Poll Finding

KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust: Fall 2026 Update on Vaccine Views

Published: Oct 20, 2026

Key Takeaways

  • In the months following two events that put vaccine safety in the spotlight—President Trump’s executive order calling for a change in U.S. childhood vaccine recommendations and the U.S. Senate investigation into Dr. Anthony Fauci—the latest KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust finds that while confidence in most childhood vaccines remains high, partisans are divided in their views of COVID-19 vaccine safety for both children and pregnant women. At the same time, notable shares of the public and parents express uncertainty or hold misperceptions related to the vaccine discussions at the center of these recent news events.
  • As parents are faced with conflicting advice about how to handle their children’s vaccines, there are differences by partisanship on the best way forward. Overall, about half of parents think children are healthier when vaccines are spaced out and they do not get multiple shots in a single visit while the other half say there is no strong evidence that it’s healthier to do so. Larger shares of Republican parents say it’s better to space vaccines out and seven in ten Democratic parents say there’s no evidence to support this. While spacing out vaccines and refraining from getting multiple shots in one visit are key directives in President Trump’s executive order, there is no evidence to support such claims.
  • Overall confidence in the safety of long-standing vaccines for children is bipartisan, with large majorities of parents and adults across partisanship saying they are confident the polio and MMR vaccines are safe for children. Smaller shares, though still majorities across partisanship, express confidence in the safety of hepatitis B and flu vaccines for children, but views of these two vaccines vary by partisanship with Republicans less confident than Democrats.
  • Views of the safety of COVID-19 vaccines remain very polarized. While half of the public say they are confident the vaccines are safe for children, this is true of 77% of Democrats but just 21% of Republicans. Similarly, four in ten adults overall are confident these vaccines are safe for pregnant people, including 62% of Democrats but just 17% of Republicans. Most adults, including eight in ten women of reproductive age, also express uncertainty about whether getting vaccinated for COVID-19 while pregnant increases the risk of miscarriage—a false claim revived by some Republican senators amid Dr. Fauci’s trial.
  • Many supporters of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, a movement often associated with vaccine skepticism, have confidence in the safety of several vaccines for children, including three-quarters who are confident the vaccines for MMR (76%) and polio (76%) are safe and at least half who say the same of hepatitis B and flu vaccines. However, just three in ten are confident in the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for children.

Views of Childhood Vaccine Safety

Consistent with prior KFF polling, most adults remain confident in the safety of long-standing childhood vaccines, with at least three-quarters across partisanship saying they are “very” or “somewhat” confident that the polio and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines are safe for children. Majorities of adults also express confidence in flu and hepatitis B vaccines for children, though there are larger partisan differences on these vaccines, with at least eight in ten Democrats saying they are confident compared to closer to six in ten Republicans.

Confidence in the safety of COVID-19 vaccines for children is deeply divided; half of the public are confident they’re safe for children, though just two in ten (21%) Republicans say this compared to half of independents and three-quarters (77%) of Democrats. Influenza (flu), hepatitis B, and COVID-19 are included in the list of immunizations the Trump administration is seeking to shift from routine use to shared clinical decision-making (and for children who meet certain risk criteria in the case of hepatitis B) in the most recent executive order changing the childhood vaccine schedule and in earlier attempts this year. The changes outlined in the executive order remain blocked in federal courts for now.

Notably, many supporters of the Make America Healthy Again movement (who make up 42% of the public)—a movement that has often been associated with vaccine skepticism—have confidence in the safety of several vaccines for children; three-quarters of this group express confidence in vaccines for MMR (76%) and polio (76%) and over half are confident in vaccines for hepatitis B (62%) and the flu (54%). A much smaller share (28%) of MAHA supporters are confident in COVID-19 vaccine safety for children.

Overall, confidence in the safety of all vaccines asked about in this survey for children remains largely unchanged from January and May of this year among parents, across partisans, among MAHA supporters, and among adults overall.

Split bar chart showing percent who say they are very or somewhat confident that specific vaccines are safe for children. Results shown by total adults, party identification, and support for the Make America Healthy Again movement.

Similar to the overall public, there are notable partisan divides among parents of children under 18 when it comes to vaccine confidence; while large majorities of parents across partisanship are confident in the safety of childhood vaccines for MMR and polio, parents who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents are at least 20 percentage-points more likely to express confidence in hepatitis B and flu vaccines for children compared to their Republican counterparts. And, like partisans overall, the divides are largest for COVID-19 vaccines, with Democratic parents three times more likely to say the vaccines are safe compared to Republican parents (64% vs. 19%).

Split bar chart showing percent who say they are very or somewhat confident that specific vaccines are safe for children. Results shown by total parents and parents by party identification.

In addition to their general confidence in the safety of long-standing childhood vaccines, eight in ten (82%) adults overall and three quarters (76%) of parents think the benefits of childhood vaccines for MMR outweigh the risks while about one in five (17% of all adults; 22% of parents) say the risks outweigh the benefits. These shares have largely stayed consistent since the beginning of the second Trump administration, before many changes to the vaccine policy recommendations. Large shares of parents across partisanship say the benefits of MMR vaccines outweigh the risks, though Republican or Republican-leaning parents are somewhat more likely than Democrat or Democratic-leaning parents to say the risks outweigh the benefits (24% vs. 14%).

Even among parents who support the Make America Healthy Again movement, seven in ten (69%) say the benefits of MMR vaccines outweigh the risks, though the share of MAHA parents who say the risks outweigh the benefits is larger than among parents who do not support MAHA (29% vs. 16%).

Split bar chart showing percent who say the benefits of childhood vaccines for MMR outweigh the risks or vice versa. Results shown by total adults, total parents, parents by party identification, and parents by their support for the Make America Healthy Again movement.

Awareness and Perceptions of the Recent Vaccine Executive Order

The executive order signed by President Trump in August calls for the reduction in the number of diseases targeted by routine childhood vaccination from 17 to 11 and calls for the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines to be administered as separate vaccines, among other directives.

Most (59%) of the public, and a similar share of parents, have heard either “not much” (30%) or “nothing at all” (28%) about the most recent attempts by the administration to change the childhood vaccine schedule, while a smaller share (41%) of adults say they have heard “some” (30%) or “a lot” (12%) about it. By comparison, about half (51%) reported hearing at least “some” about similar changes to the vaccine schedule announced in January.

Stacked bar chart showing percent who have heard of the recent changes to the childhood vaccine schedule. Results shown among total adults and parents in September 2026 and in January 2026.

While many adults are unsure about the federal government’s recent executive order on childhood vaccines, views of how these changes might affect children’s health are more negative than positive. Four in ten overall think these changes will have a negative impact on children’s health in the U.S., one in eight (12%) say they will have a positive impact, one in ten (9%) say they will have no impact, and four in ten (38%) are unsure. These perceptions vary greatly by partisanship, with Democrats and independents much more likely to view the impact as negative rather than positive. Republicans are more likely to say the changes will have a positive impact (27%) than a negative one (9%), but half of Republicans say they are unsure.

Notably, half of parents say the changes to the childhood vaccine schedule will have either no impact (14%) on children’s health in the U.S. or are unsure of the impact they will have (36%). Among supporters of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, half (48%) are unsure of the impact the changes will have, while smaller, similar shares say it will have either a positive (23%) or negative (18%) impact.

Among the 41% of the public who have heard “a lot” or “some” about the recent executive order, six in ten (60%) say the changes will have a negative impact on children’s health, about three times the share who expect a positive impact (18%).

Stacked bar chart showing percent who say the federal government's updates to the childhood vaccine schedule will have a negative impact, a positive impact, or no impact on children's health in the U.S. Results shown by total adults, total parents, party identification, and support for the Make America Healthy Again movement.

Alongside reductions to the number of diseases targeted by routine childhood vaccination, the recent executive order calls for separate doses for the currently combined MMR vaccine. This directive also comes at a time when the President has made statements that spacing out and separating doses of childhood vaccines would reduce autism rates. The KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust finds parents are divided in their perceptions of whether it is healthier for childhood vaccines to be spaced out. Half of parents (48%) incorrectly think children are healthier when their vaccines are spaced out and they don’t get multiple shots in one visit, while another half (52%) says there is no strong evidence to support such a claim. There is no evidence that spacing out vaccines is safer for children, however this perception among parents is not new; previous KFF polling has found concerns about receiving multiple vaccines at once is one of the top reasons parents report skipping or delaying childhood vaccines.

Awareness of whether childhood vaccines are safer when spaced out varies by partisanship, with seven in ten (68%) Democratic or Democratic-leaning parents saying there is no strong evidence that it is healthier for children to space out vaccines or avoid multiple shots in one visit, while a similar share of Republicans or Republican-leaning parents (69%) say children are healthier this way.

Split bar chart showing percent who say children are healthier when their vaccines are spaced out versus percent who say there is no strong evidence to suggest spacing out vaccines is healthier. Results shown by total adults, total parents, and parents by party identification.

Misperceptions About COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnancy

Misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine and its effects on pregnancy, breastfeeding, and fertility have been widespread over the years, including recent claims tying the vaccine to first trimester miscarriages. About four in ten (39%) adults say they are either “very” or “somewhat” confident that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe for pregnant people, a decrease from 53% in May 2022. Among women of reproductive age, 37% now have confidence in the vaccines’ safety during pregnancy, down from 48%. As with most attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines, there are large partisan gaps, with more than six in ten (62%) Democrats expressing confidence and more than eight in ten (83%) Republicans saying they are not confident. Notably, confidence in COVID-19 vaccine safety for pregnant people has decreased across partisans since 2022, including a 17-percentage point decrease in confidence among Democrats and a 15-percentage point decrease among Republicans.

Stacked bar chart showing confidence levels in the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines for people who are pregnant or trying to become pregnant. Results shown by total adults, women of reproductive age, and party identification.
Split bar chart showing percent who say they are very or somewhat confident that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe for people who are pregnant or trying to become pregnant in September 2026 versus May 2022. Results shown by total adults, women of reproductive age, and party identification.

The decrease in confidence in COVID-19 vaccine safety for pregnant people comes amid revived false claims linking COVID-19 vaccination to miscarriage, a claim which leaves many adults uncertain. About a third of the public have heard the claim that getting vaccinated for COVID-19 while pregnant increases the risk of miscarriage, including about four in ten Republicans (43%), a third of independents (34%), and one in five Democrats (22%). Three in ten (31%) women of reproductive age (ages 18 to 49) also say they have heard this.

Split bar chart showing percent who say they have heard anyone say or have read anywhere that getting vaccinated for COVID-19 while pregnant increases the risk of miscarriage. Results shown by total adults, women of reproductive age, and party identification.

While research has consistently found COVID-19 vaccines to be safe for pregnant people, many adults are still uncertain about potential links between the vaccines and miscarriages. A small share of the public, just 8%, say it is “definitely false” that getting vaccinated for COVID-19 while pregnant increases the risk of miscarriage, and a similar share say the claim is “definitely true” (9%).

In line with KFF’s Health Information and Trust research on a variety of health topics, many adults fall in the “malleable middle” when it comes to this claim, saying it is either “probably true” (37%) or “probably false” (44%). The large share of adults who express uncertainty about this claim is consistent across partisanship, though a somewhat larger share of Republicans say it is “definitely true” (18%) while more Democrats say it is “definitely false” (13%). A large majority of women of reproductive age also express uncertainty about this claim, with equal shares saying it is either “probably true” (40%) or “probably false” (42%).

Stacked bar chart showing belief in the claim that getting vaccinated for COVID-19 while pregnant increases the risk of miscarriage. Results shown by total adults, women of reproductive age, and party identification.

This KFF Health Tracking Poll/KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust was designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at KFF. The survey was conducted September 16 – September 21, 2026, online and by telephone among a nationally representative sample of 1,328 U.S. adults in English (n=1,237) and in Spanish (n=91). The sample includes 1,015 adults (n=72 in Spanish) reached through the SSRS Opinion Panel either online (n=990) or over the phone (n=25). The SSRS Opinion Panel is a nationally representative probability-based panel where panel members are recruited randomly in one of two ways: (a) Through invitations mailed to respondents randomly sampled from an Address-Based Sample (ABS) provided by Marketing Systems Groups (MSG) through the U.S. Postal Service’s Computerized Delivery Sequence (CDS); (b) from a dual-frame random digit dial (RDD) sample provided by MSG. For the online panel component, invitations were sent to panel members by email followed by up to three reminder emails.

Another 313 (n=19 in Spanish) adults were reached through random digit dial telephone sample of prepaid cell phone numbers obtained through MSG. Phone numbers used for the prepaid cell phone component were randomly generated from a cell phone sampling frame with disproportionate stratification aimed at reaching Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black respondents. Stratification was based on incidence of the race/ethnicity groups within each frame. Among this prepaid cell phone component, 142 were interviewed by phone and 171 were invited to the web survey via short message service (SMS).

Respondents in the prepaid cell phone sample who were interviewed by phone received a $15 incentive via a check received by mail or an electronic gift card incentive. Respondents in the prepaid cell phone sample reached via SMS received a $10 electronic gift card incentive. SSRS Opinion Panel respondents received a $5 electronic gift card incentive (some harder-to-reach groups received a $10 electronic gift card). In order to ensure data quality, cases were removed if they failed two or more quality checks: (1) attention check questions in the online version of the questionnaire, (2) had over 30% item non-response, or (3) had a length less than one quarter of the mean length by mode. Based on this criterion, 8 cases were removed.

The combined cell phone and panel samples were weighted to match the sample’s demographics to the national U.S. adult population using data from the Census Bureau’s 2025 Current Population Survey (CPS), September 2023 Volunteering and Civic Life Supplement data from the CPS, and the 2026 KFF Benchmarking Survey with ABS and prepaid cell phone samples. The demographic variables included in weighting for the general population sample are gender, age, education, race/ethnicity, region, civic engagement, frequency of internet use and political party identification. The weights account for differences in the probability of selection for each sample type (prepaid cell phone and panel). This includes adjustment for the sample design and geographic stratification of the cell phone sample, within household probability of selection, and the design of the panel-recruitment procedure.

The margin of sampling error including the design effect for the full sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Numbers of respondents and margins of sampling error for key subgroups are shown in the table below. For results based on other subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher. Sample sizes and margins of sampling error for other subgroups are available on request. Sampling error is only one of many potential sources of error and there may be other unmeasured error in this or any other public opinion poll. KFF public opinion and survey research is a charter member of the Transparency Initiative of the American Association for Public Opinion Research.

 

GroupN (unweighted)M.O.S.E.
Total1,328± 3 percentage points
Total registered voters1,013± 4 percentage points
   
Party ID  
Democrats446± 6 percentage points
Independents439± 6 percentage points
Republicans347± 7 percentage points
   
Registered Voter Party ID  
Democrats379± 6 percentage points
Independents304± 7 percentage points
Republicans294± 7 percentage points
   
MAHA Support  
Adults who support the MAHA movement565± 5 percentage points
Adults who do not support the MAHA movement742± 5 percentage points
   
Parents of Children Under 18437± 6 percentage points
Democrats/Democratic-leaning parents197± 9 percentage points
Republican/Republican-leaning parents149± 10 percentage points
Parents who support the MAHA movement197± 9 percentage points
Parents who do not support the MAHA movement234± 8 percentage points
   
Women Ages 18-49393± 6 percentage points

The Business of Health with Chip Kahn

Building the AI Hospital

October 20, 2026

Video

Audio

About this Episode


Episode 20, AI Series: Walk into the emergency room at Israel’s largest hospital and the first clinician to take your history may be an AI avatar — with a physician signing off on every recommendation. Israel’s Sheba Medical Center is building what could become the first fully AI-based hospital by 2030. Dr. Eyal Zimlichman, Sheba’s Chief Transformation Officer, Chief Innovation Officer and Chief AI officer, talks with Chip about what that means for patients. During their conversation, Dr. Zimlichman argues that in the future, doctors will “be much more humane than the doctors of the present…because if we’re not able to achieve that, then there’s really no difference between the AI and the physician…we will be able to compete with the AI in terms of humanity.”

The Host


Headshot photo of Chip Kahn wearing a navy blue suit with a red tie, red pendant on lapel, and glasses.

Sr. Visiting Fellow

Charles N. Kahn III is a senior visiting fellow at KFF. He is also a visiting senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a nonresident senior scholar at the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics. He serves as co-chair of the international Future of Health collaborative.

Guest


Chief Transformation Officer, Chief Innovation Officer, and Chief AI Officer, Sheba Medical Center; Founder, ARC Innovation

Eyal Zimlichman, MD, is a physician, healthcare executive, and researcher specializing in healthcare quality, value, and patient safety. In the separate roles of Chief Transformation Officer, Chief Innovation Officer, and Chief AI Officer at Sheba Medical Center at Sheba Medical Center—Israel’s largest hospital—he drives efforts to make care more patient-centered, efficient, and equitable, and founded ARC (Accelerate, Redesign, Collaborate), Sheba’s global platform for advancing digital health and AI through collaboration with healthcare institutions, industry, and startups. His leadership has earned international recognition, including being named a Chief Transformation Officer to Know by Becker’s Hospital Review in 2023 and 2024. He previously served as Sheba’s Chief Medical Officer and, before that, its Chief Quality Officer. Dr. Zimlichman holds a Master of Science in Healthcare Management from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and earned his MD from the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology.



SERIES

This weekly podcast features insightful conversations between host Chip Kahn and his guests, who discuss the business of health care, connecting the dots between the health care business, policy, and patients.

The podcast’s first series on AI in health care illuminates how AI is changing health care, and features guests who are deploying this technology, managing its consequences, and designing policy around it.

Medicaid State Fact Sheets

Medicaid and CHIP provide health and long-term care coverage to millions of low-income children and adults in the United States. The programs are jointly financed by the federal government and states and are administered by states within broad federal rules. As a result, programs vary widely across states in how many and which residents they cover and how much they spend. These differences reflect state policy choices, such as whether to adopt the ACA Medicaid expansion or set income limits above federal minimums for certain groups, as well as differences in demographic characteristics of state populations. These fact sheets provide key data on Medicaid programs in every state.

Click a state’s tooltip in the map or the state name in the table below to view the fact sheets.


Percent of People Covered By Medicaid, 2024

Choropleth map

Click on the state name in the table below to download a fact sheet that provides a snapshot of key data for Medicaid in that state.

Table

Sources

The fact sheets include both state and national level data. For specific sources used in the fact sheets, see below.

Total Medicaid Enrollment

State Health Facts, Total Monthly Medicaid & CHIP Enrollment and Pre-ACA Enrollment, June 2026.

Medicaid Covers

Congressional District Maps

KFF, Congressional District Interactive Map: Medicaid Enrollment by Eligibility Group, October 2026.

Medicaid Enrollees & Spending

Distribution of Medicaid Spending

Medicaid Expansion Status

KFF, Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions, 2026.

Uninsured Rate

State Health Facts, Uninsured Rates for People Ages 0-64 by Age, 2024.

Demographic Characteristics of Medicaid Enrollees
Median Eligibility Levels

Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions

Published: Oct 16, 2026

The Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion expanded Medicaid coverage to nearly all adults with incomes up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level ($21,597 for an individual in 2025) and provided states with an enhanced federal matching rate (FMAP) for their expansion populations.

To date, 41 states (including DC)   have adopted   the Medicaid expansion and 10 states   have not adopted   the expansion. Current status for each state is based on KFF tracking and analysis of state expansion activity.

These data are also available in a table format. The map may be downloaded as a Powerpoint.

Status of State Action on the Medicaid Expansion Decision (Choropleth map)
Key States with Expansion Activity (Table)

Medicaid Expansion Resources

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

Last updated on October 16, 2026

states have abortion bans or early gestational limits in effect

states have no health exception

states have no rape or incest exception 

states have no fatal fetal anomaly exception 

The provision of abortion is currently banned in 13 states and 6 states have early gestational limits between 6 weeks and 12 weeks in effect. Nearly all of these bans include exceptions, which generally fall into four categories: to prevent the death of the pregnant person, when there is risk to the health of the pregnant person, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and when there is a lethal fetal anomaly. Almost all states with a health exception limit it to conditions affecting physical health, with some going further by explicitly excluding emotional or psychological conditions. Alabama is currently the only state with an abortion ban or early gestational limit in place that includes an exception for mental health within its broader health exception. Some states have more than one abortion ban or restriction in place. The maps below illustrate the exceptions in each state’s most restrictive gestational limit or total ban. For details hover over each state to read the rollover.  

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

Exceptions to State Abortion Bans and Early Gestational Limits in Effect, as of October 16, 2026 (Choropleth map)
Exceptions to State Abortion Bans and Gestational Limits in Effect, as of October 16, 2026 (Table)

Green Card Processing Backlogs for Refugees and Asylees Could Have Implications for Health Coverage and Care 

Published: Oct 15, 2026

Introduction

The 2025 reconciliation law eliminated access to federally funded health coverage for refugees and asylees without a green card as well as several other groups of lawfully present immigrants. Refugees and asylees can apply for Lawful Permanent Resident status (LPR status, or a green card) after one year in the country or one year after being granted asylum. Because the 2025 reconciliation law largely limits eligibility for federally funded coverage to lawfully present immigrants with LPR status, how quickly U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) processes these applications directly affects whether refugees and asylees can keep or gain access to Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), subsidized Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace, and Medicare coverage.

This data note highlights changes in green card (I-485) application processing for refugees and asylees between fiscal year (FY) 2021 and FY2025, as well as across the first three quarters of FY2025 to FY2026 (since FY2026 data are only available through the third quarter). It discusses the implications of these trends for access to federally funded health coverage following eligibility changes under the 2025 reconciliation law. It is based on KFF analysis of USCIS data.

In this analysis, we find a decrease in USCIS completion of applications for adjustment to LPR status for refugees and asylees between FY2025 and FY2026. While some of the decreases in application completions could be due to fewer humanitarian migrants being admitted into the U.S. in recent years, we find that the number of applications completed by USCIS as a share of all applications fell between FY2025 and FY2026 and the average processing time for applications increased during the same time period. As of June 30, 2026, there were over 275,000 pending green card applications from refugees and asylees awaiting a decision from USCIS, and between FY2025 and FY2026, the average processing time for applications had increased from 7.8 months to 13.3 months for refugees and from 10.7 months to 19.9 months for asylees. As a result, many refugees and asylees who have already applied for a green card will be left without access to federally funded health coverage for potentially long periods of time as they wait for USCIS to process their green card applications.

Changes in Health Coverage for Refugees and Asylees

Since 1980, the U.S. has had a formal system for admitting refugees and asylees—individuals and their families who are unable to return to their country of nationality due to a well-founded fear of persecution for certain protected reasons. The right to seek asylum is rooted in international law, and the system reflects the U.S.’s longstanding inclusion of humanitarian protection as a core principle of immigration law. Refugees and asylees are generally fleeing from unsafe conditions and arrive to the U.S. with few to no resources, with many experiencing traumatic experiences in their countries of origin and/or during their journey to the U.S. The U.S. historically provided refugees and asylees access to assistance with food, housing, and health care upon arrival to the country as well as other time-limited services to support their transition to the U.S. Since taking office, the Trump administration has taken steps to significantly reduce the entry of refugees and asylees into the U.S., including by pausing refugee applications, setting the lowest ceiling for refugee admissions on record, and effectively closing the southern border to most migrants, including asylum seekers.

 Under federal law, refugees and asylees (i.e. those who have officially been granted asylum) can apply for adjustment to LPR status once they have been physically present in the U.S. for at least one year. They apply by filling out Form I-485, “Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.” Asylum seekers whose asylum applications are still awaiting approval are not considered asylees and are not eligible to apply for LPR status regardless of their length of stay in the country.

The 2025 reconciliation law eliminated refugees’ and asylees’ longstanding access to federally funded health coverage as well as other public assistance programs. Most lawfully present immigrants, including most LPRs, must wait five years after getting a “qualified” immigration status before they can enroll in federally funded coverage such as Medicaid and CHIP. Under longstanding policy, refugees and asylees previously were exempt from this waiting period if they met income and other state eligibility requirements. They could also enroll in subsidized ACA Marketplace coverage and Medicare if otherwise eligible. However, the 2025 reconciliation law eliminates eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP (except in states that use a Medicaid and/or CHIP option to cover lawfully residing children and pregnant people), subsidized Marketplace coverage, and Medicare for refugees and asylees without a green card, as well as certain other groups of lawfully present immigrants. The Medicaid and CHIP restrictions took effect October 1, 2026, with restrictions on subsidized Marketplace and Medicare coverage fully taking effect in January 2027. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the law’s eligibility restrictions for lawfully present immigrants will lead to about 1.4 million people becoming uninsured by 2034.

The number of I-485 applications received for adjustment to LPR status for both refugees and asylees increased between FY2021 and FY2025, but applications received for asylees dropped between FY2025 and FY2026. Between FY2021 and FY2025, I-485 applications received for adjustment to LPR status increased by 274% (22,906 to 85,743) for refugees and by 68% (44,837 to 75,292) for asylees. Lower numbers of I-485 applications received from refugees and asylees in FY2021 could reflect COVID-19-related reductions in the entry of migrants into the U.S. Between the first three quarters of FY2025 and FY2026, I-485 applications received for refugees continued to increase but at a lower rate of about 10% (59,754 to 66,013) and decreased by about 32% (58,682 to 40,344) for asylees. This pattern could reflect that the Trump administration lowered the refugee admissions cap from 125,000 in FY2025 to 7,500 for FY2026. Additionally, the Biden and Trump administrations effectively closed the border to individuals seeking asylum starting in 2024.

While the number of applications completed by USCIS for both refugees and asylees increased between FY2021 and FY2025, they decreased significantly between FY2025 and FY2026 (Figure 1). Between FY2021 and FY2025, completed I-485 applications, i.e., applications for which an approval or denial decision was made by USCIS, increased by 198% for refugees (14,697 to 43,763) and by 184% for asylees (22,095 to 62,750). However, between the first three quarters of FY2025 and FY2026, I-485 applications completed by USCIS decreased by about 90% (37,908 to 3,805) for refugees and by about 85% (57,369 to 8,660) for asylees.

Completed Green Card Applications for Refugees and Asylees Decreased by Over 80% Between 2025 and 2026 (Line chart)

The percentage of completed applications as a share of all applications for refugees and asylees dropped sharply between FY2025 and FY2026 (Figure 2). Between FY2021 and FY2025, the percentage of I-485 applications completed by USCIS as a share of all applications (i.e., newly received and pending applications) decreased from 31% to 25% for refugees and increased from 17% to 37% for asylees. However, between the first three quarters of FY2025 and FY2026, completed I-485 applications as a share of all applications decreased sharply from 30% to just 2% for refugees and from 40% to just 5% for asylees.

The Share of Total Green Card Applications That USCIS Completed Dropped Sharply Between 2025 and 2026 (Line chart)

At the same time, the number of pending green card applications for refugees and asylees grew to over 275,000 as of the third quarter of FY2026, and application processing times increased between 2025 and 2026. The number of I-485 applications pending a decision from USCIS increased 251% for refugees, from 24,983 as of the end of FY2021 to 87,573 as of the end of FY2025, and by about 7% for asylees, from 87,997 as of the end of FY2021 to 94,482 as of the end FY2025 (Figure 3). Between the third quarter of FY2025 and the third quarter of FY2026, pending applications from refugees increased by 121% (67,502 to 149,470) and from asylees by 51% (83,446 to 126,267), for a total of 275,737 pending applications as of June 30, 2026. This number is expected to continue to increase by the end of FY2026. Further, reflecting the decrease in completed applications, the average processing time for green card applications increased from 7.8 months to 13.3 months for refugees, and from 10.7 months to 19.9 months for asylees between the first three quarters of FY2025 and FY2026. Within FY2026, the processing time for green card applications from refugees and asylees has increased each quarter, more than doubling from 7.6 months in Q1 to 17.6 months in Q3 for refugees and from 12.1 months in Q1 to 25.6 months in Q3 for asylees.

There Were Over 275,000 Pending Green Card Applications for Refugees and Asylees as of the Third Quarter of 2026 (Line chart)

Medicaid Waiver Tracker: Approved and Pending Section 1115 Waivers by State

Published: Oct 15, 2026

Section 1115 Medicaid demonstration waivers offer states an avenue to test new approaches in Medicaid that differ from what is required by federal statute, if [in the HHS Secretary’s view] the approach is likely to “promote the objectives of the Medicaid program.” They can provide states additional flexibility in how they operate their programs, beyond the considerable flexibility that is available under current law. Waivers generally reflect priorities identified by states as well as changing priorities from one presidential administration to another. Nearly all states have at least one active Section 1115 waiver and some states have multiple 1115 waivers. See the “Key Themes Maps” tab for a discussion of recent waiver trends.

This page tracks approved and pending Section 1115 waiver provisions (including expansions and restrictions) related to eligibility, benefits, and social determinants of health and other delivery system reforms, once such waivers are posted to the state waivers list on Medicaid.gov. For more information on inclusion criteria and on each provision, as well as a list of acronyms, see the Definitions tab.

Landscape of Approved and Pending Section 1115 Waivers (Stacked Bars)

 

Waivers with Eligibility Changes

(back to top)

Section 1115 Eligibility Changes - Expanded Eligibility Groups (Table)

Waivers with Benefit Changes

(back to top)

Section 1115 Benefit Changes - Select Benefit Expansions (Table)

Waivers with SDOH & Other DSR Changes

(back to top)

Section 1115 SDOH & Other DSR Changes - Approved SDOH Provisions (Table)

All Approved Waivers by Topic

(back to top)

Approved Section 1115 Medicaid Waivers (Table)

All Pending Waivers by Topic

(back to top)

Pending Section 1115 Medicaid Waivers (Table)

See KFF's Work Requirements Tracker for additional state and national-level data related to work requirement implementation, including related KFF resources on work requirements.

The 2025 reconciliation law requires states to condition Medicaid eligibility for adults in the ACA Medicaid expansion group on meeting work requirements starting January 1, 2027; however, states have the option to implement requirements sooner through a state plan amendment (SPA) or through an approved 1115 waiver.

State Plan Amendments (SPAs)

States may choose to implement work requirements prior to the required January 1, 2027 implementation date through a state plan amendment. Nebraska is the first state to announce that it will begin enforcing federal work requirements early through a state plan amendment, starting May 1, 2026. Two other states are also planning to implement before January 2027–Montana on July 1, 2026 and Iowa on December 1, 2026. Arkansas has announced that it plans to launch a soft implementation of work requirements on July 1, 2026 but will not disenroll individuals prior to January 1, 2027.

1115 Waivers

Since the start of the second Trump administration, several states have submitted waivers to implement work requirements. However, states are unlikely to be moving forward with proposed 1115 waivers at this time due to the passage of federal work requirements. States that plan to implement federal work requirements early will do so through a state plan amendment. Currently, Georgia is the only state with a Medicaid work requirement waiver in place following litigation over the Biden administration’s attempt to stop it. Georgia’s waiver will expire December 31, 2026; the state is required to come into compliance with the new federal requirements effective January 1, 2027.

Early Implementation and Waiver Status

The map below identifies states that have indicated they will implement work requirements early through a state plan amendment as well as approved (Georgia) and pending work requirement waivers (submitted to CMS since the start of the second Trump administration). The table below the map provides more detailed state waiver information.

States Implementing Work Requirements Early and/or Pursuing Work Requirement Waivers (Choropleth map)

States with Work Requirement Waiver Activity (Table)

Section 1115 waivers generally reflect priorities identified by states as well as changing priorities from one presidential administration to another.  Key Biden administration 1115 initiatives included waivers addressing enrollee health-related social needs (HRSN), pre-release coverage for individuals who are incarcerated, and multi-year continuous eligibility for children.

In March 2025, the Trump administration rescinded HRSN guidance issued by the Biden administration. CMS indicates this does not nullify existing HRSN 1115 approvals but going forward they will consider HRSN / SDOH requests on a case-by-case basis. In April 2025, the Trump administration announced it would be phasing out federal funding for “Designated State Health Programs” (DSHP) in waivers. In July 2025, the Trump administration released guidance indicating it will not approve (new) or extend (existing) continuous eligibility waivers for children or adults. CMS also announced in July it would be phasing out initiatives to strengthen the Medicaid workforce for primary care, behavioral health, dental, and home and community based services (not depicted in maps below).

This page tracks pending and approved waivers in key areas of recent state activity and will track Trump administration action in these areas going forward. Hover over individual states to display waiver expiration dates.

Social Determinants of Health

Social determinants of health (SDOH) are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. SDOH include but are not limited to housing, food, education, employment, healthy behaviors, transportation, and personal safety. In 2022, CMS (under the Biden administration) announced a demonstration waiver opportunity to expand the tools available to states to address enrollee “health-related social needs” (or “HRSN”) including housing instability, homelessness, and nutrition insecurity, building on CMS’s 2021 guidance. In 2023, CMS issued a detailed Medicaid and CHIP HRSN Framework accompanied by an Informational Bulletin, which were updated in 2024.

In March 2025, the Trump administration rescinded the Biden administration HRSN guidance. CMS indicates this does not nullify existing HRSN approvals but going forward they will consider HRSN / SDOH requests on a case-by-case basis.

The “HRSN Waivers” map below identifies states with approval under the Biden administration HRSN framework. The “All SDOH Waivers” map identifies SDOH-related 1115 waivers more broadly, including those that pre-date or were approved outside of the HRSN framework. For more detailed waiver information, refer to KFF’s Medicaid Waiver Tracker (“SDOH” table) and HRSN waiver watch  (March 2024).

Section 1115 Waivers: Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) (Choropleth map)

Medicaid Pre-release Coverage for Individuals Who Are Incarcerated

In April 2023, the Biden administration released guidance encouraging states to apply for a new Section 1115 demonstration opportunity to test transition-related strategies to support community reentry for people who are incarcerated. This demonstration allows states a partial waiver of the inmate exclusion policy, which prohibits Medicaid from paying for services provided during incarceration (except for inpatient services). Reentry services aim to improve care transitions and increase continuity of health coverage, reduce disruptions in care, improve health outcomes, and reduce recidivism rates. The Biden administration approved 19 state waivers to facilitate reentry for individuals who are incarcerated. 

In September 2026, the Trump administration approved five reentry waivers and indicated that updated reentry demonstration guidance would be released within the next year. The map below identifies states with approved and pending waivers to provide pre-release services to Medicaid-eligible individuals who are incarcerated.  Medicaid pre-release waivers have been pursued by both Republican and Democratic governors. For more information, refer to KFF’s Medicaid Waiver Tracker (“Eligibility Changes” table) and related pre-release waiver watch (August 2024).

Section 1115 Waivers: Medicaid Pre-release Coverage for Individuals Who Are Incarcerated (Choropleth map)

Multi-year Continuous Eligibility for Children

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 required all states to implement 12-month continuous eligibility for children beginning on January 1, 2024. The Biden administration approved 9 waivers that allow states to provide multi-year continuous eligibility for children (e.g., from birth to age six). Continuous eligibility has been shown to reduce Medicaid disenrollment and “churn” rates (rates of individuals temporarily losing Medicaid coverage and then re-enrolling within a short period of time).

In July 2025, the Trump administration released guidance indicating it will not approve (new) or extend (existing) continuous eligibility waivers for children or adults. The map below displays states with waiver approval to provide multi-year continuous eligibility for children.  For more information, refer to KFF’s Medicaid Waiver Tracker (“Eligibility Changes” table) and related continuous eligibility waiver watch (February 2024).

Section 1115 Waivers: Multi-year Continuous Eligibility for Children (Choropleth map)
Section 1115 Waiver Tracker: Key Definitions and Notes (Table)

Recent Developments

General/Overview Resource

Eligibility and Enrollment Expansions

Eligibility and Enrollment Restrictions

Work Requirements:

Other:

Benefit Expansions

Benefit Restrictions, Copays, and Healthy Behaviors

Social Determinants of Health

Delivery System Reform

How Is The Federal Government Counting Measles Deaths?

Published: Oct 15, 2026

Originally published on October 1, 2026, this policy watch has been updated on October 15, 2026 to reflect additional developments and updated measles death reports from Pennsylvania.

Overview

Amid the largest U.S. measles epidemic in decades, and one that threatens the country’s measles elimination status, a controversy has emerged regarding how to count deaths from measles. From August through October 15th this year, Pennsylvania has reported a total of six measles deaths had occurred in the state but so far, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recognized only two these in its official measles statistics. CDC announced in early September that it would change how it counts measles deaths, no longer relying solely on reports from state health departments and instead looking to official death records as tracked by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS, a sub-agency within CDC). This new CDC policy of relying on NCHS-based mortality data to count measles deaths marks a departure from historical norms and processes that have accepted measles death reports from state health departments.

This Policy Watch reviews how measles deaths are typically determined, how these deaths are counted by the federal government and the role of two distinct but related federal public health surveillance systems at the center of the controversy – the CDC’s Nationally Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) and NCHS’ National Vital Statistics System (NVSS). NNDSS and NVSS are separate public health surveillance systems with their own strengths and limitations: with NNDSS focused on real-time disease tracking that at times can also provide preliminary mortality information, while NVSS is focused on collecting longer-term, retrospective data on deaths and providing final determinations regarding the cause(s) of death though not necessarily designed for real-time tracking.  These two systems are complements, but one does not entirely replace the other.

Context

On August 25, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro held a press conference to announce that two deaths attributed to measles had occurred, the first such deaths in the state since 1992. As is standard protocol for cases of infectious diseases of national interest such as measles, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PA DOH) also reported these as “measles-associated” deaths directly to CDC via the Nationally Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (NNDSS). PA DOH relied on pre-existing definitions for measles and for respiratory disease-associated mortality – which include clinical, laboratory, epidemiologic, and vital records criteria – in making the determination that these particular deaths were measles associated.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. initially objected to Pennsylvania’s classification of these deaths as measles-associated, saying Shapiro’s announcement was “premature” and suggesting the deaths “may even have been altogether fabricated.” CDC staff initially accepting the state’s death reports, though Kennedy later asked the CDC Director to remove any reference to those measles deaths on the CDC website. After the coroner in Lancaster County confirmed that measles was a contributing cause to the reported deaths, on September 4 Kennedy recognized measles as the cause for “only the second infant’s death” and stated: “The National Center for Health Statistics does not currently have any death records from 2026 that indicate measles is the underlying cause” but indicated CDC will update its measles death statistics upon receipt of such records. On September 14, a CDC spokesperson stated the agency had changed how it will count measles deaths in its official statistics, and going forward CDC would “report measles deaths if and when the National Center for Health Statistics reports measles as the underlying cause of death.”  The next day, PA DOH reported two additional measles-associated deaths, bringing the state’s own total to four. However, at present the CDC measles outbreak tally reports two deaths for 2026, with a note saying: “This number is subject to change; CDC will update its reporting as additional information becomes available and relevant reviews are completed.” On September 30, the Pennsylvania Department of Health confirmed a fifth death and a sixth death was announced by the Franklin County Coroner on October 12.

Two Systems with Different Purposes

The dispute around reporting measles deaths has brought new focus to two separate federal public health surveillance systems: the Nationally Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (NNDSS) and the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS). Each of these has a long history, dating back to the early 20th century, but serves different purposes. These systems are described below (see Table 1). 

Nationally Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (NNDSS): Timely Case Reporting

NNDSS is a collaboration between CDC and jurisdictions across the country that supports sharing and monitoring public health information for a set of diseases and conditions of national interest. NNDSS has roots extending to a system established in 1893 by Congress for jurisdictions to report cases of disease to the Surgeon General. Over time the system expanded, with responsibility for overseeing the system transferred to CDC in 1961. Local and state public health departments have the authority and responsibility to track cases of disease, typically through reporting from health care providers, laboratories, and other sources. In turn, jurisdictions then may provide case information to CDC through NNDSS. Key characteristics of NNDSS include:

  • A set of approximately 120 diseases and conditions that are designated by CDC as “nationally notifiable,” meaning the agency requests state and local health departments report to CDC when new cases of any of these conditions are identified. Measles is a nationally notifiable disease, and has been since 1912. Importantly, CDC cannot require jurisdictions to report case information, but all do, especially for high consequence infectious diseases such as measles. CDC itself says “since continuous endemic measles transmission has been eliminated, measles is an immediately notifiable disease.”
  • For each NNDSS disease or condition there is a pre-established definition that jurisdictions can consult to help determine if a notifiable case has occurred. These case definitions assure a level of standardization across jurisdictions. The definitions for nationally notifiable diseases are developed in collaboration with the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and intermittently updated and refined. The current NNDSS case definition for measles dates to 2013.
  • Jurisdictions determine the extent of detail provided in their reports. Information shared through NNDSS is “de-identified” (i.e. with personally identifying information removed), but jurisdictions may include demographic, clinical, and epidemiologic characteristics and the course of clinical illness (including whether death occurred) in their case reports.
  • NNDSS reports can preliminarily indicate the cause of death in a particular case, but are not expected or designed to be a final determination. For this reason, Pennsylvania has reported the four deaths as being “measles-associated” rather than presenting a final determination of measles as the cause of death. The NNDSS definition for measles does not include specific guidance for when and how to report a death as being caused by measles infection, though CDC reports it is working with CSTE to update the definition “to promote consistent classification and reporting of measles deaths across jurisdictions.” 
  • A relative strength of NNDSS is the ability for rapid communication of case-level epidemiologic information between jurisdictions and the CDC, which can allow for near real-time tracking of outbreaks and disease trends. A limitation is that rapidly reported information may only be preliminary in nature, and case reports could be incomplete or lacking in detail.
Table 1
Characteristics of the CDC’s Nationally Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (NNDSS) Case Data and NCHS’ National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) Mortality Data
CharacteristicCDC – NNDSS Case DataNCHS – NVSS Mortality Data
Primary PurposeTimely tracking of cases of important diseases and conditions occurring nationwideComprehensive tracking of mortality statistics, including cause of death
Basic Unit of ReportingCases (such as cases of measles infection); can include associated clinical outcomes such as deathDeaths
Primary Data Source(s)Reports submitted by state/local departments of healthDeath certificate data from state/local vital statistics offices
Timing/speedNear real-time for high consequence infectious diseases such as measlesA lag of 3 months up to a year between deaths and release of data
Approach to Death AttributionPotential provisional attribution of death related to a case (e.g. “measles associated” death) as determined by a jurisdictional health department’s analysis of clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and other criteriaCause of death must be determined by a licensed provider such as a physician/coroner, and attribution can incorporate multiple factors as contributing causes to death
Key Strengths Related to Reporting DeathsTimely data collection and analysis supports rapid response and ongoing tracking of public health threatsComprehensiveness and completeness of mortality data and causes of death
Key Limitations and Challenges Related Reporting DeathsReported death information is preliminary in nature and may require further investigation/confirmation; reporting is voluntary and may not be completeTime lag between deaths and data availability
Sources: CDC, NCHS, and KFF Analysis.

National Vital Statistics System (NVSS): Comprehensive Cause of Death Reporting

NVSS is the federal government’s primary mechanism for tracking mortality (and other vital statistics) data. The NVSS has roots going back to 1902, when Congress created a permanent Census Bureau and authorized the government to obtain copies of state vital records. By 1933, all states were required to record births and deaths and provide data to the Census Bureau. The NCHS was created in 1960, with responsibility for federal vital statistics transferred there.  The responsibility and legal authority for documenting births, deaths, and other vital statistics resides at the state and local level, but by statute NCHS has authority to collect and review these data – each state has a contract with NCHS that allows the federal government access to this information to produce national vital statistics. Key characteristics of NVSS include:

  • Housing the most complete set of data on deaths and births in the U.S. Death certificate information captured through NVSS is the most comprehensive source for mortality information nationally.
  • Death certificate information captured through NVSS is considered the benchmark for cause of death data. When completing a death certificate, a provider must include the best and final judgement on the proximate cause(s) of death as well as potential other factors that may have contributed to the death. Information from an autopsy, or laboratory and other test results may be included. Demographic details are also reported through the system such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education.
  • Nuances regarding a possible chain of events leading to a death and potentially multiple contributing factors can introduce complexity in cause of death determinations. Regarding the Pennsylvania cases, there has been some debate about measles being a primary cause of the deaths reported by the PA DOH, especially in relation to one of the initial reported deaths – a newborn infant that died from a lacerated spleen but was also positive for measles. 
  • State/local vital records offices are responsible for inspecting death certificates for timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of information, processing, and storing the records. Data files derived from these state/local records are then transmitted to NCHS.
  • NCHS reviews and processes vital statistics data and codes mortality statistics according to the current revision of the International Classification of Diseases (presently ICD-10, which the U.S. began to use in 1999). ICD-10 provides definitions and rules for selecting the underlying cause of death when generating vital statistics through NVSS. Typically, NVSS will release “provisional” cause of death data with a 3 to 9 month lag (depending on the cause of death), though full provisional data may take up to one a year to be released. Final cause of death data is made available after about two years. For example, the most recent NVSS provisional cause of death data are for 2025 while the most recent final cause of death data are from 2024. In special circumstances, provisional death data can become available even earlier – for example, during the COVID-19 pandemic NVSS provided updated COVID-19 related death statistics on a weekly basis.
  • A relative strength of the NVSS is its completeness and the comprehensiveness of its cause of death information. A relative weakness of the NVSS is the time lag between when deaths occur and the availability of cause of death data.

 

What Could Medicaid Work Requirements Mean for SSI Applicants?

Published: Oct 14, 2026

Editorial Note

Originally published on July 29, 2026, this brief has been updated to reflect newer guidance on the medical frailty exclusion from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

The 2025 reconciliation law requires 44 states to condition Medicaid eligibility for adults in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion group and enrollees in certain waiver programs, on meeting work requirements starting January 1, 2027, or sooner at state option. While the law specifies mandatory exclusions, including for individuals who are “medically frail,” the approach to determining medical frailty specified in the June 2026 interim final rule could make it difficult for some people to qualify for this exclusion. Medicaid expansion provides coverage to many adults with significant health care needs, including some with disabilities who are applying for the Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI). This coverage could be at risk for some because of the planned approach to defining medical frailty.

SSI is a means-tested federal program administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA) that pays monthly cash assistance to people with limited resources who are unable to work because of a disability and generally qualifies people to receive health coverage through Medicaid. Once approved for SSI, Medicaid enrollees would not be subject to work requirements, but the application for SSI can be a lengthy and complicated process, spanning months, if not years, during which time applicants may be at risk of uninsurance because they are unable to work. Medicaid can fill coverage gaps during the SSI application period, particularly in states that have adopted the Medicaid expansion.

This issue brief finds that the percent of new SSI enrollees ages 19 through 64 with Medicaid prior to SSI entitlement is twice as high in ACA expansion states as it is in non-expansion states, and in 2023, over 100,000 new SSI enrollees had ACA Medicaid coverage prior to their SSI entitlement. It also describes the lengthy SSA process for determining SSI eligibility, particularly assessing ability to work, and how the current approach to determining medical frailty could cause some SSI applicants to undergo concurrent assessments of their ability to work using different processes and criteria. The new documentation requirements and processes could cause some people with disabilities to lose Medicaid coverage or be denied Medicaid enrollment while they are waiting on their SSI determination.  (For analysis on the implications of Medicaid work requirements for people applying for the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program or waiting for Medicare coverage, see What Could Medicaid Work Requirements Mean for People with Disabilities Waiting for Medicare Coverage?)

How does Medicaid provide coverage for people during the SSI application process?

Medicaid provides coverage for many people with disabilities, including those who are applying for SSI. One in five Medicaid enrollees have a disability, including 43% of adults ages 50-64, but only one-third of these individuals receive SSI income, generally qualifying for Medicaid for that reason. The remaining people with disabilities are covered through different Medicaid eligibility pathways, including the ACA Medicaid expansion. Because of the lengthy process for obtaining an SSI determination and the fact that people who are applying for SSI are unable to work, many people applying for SSI rely on Medicaid to avoid going uninsured.

In 2023, 223,000 SSI applicants ages 19 through 64 had Medicaid while they were waiting for an SSI determination, including over 106,000 with coverage through the ACA expansion. KFF analyzed detailed Medicaid administrative data to identify people who were ages 19 through 64 and became eligible for Medicaid because of SSI during the calendar year 2023 and whether those enrollees had Medicaid coverage in the months prior to their SSI-based eligibility (see Methods). Among the 337,000 people who started SSI during the calendar year, over 200,000 had prior Medicaid coverage through a different eligibility pathway, with roughly half receiving that coverage through the ACA expansion.

In ACA expansion states, 76% of new SSI enrollees ages 19 through 64 had Medicaid coverage through a different eligibility pathway prior to their disability determination (including 42% who were covered through the Medicaid expansion) compared with only 33% in non-expansion states (Figure 1). In both expansion and non-expansion states, roughly 1 in 3 new SSI enrollees ages 19 through 64 were enrolled in non-ACA Medicaid coverage (such as coverage for parents and caretakers) prior to becoming eligible for SSI. However, in expansion states, an additional 42% of new SSI enrollees were enrolled in Medicaid through the expansion, covering over 100,000 people in 2023. New SSI enrollees who were not covered by Medicaid prior to their SSI approval were likely uninsured because of their low income and inability to work.

In Expansion States, 42% of New SSI Enrollees Were Previously Covered Through the Expansion Pathway (Stacked Bars)

How do people demonstrate eligibility for SSI?

To be eligible for SSI, people must have limited income (defined as no more than $2,073 per month in 2026), limited resources (defined as no more than $2,000 for an individual or $3,000 for a couple), and a disability that affects their ability to work for at least a year or result in death or be age 65 and older.

For applicants under age 65, demonstrating a disability is often the most complicated part of the SSI application process, involving a lengthy five-step process that starts by proving one is not gainfully employed (Figure 2). The federal government establishes verification processes that all states must use to determine applicants’ disability status, and funds state Disability Determination Services (DDS) offices to carry out these processes. The same processes are used for SSI and for Social Security Disability Insurance. Illustrating the high costs of this lengthy process, the Social Security Administration provided states with $2.6 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 to run the DDS offices. The first step requires people to demonstrate that their current earnings are below the threshold of “substantial gainful activity” (SGA, $1,690 per month in 2026).

The second step assesses whether applicants have a severe impairment, where impairment is defined based on which body system is affected. For adults, impairments are classified into the following categories with associated medical criteria: musculoskeletal disorders, special senses and speech, respiratory disorders, cardiovascular system, digestive disorders, genitourinary disorders, hematological disorders, skin disorders, endocrine disorders, congenital disorders that affect multiple body systems, neurological disorders, mental disorders, cancer, and immune system disorders.

The third step assesses whether the impairment qualifies as a disability that wouldn’t require further demonstration of an inability to work using established criteria for disabilities. Some impairments allow applicants to qualify for SSI without further demonstrating an inability to work, including blindness and several hundred specific disorders or conditions included in the “compassionate allowance program,” which quickly identifies diseases and other conditions that meet SSA’s standards for disability benefits. Examples of such conditions include Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), certain cancers, and Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. SSA reports that between 2008 and 2025, the agency approved more than 1 million people (for SSI and Social Security Disability Insurance combined) through the compassionate allowance program.

The final two steps respectively assess peoples’ ability to engage in “past relevant work” or any job in the national economy that is feasible considering the applicant’s residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience. The SSA makes this assessment based on information provided in Form 3368 which requires people to provide personal information including their English language proficiency, current work activity, job history over the last 15 years, the claimed disability onset date, list of medical conditions, prescription list, and medical treatment history. Medical records from providers can be submitted with the application. Along with this form, the SSA will request any missing medical records and may request that the person have a consultative medical examination by an SSA medical consult. SSA also compares information about people’s jobs from the past 5 years (such as job title and pay; tasks performed; tools, machinery, and equipment used; knowledge, skills, and ability required; physical demands; and environmental conditions) with tables of rules about the requirements for jobs in the national economy.

Assessing ability to engage in any job requires information about all jobs in the economy, which can be difficult to implement in practice, and SSA is currently relying on outdated job information. SSA’s current jobs listing comes from the Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles which was last updated in 1991 and is not currently used by the Department of Labor. Since FY 2021, SSA has partnered with the Department of Labor to develop a survey that will be the main source of updated occupational information, but that new system has not yet been implemented. Congressional Research Services reports that between FYs 2012 and 2024, SSA spent $300 million on this project.



The application for disability benefits can be a lengthy and complicated process, spanning months, if not years, meaning hundreds of thousands of people are currently waiting for determinations. As of May 2026, the initial processing time for all disability applications was 184 days—over 6 months—and roughly 862,000 people were waiting for their initial determinations. (This number includes applications for SSI and applications for Social Security Disability Insurance, a related program that uses the same disability determination process.) Many people receive initially unfavorable decisions and choose to appeal, which can considerably lengthen the process. Having a lawyer increases the likelihood of being approved at the initial stage and, on average, can reduce the time it takes to reach a final decision by nearly one year.

How might work requirements affect Medicaid coverage for people during the SSI application process?

Starting in January 2027, individuals applying for or enrolled in coverage through the ACA expansion and in certain waiver programs will be required to work or engage in qualifying activities, such as community service, for 80 or more hours per month, attend school half-time, unless they qualify for an exemption or exclusion from the requirements. SSI applicants enrolled in the ACA Medicaid expansion will be subject to these new requirements. SSI applicants may face challenges proving their eligibility for the medical frailty exclusion while they wait for an eligibility determination from SSA.

People applying for SSI are generally unable to work, but current rules could make it challenging for them to qualify for a medical frailty exclusion. Because individuals must have earnings below the SGA level to be eligible for SSI, they are unlikely to be able to work 80 or more hours in a month and are unlikely to be able to meet the Medicaid community engagement requirements through education or volunteering. Instead, to obtain or retain Medicaid, individuals applying for SSI who are subject to the work requirements will need to qualify for an exclusion from the requirements, most likely through the medical frailty exclusion. The interim final rule implementing Medicaid work requirements issued on June 1, 2026, adopts a restrictive definition of medical frailty that requires individuals to have a physical or mental health condition that impairs their ability to meet community engagement requirements. This two-part test for medical frailty will require navigating a verification process that may lead to some people who would qualify for the exclusion losing coverage because they cannot provide the required documentation.

Different requirements for Medicaid eligibility determinations mean SSI applicants covered through the Medicaid expansion could face two concurrent assessments of their ability to work: one for SSI and one for Medicaid. Medicaid eligibility determinations of whether an individual meets the medical frailty exclusion will need to be done on a faster timeline than SSI determinations. States are required to process Medicaid applications for individuals who qualify based on income within 45 days, and starting January 1, 2027, they must conduct renewals for individuals enrolled through the Medicaid expansion every six months instead of annually. That makes it likely that many SSI applicants will not have a disability determination before they have an assessment of their ability to work to meet the medical frailty exclusion from Medicaid work requirements. These new requirements could place additional administrative burdens on individuals who are experiencing significant physical or mental health challenges and could cause people to lose health insurance while they wait for an SSA disability determination.

New guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) may help to mitigate but will not eliminate the risk that SSI applicants may lose Medicaid coverage. The interim final rule requires states to verify medical frailty on an ex parte basis where possible, using reliable information available to the state without requiring the individual to submit additional information. CMS recently released a slide deck that outlined a tiered medical frailty framework that states may follow using data from claims and other sources to identify people who meet the medical frailty exclusion.  While states are not required to adopt this approach, the tiered medical frailty framework would enable states to identify individuals as medically frail using claims data alone (tier 1), using claims data in combination with encounter or other data (tier 2), or, in cases where states have no or insufficient data on file, using an individualized manual process that requires additional documentation (tier 3). As they develop processes for verifying medical frailty, states will rely more heavily on provider determinations or other documentation and self-attestation, to the extent permitted by the rule, for individuals who cannot be automatically verified. Self-attestation will be permitted in 2027, but starting in 2028, it will only be permitted once per continuous enrollment period, meaning states will need to collect documentation at renewal for medically frail individuals. Even with use of data to verify medical frailty, the documentation requirements could cause some people with disabilities to lose Medicaid coverage or be denied Medicaid while they are waiting on their SSI determination.

This work was supported in part by Arnold Ventures. KFF maintains full editorial control over all of its policy analysis, polling, and journalism activities.

Methods

Data: Data are from the 2023 Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) Analytic Files (TAF) Research Identifiable Files (RIF) files.

State inclusion criteria: National estimates include enrollees living in 49 states and DC and exclude residents in the U.S. territories. Non-expansion states include AL, FL, GA, KS, MS, NC (Medicaid expansion started 12/1/23), SC, TN, TX, and WY. WI is excluded from this analysis because it has an 1115 waiver that offers coverage similar to the ACA expansion. The pre-SSI Medicaid coverage rates look much more similar to those of an ACA expansion state, but the T-MSIS data do not clearly identify people enrolled in the 1115 coverage.

Identifying new SSI enrollees using Medicaid administrative data: Enrollees are classified as new SSI enrollees if their latest eligibility group in the year is SSI (having ELGBLTY_GRP_CD_LTST with value of 11-22, 37, 38, 40, or 41) but in January, they are either not enrolled in Medicaid or they are enrolled through some other pathway (ELGBLTY_GRP_CD_01 not having value of 11-22, 37, 38, 40, or 41). The analysis is limited to enrollees ages 19 through 64 who are in Medicaid only (and not CHIP) during the year.

Assessing prior Medicaid coverage in the year for new SSI enrollees: Monthly eligibility group codes (ELGBLTY_GRP_CD_01-ELGBLTY_GRP_CD_12) are used to determine the first month of SSI enrollment (first monthly eligibility group code with value of 11-22, 37, 38, 40, or 41). Then, all monthly eligibility group codes prior to the first month of SSI enrollment are used to assess prior Medicaid enrollment during the year as follows:

  • Prior Medicaid coverage through the expansion pathway: having at least one monthly eligibility group code indicating enrollment through the ACA expansion group (value of 72, 73, 74, or 75) before the first month of SSI enrollment.
  • Prior Medicaid coverage through non-expansion pathway: having at least one non-missing monthly eligibility group code and no monthly eligibility group codes indicating enrollment through the ACA expansion group (value of 72, 73, 74, or 75) before the first month of SSI enrollment.
  • No prior Medicaid coverage: eligibility group codes for all months before the first month of SSI enrollment are missing.

What Could Medicaid Work Requirements Mean for People with Disabilities Waiting for Medicare Coverage?

Published: Oct 14, 2026

The Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program provides monthly benefits to people who are unable to work on account of a long-term disability. SSDI beneficiaries qualify for Medicare, but in most cases, must wait 24 months between their entitlement to receive SSDI benefits and Medicare eligibility, referred to as the “Medicare waiting period.” The SSDI application process can take months, if not years. During this time and the subsequent Medicare waiting period, some people may be at risk of going without health insurance because they do not have Medicare but are unable to work due to a disability.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion provides coverage for some SSDI applicants and SSDI beneficiaries waiting to become eligible for Medicare. The 2025 reconciliation law requires 44 states to condition Medicaid eligibility for adults in the ACA Medicaid expansion group and enrollees in certain waiver programs on meeting work requirements starting January 1, 2027, or sooner at state option. While the law specifies mandatory exclusions, including for individuals who are “medically frail,” the approach to determining medical frailty specified in the June 2026 interim final rule could make it difficult for some people, including SSDI applicants and SSDI beneficiaries waiting for Medicare, to qualify for this exclusion.

This issue brief explains how Medicaid provides coverage to some SSDI applicants and SSDI beneficiaries waiting for Medicare. KFF used linked Medicare and Medicaid administrative data from 2023 to analyze prior Medicaid coverage for SSDI beneficiaries ages 19 through 64 newly enrolling in Medicare (see Methods). The analysis finds that Medicaid through the expansion pathway covered over 1 in 4 SSDI applicants and beneficiaries waiting to become eligible for Medicare (120,300 people out of a total 415,300 in 2023). In future years, people applying for and new to SSDI may experience difficulties maintaining Medicaid prior to becoming eligible for Medicare because of the new work requirements. (For analysis on the implications of Medicaid work requirements for people applying for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, see What Could Medicaid Work Requirements Mean for SSI Applicants?)

How does Medicaid provide coverage for people who are applying for and receiving SSDI?

Medicaid provides coverage for many people with disabilities, including some who are applying for SSDI or are receiving SSDI benefits but are not yet eligible for Medicare. One in five Medicaid enrollees have a disability, including 43% of enrollees ages 50-64. One-third of those people receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI). SSI is a separate federal program that provides monthly income to people who are unable to work because of a disability and who have income and financial resources below federal limits. The remaining people with disabilities are covered through different Medicaid eligibility pathways, including the ACA Medicaid expansion. During the SSDI application process, which can take months, if not years, or the Medicare waiting period, people may rely on Medicaid for their health coverage before becoming eligible for Medicare to avoid going uninsured.

In 2023, 240,300 SSDI beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare after having prior Medicaid coverage, including 120,300 who were enrolled through the Medicaid expansion (Figure 1). KFF used linked Medicare and Medicaid data to examine how many SSDI beneficiaries ages 19 through 64 newly enrolling in Medicare had any prior Medicaid coverage in 2023 (see Methods). Among the 415,300 SSDI beneficiaries newly enrolling in Medicare in 2023, 240,300 (58%) had prior Medicaid coverage through any eligibility pathway, with 120,300 of those having coverage through the expansion pathway specifically.

Over 120,000 SSDI Beneficiaries Newly Enrolling in Medicare Had Prior Medicaid Coverage through Expansion Pathway (Donut Chart)

How do people become eligible for Medicare through SSDI?

People must first demonstrate eligibility for SSDI, a process that can take months and often years. To qualify for SSDI, enrollees must have a sufficient work history and a disability that affects their ability to work and is expected to last for at least a year or result in death. A sufficient work history varies by age but generally requires 10 years of employment, at least five of which were within the past decade. Some individuals with a disability can qualify based on a relative’s work history.

The SSDI application process can be a lengthy and complicated process, spanning months, and in some cases years. Demonstrating a disability is often the most complicated part of the SSDI application process. The federal government establishes verification processes that all states must use and utilizes the same five-step process to determine applicants’ disability status for both SSDI and SSI. (For a more detailed description of this process, see What Could Medicaid Work Requirements Mean for SSI Applicants?). As of July 2026, the initial processing time for all disability applications was 186 days, and 885,000 people were waiting for their initial determinations. (This number includes applications for both SSDI and SSI.) Many people receive initially unfavorable decisions and choose to appeal, which can lengthen the process (Figure 2). Because of the process for obtaining an SSDI determination and the fact that people who are applying for SSDI are unable to work, some people applying for SSDI may rely on Medicaid to avoid going uninsured.

SSDI beneficiaries become eligible for Medicare two years after they are entitled to SSDI benefits. Beneficiaries in most cases must wait 5 months for SSDI payments from the disability onset date, followed by a 24-month waiting period between becoming entitled to receive SSDI payments and Medicare eligibility, referred to as the “Medicare waiting period.” Because of the length of the SSDI application process and the fact that SSDI eligibility is retroactive, applicants may complete some or all of the waiting period prior to receiving SSDI benefits.

While many SSDI beneficiaries waiting for Medicare rely on Medicaid to avoid going uninsured, others face health insurance coverage gaps during the Medicare waiting period. SSDI beneficiaries in the Medicare waiting period tend to have low incomes, poor health, and fragile ties to the workforce. SSDI beneficiaries who are uninsured during the Medicare waiting period are more likely to report being in poor health, having more difficulties in activities of daily living, and having higher out-of-pocket medical expenditures than those with insurance. Research predating the ACA Medicaid expansion found that about a quarter of SSDI beneficiaries in the Medicare waiting period were uninsured.

How might Medicaid work requirements affect Medicaid coverage for SSDI beneficiaries before they become eligible for Medicare?

The new work requirements may make it difficult for SSDI applicants and SSDI beneficiaries waiting for Medicare to maintain Medicaid coverage before becoming eligible for Medicare. Starting in January 2027, individuals applying for or enrolled in Medicaid coverage through the ACA expansion and in certain waiver programs will be required to work or engage in qualifying activities, such as community service, for 80 or more hours per month, attend school half-time, or qualify for an exemption or exclusion from the requirements. SSDI applicants and SSDI beneficiaries waiting for Medicare enrolled in the ACA Medicaid expansion will be subject to these new requirements. SSDI applicants and SSDI beneficiaries waiting for Medicare may face challenges proving they meet the requirements or that they are eligible for exemptions or exclusions, although the issues each group will encounter may differ because they are in different stages of the SSDI determination process.

People applying for SSDI are generally unable to work, but current rules could make it challenging for them to qualify for a medical frailty exclusion. Because individuals must have earnings below the level of “substantial gainful activity” (SGA, $1,690 per month in 2026) to be eligible for SSDI, they are unlikely to be able to work 80 or more hours in a month. Additionally, most people with new impairments significant enough to qualify for SSDI will likely also face challenges meeting the Medicaid work requirements through education or volunteering. Instead, to obtain or retain Medicaid, individuals applying for SSDI who are subject to the work requirements will need to qualify for an exclusion from the requirements, most likely through the medical frailty exclusion. The interim final rule implementing Medicaid work requirements issued on June 1, 2026 adopts a definition of medical frailty that requires individuals to have a physical or mental health condition and that the condition must impair their ability to meet work requirements. This two-part test for medical frailty will require navigating a verification process that may lead to some people who would qualify for the exclusion losing coverage because they cannot provide the required documentation.

New guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) may help to mitigate but will not eliminate the risk that SSDI applicants may lose Medicaid coverage. The interim final rule requires states to verify medical frailty on an ex parte basis where possible, using reliable information available to the state without requiring the individual to submit additional information. CMS recently released a slide deck that outlined a tiered medical frailty framework that states may follow using data from claims and other sources to identify people who meet the medical frailty exclusion. While states are not required to adopt this approach, the tiered medical frailty framework would enable states to identify individuals as medically frail using claims data alone (tier 1), using claims data in combination with encounter or other data (tier 2), or, in cases where states have no or insufficient data on file, using an individualized manual process that requires additional documentation (tier 3). As they develop processes for verifying medical frailty, states will rely more heavily on provider determinations or other documentation and self-attestation, to the extent permitted by the rule, for individuals who cannot be automatically verified. Self-attestation will be permitted in 2027, but starting in 2028, it will only be permitted once per continuous enrollment period, meaning states will need to collect documentation at renewal for medically frail individuals. Even with increased use of data to verify medical frailty, the documentation requirements could cause some people with disabilities to lose Medicaid coverage or be denied Medicaid while they are waiting on their SSDI determination.

SSDI beneficiaries waiting for Medicare should qualify for the medical frailty exclusion from work requirements but may still be at risk of losing Medicaid coverage depending on how states implement new systems. The medical frailty exclusion includes people who are blind or disabled according to the Social Security Administration (SSA) definition of disability. SSDI beneficiaries waiting for Medicare have already been determined to meet the SSA definition of disability and have a disability that limits their ability to work, meaning that they would likely qualify for the medical frailty exclusion. However, depending on state processes, SSDI beneficiaries waiting for Medicare may not be automatically identified as medically frail and may be required to show documentation of their SSDI determination.

This work was supported in part by Arnold Ventures. KFF maintains full editorial control over all of its policy analysis, polling, and journalism activities.

Appendix: Timelines for Disability Determinations and Medicare Coverage

Disability Determination Process for Applicants Who Appeal

Figure 2

Timeline from Disability Onset to Medicare Coverage

The over 120,000 SSDI beneficiaries newly enrolling in Medicare with prior Medicaid coverage through Medicaid expansion may either be SSDI applicants or SSDI beneficiaries waiting for Medicare in the months in the calendar year prior to Medicare enrollment. Because SSDI eligibility is retroactive, some SSDI applicants may complete some or all of the Medicare waiting period prior to receiving SSDI benefits (Figure 3). This means that some SSDI applicants may become eligible for Medicare as soon as they are determined to qualify for SSDI. Other SSDI beneficiaries newly enrolling in Medicare receive SSDI payments and are in the Medicare waiting period in the months immediately preceding enrollment in Medicare (Figure 4). Using the data available, it is not possible to determine the exact number of SSDI beneficiaries newly enrolling in Medicare who are SSDI applicants or SSDI beneficiaries waiting for Medicare in the months prior to Medicare enrollment in the year.

Figure 3
Figure 4

Methods

Data: Data are from KFF analytic files that merge the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Chronic Conditions Data Warehouse (CCW) 2023 research-identifiable Master Beneficiary Summary File (MBSF) Base and the 2023 Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) Analytic Files (TAF) Research Identifiable Files (RIF) using a CCW beneficiary identifier crosswalk.

State inclusion criteria: National estimates include enrollees living in 50 states and DC and exclude residents in the U.S. territories. 

Identifying SSDI beneficiaries newly enrolling in Medicare using administrative data: Enrollees are classified as SSDI enrollees newly enrolling in Medicare if they have a coverage start date (COVSTART) February 2023 through December 2023, did not have Medicare Part A or Part B in January 2023 (MDCR_ENTLMT_BUYIN_IND_01 not having value 1, 2, 3, A, B, or C), have a current entitlement reason equal to disability insurance benefits (DIB) or both DIB and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (ENTLMT_RSN_CURR with value 1 or 3), and are ages 19 through 64 at the end of the calendar year.

Assessing prior Medicaid coverage in the calendar year for SSDI enrollees newly enrolling in Medicare: The Medicare coverage start date (COVSTART) is used to determine the first month of enrollment in Medicare during the year. Then, all Medicaid monthly eligibility group codes in 2023 (ELGBLTY_GRP_CD_01-ELGBLTY_GRP_CD_12) prior to the first month of Medicare enrollment are used to assess prior Medicaid enrollment during the year using the following hierarchy:

  • Prior Medicaid coverage through the expansion pathway: having at least one Medicaid monthly eligibility group code indicating enrollment through the ACA expansion group (value of 72, 73, 74, or 75) before the first month of Medicare enrollment.
  • Prior Medicaid coverage through other pathway: having at least one non-missing Medicaid monthly eligibility group code and no Medicaid monthly eligibility group codes indicating enrollment through the ACA expansion group (value of 72, 73, 74, or 75) before the first month of Medicare enrollment.
  • No prior Medicaid coverage: Medicaid eligibility group codes for all months before the first month of Medicare enrollment are missing or the Medicare beneficiary did not have any records in T-MSIS.