This analysis was updated on January 9, 2025 to reflect the approval of Hawaii’s waiver.As of 2019, over 800,000 Medicaid enrollees between the ages of 12 to 64 had a diagnosed stimulant use disorder that was recorded in Medicaid claims data (though this is likely an undercount). Stimulant use disorder—which can involve dependence on cocaine, methamphetamine, or other psychostimulants, like prescription stimulants—can lead to severe physical and psychological complications. Unlike opioid and alcohol use disorders, there are no FDA-approved medications for treatment, limiting treatment options for those affected. A November 2023 report from the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) included recommendations to expand “contingency management.”

Contingency management is an evidence-based psychosocial intervention that uses motivational incentives, such as vouchers or gift cards, to encourage recovery behaviors like stimulant abstinence and treatment session (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy, group therapy) attendance. According to the American Society of Addiction Medicine, contingency management is the current evidence-based standard of care for treatment of stimulant use disorder. However, access through most payers, including Medicaid, remains limited. CMS policy only allows states to add contingency management coverage through Medicaid 1115 demonstration waiver authority.

The Biden administration has approved five state contingency management waivers (California, Delaware, Hawaii, Montana, and Washington); two additional state contingency management requests are currently pending federal review. These waivers are primarily for the treatment of stimulant use disorder. It is uncertain if these waivers will be a priority under the next Trump administration. This waiver watch briefly explains what contingency management is and summarizes contingency management 1115 waiver approvals to-date.

What is contingency management?

Contingency management is a treatment for stimulant use disorder that uses incentives (e.g., gift cards or vouchers) to reward patients for meeting treatment goals, such as stimulant abstinence. For instance, a contingency management treatment plan may involve weekly urine drug tests, with immediate rewards for negative results. Contingency management can also be combined with other therapies, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, with incentives tied to participation in treatments like group therapy or counseling sessions. The American Society of Addiction Medicine recognizes contingency management as the current standard of care for stimulant use disorder due its strong evidence base. Currently, there are no medication treatment options available for stimulant use disorder. Contingency management can also be used as a treatment or support for other types of substance use disorders, such as improving adherence to medication for opioid or alcohol use disorders. Although the Department of Veterans Affairs began implementing contingency management over a decade ago, access through most payers, including Medicaid, remains limited.

How are states using Section 1115 waivers to provide contingency management?

In December of 2021, CMS approved the first contingency management waiver in California and has since approved contingency management waivers in four additional states (Delaware, Hawaii, Montana, and Washington). Two states currently have pending contingency management requests (Michigan and Rhode Island). In waiver approvals, CMS clarifies that for the purposes of these demonstrations, motivational incentives do not violate federal rules that prohibit or limit providers from offering incentives to patients, and contingency management is considered a Medicaid-covered item or service based on the available scientific evidence for treating a substance use disorder. Some states, such as Montana and Washington, are using waivers to build upon successful state contingency management pilots that are grant or state funded, or funded using opioid settlement funds. Key waiver approval details include (Table 1):

• Eligibility. All states with current approvals cover contingency management treatment services for people with stimulant use disorder. In some states, contingency management will also be used for people with other types of substance use disorders alongside FDA approved medication-assisted treatment for opioid or alcohol use disorders to improve treatment adherence. CMS notes medication-assisted treatment should be prioritized for opioid and alcohol use disorders.
• Program length. State approvals range from 12-week programs to 64-week programs (based on target population).
• Incentive amounts. Gift cards (e.g., to Walmart or other retailers) begin at $10-$12 and increase with each week the participating beneficiary demonstrates non-use of stimulants but are “reset” back to the base amount if a participant submits a positive sample or has an unexcused absence. (Motivational incentives earned through these programs do not count towards gross countable income for determining Medicaid eligibility).

All waiver approvals include protections such as staff training requirements, incentive restrictions, and protections against fraud and abuse. Waiver special terms and conditions detail the following requirements for all states:

• Providers. Contingency management benefits are to be delivered through behavioral health providers approved by the state. States must conduct provider readiness reviews to ensure that providers are able to offer contingency management benefit in accordance with state standards. Staff providing or overseeing contingency management benefits must participate in contingency management-specific training.
• Incentive restrictions. Restrictions must be placed on incentives so they cannot be used to purchase cannabis, tobacco, alcohol, or lottery tickets.
• Provider fraud and abuse protections. To protect against fraud and abuse, states must set standard incentive amounts (i.e., providers will not have discretion to set these amounts). States also must use secure incentive management tools with safeguards against fraud and abuse that automatically calculate incentive amounts and generate incentives for patients based on drug test results inputted by the coordinator.

Of the 800,000 Medicaid enrollees aged 12 to 64 with a diagnosed stimulant use disorder recorded in Medicaid claims data in 2019, about 22% were residing in states that now have approved 1115 waivers for contingency management services (California, Delaware, Hawaii, Montana, Washington). If the currently pending waivers (Michigan and Rhode Island) are also approved, this coverage could extend to 26% of enrollees with a diagnosed stimulant use disorder. However, these numbers likely underestimate the total number of Medicaid enrollees with a stimulant use disorder, as not all individuals are screened, and diagnoses are not always recorded. Not all individuals with stimulant use disorder in these states will be eligible for or receive contingency management services. In California, 3,255 people received contingency management services from the launch of the program in April 2023 to June 2024.

Key Takeaways

Community health centers are a national network of over 1,300 safety-net primary care providers, serving more than 31 million patients in 2023. They are located in medically underserved urban and rural communities and serve all patients regardless of their ability to pay, providing a range of medical, behavioral, and supportive services. This brief reports on health center patients, services, experiences, and financing in 2023 and analyzes changes from 2019 (pre-pandemic) through 2023 using data from the Uniform Data System (UDS), to which all health centers are required to report annually, and the 2022 Health Center Patient Survey. Key takeaways include the following:

• The health center patient population increased to over 31 million patients in 2023, up slightly from 30.5 million in 2022. While the number of children served at health centers increased to over 9.1 million in 2023, this remains slightly lower than the 9.2 million served pre-pandemic in 2019, possibly reflecting overall reduced utilization of primary and preventive services among children on Medicaid.
• Health centers disproportionately served low-income people, people of color, and rural residents. In 2023, 90% of patients had incomes that were at or below 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL), and 40% were Hispanic patients, 17% were Black patients, and 4% were Asian patients. In addition, over three in ten (31%) patients were rural residents.
• From 2019 to 2023, the share of patients who were uninsured dropped from 23% to 18%, while the share of patients covered by Medicaid increased from 49% to 51%, likely due to the Medicaid continuous enrollment provision, which temporarily halted Medicaid disenrollments from March 2020 through March 2023. The share of patients with private coverage and Medicare also increased modestly.
• Medicaid was the largest revenue source for health centers, accounting for 43% of the $46.7 billion in total health center revenue in 2023, but revenue by payer source varies by state. From 2019-2023, health center revenue increased due to the availability of COVID-19 funding and increased payments from payers. However, net margins after costs fell from 4.5% in 2022 to 1.6% in 2023.
• About 66% of visits were for medical services and 13% were for mental health and substance use disorder (SUD) services. Patients continued to return to in-person care; however, health centers conducted 5 million visits (13%) via telehealth in 2023. Telehealth visits dropped by nearly half from the peak of 28.5 million visits (25%) in 2020 at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Most patients report positive experiences at health centers, with over nine in ten patients reporting that they were treated with respect. However, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely than White patients to report that health center doctors or health professionals explained things in a way that was easy to understand.

Since 2019, health centers have seen a steady rise in the share of their patients who have health coverage and have experienced stable financing; however, potential changes to the Medicaid program could reverse those trends. Changes that would impose new barriers to Medicaid enrollment or alter how the program is financed that may be adopted by the incoming Trump administration or Congress in 2025 would likely lead to an increase in the number of uninsured patients and a loss of Medicaid funding for health centers that could ultimately undermine access to primary care in medically underserved urban and rural areas.

Health Center Patients

In 2023, 1,363 health center organizations served more than 31 million patients at over 15,600 service delivery sites (Figure 1). Roughly six in ten health centers served patients in medically underserved urban areas, while four in ten served rural communities. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of health centers provided care to 25,000 or fewer patients while 3% of health centers served 100,000 or more patients in 2023. Generally, smaller health centers are located in rural areas or focus services on certain neighborhoods or populations, while larger health centers tend to serve more urban areas and operate multiple clinic locations.

Health centers served over 9.1 million children in 2023, an increase of 3.4% from 2022, but still lower than the number of children served prior to the pandemic (Figure 2). The number of child patients ages 0-17 dropped in 2020 likely due to temporary site closures and social distancing guidance at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. While the number of adult health center patients quickly rebounded after plateauing in 2020, the number of children served by health centers has been slower to recover. There is evidence indicating that utilization of primary and preventive services among children on Medicaid remains below pre-pandemic levels, which may partially explain the drop in pediatric patients at health centers. Although still a small share of the total patient population, the number of adult patients ages 65+ grew by nearly 30% or over 800,000 from 2019-2023.

A majority of health center patients live in low-income households (Figure 3). Reflecting the mission of health centers to serve anyone regardless of ability to pay, nine in ten patients served at health centers had incomes that were at or below 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and two-thirds of patients (67%) had incomes at or below the poverty level in 2023 (the poverty level was $30,000 for a family of four in 2023). The share of low-income patients served at health centers is roughly three times that of the U.S. population, in which 28% of individuals lived in households earning under 200% FPL in 2023.

Most health center patients (63%) are people of color, but there are differences between urban and rural health centers in the racial and ethnicity of patients (Figure 4). Across all health centers, Hispanic patients comprised the largest share of patients at 40%, followed by White patients (37%), Black patients (17%), Asian patients (4%), and all other patients (3%). However, the share of health center patients who are patients of color is higher at health centers in urban areas compared to those in rural areas, reflecting differences in the characteristics of people with low-income across the two settings. Patients of color comprise a majority (75%) of patients at urban health centers while White patients represent the majority (61%) of patients at rural health centers.

Health centers served millions of patients who were part of special populations with distinct health needs in 2023 (Figure 5). The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), which administers the health center program, provides targeted funding for health centers that serve certain populations identified as underserved by the federal government, including migratory agricultural workers and people experiencing homelessness. In 2023, health centers served 1.4 million patients experiencing homelessness (5% of all patients) and 1 million agricultural workers (3% of all patients). In addition, health centers are also required to report data on other populations with known challenges accessing primary care. For example, three in ten patients (31% or 9.7 million) were rural residents, which is higher than the 20% of the U.S. population living in rural areas, and roughly a quarter of patients (27% or 8.4 million) were best served in a language other than English.

Health Center Patient Coverage and Financing

Fewer than one in five health center patients were uninsured in 2023, continuing the decline in the share of uninsured patients since the start of the pandemic in 2020 (Figure 6). As safety-net providers, health centers serve many patients who are uninsured, enrolled in Medicaid, or who otherwise have difficulty affording care. From 2019 to 2023, the share of uninsured patients dropped from 23% to 18%, while the share of Medicaid patients increased from 49% to 51% and the share of both privately insured and Medicare patients increased. The drop in uninsured patients is likely attributable to the effects of pandemic-era coverage protections, including the Medicaid continuous enrollment provision, which temporarily halted Medicaid disenrollments from March 2020 through March 2023, and enhanced subsidies for Marketplace coverage, enacted in 2021 and extended through 2025. After March 2023, states resumed disenrollments as part of the unwinding of continuous enrollment in Medicaid, and national Medicaid/CHIP enrollment has since declined. Because the unwinding was still ongoing into 2024, the full effect on health center patients’ health coverage will not be clear until data for 2024 and 2025 are available.

In 2023, total health center revenue was $46.7 billion, with Medicaid comprising the largest source of funding (Figure 7). Over two-thirds (68%) of health center revenue came from payments from Medicaid, private insurance, Medicare and self-pay patients, with Medicaid accounting for over 60% of patient care revenue and 43% of total revenue. Federal Section 330 grant funding, which supports health centers’ role as safety net providers, made up 11%. COVID-19 funding, which is set to expire after 2023, accounted for 4% of total revenue. Research suggests that the impact of the expiration of these funds on health center financing may be greater for health centers located in rural areas and in the South, and those with higher shares of sicker, uninsured, and unhoused patients because they generally received higher COVID-19 funding on a per patient basis.

Health center revenue has increased since 2019 in part because of the availability of COVID-19 funding and other supplemental funding during the pandemic. Revenue from payers has also increased in response to the growth in patients. Although Medicaid remains the largest source of funding, Medicaid revenue as a share of total health center revenue decreased from 44% in 2019 to 43% in 2023 (Figure 7). At the same time, payments from private insurance and Medicare both increased as a share of total revenue. In contrast, Federal Section 330 grant funding remained relatively flat, increasing by only $200,000 over the four years and dropping from 16% to 11% of total revenue.

After rising during the pandemic, the national health center net margin fell to 1.6% in 2023 (Figure 8). The increase in health centers’ net margins, which account for both costs and revenue and are reported as a percentage of revenue, was driven primarily by the increase in COVID-related and other supplemental funding during the pandemic. The drop in the net margin in 2023, which is still slightly higher than the margin in 2019, reflected higher costs due to inflation as well as the expiration of COVID-19 funding.

Health Center Services

Health centers provided more than 132 million visits in 2023 (Figure 9). Most visits (66%) were for medical services, though health centers also provided a wide range of other clinical and supportive services, including mental health and substance use disorder (SUD) services (13%), dental services (12%), vision services (1%), and other professional services (3%), which include services such as nutrition counseling, physical therapy, and traditional healing. Enabling or supportive services, which are non-clinical services like case management, transportation, and health education that facilitate access to care, represented 6% of all visits. Health centers are required by federal law to provide primary care and supportive services, and they may offer dental, vision, or other services depending on patient need and organizational capacity.

More patients are returning to in-person care but reliance on telehealth continues. In 2023, health centers provided 17.5 million telehealth visits, which represented 13% of all visits (Figure 10). The number of telehealth visits peaked in 2020 at the start of the coronavirus pandemic when 28.5 million visits (25%) were conducted via telehealth but has declined every year since. Despite the decrease, telehealth still represents an important way for patients to access health center services in 2023, particularly since some patients face geographic and transportation barriers that can make it more difficult for them to attend in-person visits.

Roughly two-thirds (68%) of adult patients have utilized supportive services that are designed to reduce socioeconomic barriers to health care. According to a 2022 survey of health center patients, 65% of adult patients reported ever receiving certain medical-related assistance services and 22% reported ever receiving economic-related assistance through their health center (Figure 11). The medical-related assistance patients reported receiving included help arranging medical appointments outside of the health centers (46%), health education services (24%), free medication (19%), transportation to medical appointments (11%), interpretation during medical visits (8%), and home visits to discuss health needs (3%). Health center patients reported receiving economic-related assistance that included help applying for government benefit programs like Medicaid or nutrition assistance (17%), obtaining food (7%), finding a place to live (4%), obtaining clothing or shoes (3%), and finding employment (2%). Health centers provide economic-related services on-site or through referrals. While the survey identifies some of the most common types of supportive services, the list is not comprehensive.

Health Center Patient Experience

Roughly eight in ten patients reported that they were able to get appointments as soon as they needed at health centers in 2022 (Figure 12). Based on self-reported responses, 60% of health center patients reported they were “always” able to get a check-up or routine care as soon as they needed while 21% said they could “usually” get care as quickly as needed. For patients who needed immediate or urgent care in the past year, three-quarters reported they were “always” (54%) or “usually” (21%) able to the care they needed right away.

Across racial and ethnic groups, most health center patients reported positive experiences interacting with health center doctors and other professionals, but Black and Hispanic patients were less likely than White patients to say doctors or health professionals explained things in a way that was easy to understand (Figure 13). More than nine in ten health center patients (95%) reported that they were usually or always treated with respect by doctors or other professionals at health centers. There were no differences in the share of White, Black, and Hispanic adults who said they were treated with respect. Similarly, 93% of patients said health center staff usually or always listened to them, with no differences between White, Black, and Hispanic patients. These findings for health center patients contrast with other KFF research that shows Hispanic, Black, Asian, and American Indian or Alaska Native adults are more likely than White adults to report unfair treatment by a health care provider due to their race and ethnicity, which can negatively impact their health and well-being. However, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely than White patients to report that health center doctors or health professionals explained things in a way that was easy to understand.

This chart collection explores National Health Expenditure (NHE) data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). These data offer insights into changes in health spending over time in the U.S., as well as the driving forces behind spending growth. The data specifically show how healthcare spending changed in 2023. A related interactive tool contains more of the latest NHE data.

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

In January 2025, President-elect Trump will be sworn in with Republican control of Congress and a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, which will potentially provide broad latitude for the adoption of a conservative agenda. Federal policymakers have many levers to make major changes that will shape the access and availability of reproductive health including abortion, contraception and maternity care in ways that could affect the whole nation, even in states where the right to reproductive health care is enshrined by the state constitution. In addition to enacting legislation, presidential executive orders, litigation, regulatory actions, and nominations to the judiciary, cabinet, and other leadership position appointments will all affect policy.

This brief reviews some of the possible actions of the incoming Trump administration and new Congress based on campaign statements, policies implemented by the first Trump administration, and proposals forwarded by allied conservative think tanks and antiabortion advocacy groups. While President-elect Trump has generally said in recent comments that he would leave abortion policy up to states, his statements at times leave open the possibility for federal changes, and he will likely come under pressure from outside groups and Congress to restrict abortion access.

Abortion

Trump takes credit for overturning Roe and has said that states should set their own abortion policy, including banning abortion. As President, he could support additional policies that would result in limits to abortion access in all states, even without enacting a national abortion ban.

Currently, 13 states ban abortion with very few exceptions and several other states limit abortion availability to early in pregnancy. While Trump has said that he would not sign a federal bill banning abortion in all states, there are many levers that an anti-abortion administration can use to severely limit abortion access. Project 2025 and other anti-abortion organizations and policymakers have outlined a clear agenda, with the goal of banning or severely restricting abortion, especially targeting medication abortion given its dominance as a method of abortion and the current FDA policy that allows for the mailing of abortion pills without the need for any in person contact with a clinician.

Abortion Access

Trump has given conflicting statements about whether he would support a national ban that would apply in all states. At times, he has suggested that he would support a nationwide ban at 15 or 16 weeks gestation, but also has said that he would not sign a national ban. He has said that he believes in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother, but has not forwarded a stance on health exceptions. In his recent comments, Trump has said he would leave abortion access up to states.

Enforcing the Comstock Act

Medication abortion pills account for the majority of abortions in the U.S. The Comstock Act is an 1873 anti-vice law banning the mailing of “obscene” matter and articles used to produce abortion. The Biden administration’s Department of Justice determined that the Act only applies when the sender intends for material or drug to be used for an illegal abortion, and because there are legal uses of abortion drugs in every state including to save the life of the pregnant person, there is no way to determine the intent of the sender. However, this analysis does not preclude the Trump administration from interpreting the Comstock Act differently. President-elect Trump’s statements about medication abortion have been inconsistent, at times suggesting he would not block their availability and decline to enforce the Comstock Act. Recently, Trump said he “probably” would not move to restrict medication abortion but added that “things change.” Some Republican leaders, including Vice president-elect Vance and the authors of Project 2025 —the detailed conservative policy treatise that was spearheaded by many former Trump administration leaders – have called for a literal interpretation and enforcement of the Comstock Act to halt the mailing of all abortion medications and supplies to all states. This would impact not only residents of states where abortion is banned or restricted but all states, even those that have a guaranteed right to abortion in their state constitutions.

FDA Review of Mifepristone

The new director of the FDA will have significant influence over drug approvals, restrictions, and the broader agenda and priorities of the FDA. President-elect Trump recently indicated he will probably not restrict access to medication abortion but left room to change his position. Project 2025 and other conservative groups are calling for the FDA to retract its approval of medication abortion pills. Short of reversal, they seek to revert to older FDA protocols and restrictions that would reduce the gestational period for medication abortion pills, prohibit telehealth appointments and access through pharmacies, which were approved after President Biden took office. These issues are at the core of a federal lawsuit against the FDA that has been brought by Republican states, which the Trump administration may not defend and could succeed in front of a conservative Supreme Court.

Project 2025 also calls on the FDA to ease the process for health care providers to report complications resulting from abortion pills to the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS). Although it’s not yet clear how the new director will address mifepristone, Trump’s nominee, Dr. Martin Makary, has stated that fetuses feel pain during an abortion between 15 and 22 weeks gestation, despite conclusive evidence by major medical organizations and systematic reviews that find that a human fetus does not have the ability to experience pain at that point in pregnancy.

Pregnancy-Related Emergency Care

Since the Dobbs ruling, there have been numerous cases of deaths and near-death experiences attributed to denials and delays in providing abortion care to people experiencing miscarriages and pregnancy-related emergencies. EMTALA is the federal law that requires hospitals to provide health stabilizing treatment to patients who present to their emergency rooms, and the Biden administration issued guidance reiterating that EMTALA applies to abortion care provided in the cases of pregnancy-related emergencies. The Biden administration defended this policy in an ongoing case, but the Trump administration could withdraw the current guidance and stop defending the Biden administrations’ policy, as recommended by Project 2025, which argues that emergency abortion denials are not a problem.  President-elect Trump has not commented specifically on this issue. While Trump disavowed Project 2025 during the campaign, he has also announced appointments of a number of people tied to the effort since the election.

Coverage under Medicaid and ACA Marketplaces

The Hyde Amendment is a policy attached to the Congressional appropriations bill annually that bars the use of any federal funds for abortion, only allowing exceptions to pay for terminating pregnancies that endanger the life of the pregnant person or that result from rape or incest. While Trump has not spoken about the Hyde Amendment recently, he had earlier pledged to make it permanent law, as advocated by Project 2025. The report also urges policymakers to resurrect an earlier proposed Trump administration policy that would have required enrollees in ACA Marketplace plans to submit two separate payments if they choose a plan that includes abortion coverage.

Data and Research

The Trump administration could exert its influence over research and surveillance on abortion activities across multiple federal agencies. The Project 2025 report addresses abortion-related data collection and research. In particular, the report calls for CDC research on the risks of abortion, abortion survivors, and requiring reporting on the number of abortions from every state (currently voluntary) as a condition of receiving federal Medicaid funds. The plan details the need to collect data on abortion rates across various demographic groups, monitor the number of cases of infants born alive after abortions (which does not happen), abortion harms, and withhold HHS funds from states where abortion remains legal if they do not comply with these requirements. Any new requirement on states as a condition of receiving federal Medicaid funds will likely be challenged in the courts.

The new administration may also curtail scientific research and vaccine development by reinstating a previous Trump administration policy that barred NIH funding for projects that use of tissue and cell lines that are byproducts of abortions. Project 2025 characterizes this as “the destruction of human life” and a major breach of ethics that government should prohibit. It could also be used to build the case for establishing “fetal personhood” arguments that can be used to further embed abortion bans and restrictions.

There are a number of other administrative actions that were passed under President Biden that the Trump administration could revoke, including guidance that reinforced requirements for pharmacies to fulfill their obligation to provide access to reproductive health pharmaceuticals, enforcement of non-discrimination policies for health care providers, and rules that strengthened data privacy to protect those seeking reproductive health care.

Religious Refusals

Trump’s first administration prioritized expanding religious exceptions to the provision or coverage of certain health care services. During his first term, HHS created a Division on Conscience and Religious Freedom and proposed multiple policies that would expand religious exemptions for health care providers and payors. Additionally, CMS invoked the Weldon Amendment and threatened to withhold federal Medicaid dollars from California because of the state’s policy requiring abortion benefits in all state-regulated health plans. The amendment is attached annually to a federal spending bill, and bars HHS funds from going to programs or state and local governments that “discriminate” against plans, providers, or clinicians that refuse to provide, offer referrals for, pay for, or cover abortions.

Misinformation

Short of formally implementing policies, President-elect Trump and his advisors can sow confusion by the information and misinformation that they spread. For example, Trump has repeatedly stated that Democrats support abortion up to and after birth, which is false. Similarly, members of his circle of health care advisors have stated that abortion is “murder,” fetuses can feel pain, and suggested that abortion can cause cancer. All of these statements have been refuted by scientific and medical groups.

Contraception

President-elect Trump could reinstate policies that he implemented in his first term that resulted in the reduced availability of contraceptive care to low-income people through regulatory action that targeted the Title X federal family planning program. The Republican party platform states support for “access to birth control,” but a federal the Right to Contraception Act failed to pass Congress this year, due to opposition or abstention from the vast majority of the Republican Senators, including Vice President-elect Vance. Trump placed multiple restrictions on financing for contraception in his first term.

Title X Federal Family Planning Program

program if they also offered abortion services (with separate funding); additionally, they prohibited participating clinics from offering referrals to abortion services at other clinics to pregnant patients seeking abortion information. These changes resulted in a steep reduction of the network of clinics receiving federal support from the Title X program. His administration also provided federal family planning funding through Title X funds to crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) that do not provide contraception, which had been a requirement of the program until that time. While the Biden-Harris administration reversed the Trump administration changes to the program, Project 2025 calls for the restoration of the Trump-era rules, focusing the program on fertility-awareness based methods (FABM), greater support for CPCs, and Congressional passage of a federal law that would prohibit participation from clinics that offer both contraception and abortion services such as Planned Parenthood.

The new Trump administration could either revoke or not enforce the long-standing Title X program’s requirement that Title X-funded clinics provide minors with confidential contraceptive services without parental consent or notification. As a result of recent litigation challenging the rule in Texas where there is a state parental consent requirement for minors, the Biden administration is not enforcing the confidentiality rule in Texas. There are also other states that require parental consent for contraceptive services for minors. The administration could also direct more federal funds toward abstinence education, as they did during Trump’s first term.

Medicaid and Family Planning

Disqualifying Planned Parenthood clinics and other providers that offer both contraception and abortion care from the Medicaid program has long been a priority of some Republican lawmakers and conservative organizations, despite a current federal Medicaid requirement to include all willing providers in the program. Medicaid covers about one in five non-elderly adult women, and is an important source of payment for many family planning providers. For decades, the program has required coverage for contraceptives and other family planning services. In his first term, Trump allowed federal Medicaid funds to be used in a Texas Family Planning Medicaid waiver program that excluded Planned Parenthood and explicitly excluded emergency contraception (EC), which prevents pregnancy after sex by preventing or delaying ovulation. The second Trump administration could approve similar waivers from more states.

For wider-reaching impact, the new Republican Congress could pass legislation stipulating that federal funds to states may not go to entities that provide abortion services, even if the funds are used to pay for non-abortion care. This proposal was included in Republican-sponsored bills that aimed to repeal and replace the ACA in 2017.

Contraceptive Coverage and the ACA

Private insurance coverage for contraceptives and other evidence-based preventive services such as cancer screenings and prenatal care is required under the ACA, but a pending federal lawsuit, Braidwood Management Inc v Becerra, challenges some of these requirements. It is unknown if Trump will fight this case and defend the ACA requirement. Project 2025 calls for the federal government to issue new requirements for contraceptives and other women’s preventive services because of the pending case.  In addition, the Biden-Harris administration recently issued a proposed regulation that would require coverage of over-the-counter contraceptive methods without the need for prescription and would re-define how contraceptives are classified for coverage purposes, potentially expanding the scope of methods that would be required to be covered by plans without cost-sharing. It is unclear if the Biden-Harris administration will finalize the regulation and how Trump will approach the issue.

Maternal Health

During the 2024 campaign, President-elect Trump stated that he would provide full coverage for in vitro fertilization (IVF), which would require Congressional action.

IVF

During the campaign, Trump said that if elected, his administration would provide access to full coverage of IVF services by requiring insurance companies or the government to pay, but he has not provided any details on how this would be funded or operationalized. While Trump says he supports IVF, there is disagreement among conservative circles. The official Republican party platform express support for IVF, but also invokes the 14^th Amendment, which can be used to promote fetal personhood policies that could potentially threaten and criminalize IVF care. Additionally, the Project 2025 authors refer to embryos as “aborted children” and oppose research using embryonic stem cells (which can be derived from the IVF process). In the past year, Republican Senators blocked federal legislation that would have established a federal right and coverage of IVF.

Maternal Mortality and Morbidity

The state of maternal health, particularly pregnancy-related mortality, morbidity, and wide racial and ethnic disparities, remains a major health concern, and at times policymakers across party lines have advanced policies to try and improve maternal health. The pregnancy-related mortality rate in the U.S. is 33.2 per 100,000 live births – the highest of any developed country – resulting in over 1,000 deaths in 2021. The first Trump administration issued a maternal health plan near the end of his term and he signed federal legislation that provided funding for maternal mortality review committees. Doula care has been forwarded as a promising approach to support pregnant people, particularly those who are at risk for adverse maternal and infant birth outcomes. This could be an area that garners some bipartisan interest. The Project 2025 document supports broader access to doulas, with the caveat that no federal funds be used to support training related to abortion care. Some states already cover doula services under Medicaid, but implementation of these benefits has been limited and challenging in many cases.

This analysis for the KFF-Peterson Health System Tracker compares the Medicare’s first-ever negotiated drug prices under a new process created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 to current U.S. list prices, prices negotiated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and prices in 11 countries of similar size and wealth.

It finds that Medicare’s negotiated prices for 10 high-expenditure prescription drugs are lower than what private Medicare drug plans had been paying, but still much higher than the prices available in other countries – 78% more on average than the country with the next highest price across 11 other wealthy nations.

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

Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in June 2022, states have been able to set policy that defines abortion access across this nation. State actions have ranged from those that have effectively banned all abortions unless the pregnancy presents an imminent life threat to states that have enshrined the right to abortion in their state constitutions. This past November, voters in 10 states weighed in on constitutional amendment ballot measures to protect abortion rights.

The states that recently approved constitutional amendments protecting abortion rights in November (Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, and New York) now join the states—California, Michigan, Ohio, and Vermont—that already had recently added these protections to their state constitutions (Figure 1). However, in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota, the abortion rights amendments failed to garner sufficient votes for passage. In Nebraska, voters approved a competing measure to ban abortion after the first trimester. Nevada voters approved their state amendment but will need to weigh in again in the general election in 2026, as the state rules require constitutional amendments to pass in two general elections. This brief examines what the November election and prior efforts to enshrine abortion rights at the ballot box mean for those states and what’s next, including the future of abortion restrictions in states where voters enshrined abortion rights where abortion was banned or restricted, as well as those that do not have abortion bans.

Going forward, if law makers seek to restrict abortion in the states with new constitutional amendments protecting abortion rights, state courts will evaluate any abortion restrictions under the new amendment. Protections from restrictions beyond pre-viability bans will vary from state to state based on the language in their constitutional amendment and how their highest court interprets the language. After this general election, there are only two more states with abortion bans that allow citizens to propose new constitutional amendments and have not already attempted to do so.

What will be the fate of abortion restrictions?

Of the seven states that passed amendments protecting abortion rights, two (Arizona and Missouri) had pre-viability abortion bans. In these states, advocates have filed legal challenges to their abortion limits, alleging that they violate the newly established amendments. While the litigation in Arizona proceeds, the 15-week ban is not in effect and clinics are providing abortion care beyond this gestational limit.

The new constitutional amendments offer protections that prevent the state from burdening or interfering with someone’s right to abortion. This means that these constitutional amendments protecting a right to abortion may be used to do more than just challenge pre-viability gestational limits and may also be used to take on other abortion restrictions such as waiting periods, telehealth abortion restrictions, and physician only requirements. Additionally, because some of these constitutional protections go beyond the federal protections that existed under Roe and Casey, abortion restrictions such as waiting periods and the exclusion of abortion coverage in Medicaid programs, may be struck down by state courts.

This has already begun to happen in Michigan and Ohio where abortion rights advocates have challenged abortion restrictions on the basis that they violate their respective reproductive freedom amendments passed by voters in prior elections. Courts in Ohio have already blocked state laws prohibiting advanced practice clinicians from providing medication abortion, requiring in-person counseling, and a 24- hour waiting period after the counselling. Similarly, courts in Michigan have blocked laws limiting the provision of abortion to physicians and requiring a 24-hour waiting period. Michigan advocates have additionally asked a state court to rule that the ban on state funding of abortions for Medicaid enrollees is unconstitutional based on the amendment approved by Michigan voters.

Whether or not similar restrictions that have been in force in these states prior to the election (Table 1) will be blocked in Arizona and Missouri will depend on the wording of their respective abortion-related constitutional amendments and how state courts interpret these protections. While the removal of some of these restrictions is up to judicial interpretation, the Colorado ballot measure directly prevents the state from prohibiting health insurance coverage of abortion and repealed a section of the Colorado Constitution that explicitly prohibited the use of state funds to pay for abortion care, except when necessary to safeguard the life of the pregnant person. The passage of the Colorado measure removes these restrictions on state funds, which had previously prevented the state from using its own funds to provide coverage of abortion care for their Medicaid enrollees in circumstances other than the restrictions on federal funding outlined in the Hyde amendment—previously only allowing the state to cover abortions in cases of life endangerment and rape or incest. Other states, like Arizona and Missouri similarly restrict the use of state funds to provide coverage of abortion services for Medicaid recipients.

Citing the newly passed constitutional amendment, advocates in Missouri have filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s abortion ban and many restrictions. They argue the abortion ban and restrictions, including a 72-hour waiting period, telemedicine ban, and physician only provision, impermissibly interfere with the right to reproductive freedom the Missouri constitution now protects. The language in the state’s new constitutional amendment prevents the state from denying, interfering with, delaying, or otherwise restricting the right to reproductive freedom unless the government can demonstrate that the restriction has the “effect of improving or maintaining the health of a person seeking care, is consistent with widely accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that person’s autonomous decision-making.” This is a high bar for the state to clear if anti-abortion advocates are seeking a path to apply limited restrictions, though the Missouri Supreme Court will be the final arbiter of which restrictions will be allowed to stand.

How will the abortion initiatives affect the states that did not have abortion bans?

While five of the states that approved citizen initiatives to enshrine abortion rights in November 2024 do not have abortion bans, these state constitutional amendments provide assurance that abortion rights will be protected in the future. Regardless of how the political winds may change in a state, a constitutional amendment explicitly enshrining abortion rights will mean that lawmakers and even judges cannot enact or interpret the laws to limit abortion access, even if the composition of the state’s high court changes or the state government moves in a different direction. These constitutional protections can only be undone by a subsequent initiative that amends the state’s constitution.

Looking to the future

After the November 2024 election, there are two states (Arkansas and Oklahoma) with current bans which allow for a citizen initiated constitutional amendments and have yet to vote on an abortion measure (Figure 2). There were efforts in Arkansas (where there is a near total abortion ban) to get an initiative on the ballot, but the Arkansas Secretary of State rejected the petition for the initiative on the grounds that the signatures were not properly gathered and thus did not make it to the ballot. The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld this decision. In Florida, there is a 6-week LMP abortion ban, but the 2024 initiative failed to garner the needed 60% approval needed for passage. It is unknown whether abortion rights supporters will try again to gain approval in a future election given that the popular vote fell just 3 percentage points short of approval in the last election.

It is also unclear if anti-abortion proponents will propose new ballot initiatives to remove the new constitutional amendments protecting the right to abortion in Missouri and Arizona. Thirteen states with abortion bans or earlier gestational limits do not have a citizen initiative process to amend their constitutions. These states will likely continue to have those laws on the books, unless a new federal law guaranteeing abortion rights is passed by Congress and signed by the president or a future Supreme Court ruling overturns the 2022 Dobbs decision.