflect entirely on the quality of care that patients receive in doctors’ offices or hospitals. Life expectancy, mortality rates, and disease burden can also be influenced by factors outside of the health system, like socioeconomic conditions (e.g., income inequality, structural racism) and differences in health-related behaviors (e.g., diet, exercise, drug use). Children and teens in the U.S. are less likely to make it to adulthood than in peer countries, with the U.S having higher rates of motor vehicle accidents, firearm deaths, and suicide deaths among children and teens.

Another, more direct way to measure the performance of the health system is to examine the quality of care provided in a hospital or clinical setting. However, inconsistent and imperfect quality metrics make it difficult to compare quality of care in the U.S. and its peers.

In comparison to peer nations, across the limited measures available internationally, the U.S. performs better on some and worse on other indicators of quality of care. For example, the U.S. performs worse on certain measures of treatment outcomes (such as maternal mortality) and some patient safety measures (such as obstetric trauma with instrument and medication or treatment errors). The U.S. performs similarly to or better than peer nations in other measures of treatment outcomes (such as mortality rates within 30 days of acute hospital treatment) and patient safety (such as rates of post–operative sepsis).

Hospital Mortality Rates

Mortality within 30 days of being admitted to a hospital is not entirely preventable, but high quality of care can reduce the mortality rate for certain diagnoses. The 30-day mortality rates after hospital admissions for heart attacks (acute myocardial infarction) are similar in the U.S. and the average of comparable countries. However, the 30-day mortality rates for ischemic strokes (caused by blood clots) were 4.5 deaths per 100 patients in the U.S. in 2022, compared to an average of 6.9 deaths per 100 patients in similar countries. Rates of mortality after hemorrhagic stroke (caused by bleeding) are also lower in the U.S. While the U.S. has lower rates of mortality due to these conditions than the average across peer nations, it is important to note that several peer nations have lower rates than the U.S.

Maternal Health

While wealth and economic prosperity are highly correlated with lower maternal mortality rates, the U.S. is an outlier with the highest rate of pregnancy-related deaths (18.6 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2023) when compared to similar countries (5.1 deaths per 100,000 live births). 

Within the U.S., there are significant racial disparities in maternal mortality rates. The maternal mortality rate for Black mothers is about 3 times the rate for White mothers — a disparity that persists across age and socioeconomic groups. Every race and ethnicity, socioeconomic, and age group in the United States sees higher maternal mortality rates than the average in comparable countries. Maternal mortality in the U.S. has risen in recent years, sparking concern from the medical community and policymakers. 

Obstetric trauma is more likely to occur in deliveries where instruments are utilized (i.e., forceps). The rate of obstetric trauma during deliveries with an instrument in the U.S. was 11.7 per 100 vaginal deliveries in 2022, higher than most comparable countries with available data. The rate of obstetric trauma during deliveries without an instrument in the U.S. was 1.7 per 100 vaginal deliveries in 2022, on the lower end among comparable countries with available data.

Hospital Admissions

Hospital admissions for certain chronic diseases, such as cardiac conditions, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD), asthma, and diabetes, can arise for a variety of reasons, but preventive services — or lack thereof — play a large role. Hospital admission rates in the U.S. are higher than in comparable countries for congestive heart failure and complications due to diabetes, and some admissions for these chronic conditions could be avoided through primary care.

Post-Operative Complications

Rates of post-operative complications are an important measure of hospital safety. Pulmonary embolisms and deep vein thromboses are common complications after major surgeries, such as hip or knee replacement. The prevalence of post-operative clots for these procedures is higher in the U.S. than in the U.K., Sweden, Belgium, and the Netherlands, but lower than in Australia.

Sepsis is a life-threatening complication of infection that can lead to organ failure, shock, or death. Rates of post-operative infections and sepsis are an important marker of care quality for patients undergoing surgery, because this is a major source of morbidity and mortality that can sometimes be prevented. Prevention is multifactorial and can involve proper operative techniques and training, hygiene and safety protocols, and antibiotic utilization, among other things. The rate of post-operative sepsis following abdominal surgery is just under 2% in the U.S., lower than in most peer countries that report data.

Out-of-Pocket Costs

Universal coverage means all residents have health insurance, but it does not mean health care is free. In many countries people contribute to health care costs through both out-of-pocket expenses—such as copays, coinsurance, and deductibles—as well as insurance premiums. Even in countries with universal coverage, residents often have at least nominal out-of-pocket costs. In fact, people in Switzerland pay more out-of-pocket on health care ($1,988), on average, than Americans do ($1,425) per capita.

Costs are a common barrier to accessing health care in the U.S. More than 1 in 4 Americans report skipping consultations, tests, treatment, or follow-up, and 21% report skipping medication. Only 9.2% of the United States population is uninsured, so these numbers include individuals who have health insurance, but still find medical care unaffordable. While cost-related access barriers are particularly prevalent in the U.S., residents of other countries with universal coverage also report skipping care due to costs.

Appointment Availability

Cost is not the only reason why a person may miss or delay needed medical care. The availability of physicians can also impact access to care. Among people who needed same or next-day medical care, about half (51%) of Americans were able to make a timely appointment, which is somewhat below the average of peer nations (57%).

Physicians

The U.S. has just 2.7 practicing physicians per 1,000 residents, compared to an average of 3.8 among peer nations. Also of concern in the U.S. is the ratio of primary to specialty care providers. Most other nations have somewhere between one-quarter and one-half physicians employed in primary care. Primary care is an integral part of the health system in many nations – a patient sees a primary care physician for most illnesses or injuries and only goes to a specialist or hospital if their primary care doctor decides it is necessary. In the United States, however, only 12% of doctors are general physicians, including primary care physicians.

The U.S. faces this physician shortage and high rates of specialization in part due to how medical education is structured. The U.S. has kept a tight lid on the number of medical schools, as well as the number of training spots available to new doctors. Furthermore, the higher education system in the U.S. places the burden of financing an education on the student, and university tuition is more expensive than in many peer countries. As a result, students borrow money, and most graduate from medical school with a significant amount of debt. Because primary care generally comes with a lower salary, some new physicians may pursue a higher-paid specialty, even if they would rather work in primary care.

Additionally, the U.S. has only 0.15 psychiatrists per 1,000 residents, the lowest of all peer nations. Although the U.S. has a high number of specialist providers, only 6% are psychiatrists, compared to an average of 10% of specialists in other countries examined. Despite clear and increasing demand for mental health treatment, psychiatry remains one of the lowest-paid physician specialties in the United States.

The outlook of health systems will be shaped by various factors, including political and policy changes, technological advancements, economic and demographic shifts, social factors, and unforeseen events–as the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated. Here are some issues to watch:

Health Outcomes: The United States was already performing worse than its peers across a wide range of health outcomes, but the COVID pandemic widened the gap, and it is not yet clear whether life expectancy and other measures will recover as quickly in the U.S. as in peer nations. In addition to the pandemic recovery, both the U.S. and peer countries face the challenge of aging populations and increases in chronic conditions, leading to increased demand for health care services and long-term care.

Access to Care: Unlike the U.S., other large and wealthy nations have long achieved universal or near-universal health coverage and offer more robust access to care. While the U.S. recently reached a record-high insurance coverage rate, the tax and spending legislation signed by President Trump includes the biggest reduction ever in federal spending on Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces—changes that are projected to increase the number of people uninsured by millions in the coming years. Moreover, even those with insurance in the U.S. often face high out-of-pocket costs, leading many to forgo needed care or incur medical debt.

Quality of Care: The adoption of new technologies will shape care delivery in both the United States and in other countries. Electronic health records, telemedicine, artificial intelligence, and other digital health tools are becoming more prevalent globally. However, many digital health tools are new, untested, and have unknown implications for quality of care.

Health Spending: Most peer nations place a strong emphasis on cost containment and efficiency and achieve this through regulation of and negotiation with health providers. In the U.S., by contrast, the federal and state governments less directly control commercial health insurance prices. However, with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, Medicare has negotiated drug prices for a selection of high cost drugs. There will likely be ongoing debate about further actions the federal government can take to lower drug prices, as well as taking other steps to restrain prices of health care generally.

Health Costs:

• How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
• How do healthcare prices and use in the U.S. compare to other countries? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
• What drives health spending in the U.S. compared to other countries – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
• How do prices of drugs for weight loss in the U.S. compare to peer nations’ prices? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
• How do prescription drug costs in the United States compare to other countries? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker

Health Outcomes:

• How does U.S. life expectancy compare to other countries? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker

• Premature mortality during COVID-19 in the U.S. and peer countries – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
• What do we know about social determinants of health in the U.S. and comparable countries? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker

Access and Quality of Care

• How does the quality of the U.S. health system compare to other countries? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
• How do U.S. healthcare resources compare to other countries? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
• Percent of adults who made a same-day or next day appointment when needed care

Wager, E. & Cox, C., International Comparison of Health Systems. In Altman, Drew (Editor), Health Policy 101, (KFF, October 2025) https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-international-comparison-of-health-systems/ (date accessed). 

Health and health care disparities refer to preventable differences in health and health care among groups that stem from broader social and economic factors. Despite the recognition of disparities for decades and overall improvements in population health over time, many disparities persist, and in some cases, have widened over time. Disparities limit the overall health of the nation and result in unnecessary costs. This chapter provides an overview of what health and health care disparities are, the factors that drive them, the status of racial and ethnic health and health care disparities today, how recent federal actions may impact disparities, and future considerations. The information and data included in this chapter are current as of July 2025.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and racial reckoning following the murders of George Floyd and others, the federal government as well as many states and private entities increased efforts focused on addressing health disparities. Since taking office, the Trump administration has taken a range of actions to eliminate federal diversity and disparities-related initiatives, restructured and eliminated federal staff and offices that played key roles in identifying and addressing disparities, and implemented policies focused on restricting immigration and increasing interior enforcement to support mass deportation of immigrants. Moreover, the 2025 federal budget reconciliation law makes large cutbacks to federal spending for Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) provisions. These actions will likely lead to widening disparities in health and health care going forward.

Health and health care disparities refer to preventable differences in health and health care among groups that stem from broader social and economic factors. There are multiple definitions of health disparities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines health disparities as “preventable differences that populations experience in the burden of disease, injury, violence, or opportunities.” A health care disparity typically refers to differences between groups in health insurance coverage, affordability, access to and use of care, and quality of care. The terms “health inequality” and “inequity” also are used to describe differences that stem from systemic and unjust or inequitable social and economic policies. Racism, which the CDC previously defined as a system that includes structural, institutional, interpersonal, and internalized racism that assigns value and determine opportunities based on the way people look or the color of their skin, results in conditions that unfairly advantage some and disadvantage others. Racism and discrimination at all levels, intentional or not, contribute to differences in experiences across many aspects of everyday life as well as in health care settings, which can negatively impact people’s health and well-being.

Reflecting the intersectional nature of people’s identities, some individuals experience disparities across multiple dimensions beyond race and ethnicity such as citizenship, sexual orientation and gender identity, and disability status.  Disparities also occur within subgroups of broader racial and ethnic groups, such as gender, ethnic identity, immigration status, and English proficiency. For example, a KFF survey shows that Black women report more pervasive negative experiences in health care settings compared to other groups. These groups are not mutually exclusive and often intersect in meaningful ways.  The Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999, which established an Office of Priority Populations within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) identifies designated priority populations, including “low-income populations, racial/ethnic minorities, maternal health, women, children/adolescents, elderly, and individuals with special health care needs.” The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, established under the Minority Health and Health Disparities Research and Education Act also has designated populations with health disparities, including “racial and/or ethnic minority populations, low socioeconomic status, underserved rural populations, people with disabilities, and sexual minority groups.”

Health equity generally refers to individuals achieving their highest level of health through the elimination of disparities in health and health care. The CDC describes health equity as when everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible. The World Health Organization (WHO) states that “health equity is achieved when everyone can attain their full potential for health and well-being.” The WHO defines equity as the absence of unfair and avoidable differences among groups, regardless of their identity, where they live, and other social and economic factors. The terms health equity and equality both refer to efforts to achieve better health outcomes and access to health care services for all groups. While health equality refers to providing all people with the same resources and opportunities, it does not account for people’s different underlying needs or circumstances that may affect their ability to achieve optimal health outcomes and health care access.

The U.S. has a long history of policies and events that have resulted in stark differences in access to resources, opportunities, and power that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in health today. Dating back to slavery and colonization of the Americas, people of color have been subject to abuse and mistreatment, including medical exploitation and experimentation, family separation, and efforts to eliminate cultural practices and languages. Historical discriminatory policies, such as redlining, have lasting effects today, leading to residential segregation of Black and Hispanic people into urban neighborhoods with more limited resources and increased health risks, including climate-related risks. Within medicine, disproven beliefs about biological differences by race persist today and have led to race permeating clinical decision making and treatment in multiple ways, including through providers’ attitudes and implicit biases, disease stereotyping and clinical nomenclature, and its use in clinical algorithms, tools, and treatment guidelines. Similarly, historical anti-immigrant policies have excluded and discriminated against certain groups, contributing to “othering” and “perpetual foreigner” stereotypes, particularly among Asian immigrants, with a resurgence in anti-Asian rhetoric amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Policies, such as the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, have restricted access to public assistance programs, including health coverage, contributing to persistent disparities in health coverage and care for immigrants today, who are disproportionately Hispanic or Asian.

Underlying inequities in social and economic factors that reflect historical and contemporary policies drive racial and ethnic disparities in health (Figure 1). Though health care is essential to health, studies suggest that social and economic factors, often referred to as  social determinants of health, are the primary drivers of health outcomes. These include factors such as access to housing, food, and economic and educational opportunities. Hispanic, Black, AIAN, and NHPI people fare worse compared to White people across many social and economic factors. Experiences for Asian people are mixed, although some subgroups of Asian people fare worse compared to White people. Asian immigrants face certain additional challenges.

Experiences with unfair treatment and discrimination negatively impact health and well-being. Despite growing calls to address racism in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the accompanying racial reckoning, many adults continue to experience unfair treatment and discrimination in their daily lives and in health care settings. A 2023 KFF survey finds that at least half of AIAN (58%), Black (54%), Hispanic adults (50%), and about 4 in 10 Asian adults (42%) say they experienced at least one type of discrimination in daily life in the past year. These experiences include receiving poorer service than others at restaurants or stores; people acting as if they are afraid of them or as if they aren’t smart; being threatened or harassed; or being criticized for speaking a language other than English. Consistent with other research, which shows that racism has negative effects on mental health and results in certain negative physical health outcomes, among those with discrimination experiences, 4 in 10 (40%) say they “always” or “often” felt anxious in the past year, compared to 14% of adults who rarely or never experience such discrimination (Figure 2). Similarly, those with experiences of discrimination in their daily life are more than three times as likely as others to say they always or often felt lonely (26% vs. 7%) or depressed (25% vs. 7%) in the past year.

Racism and discrimination also negatively affect people’s health care experiences. KFF survey data also show that Black, Hispanic, AIAN, and Asian adults report higher levels of unfair treatment when seeking health care than their White counterparts and are more likely to report having certain negative experiences with a health care provider because of their race and ethnicity (Figure 3). About a quarter of adults who experienced unfair treatment, a negative experience with a provider, or a language access challenge say it led to worse health, being less likely to seek care, and/or switching providers. Similarly, as of 2023, one in four (25%) immigrant adults said that they were treated unfairly by a health care provider in the U.S., including nearly four in ten (38%) Black immigrant adults.

Addressing disparities in health and health care is important not only from an equity standpoint but also for improving the nation’s overall health and economic prosperity. Racial and ethnic health and health care disparities result in higher rates of illness and death across a wide range of health conditions, limiting the overall health of the nation. Research further finds that health disparities are costly, resulting in excess medical care costs and lost productivity, as well as additional economic losses due to premature deaths each year.

It is increasingly important to address health disparities as the population becomes more diverse and stark income inequalities persist (Figure 4). The population has become increasingly racially diverse, reflecting shifting immigration patterns, a growing multiracial population, as well as adjustments to how the U.S. Census Bureau measures race and ethnicity. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that people of color will account for over half (52%) of the population in 2050, with the largest growth occurring among people who identify as Asian or Hispanic. Income inequality within the U.S. has also widened over time. As of 2023, the top 10% of households in the U.S. had incomes above $216,000 compared with incomes at or below $17,100 among the lowest 10% of households.

Major recognition of health disparities began nearly four decades ago. In 1985, the Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Black and Minority Health (commonly known as the Heckler Report) documented persistent health disparities that accounted for 60,000 excess deaths each year and synthesized ways to advance health equity. The Heckler Report led to the creation of the Office of Minority Health within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (which was reportedly shut down by the Trump administration as part of the HHS staff restructuring and reductions) and influenced federal recognition of and investment in many aspects of health equity. In 2003, the Institute of Medicine’s Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care report was issued, which identified systemic racism as a major cause of health disparities in the United States.

Despite the recognition and documentation of disparities for decades and overall improvements in population health over time, many disparities persist, and in some cases, have widened over time .Analysis across a broad range of health measures finds that Black and AIAN people fare worse than their White counterparts across half or more of these measures. Data for Hispanic people are more mixed relative to White people, with them faring better on some measures but worse on others. In the aggregate, Asian people fare the same or better than White people on many measures of health, although this finding masks disparities among subgroups of the population. Data gaps limit the ability to examine disparities among NHPI people; where data are available, they point to disparities, particularly for certain subgroups of this population. Overall, Black, Hispanic, and AIAN people fare worse compared to White people across many measures of health outcomes including:

• AIAN and Black people had a shorter life expectancy at birth compared to White people based on provisional data from 2022. Life expectancy for Black people was about five years shorter than White people (72.8 vs. 77.5), and nearly ten years shorter for AIAN people (67.9).
• AIAN, Hispanic, and Black people experienced larger declines in life expectancy than White people between 2019 and 2021, largely reflecting an increase in excess deaths due to COVID-19.
• NHPI people had the highest age adjusted mortality rates for diabetes among all racial and ethnic groups at 49.6 per 100,000 deaths. The age-adjusted mortality rates for diabetes for AIAN (41.5 per 100,000) and Black people (39.1 per 100,000) were about twice as high as the rate for White people (19.8 per 100,000); Hispanic people (26.5 per 100,000) also had a higher diabetes death rate compared to White people in 2023. Although Black people did not have higher cancer incidence rates than White people overall and across most types of cancer, they had the highest overall cancer-related mortality rate as of 2022. Black people (165 per 100,000 deaths) were more likely to die from cancer than White people (148.4 per 100,000), and NHPI people had a slightly lower overall cancer-related mortality rate (141.4) to White people in 2022.
• Black infants were more than two times as likely to die as White infants (10.9 vs. 4.5 per 1,000 live births) as of 2023. AIAN infants (9.1 per 1,000) were roughly twice as likely to die as White infants (Figure 5). Hispanic infants (4.9 per 1,000) also had a slightly higher mortality rate than White infants in 2023.
• AIAN (118.7 per 100,000), NHPI (111.7 per 100,000), and Black (69.3 per 100,000) women also had the highest rates of pregnancy-related mortality in 2021

There are also ongoing racial and ethnic disparities in health coverage and access to care.  Despite large gains in coverage across groups since the ACA coverage expansions were implemented in 2014, as of 2022, nonelderly AIAN, Hispanic, Black, and NHPI people were more likely to be uninsured compared to their White counterparts (Figure 6). There are also large coverage disparities by immigration status, with a 2023 KFF/LA Times Survey of Immigrants showing that about one in five (18%) lawfully present immigrant adults and half (50%) of likely undocumented immigrant adults reported being uninsured as compared to less than one in ten citizens. In addition, Hispanic, Black, Asian, AIAN, and NHPI adults are more likely than White adults to report not having a personal health care provider, and Hispanic, Black, AIAN, and NHPI adults are more likely than White adults to report not seeing a doctor in the past 12 months because of cost.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and racial reckoning following the murders of George Floyd and others, the federal government as well as many states and private entities increased efforts focused on addressing health disparities. This increased focus led to the development of programs and initiatives focused on mitigating disparities, including efforts to address disparities in maternal and infant health, cancer, and chronic disease, as well as other efforts, such as increasing diversity in clinical trials for development of new drugs and devices. Research efforts also increased to understand disparities, the factors driving them, and effective interventions to mitigate them.

The Biden administration issued a series of executive orders and other efforts to advance health equity.  These included orders that outlined equity as a priority for the federal government, equity as a central part of the pandemic response and recovery efforts, and also directed federal agencies to develop Equity Action Plans. HHS’ equity action plan outlined a series of strategies that included efforts to improve access and address barriers to quality and affordable health care; prioritize behavioral health for underserved populations; and improve maternal health outcomes for rural, Tribal, and underserved racial and ethnic groups. HHS also enacted its climate action plan, including establishing the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity to address the impacts of climate change on health outcomes and health equity.  The administration released a Blueprint for Addressing the Maternal Health Crisis, a whole government approach to combatting maternal mortality and morbidity with a focus on reducing disparities in maternal health outcomes and improving overall pregnancy, birth, and postpartum outcomes. Federal efforts were also made to increase the availability of disaggregated data for smaller population groups, including AIAN and NHPI people, to understand and address the health and heath care disparities they face. During his term, President Biden reversed public charge regulations from the Trump administration’s first term to reduce fears about participating in programs, including Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

As one of his first actions in office, President Trump signed executive orders revoking federal diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) related programs and actions in the federal government and among federal contractors and grantees.  In implementing President Trump’s executive orders, the administration has taken significantly broader actions beyond eliminating DEI programs to eliminate priorities, actions, information, data, and funding related to concepts of diversity or disparities among federal agencies as well as federal contractors and grantees.The Office of Personnel Management directed agencies and departments to take down all outward facing media that “inculcate or promote” “gender ideology,” as well as to remove all public facing DEI related websites and content. This resulted in the temporary shutdown of websites and removal of key health datasets. While some web pages and datasets began returning in several days, they included a warning message that they were being modified to comply with President Trump’s executive orders and some materials, such as codebooks and questionnaires, did not immediately return. The administration also directed departments and agencies to pause grants provided to federal contractors to identify and review programs and activities for consistency with the President’s policies. Reports indicate that the administration flagged over 100 words that federal agencies should limit or avoid to comply with the President’s policies, including disparities, diversity, equity, and race; that the CDC ordered the withdrawal of papers pending publication to ensure language compliance; and that research grants were terminated to comply with new restrictions. As part of efforts to eliminate diversity and disparities related initiatives the administration also eliminated environmental justice actions and programs

The administration also eliminated about 10,000 employees from HHS, including many of those focused on addressing disparities as part of a restructuring effort. The HHS Office of Minority Health, CDC’s Office of Health Equity, the Office of Women’s Health, and the Office for Civil Rights are among the offices facing partial or complete cuts. The impact of these cuts is compounded by the loss of population-specific initiatives and offices. The administration’s proposed budget cuts to the Indian Health Services (IHS) and HHS include $900 million in cuts to the IHS budget and eliminating advanced appropriations.  In addition to eliminating staff directly working on disparities, other cuts were made that will have important implications for disparities. The restructuring cut jobs from the CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, which has resulted in the termination of programs focused on diabetes, obesity, dementia, and kidney disease, which disproportionately affect people of color. The HHS restructuring has also impacted federal maternal and infant health programs, including layoffs of most staff at the CDC’s Division of Reproductive Health, which serves to provide data, research, and assistance to states “on issues related to reproductive health, maternal health, and infant health.” These staff cuts are accompanied by the suspension of the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, which has documented disparities in maternal mortality and morbidity for 38 years.

The actions to eliminate diversity and disparities related initiatives will likely lead to widening disparities, reversing recent efforts to advance health equity. Elimination of focused efforts to address health disparities will potentially further exacerbate disparities, contributing to worsening overall health and unnecessary health care costs. Focused plans and initiatives to mitigate health disparities seek to address the underlying inequities that drive disparities and meet the needs and preferences of diverse populations. In the absence of focused efforts, disparities will likely widen because the underlying inequities that contribute to them persist. Additionally, the elimination of information, data, and research will inhibit the ability to identify disparities and understand the factors driving them. Data are essential for identifying where disparities exist, directing efforts and resources to address disparities as they are identified, measuring progress toward achieving greater equity, and establishing accountability for achieving progress. Without adequate data and research, disparities may remain unseen and unaddressed.

The Trump administration has also made immigration policy changes focused on restricting entry at the border and increasing interior enforcement efforts to support mass deportation, which may contribute to widening disparities among immigrant families. Research suggests that these policies negatively affect the health and well-being of immigrant families, including citizen children living in these families. KFF survey data from 2025 show that immigrants’ worries about detention or deportation have risen sharply since 2023, even among lawfully present immigrants and naturalized citizens, and many say these worries are affecting their health. Moreover, accompanying KFF focus groups  found that immigration policies and actions undertaken by the Trump administration have led to increased fears, uncertainty, and financial hardships among immigrant families across immigration statuses that have had negative effects on their daily lives, health, and well-being, including negative mental health impacts on them and their children. Efforts to restrict immigration not only impact the health and well-being of immigrant families, but can also negatively impact the U.S. economy and workforce, given the role immigrants play, particularly in certain industries such as health care, construction, and agriculture.

Under the recently passed budget reconciliation law there are large cuts to federal spending for Medicaid and the ACA, which will likely lead to widening racial and ethnic disparities in health coverage and, in turn, exacerbate disparities in access to care. Medicaid is a major source of coverage for people of color, helping to fill gaps in employer sponsored coverage, particularly for children (Figure 7). The ACA’s coverage expansions through Medicaid and the Marketplaces contributed to large gains in health coverage across racial and ethnic groups and reduced racial disparities in coverage. The law includes substantial cuts to federal Medicaid spending and changes to the ACA, which the Congressional Budget Office projects will increase the number of uninsured by about 10 million by 2034. The law includes provisions that eliminate eligibility for Medicaid, subsidized ACA Marketplace, and Medicare coverage for many lawfully present immigrants. In addition to reductions in the legislation, the scheduled expiration of tax credits for Marketplace coverage in 2025 and recent Trump administration regulatory changes that make it harder to sign up for ACA coverage are expected to further increase the growth in the uninsured by millions.  Coverage losses, particularly in Medicaid, would widen racial and ethnic disparities in coverage given that larger shares of people of color are covered by the program. In turn, widening disparities in coverage would likely contribute to gaps in access to care and ultimately health outcomes.

Looking to the future, racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care remain a persistent problem, particularly as longstanding efforts to recognize and address them are being dismantled. These disparities are rooted in the ongoing impacts of racism and discrimination, which contribute to structural inequities in access to resources, opportunities, and health care as well as bias within health systems and daily life. As efforts to advance health equity face increasing challenges some key issues include:

How to mitigate bias and disparate treatment in the medical system, amid the growing use of AI and data-driven tools in health care and perpetuation of disproven beliefs about biologic differences by race.

How rollbacks to federal disparities initiatives and DEI programs will impact long term efforts to address disparities in health.

How to close racial and ethnic gaps and prevent further widening of disparities in health coverage and access to care amid efforts to cut Medicaid and other public programs.

What data and research will remain available to identify and understand disparities and develop interventions to address them.

How uneven impacts of climate change and climate-related health risks may impact disparities amid the rollbacks of federal environmental justice efforts.

• Survey on Racism, Discrimination and Health: Experiences and Impacts Across Racial and Ethnic Groups
• Health and Health Care Experiences of Immigrants: The 2023 KFF/LA Times Survey of Immigrants
• Disparities in Health and Health Care: 5 Key Questions and Answers
• Key Data on Health and Health Care by Race and Ethnicity
• Health Coverage by Race and Ethnicity, 2010-2022
• What is Driving Widening Racial Disparities in Life Expectancy?
• Racial Disparities in Maternal and Infant Health: Current Status and Efforts to Address Them
• Key Facts on Health Coverage of Immigrants
• Climate Change and Health Equity: Key Questions and Answers
• Medicaid and Racial Health Equity
• How History Has Shaped Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities: A Timeline of Policies and Events

Ndugga, N., Pillai, D., Hill, L., & Artiga, S., Race, Inequality, and Health. In Altman, Drew (Editor), Health Policy 101, (KFF, October 2025) https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-race-inequality-and-health/ (date accessed).

Health care is a central element of women’s lives, shaping their ability to care for themselves and their families, to be productive members of their communities, to contribute to the workforce, and to build a base of economic security. Women’s reproductive health care needs, their central roles managing family health as parents and as family caregivers, and their longer lifespans, albeit with greater rates of chronic health problems and functional limitations than men, all shape their relationships with the health care system. While women are major consumers of health care services and play a central role as health navigators and caregivers for their families, structural factors can challenge their ability to get the health care they need. Factors, including national and state policies that shape the health care delivery system to research priorities and discriminatory economic and societal forces, can deprioritize women’s health concerns. Access challenges are greater for women who are in low-income households, who face structural and societal racism and discrimination, who struggle with complex or understudied medical conditions, or who live in states or communities that have enacted or invested in policies and programs that do not support their health needs.

In the United States, the women’s health movement gained significant traction in the 1960s and 1970s as part of a larger grassroots women’s rights movement that challenged long-standing inequities and discrimination that limited women’s economic and social opportunities. The book, “Our Bodies, Ourselves,” brought a wide range of women’s health concerns, ranging from abortion and sexuality to menopause and cancer, into the mainstream. Over time, federal action also began to address many of the long-standing discriminatory sex and gender-based policies that were baked into our employment, health, and research policies. The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade decriminalized and protected the right to abortion care for nearly 50 years; the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 offered workplace and insurance protections to pregnant workers; the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993 mandated the inclusion of women in clinical research and formally established the NIH Office of Women’s Health; and in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) banned many of the discriminatory practices that had shaped women’s coverage of and access to care. While many of these policy changes have resulted in improvements and advances in women’s health, including access and coverage, the advances have not been linear.  In 2022, the Supreme Court, with a conservative supermajority, struck down the right to abortion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, resulting in the outright banning of abortion in many states. Despite advances in women’s health research, many gaps remain and the Trump Administration has targeted and blocked federal funding that focuses on gender, a pillar of women’s health research.     

This primer focuses on some of the key areas disproportionately affecting women today that are shaped by national and state health policies. This includes health coverage and costs, reproductive health services, maternal health, mental health, and intimate partner violence. In addition, it highlights some of the structural factors and inequities that still impact women’s health, particularly women of color and gender-expansive individuals such as those who are transgender or non-binary or otherwise gender fluid or non-conforming who are at risk of being marginalized or discriminated against by their health coverage or providers. We note that while we refer to “women” and “women’s health” throughout this chapter, some persons assigned female sex at birth do not identify as women, such as transgender men, non-binary individuals, and otherwise gender-expansive individuals. Still, many of the issues discussed in this chapter also apply to them.

More than 128 million adult women over the age of 19 live in the U.S. today, with great diversity in many demographic characteristics. A third of adult women are between the ages of 35-54 (33%) and the majority are White (60%) (Figure 1). Nearly 1 in 5 (17%) women are Hispanic, 12% are Black and 6% are Asian.

Almost two-thirds (65%) of women live in a household with at least one full-time worker, while 1 in 10 (9%) live in a household with only part-time workers, and 25% of women live in households with no workers (data not shown). Given the important role of employment in shaping health coverage, workforce participation is a significant determinant of the type of health insurance that working women or women who live in households with full-time workers can obtain.

While most women in the U.S. report having good health, nearly 1 in 5 (18%) women 18 and older rate their health as “fair” or “poor” and 14% report having a disability such as difficulty with vision, hearing, or walking. As women age, they are more likely to experience chronic health problems and declines in health status. These factors are highly predictive of their need for and use of health care services.

Income also plays a major role in health coverage and access to care. Income affects the resources that women have to pay for out-of-pocket health care costs and contribute to premium costs. Income also determines women’s eligibility for programs such as Medicaid or subsidies to secure coverage through the ACA Marketplace. Almost three in 10 (28%) adult women are part of households with low incomes (family income below 200% of the FPL was $49,720 for a family of three in 2023). Almost 4 in 10 (36%) women have completed a bachelor’s degree or higher, almost a third (27%) have a child under the age of 19 living at home, and 92% are U.S. citizens. Nearly 4 in 10 women live in the South (39%), almost a quarter (23%) live in the West, a fifth (20%) live in the Midwest, and 17% live in the Northeast (Figure 2).

While most adult women have some form of either private or public health insurance, the coverage profile for those who are under and over age 65 differs considerably. For those who are under age 65, employer-sponsored coverage, individually purchased policies, and Medicaid—the state-federal program for people with low incomes—comprise the majority of coverage options. However, nearly 1 in 10 women in that age group are currently uninsured. Among women 65 years and older, the Medicare program plays a critical role covering nearly all seniors in the U.S., though often with considerable coverage gaps (such as hearing, vision and long-term services and supports) and cost-sharing burdens.

Employer-Sponsored Insurance

Approximately 58.3 million women aged 19-64 (60%) received their health coverage from employer-sponsored insurance in 2023 (Figure 3). Women in families with at least one full-time worker are more likely to have job-based coverage (70%) than women in families with only part-time workers (33%) or without any workers (17%).

Employer-sponsored insurance can come with substantial out-of-pocket costs based on premiums, deductibles, co-insurance, and co-payment levels. In 2023, annual insurance premiums for employer-sponsored insurance averaged $8,435 for individuals and $23,968 for families. On average, workers paid 17% of premiums for individual coverage and 29% for family coverage with the employers picking up the balance.

Non-Group Insurance

In 2023, about 9% of women ages 19 to 64 (approximately 8.4 million women) and 8% of their male counterparts purchased insurance in the non-group market. This includes individuals who purchased private policies from state-based Marketplaces established under the ACA, as well as those who purchased coverage from private insurers that operate outside of the ACA Marketplaces.

Most individuals who seek insurance policies in their state’s Marketplace qualify for assistance with the coverage costs. Individuals with incomes below $58,320 (400% of the Federal Poverty Level in 2023) can receive federal tax credits which lower premium costs. The American Rescue Act (ARPA) of 2021, and subsequently the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, have provided a temporary extension of Marketplace subsidies to people with higher income levels and led to record high enrollments in the ACA marketplace. These subsidies are set to expire at the end of 2025 and if they are not renewed, it would lead to a steep increase in insurance premium payments for ACA Marketplace enrollees. 

The ACA set new standards for all individually purchased plans and eliminated many historically discriminatory practices that affected disadvantaged women in particular. Today, plans are prohibited from charging women higher premiums than men for the same level of coverage (gender rating) or from disqualifying women from coverage because they had certain pre-existing medical conditions, including pregnancy. All direct purchase plans must also cover certain “essential health benefits” (EHBs) that fall under 10 different categories, including maternity and newborn care, mental health, and a wide range of preventive health care services. Prior to the ACA, many individual plans excluded maternity care benefits or required policyholders to purchase costly riders to obtain maternity coverage.

Medicaid

Medicaid, the state-federal program for individuals with low incomes, covered 19% of adult women ages 19 to 64 in 2023, compared to 14% of men. Historically, to qualify for Medicaid, women had to have very low incomes and be in one of Medicaid’s eligibility categories: pregnant, mothers of children 18 and younger, a person with a disability, or over 65. Women who didn’t fall into these categories typically were not eligible regardless of how low their incomes were. The ACA allowed states to broaden Medicaid eligibility to most individuals with incomes less than 138% of the FPL regardless of their family or disability status, effective January 2014. As of April 2025, 40 states and Washington, D.C. have expanded their Medicaid programs under the ACA, but 10 states have not and still base eligibility on historical categorical and income standards. For example, in Mississippi, the Medicaid income eligibility for parents is 28% of the FPL, which was approximately $6,900 for a family of three in 2023. Therefore, parents in families of three in Mississippi with incomes above this amount do not qualify for Medicaid because their income exceeds the state’s eligibility level.

Medicaid covers the poorest segment of women in the U.S. Forty-four percent of women with incomes below 200% of the FPL and 52% of women with incomes below 100% of the FPL have Medicaid coverage.By federal law, all states must provide Medicaid coverage to pregnant women with incomes up to 133% of the FPL through 60 days postpartum. However, in recent years, there has been a growing interest in expanding the length of the postpartum coverage period and, as of April 2025, nearly all states have taken steps to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage to one year.

Medicaid covers many health services that are essential for women. Medicaid financed 41% of births in the U.S. in 2022 and accounts for 75% of all publicly-funded family planning services. State Medicaid programs are prohibited from charging any cost-sharing for pregnancy-related care or family planning services. Over half of states have established programs that use Medicaid funds to cover the costs of family planning services for women with low incomes who remain uninsured, and most states have limited scope Medicaid programs to pay for breast and cervical cancer treatment for certain uninsured women with low incomes. Conversely, coverage for abortion is very limited under Medicaid as a result of the Hyde Amendment, a rider to federal appropriations that bans any federal funds from being used to pay for abortions unless the pregnancy is determined to be a result of rape or incest or poses a threat to the pregnant person’s life (more on abortion in the following section).

Uninsured Women

In 2023, approximately 10% of non-elderly women (9.3 million) were uninsured. This rate is slightly lower than that of men (13%) because, on average, women have lower incomes and have been more likely to qualify for Medicaid than men under one of Medicaid’s eligibility categories: pregnant, parent of children under 18, disability, or over 65. The ACA opened the door for states to eliminate the categorical requirements, but the gender gap in the insured rates between men and women persists.

The disadvantage uninsured individuals experience in accessing care and health outcomes is well established. Compared to women with insurance, those who are uninsured have lower use of important preventive services such as mammograms, Pap tests, and timely blood pressure checks. They are also less likely to report having a regular doctor, which is associated with better access to care and higher rates of use of recommended preventive services.

Women with lower incomes, women of color, and non-citizen women are at greater risk of being uninsured (Figure 4). One in 5 Hispanic (20%) and American Indian and Alaska Native (19%) women and 17% of women with incomes under 200% of the FPL are uninsured. A higher share of single mothers are uninsured (10%) than women in two-parent households (7%) (data not shown). Most uninsured women live in a household where someone is working; 69% are in families with at least one adult working full-time; and 82% are in families with at least one part-time or full-time worker (data not shown).

Many women who are uninsured are eligible for financial assistance with the costs of coverage. A fifth of uninsured women (20%) are eligible for Medicaid coverage but are not enrolled in the program (Figure 5). Over a third of uninsured women (36%), about 3.3 million women, qualify for subsidies to cover the premium costs and some of the out-of-pocket costs of Marketplace plans but may not be aware of coverage options or may face barriers to enrollment. However, 7% of uninsured women live in states that have not adopted the ACA Medicaid expansion and fall into a “coverage gap” because their incomes are above the thresholds to qualify for Medicaid but below the levels to qualify for Marketplace tax credits (below 100% of the FPL). Another 1 in 3 (37%) uninsured women are not eligible for any assistance with health coverage due to their immigration status, their income, or because they have an offer of coverage from their employer.

There is considerable state-level variation in uninsured rates across the nation, ranging from 20% of women in Texas to 3% of women in Washington D.C., Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Vermont (Figure 6). Of the 16 states with uninsured rates above the national average (10%), eight have not adopted the ACA Medicaid expansion.

Medicare

Medicare is the federal program that provides health coverage to virtually all people ages 65 and older as well as younger people with long-term disabilities. In 2020, Medicare covered 35 million women, including nearly 31 million ages 65 and older, and over 4 million under age 65 with long-term disabilities.

More than half (55%) of all Medicare beneficiaries are women and 45% are men. The population of women covered by Medicare is diverse, with varying social, economic, and health circumstances. Women live longer than men on average (80 years vs. 75 years life expectancy at birth in 2022), and many live with certain chronic illnesses, cognitive and mental impairments, and functional problems at higher rates than men. A higher share of older women than men also experience urinary incontinence, depression, osteoporosis, pulmonary disease, and Alzheimer’s/dementia. Medicare plays a key role in supporting the health and well-being of women, covering a broad range of essential services, including preventive, primary and specialty care, and prescription drugs. However, reflecting Medicare’s original role as a program to serve the medical needs of older adults, coverage of services for enrollees of reproductive age may be more limited. For example, there is no federal requirement for Medicare to cover all contraceptive services and supplies for the purpose of preventing pregnancy for younger Medicare enrollees with permanent disabilities.

Another gap in the Medicare program is the absence of coverage for long-term care services and supports (LTSS), such as nursing home stays and home care services, which many older adults need and seek but are expensive and unaffordable for some. Compared with men, women are more likely to require these services because they have more chronic conditions, have higher rates of physical and cognitive impairments, and are more likely to live alone. Medicare only covers time-limited LTSS after a hospitalization and does not cover ongoing LTSS for those with chronic conditions or functional impairments. Some older women can qualify for Medicaid for LTSS, but only if they have low incomes and, in some cases, must spend down most of their assets. Just a small share of seniors have private long-term care insurance to help cover some of the costs of LTSS. As a result, unless they have incomes low enough to qualify for Medicaid, many older people do not have any coverage for LTSS and rely on unpaid caregiving provided by family, friends, or neighbors. The majority of informal caregivers are women, who are most commonly caring for aging parents and spouses.

Women with Medicare also tend to have more modest incomes than men—a consequence of smaller lifetime savings, lower retirement income, and divorce and widowhood that result in only one income. While Medicare covers many necessary health care services, gaps in benefits, cost-sharing requirements, and spending on premiums for Medicare and supplemental coverage can translate into high out-of-pocket expenses for some people in the program. In 2020, 13% of women and 11% of men with Medicare reported that they had faced cost-related challenges in the past 12 months, such as trouble getting care due to cost or problems paying medical bills. These challenges are more common among female Medicare enrollees who are Black (22%) and Hispanic (18%), do not have a bachelor’s degree (15%), and those with annual incomes below $20,000 (20%).

The ACA set national standards for the scope of benefits offered in private plans. As mentioned earlier, many insurance plans had adopted practices that discriminated against women that were addressed in the ACA. In addition to the broad categories of essential health benefits (EHBs) offered by Marketplace plans, all privately purchased plans must cover maternity care, which had been historically excluded from most individually purchased plans requiring the purchase of an expensive rider for that benefit to be covered. In addition, most private plans must cover preventive services without co-payments or other cost sharing. This includes screenings for breast and cervical cancers, well-woman visits (including prenatal visits), prescribed contraceptives, breastfeeding supplies and supports such as breast pumps, and several services for sexually transmitted infections (STI). Higher shares of women with private and Medicaid coverage report having had recommended preventive services such as mammograms, Pap screenings or colonoscopies compared to those who were uninsured (Figure 7).

Affordability of coverage continues to be a significant concern for many women, both for those who are uninsured as well as those with coverage. The leading reason why uninsured adults report that they have not obtained coverage is that it is too expensive. Under employer-sponsored insurance, the major source of coverage for women, 61% of all covered workers with a general annual deductible have deductibles of at least $1,000 for single coverage. Despite having coverage, many insured women (31%) report that their plans did not always cover all of their needed care or paid less than they expected (Figure 8).

Reproductive Health

Pregnancy

Maternity Care

In 2023, there were approximately 3.6 million births in the U.S. Childbirth is the leading reason for hospitalization, and most private insurance plans and the Medicaid program are required to cover care associated with childbirth. Medicaid covers about 4 in 10 births nationally and, in some states, more than half. The Medicaid program prohibits plans from charging out-of-pocket charges for pregnancy-related care, and coverage lasts through one year postpartum in most, but not all, states. For people with private insurance, which finances just over half of  births (51%), the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employer plans to cover maternity care benefits. However, even for those with private insurance, a pregnancy often comes with significant out-of-pocket health expenses that can reach thousands of dollars. A KFF analysis estimated that women enrolled in large group plans pay around $3,000 out-of-pocket for costs associated with pregnancy, childbirth, and post-partum care. On average, Caesarean section births, which account for approximately one-third of births in the U.S., are significantly more expensive than vaginal deliveries. The ACA also requires individual plans to cover maternity care and bans plans from implementing restrictions on coverage of pre-existing health conditions, including pregnancy.

In recent years, there has been growing attention to pregnancy-related quality of care and maternal health. Maternal and infant mortality rates in the U.S. are far higher than those in similarly large and developed countries, and people of color are at a considerably higher risk for poor maternal and infant health outcomes compared to their White peers. Despite continued advancements in medical care, rates of maternal mortality and morbidity and preterm birth have been rising in the U.S., characterized by stark racial disparities. Notably, rates of pregnancy-related death (deaths within one year of pregnancy) among American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (NHPI) and Black women are over four to two times higher, respectively, compared to the rate for White women (118.7, 111.7, 69.3 and 24.3 per 100,000 live births, respectively) (Figure 9). The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has determined that many of these pregnancy-related deaths were preventable, caused by cardiac-related conditions, infection, hemorrhage, and mental health conditions, including substance use. Maternal death rates increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and racial disparities widened for Black women. Black, AIAN, and NHPI women also have higher shares of preterm births, low birthweight births, or births for which they received late or no prenatal care compared to White women. Infants born to Black, AIAN, and NHOPI people have markedly higher mortality rates than those born to White women.

The disparities in maternal and infant health are symptoms of broader underlying social and economic inequities that are rooted in racism and discrimination. Differences in health insurance coverage and access to care play a role, but notably, disparities in maternal and infant health persist even when controlling for certain underlying social and economic factors, such as education and income, pointing to the roles racism and discrimination play in driving disparities. Moreover, with the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the numerous states that have enacted abortion bans across the nation, increased barriers to abortion for people of color may widen the already existing large disparities in maternal and infant health.

There have been efforts at the policy level and in clinical circles to improve maternal health and address disparities. At the state and local levels, multidisciplinary maternal mortality review committees and perinatal quality collaboratives have focused on data collection and reviewing the causes behind pregnancy-related deaths in their communities to try to prevent deaths in the future.

Fertility Assistance

Many people require fertility assistance to have children. These services include diagnostic services, treatment services, and fertility preservation. People seek fertility assistance for several reasons, such as if they or their partner has infertility, or because they are in a same-sex relationship or are single and desire children. Both female and male factors contribute to infertility, including problems with ovulation (when the ovary releases an egg), structural problems with the uterus or fallopian tubes, problems with sperm quality or motility, and hormonal factors. About 25% of the time, infertility is caused by more than one factor, and in about 10% of cases, infertility is unexplained. Infertility estimates, however, do not account for LGBTQ+ or single individuals who may also need fertility assistance for family building. Thus, there are varied reasons that may prompt individuals to seek fertility care.

Despite a need for fertility services, fertility care in the U.S. is inaccessible to many due to the cost. Fertility treatments are expensive and often are not covered by insurance. While some private insurance plans cover diagnostic services, there is very little coverage for costly treatment services such as intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization, and cryopreservation.

Most people who use fertility services must pay out of pocket, with costs often reaching thousands of dollars depending on the services received. This means that in the absence of insurance coverage, fertility care is out of reach for many people. Few states require private insurance plans to cover fertility assistance services, but these only apply to a subset of insurance plans and beneficiaries. Additionally, even fewer states have any fertility coverage requirement under Medicaid, the health coverage program for people with low incomes. The Trump Administration has issued an executive order requesting policy recommendations to protect access and reduce the costs for IVF, but Congressional action is required to meaningfully expand options to cover IVF services for the vast majority of people.

Abortion

Nearly 1 in 4 women in the U.S. have an abortion in their lifetime. Starting with the 1973 landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, women in the U.S. had the right to abortion up until the point of viability, regardless of where they lived. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned the constitutional right to abortion as well as the federal standards of abortion access, established by prior decisions in the cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Dobbs decision allows states to set policies regarding the legality of abortions and establish gestational limits. Access to and availability of abortions vary widely between states, with large swaths of the country banning or restricting almost all abortions, with few exceptions, and some states enshrining and protecting abortion rights (Figure 10).

There are different types of abortion methods, broadly divided into procedures such as a dilation and evacuation (D&E) or dilation and curettage (D&C) and medication, which typically involves two pills – mifepristone and misoprostol. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that approximately two-thirds (63%) of all abortions are medication abortion, which can be provided by a clinician in person or by telehealth when the pills are mailed or dispensed at a retail pharmacy. Telehealth abortion care has grown in recent years, and now account for one in four abortions in the U.S.

Decades of research have shown that abortion is a very safe medical service. Still, despite its strong safety profile, abortion is the most highly regulated medical service in the country and is now banned or restricted to early gestational stages in many states. In addition to bans on abortion altogether, many states impose other limitations on abortion that are not medically indicated, including waiting periods, ultrasound requirements, and parental notification and consent requirements. These restrictions typically delay receipt of services and can increase costs associated with abortion care. As use of medication abortion has risen, some have tried to cast false doubt about the safety of the medications, despite the extensive body of research on the drug’s safety. There are multiple efforts to restrict use of the drug nationally, and two states have classified mifepristone as a controlled substance to limit its availability.

Obtaining an abortion can be costly, with median costs exceeding $500 in out-of-pocket expenses for patients who self-pay. On average, the costs are higher for abortions in the second trimester than in the first trimester. People may have to travel if abortions are prohibited or not available in their area, adding costs related to travel and lodging. Given abortion bans and Hyde Amendment restrictions on payment for abortions under Medicaid and state restrictions on insurance coverage of abortion services, many people pay for abortion services out of pocket. Some people are able to receive assistance from local abortion funds if they need financial support to obtain abortion services, particularly if they have to travel out of state or have low incomes and cannot afford the costs of the abortion. For some, however, the costs of abortion services and travel will put the service out of reach and force them to have a birth that is not desired or is a risk to their health or life.

Insurance coverage for abortion services is heavily restricted in some state-regulated private insurance plans and public programs, like Medicaid and Medicare. Private insurance covers most women of reproductive age, and states can choose whether abortion coverage is included or excluded in private plans that are not self-insured. Prior to the Dobbs ruling, about half of the states had enacted private plan restrictions and banned abortion coverage from ACA Marketplace plans. Since the Dobbs ruling, some of these states have also banned the provision of abortion services altogether. However, 12 states have enacted laws that require private plans to cover abortion, typically without cost-sharing.

The Hyde Amendment has banned the use of federal funds for abortion unless the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest, or it endangers the woman’s life. States may use non-federal state-only funds to pay for abortions under other circumstances for women covered by Medicaid, which 20 states currently do. However, more than half (56%) of women covered by Medicaid live in states where they have no coverage for abortion, unless they qualify for an exception.

The impact of the Dobbs decision goes far beyond abortion care. It has also affected the provision of related health care services, including management of miscarriages and pregnancy-related emergencies, treatments for cancer and other chronic illnesses, contraceptive options, and much more. Women with low incomes, women of color, sexual/gender minorities, and other pregnant people have been disproportionately affected by the sweeping impacts of this ruling, as they are less likely to have the resources to travel potentially long distances to seek care.

Since the Dobbs ruling, there has been a constant stream of legal challenges, with a plethora of cases that seek to challenge abortion bans as well as block access to abortion medication or services. The Supreme Court has considered two abortion related cases—one case involving the FDA’s approved conditions for using and dispensing mifepristone, one of the drugs used for medication abortion, as well as a case about potential conflict between state-level abortion bans and Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), the federal law that requires hospitals to provide care to stabilize patients experiencing medical emergencies, including emergency abortions that must be performed to save the life or preserve the health of the pregnant patient. Several other cases about abortion access are pending in lower courts.

Paradoxically, the most recent data show that the abortion volume in the U.S. slightly increased overall in the two years following the Dobbs ruling (Figure 11). In 2024, the national abortion volume averaged 95,200 abortions per month, higher than the monthly averages in 2023 and before the Dobbs decision. This overall increase can be largely attributed to broader availability of lower cost medication abortions through telehealth, virtual clinics, brick and mortar clinics, and shield laws, where clinicians in legal states mail pills to individuals residing in states with bans and restrictions. Additionally, in several states without bans, there has been increased interstate travel for abortion access, expanded capacity to see patients, increased measures to protect abortion rights and improve coverage of abortion care.

However, the small upswing nationally obscures the massive declines in abortion access to in-state providers in states with bans and restrictions as well as the hardships that many pregnant people experience in accessing abortion care. Additionally, there are month-to-month variations in all states, and changes in policy can cause larger shifts. For example, in May 2024 Florida implemented a ban on abortions after six weeks of gestation (previously permitted up to 15 weeks), and subsequently there was a noticeable decline in abortions in the state and nationally.

Contraception

Contraceptive care is an important component of overall health care for many women and people capable of becoming pregnant. Federal and state policies shape access to and the availability of contraceptive care, but factors such as provider characteristics, as well as individual preferences and experiences also impact contraceptive choices and use. For most people, private insurance coverage and Medicaid greatly reduce or eliminate financial barriers to contraceptive care. However, access is still limited in many parts of the U.S. with more than 19 million women living in contraceptive deserts where they may not have access to a health center offering the full range of contraceptive methods. There have been more efforts to broaden contraceptive availability outside of traditional clinical settings, including through commercial apps that use telehealth platforms, state efforts to allow pharmacists to prescribe birth control, and, most recently, over-the-counter (OTC) access to contraceptives without a traditional prescription.

The importance and impact of contraceptives in women’s lives are unquestionable. The 2024 KFF Women’s Health Survey highlighted that the majority of women ages 18 to 49 (82%) have used contraception in the past 12 months,  most commonly oral contraceptives and male condoms (Figure 12). The types of contraception women use shift over the course of their reproductive years. Forty-four percent of women ages 18 to 25 report having used oral contraceptives in the past 12 months compared to 19% of women ages 36 to 49. Conversely, higher shares of older women say they have had a sterilization procedure compared to younger women.

The ACA requires that most private plans cover contraceptive services for females without cost-sharing – this includes patient education and counseling and FDA-approved methods of contraception with a prescription. This provision has dramatically reduced cost-sharing for contraception among females with private insurance plans, though some privately insured females who are eligible for no-cost coverage are still paying some of the cost of their contraceptives (Figure 13). Reasons include someone using a brand-name contraceptive that is not in the plan’s formulary or consumers unaware of or not offered a generic alternative.

Despite its far-reaching impact, the ACA’s requirement for contraceptive coverage has been challenged in the courts on multiple occasions, with three cases reaching the Supreme Court. The earlier cases, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) and Zubik v. Burwell (2016), challenged the Obama Administration’s regulations implementing the contraceptive coverage requirement, contending that the requirement violated some employers’ religious rights. The most recent cases, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania (2020) and Trump v. Pennsylvania (2020), involved regulations issued by the Trump Administration, which currently exempt employers with religious objections from providing contraceptive coverage to their employees.

For people with lower incomes, the Medicaid program is the primary funding source for contraceptives. The federal Medicaid statute establishes minimum standards, and, for decades, has classified family planning as a mandatory benefit category that all state programs must cover. States may not charge any out-of-pocket costs for family planning services and must allow beneficiaries to see any Medicaid provider within their state for family planning care. Many states also have programs that provide Medicaid coverage just for family planning services to people who have lower incomes but do not qualify for full Medicaid benefits.

Additionally, the federal Title X family planning program, administered by the HHS Office of Population Affairs (OPA), is the only federal program specifically dedicated to supporting the delivery of family planning care for individuals who are uninsured and have lower incomes. The program provides funding to more than 4,000 health clinics, public health departments, and nonprofit agencies across the country to deliver contraceptives and other family planning services to individuals with low incomes. Title X-funded providers must follow the program’s requirements, which include offering a broad range of family planning methods for low or no cost and ensuring confidentiality for adolescents. Federal rules also require that participating clinics offer their patients non-directive pregnancy option counseling that includes abortion, adoption, and prenatal referral for those who seek those services. Over the last decade, there have been major changes to the Title X program based on shifting administrations’ priorities. During the first Trump Administration, the regulations were revised to disqualify clinics that had co-located abortion services and provided abortion referrals. Over 1,000 clinics were no longer eligible for Title X funds. The Biden Administration reversed the Trump Administration regulations and funding was restored to many of these clinics. The second Trump administration has been withholding funds from some of the program’s grantees, including all 9 Planned Parenthood grantees. Hundreds of Title X Clinics are affected, and some have reported that they are closing as a result . In addition, the President’s proposed budget calls for the elimination of the Title X program.  

While there have been numerous over-the-counter contraceptive methods available (e.g. condoms, spermicides), in July 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first over-the-counter daily oral contraceptive pill, known as Opill. FDA’s approval of Opill makes it the most effective form of contraception available OTC intended for regular use. Private insurers and Medicaid generally require a prescription to cover OTC products, so even though Opill and other OTC products are available without needing a prescription from a clinician, coverage without a prescription will be limited without federal or state action.

Mental Health

Mental health has emerged as a rapidly growing concern in recent years, with 90% of Americans saying there is a mental health crisis in a 2023 KFF-CNN poll. Women experience several mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders more frequently than men, and some also experience mental health disorders that are unique to women, such as perinatal depression (including prenatal and postpartum depression) and premenstrual dysphoric disorders that may occur when hormone levels change.

A KFF survey found that in 2024, a higher share of women (28%) than men (23%) describe their mental health as fair or poor (data not shown). Higher rates of women 18 to 25 (36%), those with incomes below 200% of the FPL (38%), those who identify as LGBT+ (45%), and those who identify as having a mental health-related disability (73%) report fair or poor emotional wellbeing. Roughly three in the ten women (29%) say they received mental health services from a mental health professional, however many experience challenges while trying to find care. Among women who received mental health care in the past 12 months, more than half (55%) say they experienced a barrier during their care seeking journey, including trouble finding a provider that was accepting new patients (25%), trouble finding a provider that accepted their  (21%), and trouble scheduling an appointment in a reasonable amount of time (24%).

Cost is a commonly reported barrier to mental health care. More than one in ten women 18 to 64 (13%) say they did not get mental health care or could not continue to afford the mental health care they were receiving because of cost (Figure 14). Insurance networks can be very narrow for mental health care, and a significant portion of mental health clinicians do not participate in insurance networks. These findings on cost barriers underscore the ongoing challenges with affordable mental health care, especially among women who are uninsured, but even for those with coverage.

The ongoing opioid epidemic is a commonly cited stressor that has exacerbated long-standing mental health issues and prompted growing demand for mental health services in the past several years. Women face unique gender and sex-related differences when it comes to substance use, including greater physical, psychological, and social harms associated with drug use. Use of certain substances in women has been linked to increased rates of depression and anxiety disorders. Studies have also shown that women who use substances are at risk for issues related to pregnancy, fertility, breastfeeding, menstrual cycle, and more. All of these factors also shape the availability of treatment and services accessible to women.

Intimate Partner Violence Against Women

Intimate partner violence (IPV), defined as sexual violence, stalking, physical violence, and psychological aggression perpetrated by a current or former intimate partner, affects nearly a third of all Americans at some point in their lives. Although IPV affects men and women of all ages, women experience IPV at higher rates. Rates are higher among some groups of women, particularly those who are young, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and LGBTQ. People who experience IPV are more likely to experience a range of health problems such as chronic pain, cardiovascular problems, and neurological problems. Both the CDC and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) have identified IPV as a significant public health issue in the U.S.

It is difficult to quantify the number of people who experience IPV, as many cases are not reported. Some studies have estimated 6.5 million women in the U.S. experience sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in a single year. According to the 2024 KFF Women’s Health Survey, one in five women report experiencing some form of IPV in the past five years (19%), including instances where a current or former partner made them fear for their safety (11%), tried to control most of all of their daily activities (11%), physically hurt them (9%), or forced them into any type of unwanted sexual activity (9%) (Figure 15).

Several federal programs and laws fund health care services and supports to survivors of IPV. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has a broad scope, covering domestic violence, sexual harassment, stalking, and sexual assault. VAWA provides grants to states, local governments, and other organizations to establish their own violence-related programs and protocols. While some of the focus of VAWA and other public policies is prosecution of those who commit violence, provisions in VAWA also address health care coverage and costs for people who have experienced IPV.

It is well recognized that the health care system can serve as a site of IPV screening and support, and some professional medical organizations recommend that clinicians screen women for IPV. Under the ACA, IPV screening is considered a preventive service as screening is recommended by the USPSTF and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) preventive services for women. When health care providers routinely screen patients for IPV, it helps identify cases and connect survivors to resources and supports. However, this can be challenging as a KFF survey of OBGYNs found that many clinicians say they do not have sufficient resources within their practices to provide follow-up services when cases of IPV are identified. Connections to community-based services are particularly important for clinicians to be able to care for patients who disclose IPV.

Women’s health has become one of the most politicized issues in society and health care. The overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 marked a seismic change in an important aspect of women’s health care that has implications for all pregnancy-related care and women’s economic future and well-being. The high and rising rates of maternal mortality and morbidity in the U.S. and the persistent gaps in mortality rates experienced by women of color highlight the need to address the roles that poverty, racism, and discrimination play in women’s health.

The Trump Administration has proposed major changes that could affect many recent gains in women’s health care. Within the first few months of taking office, the Administration has sought to define sex as “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female,” which is not supported by science, proposed to eliminate the Office of Population Affairs (OPA), and raised doubts about the safety of mifepristone without scientific basis, to name a few. Significant cuts to several HHS agencies, including HRSA, CDC, FDA, and NIH, have reduced support for women’s health programs and research across the country, with more likely to come. The Administration opposes federal programs related to racial equity, which is integrally connected with most women’s health issues such as maternal health. In addition, the federal budget reconciliation law that was enacted in 2025 made major cuts to the Medicaid program and the ACA, which will affect access to affordable coverage and care for women and families with low incomes. Over the next several years, these cuts in federal spending are projected to lead to a steep rise in people who are uninsured and reduced funding for states and health care providers, including those that care for women with lower incomes. At the same time, the Administration is calling for an increase in births while cutting programs that support families, such as food stamps and HeadStart. While much of the focus in the years will be on the effects of these cuts to federal health spending and programs, some of the key challenges that remain to be addressed in women’s health include:

• How to address and eliminate the persistent inequities in health coverage and outcomes experienced by women of color?
• How to build a delivery system and develop coverage policies that is responsive to the reproductive and sexual health needs of women and other gender minorities to promote optimal health outcomes?
• How to maintain a strong safety-net that offers high quality sexual and reproductive health services, with rising health care costs, a potential increase in uninsured rates, and a decrease in public funds?
• How to shape policies that protect women with low incomes from experiencing financial barriers to care
• Identifying and implementing policies that improve maternal health outcomes and also eliminate the structural and systemic barriers to care
• Providing access to comprehensive care to pregnant people who live in areas where abortion is unavailable due to state-level bans and restrictions
• How to provide care to women dealing with issues that are heavily stigmatized and marginalized, such as intimate partner violence and mental health challenges.

• Women’s Health Policy Dashboard
• Abortion in the United States Dashboard
• State Profiles for Women’s Health
• Women’s Health Insurance Coverage
• Medicaid Coverage for Women | KFF
• State Health Facts Women’s Health Indicators
• 2024 Women’s Health Survey reports
• State and Federal Reproductive Rights and Abortion Litigation Tracker
• Preventive Services Tracker
• A Focus on Contraception in the Wake of Dobbs
• Resources about the Title X National Family Planning Program

Ranji, U., Diep, K., Gomez, I., Sobel, L., & Salganicoff, A., Health Policy Issues in Women’s Health. In Altman, Drew (Editor), Health Policy 101, (KFF, October 2025) https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-health-policy-issues-in-womens-health/ (date accessed).

Private health coverage is subject to significant requirements at the state and federal levels. While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 ushered in many new requirements for the federal regulation of private health coverage, another federal law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), has for over 50 years regulated the most predominant form of health coverage for people under age 65, employer-sponsored coverage.

States have traditionally been the primary regulators of health insurance, and state health insurance protections continue to play a major role alongside a growing list of federal protections aimed at addressing a variety of consumer concerns, including access to coverage, affordability, and adequacy. This chapter describes the landscape of laws and regulations that address health care coverage and the complicated interactions between state and federal requirements that can make these protections challenging for consumers to navigate. In this chapter, it is not possible to cover every single state and federal requirement for private plans, so the focus is on the primary laws and regulations that apply to private insurance coverage.

Private health coverage is a mechanism for people to finance the health care services and medications they need, protecting them from the potentially extreme financial costs of this care.

At its core, health coverage is a financial contract between a private organization insuring the risk of loss and a policyholder. Where those insuring the risk or paying health claims are private entities such as insurance companies or private employers, this coverage is considered “private.” Coverage available in Health Insurance Marketplaces created by the ACA is considered private coverage, even though the Marketplaces are administered by state or federal government agencies. Public coverage, by contrast, involves financing arrangements for programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, which are paid primarily from public sources. This includes private plans participating in Medicare Advantage and Medicaid managed care arrangements. (See the chapters on Medicare and Medicaid for more information.)

A fundamental concept for the private provision of health coverage is pooling the health care “risk” of a group of people to make the costs of coverage more predictable and manageable. The goal typically is to maintain a risk pool of people whose health, on average, is the same as that of the general population. Private health coverage regulation has historically included steps to prevent insurers and plan sponsors from avoiding people in poor health, while also ensuring that risk pools include people in good health to guard against “adverse selection.”

A risk pool with adverse selection that attracts a disproportionate share of people in poor health, who are more likely to seek health coverage than people who are healthy, will result in increased costs to cover those in the pool, leaving those in better health to seek out a pool with lower costs.

Sources of private coverage. An individual with private coverage generally obtains it through one of two sources, either through their employer (“group” coverage) or by directly purchasing it from an insurer (“nongroup” coverage). Other related sources of coverage don’t exactly fit into one of these two categories, such as coverage provided by professional associations.

1. Employer coverage: In 2023, about 165 million people under age 65 had coverage through an employer. Employer-sponsored coverage is offered to eligible employees and usually to employees’ dependents, such as spouses and children. This coverage is referred to as “group” coverage, which is further broken down into small-group or large-group depending on the number of employees (Figure 1).

Private employers who “sponsor” group health plan coverage could include a range of entities, from a single nationwide retail employer with thousands of employees in many states to a small “mom and pop” operation with a handful of employees in one location. A single union can also be a group health plan sponsor of private coverage as an “employee organization,” as well as entities called “multiemployer” plans that are collectively bargained entities run by a joint board of trustees from labor and management that oversee collectively bargained benefits provided to employees of more than one employer, often in the same industry (for example, hotel workers or skilled workers in the building trades).

Public employers—federal, state, or local government—also sponsor group health coverage. The Federal Employee Health Benefit (FEHB) Program is the largest employer-sponsored health plan in the US. State and local government health plans are often referred to as non-federal governmental plans.

Employers, private and public, have at least two approaches to make coverage available to employees:

• Fully-insured. An employer can purchase coverage from an insurer to cover their employees for a set premium. In this “fully-insured” arrangement, the insurer bears the financial risk if that group of employees ends up costing more than expected; these plans are regulated by the state in which they are sold. Each state has a group market for the sale of health insurance that is divided by size of the group for oversight and regulation: large group and small group.
  • Large Group Insurance Market typically involves insurance products sold to employers with 51 or more individuals (employees).
  • Small Group Insurance Market is generally an employer group of 50 or fewer individual employees. Small employers can purchase small group coverage from an insurer or through the state’s health insurance exchange or Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP). In a handful of states, the SHOP is the only place where a small employer can purchase state-regulated small group insurance coverage.
• Self-insured. Employers can also use a “self-insured” (also often referred to as “self-funded”) arrangement where the employer assumes the financial risk by directly paying all covered claims. The employer typically contracts with a third-party administrator (TPA) to administer benefits by paying claims, designing benefits, establishing provider networks, and coordinating other aspects of coverage. TPAs are some of the same private organizations that provide health insurance as another line of business, as well as organizations called Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) that administer prescription drug benefits. As a result, coverage may not appear different to the covered worker than if they had fully-insured coverage. As explained in an upcoming section, unlike fully insured health coverage, self-insured coverage provided by private employers is largely not subject to state law but is governed primarily by federal law—mainly ERISA. Self-insuring health benefits are more common among larger employers because they can spread risk over a larger number of enrollees.

2. Individually-purchased insurance coverage: An individual can purchase private health coverage for themselves and their family without the involvement of their employer, referred to as “nongroup” coverage. Every state has an “individual insurance market” that consists of the following:

• Marketplace. The ACA required the creation of health insurance Marketplaces in each state, where individuals can purchase insurance, with federal financial assistance for premiums and cost sharing if eligible. The coverage purchased from a Marketplace must meet certain minimum standards, including coverage of essential health benefits, no preexisting condition exclusions, and limits on varying premiums based on health status (“ACA-compliant” insurance). (See the ACA chapter for more information.)
• Off Marketplace. People can also purchase individual insurance outside the Marketplace where federal financial assistance is unavailable. This could include ACA-compliant plans similar to those offered on the health insurance Marketplaces, and other types of coverage or financial products with lower premiums, but less comprehensive coverage than ACA-compliant plans, such as short-term limited duration coverage, fixed and hospital indemnity arrangements, health care sharing ministries, and others.

3. Other Sources of Private Health Coverage: Other sources of health coverage subject to unique regulatory standards include health coverage provided through entities called “multiple employer welfare arrangements” (MEWAs), “church plans,” and coverage provided by colleges and universities for their students.

• A MEWA is generally any arrangement that provides benefits – in this case, health benefits – to employees of more than one unrelated employer. Historically, MEWAs have been vehicles for organizations to market less expensive health benefits to groups of employers, especially small employers. To address a history of MEWA insolvencies attributed to a lack of proper government oversight, changes to ERISA in 1983 created a complicated regulatory regime just for MEWAs, subjecting them to a mix of federal and state laws.
• One type of MEWA, also governed by ERISA, allows groups of more than one employer to sponsor health coverage for their employees, known as an “Association Health Plan.” Traditionally, these types of plans have been available to groups of small employers in a similar industry, such as those who sell real estate or work in a similar profession. In recent years, federal efforts to expand the criteria for what types of employers may form an AHP have been the subject of litigation and regulations.
• Church plans are offered to employees by a church or association of churches, including entities controlled by or associated with a religion, such as religiously-affiliated hospitals and schools. Unlike other employer-sponsored plans, church plans are exempt from most ERISA requirements and some of the ACA’s health reforms. These regulatory gaps in church plans, including coverage of contraception, have been the subject of numerous legal proceedings.
• A student health plan is any health coverage sponsored by a college or university for students. While it is not group coverage, it can be sponsored by a university in the same way employers sponsor health coverage. The ACA has special rules for this coverage. While an insured arrangement is considered individual market coverage, exceptions allow it to be provided without the insurer having to meet certain ACA market rules. A university can also sponsor a self-insured health plan for students. These arrangements do not have to meet the ACA’s market rules, although states may regulate them.

Most private plans utilize a “network” of health care providers and hospitals, with some plans requiring a referral from a primary care provider (PCP) for enrollees to see a specialist. These types of arrangements, referred to as “managed care plans,” attempt to control costs and utilization through financial incentives, development of treatment protocols, prior authorization rules, and (in limited circumstances) dissemination of information on the quality of provider practices. Most private health coverage, whether employer-sponsored or individually purchased, falls into one of the following types:

All of these plan types are available in the individual market, both on and off the Marketplace. Most employers that offer health benefits offer just one type of health plan, though larger firms may offer more. PPOs are the most common type of health plan offered by employers.

Other employer-sponsored health coverage arrangements: Employers also can offer a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA), which is an employer-funded group health plan, sometimes paired with a high-deductible health plan (HDHP), that reimburses an employee up to a certain amount for qualified medical expenses and, in some instances, health insurance premiums. Reimbursements are tax-free to the employee, and amounts in the account can carry over to the following year, but employees lose any amounts when they leave the employer. Other variations of HRAs include an Individual Coverage HRA (ICHRA), where an employee can use funds in the HRA to purchase individual insurance either on or off the Marketplace. Qualified Small Employer Health Reimbursement Arrangements (QSEHRAs) are HRAs that certain small employers can make available for tax-free reimbursement of certain expenses.

Health Savings Accounts (HSAs): HSAs are tax-advantaged savings accounts that enrollees in certain HDHPs can use to pay for qualified medical expenses. While the HDHP associated with an HSA is usually sponsored by an employer or obtained through a Marketplace plan, the HSA itself is not usually considered employer-sponsored coverage (in contrast to HRAs). HSAs are owned by the individual and are portable, meaning consumers can carry them from job to job and use them after retirement.

Value-Based Arrangements: Some private health plans utilize “value-based” coverage and alternative payment models. These designs, primarily used in federal Medicare and Medicaid demonstration projects, aim to make providers more accountable for patient outcomes through various financial and other incentives. The objective of value-based care design is to shift the fee-for-service reimbursement model of paying for care based on “volume” to a system that pays based on the “value” of a service. Demonstration results to date have not shown major savings, but these designs are still discussed as a potential cost-containment tool for private health coverage. Payers and providers have also looked to value-based payment models to improve health disparities and to provide more patient-centered care.

The regulatory framework for private health coverage has evolved into a complicated system of overlapping state and federal standards. This federalism framework creates a sometimes precarious “marriage” between state and federal authority in order to implement health policy goals.

1. States lead on insurance regulation, but with a federal fallback for most protections.

The regulation of insurance has traditionally been a state responsibility. States license entities that offer private health insurance and have a range of insurance standards, including financial requirements unique to state law. However, the federal government has played an increasingly significant regulatory role over the past 50 years.

The federal pension law, ERISA, passed in 1974, applies to insured and self-insured private employer-sponsored health coverage with similar legal and enforcement mechanisms to protect individuals covered by private group health plans as those created for pension plans.

Separately, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) created new federal requirements and the basic framework for how state and federal law now interact. Under this “federal fallback” structure, states may require that insurers in the group and individual market (as well as state and local government self-insured plans) implement federal requirements on health coverage. If a state fails to “substantially enforce” the federal requirements, the federal government will enforce those protections. The federal fallback framework was intended to allow states to continue to regulate private coverage while ensuring that all consumers nationwide have a floor of federal protections when a state fails to implement them.

The federal fallback framework does not apply to self-insured employer-sponsored coverage. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) almost exclusively regulates private self-insured employer-sponsored plans. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) directly enforces federal protections against state and local government self-insured employer plans (although states can also do so).

2. ERISA limits the application of state law for those with private employer-sponsored coverage.

ERISA specifically “preempts” or prevents state law from applying to most self-insured group health plans, limiting the scope and application of state protections for many Americans covered by employer-sponsored plans.

Aspects of this preemption have been the topic of almost 50 years of litigation, resulting in three overall conclusions:

• Most state insurance laws, including state benefit mandates, don’t apply to self-insured ERISA plans, resulting in fewer regulatory requirements on these plans than on fully-insured plans.
• State insurance laws generally do apply to fully-insured ERISA plans.
• ERISA provides exclusive, yet limited, civil remedies for enrollees in ERISA plans who are harmed due to a violation of the law.

Today, some argue that ERISA preemption sustains the employer-based health coverage system because meeting an ever-growing list of state laws would be costly for employers, particularly those with employees in multiple states. Having national uniform standards, they argue, provides employers with an incentive to offer coverage. Others argue that preemption handcuffs states’ ability to protect consumers and control health care costs and that it is no longer needed given the ACA’s employer shared responsibility provision for larger employers and the increased regulation that applies a variety of rules to both fully-insured and self-insured plans. Prospects for change are limited, but some have explored the possibility of alternative approaches.

3.  Federal regulation of private health coverage can differ based on the market/source of coverage.

Private health insurance regulations vary based on the insurance market and the source of coverage. This is in part due to ERISA preemption and the ACA, which applies many reforms only to the individual and small-group markets.

Further complicating this are plans that existed before the ACA was passed, called “grandfathered” plans, that do not have to meet many of the ACA standards, so long as no significant changes in cost sharing and benefits are made to the plan.

The ACA did, however, alter federal law to create a large number of consumer protections that apply many of the same regulatory requirements across almost all sources of private health coverage. (See Table 7.)

Finally, some federal standards only apply to employer-sponsored plans (insured and self-insured) that are governed by ERISA, such as the requirement on employers with 20 or more employees to provide temporary continuation of coverage in certain situations, known as COBRA, which also applies to certain state and local government employers. There are also obligations on plan “fiduciaries” that are unique to ERISA plans.

This all means consumers can have different legal protections with their private coverage based on their coverage type and the state where they live.

4. Special exceptions in regulations allow certain types of private coverage to avoid having to meet many insurance protections.

Some private plans are specifically exempt from most federal private health coverage protections, including the ACA. These forms of coverage are often called “non-ACA compliant” coverage. While “non-ACA compliant” does not automatically mean it is illegal or inappropriate, some forms of this coverage have come under increasing scrutiny by federal and state authorities due to their gaps in consumer protections.

These types of coverage fall into these general categories:

• Coverage that is an “excepted benefit” is specifically carved out of most of the ACA and other federal requirements. Some are considered health coverage under federal law, such as certain dental and vision benefits, and other forms of coverage may not be, such as fixed and hospital indemnity, cancer-only coverage, accidental death and dismemberment, and long-term care coverage. (This Health Affairs article provides a more detailed description of excepted benefits.)
• Short-term limited-duration coverage and other forms of coverage are not regulated as health insurance under federal rules (as mentioned in the previous section).
• Employer-sponsored plans with less than two participants who are current employees. This exception was included in the 1996 HIPAA law and has been interpreted as excluding employer-sponsored plans that cover only retirees from many federal insurance requirements.

Some of these forms of coverage are the focus of business promoters looking to market cheaper, largely unregulated forms of coverage. In some instances, this coverage might be promoted by unscrupulous actors who falsely market the coverage as meeting ACA requirements or as providing comprehensive coverage. In other cases, coverage is sold as supplemental “health” coverage along with ACA-compliant health insurance, sometimes with very high deductibles. These exceptions to the ACA’s broad coverage requirements can operate as loopholes in the implementation of consumer health coverage protections and may create ambiguities for consumers as well as employers.

5. Tax regulation matters for cost and access to health care and coverage.

Central to evaluating how private coverage works are the tax subsidies that reduce the cost of coverage and benefits, which can incentivize employers to sponsor and individuals to purchase private health coverage. Tax regulations also interpret what medical expenses (as opposed to general wellness or other non-medical expenses) get a tax preference.

The largest health care tax subsidy is applied to employer-sponsored coverage. Tax-exempt employer contributions for medical insurance premiums and medical care resulted in more than $224 billion in lost revenue for the federal government in 2022. Employer-sponsored health coverage is excluded from federal income tax, as well as federal employment taxes (and equivalent state taxes). The exclusion also applies to amounts reimbursed to employees by an employer under arrangements called “health flexible spending arrangements” (health FSAs), where an employee elects to have amounts withheld from their wages to pay for medical expenses. The exclusion provides considerable tax savings for employers and employees making contributions toward health coverage. The value of this exclusion increases as income increases, making income tax savings greater for higher-income individuals than for lower-income individuals. For various policy reasons, including to rein in health care costs, there have been efforts to change or cap this exclusion over the years, but to date, none have been successful. The most recent, the “Cadillac tax” provision of the ACA, was removed from the law before it was implemented (see the Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance chapter).

Additionally, the ACA created refundable tax credits based on household income to help individuals purchase coverage on a health insurance Marketplace (see the Affordable Care Act chapter). In contrast to the employer exclusion, tax subsidies for Marketplace participants are higher for those with lower incomes. Temporary increases in these credit amounts, passed as part of the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act, have led to record Marketplace enrollment. Unless Congress extends them, the temporary increases expire at the end of 2025. Unlike employer-sponsored insurance, Marketplace enrollees who pay a premium for their individual market insurance coverage generally do so with after-tax dollars (although an employer can sponsor tax-advantaged ICHRAs or QSEHRAs, as described above, to help employees pay for Marketplace and other individual market coverage).

In addition to the tax advantages related to employer-sponsored health coverage and tax subsidies received by lower-income individuals with Marketplace coverage, HSAs bring their own set of tax advantages for those who use funds in the account to pay for cost sharing and for items the IRS includes as qualified medical expenses. In 2025, a federal budget reconciliation law was enacted that may increase the use of HSAs.

The scope and extent of federal regulation affecting private health coverage has vastly increased, especially with the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010. The ACA largely retained the framework for the regulation of private coverage, adding a long list of new provisions to different regulated pieces of our fragmented health care system. This means specific and overlapping requirements on insurers, employer-sponsored plans, and, more recently, in the No Surprises Act, also on providers.

The ACA also unleashed a firestorm of activity resulting from longstanding political and philosophical differences on the role of federal government regulation of health care. Efforts to repeal and replace the ACA in 2017, several U.S. Supreme Court cases challenging ACA provisions, and hundreds of other cases in the lower courts on the ACA and other federal requirements mean the law in this area has and will continue to be in flux.

Regulatory priorities can and have shifted depending on what party controls the White House and Congress, resulting in ever-changing federal standards. This section reviews the current landscape of federal requirements. A discussion of every single relevant federal regulation is beyond the scope of this chapter, but the major requirements have been divided into six categories:

• Access to health coverage
• Affordability of health coverage
• Benefit design and adequacy
• Reporting and disclosure of information concerning coverage
• Review and appeal of health claims
• Other federal standards

1. Access to coverage

Federal health care reform has prioritized expanding health coverage to those without it for quite some time, especially for those not eligible for a public program such as Medicaid or Medicare, or who do not have coverage through their current employer. Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, state laws and regulations were designed to address the potential for adverse selection in health insurance by allowing insurers to engage in certain practices such as “underwriting,” which allowed insurers in the individual and group markets to decline to cover or renew coverage due to a person’s health status or a group’s claims history, and helped plans maintain predictable and stable risk pools. Further, an insurer could cover the applicant, but charge a higher premium based on age, health status, gender, occupation, or geographic location. In addition, insurers could exclude benefits for certain health conditions if the person was diagnosed or treated for that condition before becoming insured (a “preexisting condition exclusion”).

States made some reforms, particularly in the small group market, to address these barriers to coverage. Some of these changes became part of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. However, it was not until the ACA that the regulation of private insurance, at least for the individual and small group markets, was fundamentally changed.

Core Private Insurance Coverage Protections. The ACA established core market rules designed to expand coverage to most people in the U.S. New ACA legal requirements include:

Requirements for premium stabilization and other efforts to protect the risk pool. The ACA’s private insurance market regulations also ushered in concerns that its protections, including guaranteed issue and the elimination of health underwriting for some coverage, would result in adverse selection (discussed in the first section). Regulatory efforts to prevent adverse selection have also focused on certain plans and products that do not have to meet most of the ACA rules, such as short-term limited-duration plans. Non-ACA-compliant coverage may be attractive to consumers looking for lower monthly costs, but these plans can leave consumers underinsured and may compromise the risk pool by drawing out healthier individuals.

Federal guidance and regulation aimed at protecting the risk pool as part of the ACA include:

Standards to prevent coverage gaps. Access to coverage is also enhanced by federal requirements to provide for the continuity of coverage or care to prevent gaps for those who do or could lose coverage, including:

2. Financial Protection and Affordability

High costs, in the form of both premiums and cost sharing, have been a defining feature of employer-sponsored and individually-purchased (for unsubsidized enrollees) health coverage. Federal reforms have sought to address the stability and affordability of health insurance. Key provisions include:

3. Benefit Design and Adequacy

Federal requirements also include a list of minimum standards for how a plan is designed or operated in an effort to ensure that enrollees have coverage that is comprehensive enough to cover medically necessary care, with processes that do not unnecessarily limit access to covered benefits. Such requirements include laws that prohibit plans from imposing annual dollar limits on coverage or requiring waiting periods longer than 90 days before employer-sponsored coverage kicks in. States may have additional benefit mandates for state-regulated plans, such as comprehensive coverage requirements for mental health or substance use disorders or fertility services.

Required coverage.

The ACA requires all private, non-grandfathered health plans to cover preventive services with no cost sharing for enrollees. These requirements change over time as preventive service recommendations are updated and new services are added. In general, these include:

The preventive care coverage requirement has been the subject of extensive litigation since the ACA was passed. KFF briefs provide more detail on this litigation and a 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving ACA preventive care standards. The contraceptive coverage requirement has been the topic of two U.S. Supreme Court cases and several regulations, now allowing employers to not cover contraception if they have a religious objection.

Other required design standards across most health plans.

Large group, small group, individual, and self-insured health plans are required to abide by other benefit design standards that aim to contain out-of-pocket costs and improve access to quality care. These design standards include:

Design standards limited to individual and small group plans. Federal requirements on health plan design standards for certain segments of the individual and small-group markets have evolved since the ACA was passed. Plans must meet these rules as part of annual certification requirements for qualified health plans. Examples of these standards include:

4. Disclosure, Reporting and Transparency

The 2023 KFF Survey of Consumer Experiences with Health Insurance found that most Marketplace and employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) enrollees reported difficulty understanding some aspect of their health insurance compared to consumers enrolled in Medicaid and Medicare:

Lack of information or understanding about key features of an individual’s health coverage can put patients at financial risk and result in negative health outcomes. Employers and other health purchasers have also struggled to get the information they need to make prudent decisions about cost-effective coverage options and hold their service providers accountable for their plan designs, contracting, and administration activities. Regulations have increased over time to make more information available to enrollees or prospective enrollees, as well as to federal agencies to conduct their oversight responsibilities. What to disclose and how much information is useful is a continuing policy challenge.

Most federal disclosure, reporting, and transparency requirements fall into two categories: Disclosure of information to enrollees and/or the public (Table 9) and reporting to the federal government (Table 10). Note that the requirements provided in these tables are not exhaustive, but include examples of some of the main reporting, disclosure, and transparency requirements that plans, providers, and facilities are subject to.

Ongoing reporting by private plans to federal agencies is a tool for agency oversight to assess compliance with regulations and evaluate trends. In some instances, agencies are required to use this information to report aggregate information to the public and Congress.

5. Claims and Appeals Processes

Access to a fair system of review for consumer grievances about plan actions and claims denials has been a key element of federal consumer protection.

A 1997 Clinton Administration initiative, the Patient Bill of Rights, resulted in several federal agencies taking regulatory actions to enhance consumer protections for patients and workers. As part of this initiative, the DOL updated claims and appeals rules that applied to private-sector employer plans regulated by ERISA to make the claims review process:

• Faster (shortened timeframe for plans to make a decision on claims and appeals)
• Fairer (ensure plan decision makers were free of conflicts of interest)
• Fuller (more transparent through the disclosure of more information to consumers–including language access standards–about the reason for a claim denial)

The DOL issued regulations in 2000 governing the “internal” claims review process, conducted internally by a plan or plan-sponsor employer. For the first time, these updated rules accounted for managed care features such as prior authorization, where health plans determine medical necessity before the plan covers an item or service, requiring, for example, shorter time frames for claim decisions and appeals for these “pre-service” claims.

These rules were the basis for reforms applied across all private health coverage in the ACA. These reforms established a federal floor of protections for the internal claims and appeals process and added an option for consumers to appeal denied claims through an “external review” by an entity independent of the plan. Only certain types of claims, such as those that involve clinical judgment, are eligible for external review.

Policymakers have renewed scrutiny of the prior authorization process, as well as claims review and appeals generally. Claims and appeals standards that apply to Medicare Advantage plans, Medicaid, and some Marketplace plans were updated in 2024 to reduce delays in decision-making and to provide more transparency about the outcomes of claims and appeals decisions.

6. Other Federal Standards

Several other federal laws and regulations provide consumer protections in private health insurance, often indirectly, that sometimes have stronger enforcement mechanisms and penalties than federal insurance laws. These include:

Civil Rights Law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and later amendments to it, including the Pregnancy Nondiscrimination Act) and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 created protections against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability. At a minimum, these standards apply to employers with 15 or more employees, and, in effect, regulate those employers’ group health plan coverage.

Section 1557 of the ACA is a nondiscrimination provision that potentially applies many existing civil rights laws directly to health care entities, including insurers that receive federal funds. The extent of its reach has been the subject of several sets of regulations, with the iteration issued by the Biden administration addressing Section 1557’s ban on sex discrimination (among other issues) and reinstating protections against discrimination for LGBTQ+ people seeking health care and coverage, including for gender-affirming care. Trump administration actions will likely seek to undo this requirement and place restrictions on gender affirming care that the courts will be tasked with evaluating in the years to come.

Antitrust Laws. Antitrust laws in health care prohibit anticompetitive practices and mergers by health care providers, hospitals, and insurers, which can reduce competition and increase prices. As provider consolidation increases, federal agencies such as the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have engaged in enforcement initiatives in recent years. Health insurers have also faced antitrust scrutiny as the market shares of the largest health insurers continue to dominate in most locations. Oversight of pharmacy benefit managers, now mostly owned by or affiliated with the largest health insurers, is one area of focus where Congress continues to debate whether additional standards are warranted, and state attorneys General are increasingly focusing their attention.

Privacy Laws. As digital health technology has advanced, so have concerns about protecting consumer health information, as the fast development of new technology (e.g., health-related apps, artificial intelligence) has made it difficult for regulation to keep up. The leading federal privacy requirements for health plans’ use of certain patient information, set out in HIPAA regulations, are now almost 25 years old. Efforts to update this regulation have been discussed, but have not yet been finalized. Updates to the HIPAA privacy rules were proposed toward the end of the first Trump administration. Updates to HIPAA’s security standards were proposed at the end of the Biden administration. It is unclear whether renewed proposals in this area are imminent. Regulatory changes to HIPAA in 2023 aimed at clarifying reproductive health care privacy were struck down by a federal court in 2025. The FTC has sought to regulate areas not covered directly by HIPAA, such as software applications increasingly marketed as part of health coverage. Continuing federal efforts to advance electronic information sharing (known as “interoperability”) will mean renewed calls for increased federal privacy and security protections.

Special privacy protections for substance use disorder information are regulated under a law known as “Part 2.” This law aims to protect the confidentiality of this information while still allowing providers to share patients’ mental health and substance use disorder information with plans and others to coordinate care and administer benefits.

Gag Clauses. Plans and issuers are prohibited from entering into an agreement with a provider, third-party administrator, or other service provider (including pharmacy benefit managers) that restricts the plan and issuer from accessing claim, cost, or quality information on providers, enrollees, plan sponsors, and other entities, known as a “gag clause.” Plans and issuers must annually submit an attestation of compliance with these requirements to the federal government.

Three federal agencies have overlapping jurisdiction for most federal regulation of private health plans: the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), and the U.S. Treasury Department. Through a structure created by HIPAA in 1996, these three agencies jointly issue regulations and other guidance on laws passed by Congress that place the same or similar standards across all private plans.

The same or similar federal requirements for private health plans are typically contained in three separate statutes that each agency oversees:

As an example, if Congress passes a federal law that requires all insurers of individual and group coverage and all employer-sponsored plans to meet a certain standard, any regulations issued to implement that standard are usually issued jointly by HHS, DOL, and Treasury with separate but identical language added to the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), ERISA, and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). However, each agency has its own requirements for how these laws are enforced. In addition to these overlapping authorities, each of these three agencies has exclusive federal authority over certain aspects of private health insurance regulation (though the federal authority might be shared with states in some instances):

Other agencies with important oversight roles of private health coverage include:

• HHS’s Office of Civil Rights: Implements HIPAA’s administrative simplification standards; ACA section 1557 nondiscrimination rules
• HHS’s Office of the National Coordinator: Coordinates efforts to implement and use health information technology and health information exchange
• HHS’s Food and Drug Administration: Regulates clinical investigations and supervises the safety of pharmaceutical drugs, biological products, and medical devices
• Department of Justice: Antitrust enforcement
• Federal Trade Commission: Antitrust enforcement
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): Nondiscrimination in health coverage and wellness program standards

As the executive branch of the U.S. government, the federal government has the authority to execute laws passed by Congress and signed by the President, including issuing regulations to operationalize and implement a statute. In addition, specific agencies have the authority to investigate violations of the law and enforce the law through policy form review, market conduct exams, assessment of penalties, and/or bringing a court action to stop an insurer from violating the law (called an injunction).

Regulations and Other Guidance

Process: The federal regulatory process is governed primarily by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This law, along with specific executive orders, governs the process known as “notice and comment rulemaking,” where regulations are proposed (through a notice of proposed rulemaking or “NPRM”) and are subject to public comment for a certain period of time and then finalized. The process is administered by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an agency within the Executive Office of the President. The OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) coordinates the review and release of regulations from the agencies. Regulations are published in the Federal Register, a daily publication of regulations and notices. Information about regulations under OIRA review is available by agency at Reginfo.gov, and the public can view all regulations and comment letters at Regulations.gov. Twice a year, OMB issues a regulatory agenda of regulations agencies expect to publish in the coming months.

Authority: Once a regulation has gone through the notice and comment process and a final rule is issued, it is generally considered to have the force of law, meaning private actors must comply with it, and individuals can rely on having the protections set out in the law and the regulation. However, regulations are subject to legal challenge under the APA if they are inconsistent with the statute.

Review of regulations by courts: Traditionally, if a regulation interprets a part of a statute that was not clear as drafted by Congress, and a federal court reviews a challenge to the regulation, the court would uphold the interpretation in a regulation unless it is unreasonable or arbitrary. Essentially, courts deferred to the expertise of government regulators and the regulatory review process to uphold a regulatory requirement if they deemed the interpretation reasonable. This practice is called “Chevron deference,” named after a Supreme Court case from 1984, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, that set out the framework for court review of ambiguous language in a statute. This standard of review can result in agencies having discretion to implement policy changes through the interpretation of regulation. That discretion was challenged in recent years as too broad, giving regulators too much authority, and in June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled its previous decision, meaning federal courts are no longer required to defer to regulations of administrative agencies in circumstances where they traditionally would have. Eliminating Chevron deference could weaken the impact of regulation on public policy and shift more policy decisions to courts.

Sub-regulatory guidance: Other types of information and guidance commonly issued by a federal agency that do not go through the formal regulatory notice and comment process are referred to as “sub-regulatory.” Information and interpretation in sub-regulatory guidance usually do not have the force of law as regulations do, and typically do not create legally binding obligations on private parties. They are, however, useful in quickly communicating information to regulated entities and the public to signal how and when the agency plans to implement a new law, and the timing of that implementation. However, reliance on these types of guidance by consumers has its limits since regulated entities might still assert that this type of guidance is not binding on them. Examples of sub-regulatory guidance include:

• Frequently asked questions, manuals, memos, and letters used by CMS, DOL, and the IRS: Certain provisions of the ACA have been the subject of numerous sub-regulatory guidance, including over 60 pieces of guidance in the form of frequently asked questions issued jointly by CMS, DOL, and the IRS. Sub-regulatory guidance also includes implementation manuals, policy letters, and enforcement memos.
• Advisory opinion or information letters: The DOL and IRS have used advisory or information letters and chief counsel notices to address fact-specific questions at the request of regulated entities. DOL and IRS responses to these inquiries only apply to the specific parties and scenarios addressed, so they can’t be relied on by the public and can create ambiguities about what the law requires, which can remain unresolved for years until formal regulations are finalized. Note that the IRS also has several other types of guidance with varying levels of authority.

Enforcement

Given the federal fallback framework described in previous sections, the enforcement mechanism for most federal requirements on private coverage depends on the type of health plan and the federal agency enforcing the requirement, as summarized in Table 13 below.

Government enforcement. Under the existing federal fallback framework, CMS has developed a process for determining whether a state is substantially enforcing each specific federal insurance protection. This means that whether a state or CMS is responsible for enforcement can differ for each health coverage standard, resulting in a patchwork of federal and state enforcement responsibilities. In addition, both the DOL and the IRS each have their own separate enforcement processes for the federal standards they implement.

Private Right of Action and Remedies. Some laws also allow individual consumers or their representatives to bring a lawsuit independent of the government to address a violation. These laws may detail what types of “remedies” are available if the challenge is successful—for example, an injunction to stop a violation, a civil penalty, or compensatory or punitive damages. Without this “private right of action,” aggrieved consumers must rely solely on the government to act to address a violation of the law. Even federal laws, such as ERISA, that allow individual consumers to bring a lawsuit to resolve certain disputes, have limited remedies to address a violation. ERISA does not generally allow monetary damages as a remedy.

The federal fallback framework also applies to most of the requirements on health care providers and facilities that are now part of federal law. In 2020, Congress passed and President Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA), which includes new protections on balanced billing (the No Surprises Act) and various provider rules regarding disclosure and transparency. States are expected to enforce these standards against providers, with CMS as the federal fallback. State health departments or state agencies that oversee provider and facility licensing and practice standards oversee these rules. CMS has surveyed states and entered into collaborative enforcement agreements with each state, including which CAA rules the state is prepared to enforce and which ones CMS will need to implement. CMS can assess a penalty of up to $10,000 per violation against a provider or facility for non-compliance.

Enforcement of other standards. Outside of the above federal fallback framework, each agency has its own separate enforcement mechanisms for the laws it implements alone. For instance, HHS has the authority to assess fines under HIPAA privacy rules for violations, but individuals harmed by a HIPAA violation do not have a private right of action under that law. Enforcement processes and remedies available under federal nondiscrimination requirements under the Civil Rights Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act vary, but some include monetary damages in the form of compensatory damages.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act, enacted by Congress in 1945, clarified that states have the primary role in regulating the business of insurance. Although changes have since been made to that law, states have several mechanisms in place to regulate insurance. States license entities that offer private health coverage in a process that reviews the insurer’s finances, management, and business practices to ensure it can provide the coverage promised to enrollees. States also license the insurance agents and brokers in the state (see the section “What Is the Role of Health Insurance Brokers and Other Assisters?” for more information).

State insurance laws and regulations vary by state, though commonly include:

Most states require health plans to provide specific data that is included in the state’s all-payer claims databases (APCDs). These are state databases that include medical, pharmacy, and often dental claims, as well as eligibility and provider files collected from and aggregated across all private and public payers in a state. APCDs can provide states with a perspective on cost, service utilization, and quality of health care services across the full spectrum of payers in a state, which can be a tool in state efforts to control health care costs and promote value-based care.

Some states are also developing additional state-level regulations related to health plan network adequacy, health plan price transparency, public option plans, reinsurance programs, and more. These state-level regulations and protections do not apply to enrollees in self-insured plans offered by private employers (see the section “What is Private Health Insurance” for more information). However, these enrollees may have some of these protections through other federal laws and regulations.

State legislatures enact state insurance laws and typically grant regulatory authority to the state’s insurance regulator/commissioner. State enforcement mechanisms vary widely by state, regulation, state resources, and staffing capacity. Shifting political priorities at the state level can also influence enforcement priorities and actions. For example, state insurance agencies may ensure compliance with certain benefit mandates by primarily relying on complaints from consumers, consumer advocates, or health care providers to trigger a compliance review of the plan in question, while other state insurance agencies conduct periodic systematic reviews of all plans subject to the law or regulation.

Navigating an increasingly complicated health coverage landscape has increased the focus on the availability and expertise of entities that assist purchasers of health coverage (consumers and employers). Assisters can include agents and brokers who are paid commissions from insurers, as well as consumer assistance programs created by the ACA, which are often publicly funded and nonprofit, who may provide similar assistance as agents and brokers, but also specialize in individuals transitioning in and out of public programs such as Medicaid or assisting those without insurance to find coverage.

Agents and brokers have long played a significant role in connecting individuals and employers to private health coverage by helping them understand health insurance options and costs. An “agent” typically represents a single insurer and provides information about that insurer’s coverage options. A “broker” is not aligned with any one insurer but could, in theory, place coverage from any insurer selling products in a state.

Agents and brokers assist individuals in choosing a qualified health plan on a health insurance Marketplace. Their role in Marketplace enrollment has grown over the years. In the 2024 plan year, 78% of ACA coverage was sold through health insurance agents compared to 43% in 2016. Web brokers, who facilitate plan selection online through Marketplace capabilities, have also played a large role in Marketplace enrollment.

Agents and brokers in the health insurance Marketplace have faced scrutiny for alleged fraudulent activity in recent years due to consumer reports of unauthorized enrollment and plan switches by agents and brokers. In response, CMS, under President Biden, began requiring additional steps to be taken before agents and brokers can make changes to a consumer’s HealthCare.gov enrollment, and hundreds of agents’ and brokers’ Marketplace agreements were suspended for reasonable suspicion of fraudulent activity. In an attempt to address Marketplace fraud, the Trump administration finalized a regulation in 2025 that, along with the 2025 budget reconciliation law, creates new administrative hurdles for consumers to enroll in Marketplace coverage and receive premium tax credits. These 2025 actions made few changes to broker oversight requirements for Marketplace plans. The Trump administration also reinstated many agents and brokers suspended in recent years, and federal indictments related to broker fraud for actions that allegedly occurred as far back as 2018 still await resolution.

Even before the creation of the Marketplaces, agents and brokers had been selling coverage in the individual and group insurance market, especially to small employers needing expertise in finding health insurance for their employees. Large employers also use agents and brokers, who often work for employee benefit consultants or brokerage firms and receive commissions (or, in some cases, a fixed fee) to find vendors to support their self-insured group health plan or for placing other forms of insurance that they provide or make available to employees as “voluntary” benefits.

Broker Compensation Reporting. Employer plans governed by ERISA must meet ERISA fiduciary standards. These standards prohibit plans from contracting with a “party-in-interest,” which is an entity that may have a conflict of interest because it is receiving compensation from a third party for activity it is doing for the employer plan. For instance, a benefits consultant may be helping an employer find a third-party administrator (TPA) for its group health plan, and the consultant is paid by the employer for their work but also gets a commission from the TPA if the employer decides to use its services. Employers are prohibited from entering into this type of transaction with the consultant unless they can show it was done in a “reasonable manner.”

Under rules added to ERISA by the CAA, one way an employer plan can demonstrate that its contract with a broker/consultant is reasonable is to show that it received information from the broker/consultant about the compensation the broker/consultant received from the TPA. Under these rules, an employer plan fiduciary violates ERISA if it does not receive from a broker or consultant information about the direct and indirect compensation the broker receives. Also, insurers offering individual insurance (on- and off-Marketplace) and those offering short-term limited-duration plans must disclose to enrollees and report to CMS any direct or indirect compensation they pay to agents and brokers for enrolling individuals in this coverage.

Consumer Assistance Programs. The ACA required the creation of other types of assisters to assist consumers with enrollment, plan selection, insurance problems, and, in some cases, post-enrollment support. These programs must provide impartial, no-cost help to consumers and cannot be affiliated with an insurance company.

Navigator programs, which are federally funded through grants, were created to raise public awareness and assist individuals in enrolling in qualified health plans as well as provide post-enrollment support. Navigators participate in trainings and are required to be knowledgeable in eligibility and enrollment rules and available QHP options, and maintain privacy and security standards. In 2025, CMS announced a 90% cut in Navigator funding, the largest funding cut since the program began. The current plan year funding of $100 million will be reduced to $10 million for 2026. These cuts come as enhanced Marketplace subsidies are set to expire at the end of 2025 and federal cuts to Medicaid begin to take effect in 2026, both of which could result in significant coverage losses.

Related assisters include Certified Application Counselors (CACs) who also assist consumers in resolving insurance issues and identifying the coverage option that best suits their needs. CACs, however, are not required to meet the same standards as Navigators or participate in all of the activities required of Navigators (e.g., providing post-enrollment assistance). In states using the federally-facilitated Marketplace (FFM), CACs are overseen by Certified Application Counselor Designated Organizations (CDOs), which are designated by CMS and include organizations such as community health centers, hospitals, and social services agencies. To serve as a CAC in an FFM state, the individual must be affiliated with a CDO and is typically a staff member or volunteer. CACs are not federally funded and instead rely primarily on outside non-profit organizations and foundations. 

The ACA also established Consumer Assistance Programs (CAPs) to assist consumers with insurance problems and identify their best options for health coverage. Unlike the Navigator program, which was specifically created to assist Marketplace, Medicaid, and CHIP consumers, CAP programs also assist consumers with employer-sponsored coverage and other types of coverage. The ACA provided an initial appropriation for CAPs, which 35 states and Washington, D.C., took advantage of, but CAP programs have received no federal funding since 2012. Many states have continued their CAP programs using their own funds, but others have discontinued their operations.

2025 and beyond will likely see a retrenchment in regulation at the federal level that could impact the private coverage gains of the last decade. While states will still play a significant role in regulating private health insurance, the fragmented structure of private health care regulation and enforcement means that states alone are limited in what they can do to affect national change or influence private employer-based coverage, where most insured Americans under 65 get their coverage. The future regulatory outlook for private health coverage will be shaped by the following three key features:

Deregulation and Litigation. The Trump administration has put in motion, through several executive orders and other actions, deregulation across the health care sector. For example, a January 2025 executive order required that for every new regulation promulgated, federal agencies must identify at least ten existing regulations to repeal, which could impede future rulemaking. Another executive order required all federal agencies to coordinate with the president’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to review all regulations to make sure they are consistent with “law and Administration policy.” Using this executive order, the Trump administration has limited the enforcement of final regulations on mental health parity and short-term, limited-duration plans. Also in February 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that rescinded several executive orders issued by President Biden, including one aimed at strengthening the ACA.

These types of regulatory rescissions and a general deregulatory executive agenda, along with disruptions in agency structure and the personnel layoffs in the federal health care agencies, could have long-term impacts on private health care regulation. The outcome of court challenges to many of these deregulatory actions will determine future developments. In addition, changes in how courts review agency decisions—that is, the major decisions by the Supreme Court to limit agency discretion—could be a barrier to the Trump administration’s deregulation initiatives, as federal courts now have more power to second-guess policy decisions of the President. Look for attempts at codifying the Trump administration’s priorities through congressional action to get past any court barriers. Also, expect to see more actions from this administration through executive orders, voluntary industry agreements, and sub-regulatory guidance (e.g., advisory opinions that approve various industry arrangements). Changing enforcement priorities for federal agencies could leave patients looking to state and private mechanisms to get the protections written in federal law.

Technology Advancements. Expect wide-ranging recommendations from major stakeholders on which aspects of artificial intelligence (AI) and telehealth should be promoted and protected from federal regulation. The Trump administration has already announced its plans to speed up the development of AI and reduce regulation. With limited federal regulation anticipated during this administration, much of the future outlook for consumer protections will depend on the voluntary actions of industry and how transparent those activities are. For example, in July 2025, the Trump administration announced a new voluntary initiative aimed at enhancing health data interchange (known as “interoperability”) and expanding patients’ access to their own health data and reported that more than 60 companies had pledged to participate. Open questions about data privacy, security, and accuracy are key concerns as the details of this initiative and new apps are developed. Participation is optional, and the initiative does not create any new legally binding requirements for these companies. While the market for digital health care tools could benefit from the emphasis on AI and virtual care, without updated federal privacy and security rules, such as HIPAA, and nondiscrimination requirements, consumers may have to look to state regulation for these protections. Additionally, new, expensive gene therapies and blockbuster medications will likely increase the overall cost of health care and could also challenge policymakers to rethink existing reimbursement structures and government intervention in pricing.

Consumer Choice. Look for policy shifts from consumer assistance and protection to efforts to broaden the health coverage choices available to consumers to include those that may not meet all of the ACA’s consumer protection requirements. The emphasis on “choice” will likely include efforts to encourage consumers to use tax-advantaged accounts such as health savings accounts, which can be used to set aside funds to purchase an increasing variety of items and pay for health care services provided via direct primary care arrangements and telehealth before the deductible applies. Policy debates on whether low-income individuals and those with chronic illnesses are best served by these account-based models are also possible.

• KFF Survey of Consumer Experiences with Health Insurance
• Explaining Health Care Reform: Risk Adjustment, Reinsurance, and Risk Corridors
• What resources are available for privately insured patients who get surprise balance bills?
• No Surprises Act Implementation: What to Expect in 2022
• Examining Prior Authorization in Health Insurance
• Final Prior Authorization Rules Look to Streamline the Process, but Issues Remain
• Mental Health Parity at a Crossroads
• Consumer Appeal Rights in Private Health Coverage
• Price Transparency and Price Variation in U.S. Health Services
• Network Adequacy Standards and Enforcement
• Pre-existing Conditions: What Are They and How Many People Have Them?
• Proposals for Insurance Options That Don’t Comply with ACA Rules: Trade-offs in Cost and Regulation
• Supreme Court Decision Limiting the Authority of Federal Agencies Could Have Far-Reaching Impacts for Health Policy
• 2022 Survey of ACA Marketplace Assister Programs and Brokers
• Rise in Use of Mental Health Apps Raises New Policy Issues
• Navigating the Maze: A Look at Health Insurance Complexities and Consumer Protections
• How Pending Health-Related Lawsuits Could be Impacted by the Incoming Trump Administration
• Charting the Way Forward: New Efforts to Advance Electronic Health Information Sharing

Pestaina, K., Wallace, R., & Long, M., The Regulation of Private Health Insurance. In Altman, Drew (Editor), Health Policy 101, (KFF, October 2025) https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-the-regulation-of-private-health-insurance/ (date accessed).

Health care costs in the United States generally grow faster than inflation. The U.S. far exceeds other large and wealthy nations in per capita health spending, and health care represents a much larger share of the economy in the U.S. than in peer nations. Despite substantial spending, the U.S. health system grapples with disparities and gaps in coverage. Elevated health care expenditure in the U.S. does not consistently translate into superior health outcomes. Rising health care costs instead contribute to Americans facing difficulties affording medical care and drugs, even among those with insurance.

Many people are familiar with the high and rising cost of health care in the United States from seeing how much they spend on their own health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs. In addition to these very visible health costs, there are also tax dollars that go to fund public programs and the amounts employers spend toward their employees’ health insurance premiums. Total national health expenditures include spending by both public programs and private health plans, as well as out-of-pocket health spending. Total health expenditures represent the amount spent on health care (such as doctor visits, hospital stays, and prescription drugs) and related activities (such as insurer overhead and profits, health research and infrastructure, and public health).

Total Health Spending Reached $4.9 Trillion in 2022

Health spending in the U.S. has risen sharply over the last several decades. The official data on national health expenditures from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) show health spending totaled $74.1 billion in 1970. By 2000, health expenditures had reached about $1.4 trillion, and in 2023 the amount spent on health had more than tripled to $4.9 trillion. In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, health spending accelerated by 10.4% from 2019 to 2020, even as the use of health care dropped, driven largely by public health spending and financial relief provided to health care providers. Most recently, health spending grew 7.5% from 2022 to 2023, faster than the previous year’s 4.6% increase from 2021 to 2022. Health spending is expected to continue to grow at a similar pace for the foreseeable future.

In the chart above, spending is shown in terms of both nominal dollar values (not inflation-adjusted) and constant 2023 dollars (inflation-adjusted based on the personal consumption expenditures, or PCE, index). Inflation in the health sector increased slightly faster than across the general economy in 2023.

Currently, health care represents about 18% of the U.S. economy (measured as a share of gross domestic product, or GDP). In other words, almost 1 out of every 5 dollars spent in the U.S. goes toward health care. Back in 1960, health spending represented just 5% of GDP, meaning 1 in every 20 dollars in the U.S. economy was spent on health care. 

Out-of-pocket costs have also risen over time. Out-of-pocket costs represent the amount of money spent by individuals on health care that is not paid for by a health insurance plan or public program like Medicare or Medicaid. This includes cost-sharing, the most common forms of which are deductibles (an amount that must be paid before most services are covered by the plan), copayments (fixed dollar amounts), and coinsurance (a percentage of the charge for services). (i.e., copays, deductibles, coinsurance), as well as health spending by uninsured people or spending by insured people for care that is not covered at all by health insurance. Out-of-pocket spending does not include the amount spent on a person’s monthly health insurance premium.

Out-of-pocket spending per person was $115 in 1970 (or, adjusted for inflation, $703). By 2023, out-of-pocket spending had reached $1,514 per person. Despite this rise in out-of-pocket spending, health insurance now covers a larger share of total health spending (73%) than it did in 1970 (27%), in part because more people have gained coverage, especially public coverage, but also because health insurance spending per enrollee has grown.

Over the last several decades, health spending has been driven higher by a number of factors, including but not limited to an aging population, rising rates of chronic conditions, advancements in medicine and new technologies, higher prices, and expansions of health insurance coverage. While there are always differences across countries, many of these factors driving health costs upward in the U.S. are also driving health costs growth in peer nations. For example, while the U.S. population is indeed aging and that is driving health costs up, many large and wealthy nations have even more rapidly aging populations.

Other factors may explain the United States’ relatively high health spending compared to its peers. The U.S. health system is fragmented, with many private and public payers, and with regulation of these payers split between states and the federal government. However, these features are not entirely unique to the U.S., either. Indeed, some other countries with much lower health spending have multiple private payers or differences in public programs across states or provinces.  The U.S. is also not alone in having a mainly fee-for-service payment system.

The U.S. health insurance system is largely voluntary, whereas peer countries’ health systems are almost entirely compulsory. Additionally, the U.S. federal and state governments have generally done less to directly regulate or negotiate prices paid for medical services or prescription drugs than have governments of similarly large and wealthy nations. The U.S. often pays higher prices for the same brand-name prescription drugs, hospital procedures, and physician care than similarly large and wealthy countries do.

There are other factors, largely outside the control of the health system that are also likely at play, such as socioeconomic conditions (like income inequality and other social determinants of health), and differences in so-called lifestyle factors (like diet, drug use, or physical activity) that could contribute both to higher spending and worse outcomes.

Breaking total national health spending into its components can reveal the major drivers of health costs and where cost containment efforts could be most effective. The charts below show various ways of examining the key contributors to health spending. For example, the National Health Expenditure Accounts show trends in how health spending varies by type of service (e.g., hospital care vs. retail prescription drugs) or by source of funds (e.g., private health plans vs. public programs). An alternative and relatively new approach to understanding health spending is to break out total health spending into the share that goes to treat certain diseases (e.g., heart disease, cancer). Finally, health spending can also be better understood by looking at trends in prices (e.g., the dollar amount for a hospital stay) and utilization (e.g., the number of hospital stays). 

Hospital and Physician Services Represent Half of Total Health Spending

Most health spending in the U.S. and in peer countries is on hospital and physician care, followed by prescription drugs. In the U.S., hospital spending represented close to a third (31.2%) of overall health spending in 2023, and physicians/clinics represented 20.1% of total spending. In comparison to other large and wealthy countries, the U.S.’s higher spending on inpatient and outpatient care explains the vast majority of higher spending on health care overall.

Spending Has Grown for Hospitals, Physicians, and Drugs

During the 1970s, growth in hospital expenditures outpaced other services, while prescriptions and physician and clinic services saw faster spending growth during the 1980s and 1990s. From 2020 to 2023, retail prescription drugs experienced the fastest growth in spending at 8.6%, following 3.3% average annual growth from 2010 to 2020. Average spending growth for hospitals and physicians/clinics between 2020 and 2022 was 6.2% and 6.3%, respectively.

On a Per-Enrollee Basis, Private Insurance Spending Has Typically Grown Much Faster Than Medicare and Medicaid Spending

Per enrollee spending by private insurance grew by 80.4% from 2008 to 2023 – much faster than both Medicare and Medicaid spending growth per enrollee (50.3% and 30.3%, respectively). Private insurance often pays higher prices for health care compared to prices paid by Medicare and Medicaid.

Per enrollee spending by Medicaid rose by 7.9% in 2023 from the previous year, and also continued to increase in private insurance and Medicare (5.9% and 7.1% respectively). Medicare and private insurance per-enrollee spending continued to grow faster between 2021 and 2023 after slower growth in 2020. Medicaid per-enrollee spending had previously declined in 2021 as total enrollment grew, particularly among children and non-elderly adults, who generally have lower per-enrollee spending.

A Substantial Share of Health Spending Goes Toward the Treatment of Circulatory and Musculoskeletal Conditions

An alternative way of examining the components of health spending is to use the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)’s Health Care Satellite Account, which estimates spending and price growth by disease category (e.g., cancer, infectious disease). This approach differs from the official categorization of health spending by service type (e.g., provider services). Essentially, the new satellite account redefines the “commodity” in healthcare as the treatment for specific diseases, rather than a hospital stay or a physician visit. BEA researchers found that the largest categories of medical services spending include the treatment of circulatory diseases (10.4% of health spending in 2021), musculoskeletal conditions (9.4%) and infectious diseases (9%). Another large share of health spending (15.1%) is for “ill-defined conditions,” which can include routine check-ups and follow-up care that is not easily designated for a particular illness.

Health Spending is a Function of Prices and Use

Health services spending is generally a function of prices (e.g., the dollar amount charged for a hospital stay) and utilization (e.g., the number of hospital stays).

People and health plans in the U.S. often pay higher prices for the same prescription drugs or hospital procedures than people in other large and wealthy nations do. In terms of utilization, there is not much evidence that people in the U.S. use more health care. In fact, Americans generally have shorter average hospital stays and fewer physician visits per capita. Therefore, a large part of the difference in health spending between the U.S. and its peers can be explained by higher prices, more so than higher utilization.

Over time, within the U.S., prices and utilization have driven health cost growth to varying degrees. In the 1980s and early 1990s, growth in health care prices far exceeded growth in use. Faster growth in health prices in the U.S. during this time drove the divergence in per capita health spending between the U.S. and other large, wealthy OECD countries. While health care prices have grown more moderately in recent decades, prices in the U.S. for health services continue to exceed what other countries pay.

More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic led to fluctuations in health care use. Early in the pandemic, many health services, such as elective surgeries, were postponed or cancelled and many elected to not get care to avoid infections at health care sites. In 2021, health services use increased by 9% from the previous year, but subsequent years showed slightly lower growth rates (2024 health services use increased 5.6% from 2023). This increase in health care use in 2021 followed a sharp decrease in health utilization in 2020. Health care prices increased moderately – between 2 and 3% – between 2020 and 2024, but changing market conditions since the pandemic and policies enacted in 2025 are likely to increase health costs at an increasing rate.

A small portion of the population accounts for a large share of health spending in a given year. Although we tend to focus on averages, a small number of people spend around the average since individual health needs vary over the life course. Some portions of the population (older adults and those with serious or chronic illnesses) require more and higher-cost health services than those who are younger, healthier, or otherwise in need of fewer or less costly services.

Older People and People with Significant Health Needs Account for Most Health Expenditures

While there are people with high spending at all ages, overall, people 55 and over accounted for 54% of total health spending in 2022, despite making up only 31% of the population. In contrast, people under age 35 made up 44% of the population but were responsible for only 23% of spending.

People with significant health needs account for a large portion of total health spending. People reporting fair or poor health status account for 11% of the population and 27% of the total health spending.

A Small Share of the Population Incurs Most of Health Spending

In 2022, the top 5% of people with the highest health spending accounted for half of total health spending and had an average of $67,300 in health expenditures annually; people with health spending in the top 1% have average spending of over $147,000 per year. At the other end of the spectrum, the 50% of the population with total health spending below or equal to the 50th percentile accounted for only 3% of all health spending; the average spending for this group was $374.

Out-of-pocket spending on health services is concentrated similarly to overall health spending. In this chart, out-of-pocket spending includes direct payments to providers and cost-sharing, including deductibles, copays, and coinsurance, but does not include monthly premium payments or contributions towards health coverage. Out-of-pocket health spending is similarly concentrated among high-health-need individuals. A small portion of the population accounts for a substantial share of total out-of-pocket health spending in a year.

In 2022, people in the top 1% of out-of-pocket spending paid about $23,700 out-of-pocket for health services on average per year, and people in the top 10% spent an average of $6,126 out-of-pocket per year. People who are in the bottom 50% of out-of-pocket spending spent an average of $24 out of pocket.

In addition to being expensive for the nation as a whole, health care is often also expensive for individuals. High health costs can particularly pose a hardship for people who are in worse health and those with lower incomes. However, challenges affording health care are not limited to certain groups; these challenges are pervasive across the U.S. Even people with private health insurance through their employers are often exposed to high and rising deductibles, and therefore also face affordability challenges. A substantial share of the population does not have enough savings or other liquid assets to afford a high deductible or out-of-pocket maximum common in private health plans.

When health care is unaffordable, it can lead to cost-related access barriers, like forgoing or delaying needed medical care. For those who still receive unaffordable health care, this care can lead to medical debt and other forms of financial instability. Some people experience both types of affordability challenges, missing some needed care while also incurring medical debt for other care.

Half of Adults Say it is Difficult to Afford Health Care Costs

Almost half of U.S. adults say it is difficult to afford health care costs, and one in four say they or a family member in their household had problems paying for health care in the past 12 months. Younger adults, those with lower incomes, adults in fair or poor health, and the uninsured are particularly likely to report problems affording health care in the past year.

Among those under age 65, uninsured adults are more likely to say affording health care costs is difficult (82%) compared to those with health insurance coverage (44%).

Those who are covered by health insurance are not immune to the burden of health care costs. About 4 in 10 insured adults worry about affording their monthly health insurance premium, and 62% worry about affording their deductible before health insurance kicks in. Indeed, large shares of adults with employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) and those with Marketplace coverage rate their insurance as “fair” or “poor” when it comes to their monthly premium and out-of-pocket costs to see a doctor.

1 in 3 Adults Report Putting Off Health Care Because of Cost

Cost-related barriers to accessing health care are more common for some demographic groups than others. For example, people who are Hispanic, lower-income, in worse health, and/or uninsured tend to have higher rates of self-reported cost-related access barriers.

One-quarter of adults say that in the past 12 months they have skipped or postponed getting health care they needed because of the cost, according to KFF polling. Women are more likely than men to say they have skipped or postponed getting health care they needed because of the cost (38% vs. 32%). Adults ages 65 and older, most of whom are eligible for health care coverage through Medicare, are much less likely than younger age groups to say they have not gotten health care they needed because of cost. Three in four uninsured adults (75%) say they have skipped or postponed getting health care they needed due to cost. Insured people are not immune from cost-related barriers to accessing care and more than one in three adults with insurance (37%) report not getting health care they needed due to cost.

Despite the vast majority of the United States population having health insurance, medical debt is not uncommon. Different ways of measuring medical debt result in different estimates of prevalence, but regardless of the method, there is consensus that medical debt is a persistent and pervasive problem in the United States, including for people with insurance.

One way to examine medical debt is through credit reporting, but medical debt is often disguised as other forms of debt when people pay for medical bills on their credit cards or choose to pay off their medical bills while falling behind on other payments.

Another way to measure medical debt is with surveys, which can allow respondents to describe their debt with more detail or nuance. Questions about medical debt and other financial matters can be difficult to compare across surveys. For example, it is not always clear whether respondents are answering about their personal experiences or about their broader family or household. Surveys may also differ in the way they define medical debt or describe what forms of debt to include. 

The KFF Health Care Debt Survey asked respondents to think about money that they currently owe for their own health or dental care or someone else’s, such as a family member or dependent. The KFF Health Care Debt Survey finds that 41% of adults currently have some form of debt caused by their own or a family member’s medical or dental bills.

The  U.S. Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP)  asks whether money was owed for a medical bill and not paid in full during the past year for each person in the sample household. SIPP results, therefore, can be looked at on the individual level or for an overall household. This survey shows that about 1 in 12 adults have medical debt they owe for themselves or their family’s medical care in the past year.

Regardless of the survey used to examine medical debt, common themes emerge when looking at differences across demographic groups: adults who are Black, uninsured, lower-income, and in worse health are more likely to have medical debt. People with incomes under $40,000 are significantly more likely than people with higher incomes to go into debt to cover an unexpected medical bill, and people with disabilities are also much more likely to have significant medical debt, which, in addition to the burden of medical costs, could also reflect inadequate supplemental income for people who are unable to work due to disability or illness.

Nationally, Medical Debt Totals at Least $200 Billion

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) estimates that $88 billion in medical debt is reflected on Americans’ credit reports. However, credit reports may not capture all forms of medical debt. For example, medical debt disguised as credit card debt or money owed to family or friends may not be captured. Surveys may capture medical debt that is not visible on credit reports or is otherwise disguised as another form of debt. The 2023 Survey of Income and Program Participation suggests that total medical debt owed was at least $200 billion at the end of 2023.

Medical Debt is Associated with Financial Vulnerability Across a Range of Indicators

The National Financial Capability Survey (NFCS) is a triennial survey sponsored by the FINRA Foundation that provides information on the financial security, experiences, and vulnerabilities of people and households.

People with medical debt are much more likely to have other forms of financial distress than those without medical debt. Indicators of financial vulnerability — such as spending more money than one’s income, having no “rainy day” fund, or agreeing with the statement “I am just getting by financially” — are more common among adults with medical debt than those without. Additionally, people with medical debt are more likely to overdraw their checking account, have a credit card balance that exposes them to interest payments, take a cash advance on their credit card, or have been contacted by debt collectors. Adults with medical debt are much more likely to use payday loans or other costly loans than those without medical debt.

Each year, actuaries from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) project future spending on health. With health care utilization returning to pre-pandemic levels and price inflation in the health sector continuing to outpace general economic inflation, per-person health spending increased 7% in 2023. Annual per capita health spending is projected to grow at an annual rate of 5% per capita on average from 2023 to 2032.

An aging population, labor pressure driving higher prices, and new high-cost prescription drugs coming to market are expected to contribute to a growth in health spending. Health spending was 17.6% of the U.S. economy in 2023 and is expected to reach 19.7% by 2032.

The pandemic has had direct and indirect effects on the health system that can make projections difficult. COVID-19 has led to new costs for vaccination, testing, and treatment and has also caused other shifts in health utilization and spending. Some people avoided medical settings out of concern of contracting COVID and thus missed or delayed routine care or cancer screenings earlier in the pandemic, for example, which could lead to pent-up demand, worsening health conditions, or more complex disease management going forward. Increased use of telemedicine could also shift spending patterns in the future. Further, the recent broad-based inflation trends in the economy and health sector employment trends also add to the uncertainty of these projections.

Federal Government Infusion of Public Health Funding Has Subsided Since Early in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Total national health spending includes spending on direct patient care, as well as spending on public health or prevention. After a sharp increase in federal funding in 2020 driven by the national response to the COVID-19 pandemic, spending on public health has fallen, decreasing by over 58% between 2022 and 2023. Meanwhile, state and local public health spending grew 5%, in line with previous years. Overall public health spending is expected to continue to decline over the next couple of years.

Signed in July 2025, the tax and budget reconciliation law (formerly known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”) includes provisions for addressing federal spending on Medicaid and Affordable Care Act exchanges. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects the law to decrease spending on Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces by over $1 trillion and lead to 10 million more uninsured people through 2034.

Additional policy issues that will shape future health spending and affordability include:

• Evolution of State Cost Controls: States implementing measures to control health cost growth, including those potentially supported by the Biden Administration’s new AHEAD model, may prompt further experimentation; however, states can only regulate a subset of private health insurance plans.
• Price Transparency Requirements: Federal price transparency requirements aim to illuminate prices paid to hospitals and providers. There remain challenges with the quality of the data, though CMS continues to request suggestions for improved guidelines. As for a budgetary impact, CBO predicted minimal impact on health sector prices.
• Prescription Drug Pricing: The Trump administration’s 2025 executive order called on pharmaceutical manufacturers to match most-favored-nation prices (MFN, the lowest price offered in other developed nations). The effects of this order on prescription drug prices in the U.S. remain uncertain. Additionally, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, targeting Medicare drug spending through government negotiation of drug prices, is expected to reduce Medicare costs, but potential far-reaching effects are still unclear. While CBO expects minimal effects on the availability of new treatments, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding those estimates.
• Expansion of Virtual Care: The COVID-19-induced rise in telehealth, with expanded reimbursement and access, has uncertain impacts on care coordination, quality, health outcomes, and costs.
• Market Dynamics and Anticompetitive Practices: Consolidation among providers, insurers, and drug manufacturers has elevated health care prices, leading to regulatory actions against anticompetitive practices, aiming to protect consumers from rising costs.
• Provider Payment Reforms: Bipartisan efforts in site-neutral payment reform, addressing concerns about higher payments in outpatient settings, have led to Medicare implementing site-neutral payments in some settings and additional legislative proposals. However, challenges in provider charging practices and facility fees persist.
• Value-Based Payment Models: The proliferation of value-based care aims to transfer some of the cost risks from payers to providers, but concerns remain about the effectiveness of these approaches, limited quality improvement, administrative burdens, and reduced physician participation incentives. 
• Changes in Coverage: Despite reduced uninsured rates through continuous Medicaid enrollment and expanded Affordable Care Act Marketplace subsidies during the pandemic, affordability challenges persist among the insured. Renewed disenrollments from Medicaid and the expiration of Marketplace subsidies after 2025 may increase uninsured rates and affordability issues.
• Addressing Medical Debt: Ongoing efforts to address medical debt involve buying medical debt for forgiveness and regulatory actions. However, the root causes of high health costs and underinsurance remain untouched by most efforts to mitigate the negative effects of medical debt.

• National Health Spending Explorer – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
• How has U.S. spending on healthcare changed over time? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
• How much is health spending expected to grow? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
• What are the recent and forecasted trends in prescription drug spending? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
• How does medical inflation compare to inflation in the rest of the economy? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
• How many people have enough money to afford private insurance cost sharing? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
• Americans’ Challenges with Health Care Costs | KFF
• How does cost affect access to healthcare? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
• The burden of medical debt in the United States – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
• Health Care Debt In The U.S.: The Broad Consequences Of Medical And Dental Bills | KFF

Amin, K., Cox, C., Ortaliza, J. & Wager, E., Health Care Costs and Affordability. In Altman, Drew (Editor), Health Policy 101, (KFF, October 2025) https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-health-care-costs-and-affordability/ (date accessed).

Health coverage in the United States is marked by a blend of private and public insurance options that leaves about 8% of the population uninsured. This coverage system has evolved over the years, most recently with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which aimed to reduce the uninsured rate by expanding Medicaid, creating health insurance Marketplaces for individuals, and providing subsidies to make the coverage more affordable. Many factors, including economic conditions, federal and state policy changes, and significant health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, influence the uninsured rate. The ACA and policy changes designed to protect coverage during the pandemic led to increased health coverage overall; however, passage of the 2025 Federal Budget Reconciliation Bill (referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) along with other policy changes are expected to increase significantly the number of people who are uninsured over the next ten years.

Health coverage in the U.S. is a complex patchwork of private and public insurance coverage options. In 2023, most residents had private insurance coverage, with nearly half covered by an employer-based plan. About 1 in 5 U.S. residents received coverage through the Medicaid program, the federal and state-financed comprehensive health coverage program for low-income people. Another roughly 15% of the population had health coverage from the federal Medicare program, which covers seniors and people under age 65 with long-term disabilities. About 6% of the population had private non-group insurance either purchased through the ACA Marketplace or off-market, and just over 1% of the population was covered through the military’s TRICARE or VA health care programs. The uninsured rate for the total population was 7.9% for the year (Figure 1). (In some cases, people have multiple forms of coverage. For example, about 12 million people are enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid and are classified in these figures as covered by Medicaid.)

In 2023, there were 25.3 million uninsured residents ages 0-64, and the uninsured rate among the population ages 0-64 was 9.5%, the lowest rate in U.S. history (Figure 2). The analysis of the uninsured population focuses on coverage among people ages 0-64 since Medicare offers near-universal coverage for seniors—just 457,000, or less than 1%, of people over age 65 were uninsured.

Prior to the implementation of the ACA, gaps in the public insurance system and lack of access to affordable private coverage left over 40 million people without health insurance. The ACA expanded Medicaid coverage to nearly all adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL) (the poverty level in the continental U.S. is $15,650 for a single individual in 2025) and created new health insurance Marketplaces through which individuals can purchase coverage with financial help to afford premiums and cost-sharing. Following the passage of the ACA in 2010 and the rollout of the coverage provisions, the number of uninsured people ages 0-64 dropped to 27 million in 2016. The ACA envisioned that all states would adopt the Medicaid expansion; however, a Supreme Court ruling in 2012 made expansion optional for states. As of early 2025, 40 states and Washington, D.C. had adopted the ACA’s Medicaid expansion (Figure 3).

The declines in uninsured rates following implementation of the ACA coverage expansions were largest among poor and near-poor individuals, particularly adults. People of color, who had higher uninsured rates than White people prior to 2014, had larger coverage gains from 2013 to 2016 than White people, although the coverage disparities were not eliminated.

Before implementation of the ACA, expansions of Medicaid coverage and the enactment of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) helped to lower the uninsured rate for children. Changes in the 1980s and early 1990s expanded Medicaid eligibility levels for children and pregnant people, and the establishment of CHIP in 1997 provided coverage for children with incomes above Medicaid thresholds. When states implemented CHIP, extensive outreach efforts along with the adoption of streamlined processes facilitated enrollment of children in Medicaid and CHIP and reduced the number of uninsured children.

After declining through 2016, the number of uninsured people and the uninsured rate began increasing in 2017 and continued to grow through 2019. Generally favorable economic conditions as well as policy changes during the Trump Administration, such as reduced funding for outreach and enrollment assistance, encouraging periodic Medicaid eligibility checks, changes to immigration policy related to public charge rules, and approval of some demonstration waivers to restrict enrollment led to a decline in Medicaid enrollment, which likely contributed to the increase in uninsured people.  

With the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic, policies adopted to protect coverage drove a decline in the uninsured population from 2019 to 2023. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act required states to keep people continuously enrolled in Medicaid in exchange for enhanced federal funding. Medicaid continuous enrollment ended in March 2023, and most states completed renewals for individuals who enrolled during continuous enrollment by December 2024. In addition, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) provided temporary enhanced ACA Marketplace subsidies to make Marketplace coverage more affordable, and these subsidies were renewed for another three years in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. These enhanced subsidies will expire at the end of December 2025 unless Congress acts to extend them.

Most people who are uninsured are adults under age 65, are in working low-income families, are people of color, and, reflecting geographic variation in income, immigration status, and the availability of public coverage, live in the South or West. In 2023, over 8 in 10 people ages 0-64 who were uninsured were adults and 16% were children.

Nearly three-quarters (73.7%) of the uninsured population ages 0-64 had at least one full-time worker in their family and an additional 11.2% had a part-time worker in their family (Figure 4). More than 8 in 10 (80.9%) people ages 0-64 who were uninsured were in families with incomes below 400% FPL in 2023 and nearly half (46.7%) had incomes below 200% FPL. People of color comprised 62.9% of the uninsured population ages 0-64 in 2023 despite making up about 46% of residents ages 0-64. Most uninsured individuals (74.2%) were U.S. citizens, while 25.8% were noncitizens in 2023. Nearly three-quarters lived in the South and West.

Adults ages 19 to 64 are more likely to be uninsured than children. The uninsured rate among children (5.3%) was less than half the rate among adults ages 19-64 (11.1%) in 2023, largely due to the broader availability of Medicaid and CHIP coverage for children than for adults. Among adults ages 19-64, men had higher uninsured rates than women in 2023 (12.6% vs. 9.5%).

Reflecting persistent disparities in coverage, people of color are generally more likely to be uninsured than White people. In 2023, American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN) and Hispanic people ages 0-64 had the highest uninsured rates at 18.7% and 17.9%, respectively, which were nearly three times higher than the uninsured rate for White people (6.5%). Uninsured rates for Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (NHPI) (12.8%) and Black people (9.7%) ages 0-64 were also higher than the rate for their White counterparts (Figure 5). These differences in uninsured rates are driven by lower rates of private coverage among these groups. Medicaid coverage helps to narrow these differences but does not fully offset them.

Noncitizens are more likely than citizens to be uninsured. Nearly one-third of noncitizen immigrants were uninsured in 2023 while the uninsured rate for U.S.-born citizens was 7.5% and 8.9% for naturalized citizens. One in 4 children has an immigrant parent, including over 1 in 10 (12%) who are citizen children with at least one noncitizen parent.

Uninsured rates vary by state and by region and were generally higher in states that had not taken up the ACA Medicaid expansion in 2023 (Figure 6). Economic conditions, availability of employer-sponsored coverage, and demographics are other factors contributing to variation in uninsured rates across states.

The fragmented U.S. health coverage system leads to gaps in coverage. While employer-based insurance is the prevalent source of coverage for the population ages 0-64, not all workers are offered coverage by their employer or, if offered, can afford their share of the premiums. Medicaid covers many low-income individuals, especially children, but eligibility for adults remains limited in most states that have not adopted the ACA Medicaid expansion. While subsidies for Marketplace coverage are available for many low and moderate-income people, few people can afford to purchase private coverage without financial assistance.

The cost of health coverage and care poses a challenge for the country broadly and is a significant barrier to coverage for people who are uninsured. In 2023, 63.2% of uninsured adults ages 18-64 said they were uninsured because coverage is not affordable, making it the most common reason cited for being uninsured (Figure 7). Other reasons included not being eligible for coverage (27.0%), not needing or wanting coverage (26.6%), and signing up being too difficult (23.9%).

Not all workers have access to coverage through their jobs. In 2023, 64.7% of uninsured workers worked for an employer that did not offer them health benefits. Among uninsured workers who are offered coverage by their employers, cost is often a barrier to taking up the offer. Low-income families with employer-based coverage spend a significantly higher share of their income toward premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses compared to those with income above 200% FPL.

A decade after the implementation of the ACA coverage options, 10 states have not adopted the Medicaid expansion, leaving 1.4 million uninsured people without an affordable coverage option. A coverage gap exists in states that have not adopted the expansion for poor adults who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid coverage but not enough to be eligible for subsidies in the Marketplace.

Lawfully-present immigrants generally must meet a five-year waiting period after receiving qualified immigration status before they can qualify for Medicaid. States have the option to cover eligible children and pregnant people without a waiting period, and as of January 2025, 38 states have elected the option for children, and 32 states have taken up the option for lawfully-present pregnant individuals. Under current law, lawfully-present immigrants are eligible for Marketplace tax credits, including those who are not eligible for Medicaid because they have not met the five-year waiting period. Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for federally-funded coverage, including Medicaid and Marketplace coverage, although some states provide fully state-funded health coverage to these individuals.

Health care provisions in the 2025 reconciliation package narrow eligibility for federally-subsidized health coverage, including Medicaid and CHIP, Medicare, and Marketplace subsidies, to a limited group of lawfully-present immigrants. These changes take effect on January 1, 2027 and are expected to increase the number of lawfully residing immigrants without health coverage.

Though financial assistance is available to many of the remaining uninsured under the ACA, not everyone who is uninsured is eligible for free or subsidized coverage. Nearly 6 in 10 (14.5 million) uninsured individuals in 2023 were eligible for financial assistance through Medicaid or subsidized Marketplace coverage (Figure 8). However, over 4 in 10 uninsured (10.9 million) were outside the reach of the ACA because their state did not expand Medicaid, their immigration status made them ineligible, or they were deemed to have access to an affordable Marketplace plan or offer of employer coverage (Figure 8).

Lacking health insurance in the United States can impact a person’s access to health care, their financial situation, and their health status. It can also broadly impact a community’s public health (illustrated by the COVID-19 pandemic) and the economy through lower productivity.

Adults who are uninsured are almost five times more likely than adults with insurance to report not having a usual source of care, which is often a key entry point for accessing health care whether for preventive services or for treating existing conditions. Consequently, in 2023, nearly half (46.6%) of uninsured adults ages 18-64 reported not seeing a doctor or health care professional in the past 12 months compared to 15.6% with private insurance and 14.2% with public coverage (Figure 9). Uninsured individuals are also more likely to face cost barriers to accessing needed care. In 2023, uninsured adults were nearly three times more likely to report not getting medical care due to cost compared to publicly insured adults and four times more likely than privately insured adults (22.6% vs 7.7% and 5.1%, respectively).

The lack of access to health care and a delay in seeking care due to costs mean uninsured people are more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable health problems and to experience declines in their overall health. Research also shows that when they are hospitalized, uninsured people receive fewer diagnostic and therapeutic services and have higher mortality rates than those with insurance.

Uninsured individuals often face unaffordable medical bills when they do seek care, which can lead to medical debt and other forms of financial instability. Nearly half of uninsured adults reported difficulty paying for health care, compared to 21% of insured adults and over 8 in 10 (84%) uninsured adults said they worried that health care costs would put them in debt or increase their existing debt, compared to 71% of adults with insurance (Figure 10). Uninsured adults are also more likely to face negative consequences due to health care debt, such as using up savings, having difficulty paying other living expenses, or borrowing money.

Driven by pandemic-era policies to promote health coverage, the number of people without insurance and the uninsured rate dropped to historic lows in recent years. Although millions of people lost Medicaid coverage during the unwinding of continuous enrollment, Medicaid enrollment remains higher than in February 2020, before the start of the pandemic. Enhanced Marketplace subsidies adopted during the pandemic led to record Marketplace signups, with enrollment topping 25 million in 2025. States have also taken action to reduce the number of people who are uninsured. In 2023, two states, North Carolina and South Dakota, newly adopted the Medicaid expansion, and several states have expanded state-funded coverage for certain individuals regardless of immigration status.

However, actions by Congress and the Trump Administration threaten to reverse these recent coverage gains. Congress passed the 2025 Federal Budget Reconciliation package on July 3, 2025, which makes significant changes to Medicaid and ACA Marketplaces, and President Trump signed the reconciliation package into law on July 4, 2025.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the law will increase the number of people without health insurance by 10 million. The expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits for Marketplace enrollees, which will happen at the end of 2025 unless Congress takes action to extend them, will further increase the number of people without health insurance. CBO projects that over 14 million more people will be uninsured in 2034 due to the combined effects of the reconciliation package and the expiration of the enhanced Marketplace subsidies. In addition to these potential coverage losses, the Trump administration’s increased immigration enforcement activities are likely to have a broad chilling effect that could cause immigrants to decide to disenroll or not enroll themselves or their children, most of whom are U.S. citizens, in health coverage programs even if they are eligible due to immigration-related fears.

Enactment of the ACA helped close some gaps in our fragmented health coverage system and led to a significant decline in the number of people who were uninsured. Recent efforts built on that success to further shrink the share of people without insurance. Yet, despite this success and the ACA’s continued favorability—the public has a favorable view of the ACA by a 2 to 1 margin—policymakers enacted cuts to federal support for Medicaid and ACA coverage to fund other budget priorities. The impact on health coverage and people’s ability to access needed health care services will be significant.

• Key Facts about the Uninsured Population 
• How Many Uninsured Are in the Coverage Gap and How Many Could be Eligible if All States Adopted the Medicaid Expansion?
• A Closer Look at the Remaining Uninsured Population Eligible for Medicaid and CHIP
• Health Coverage by Race and Ethnicity, 2010-2023
• Key Facts on Health Coverage of Immigrants
• How Does Cost Affect Access to Health Care?
• State-Funded Health Coverage for Immigrants
• How Will the One Big Beautiful Bill Act Affect the ACA, Medicaid, and the Uninsured Rate?

Tolbert, Jennifer, Bell, Clea, Cervantes, Sammy & Singh, Rakesh, The Uninsured Population and Health Coverage. In Altman, Drew (Editor), Health Policy 101, (KFF, October 2025) https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-the-uninsured-population-and-health-coverage/ (date accessed).