On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed a budget reconciliation bill into law that includes significant reductions in federal health care spending, large tax cuts, and other changes. The new law will reduce federal Medicaid spending alone by $911 billion over ten years and lead to 10 million more people becoming uninsured by 2034 based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates. While this legislation was being debated, Members of Congress from both parties raised concerns about the potential impact on rural hospitals, particularly given the ongoing trend of rural hospital closures. In response, and just prior to passage, the Senate added $50 billion in funding for a new “rural health transformation program,” referred to here as the “rural health fund.”

This brief describes the rural health fund, explains what the law says about the allocation of funds, and highlights outstanding questions about how the funds will be distributed across and within states to pay rural hospitals and for other purposes. Based on the statutory language, it is not yet clear what specific criteria the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will ultimately use to approve or deny state applications and distribute funds across states; what share of the $50 billion fund will go to rural areas; what share will go to the nearly 1,800 hospitals in rural areas or be used for other providers or purposes; whether funds will be targeted to certain types of rural hospitals, such as the 44% of rural hospitals with negative margins; and to what extent the CMS Administrator will be able to influence how states use their funds prior to approving an application. Further, the law does not require CMS to publish information about the distribution of funds so that the allocation decisions are transparent. Similar questions were raised during the COVID-19 pandemic about how well provider relief funds were targeted to hospitals with the greatest need.

The rural health fund includes $50 billion, which is a little over one third (37%) of the estimated loss of federal Medicaid funding in rural areas

The fund provides $50 billion for state grants (DC and the U.S. territories cannot apply). Half ($25 billion) will be distributed by CMS “equally among all states with an approved application,” which appears to suggest that each state with an approved application would receive the same amount from this pool regardless of the size of its rural population, the number of rural hospitals or other providers in the state, the financial standing of its rural hospitals, or other factors. For example, Connecticut (which has 3 rural hospitals based on one definition) could receive the same amount as Kansas (which has 90 rural hospitals) if both are approved for funding. CMS will have some discretion in determining how to allocate the remaining half ($25 billion) (see Figure 1 and more details below).

States can apply to use the funds in a variety of ways, such as for promoting care interventions, paying for health care services, expanding the rural health workforce, and providing technical assistance with system transformation.

The $50 billion in new funding could offset a little over a third (37%) of the estimated cuts to federal Medicaid spending in rural areas ($137 billion over ten years) based on KFF analysis of CBO’s estimates, or about 5% of the total estimated cuts to federal Medicaid spending ($911 billion over ten years). This does not account for other revenue losses related to the bill, including cuts to federal spending for the ACA Marketplaces, or the revenue losses stemming from the increased number of people who will be uninsured because of the expiration of the enhanced ACA premium tax credits and the implementation of final Marketplace integrity rules. The impact of these changes on rural areas, and the extent to which the rural health fund offsets losses, will vary across the country.

The rural health fund will be temporary, while many of the cuts in health spending are not time limited

While many of the major cuts related to Medicaid and the ACA Marketplaces under the law are not time limited, the rural health fund is temporary. The law provides $10 billion per year through the rural health fund for fiscal years 2026 through 2030, a five-year period. According to statements made by the CMS Administrator, CMS will distribute applications to states in early September 2025, states will submit applications to CMS in that month, and CMS will process their applications in November and send out the first batch of funds at the end of the year. States will be allowed to spend funds that they receive at a given point through the end of the following fiscal year, and CMS may be able to redistribute some unused funds over time, but all funds must be spent before October 1, 2032. New legislation would be required to provide additional support to rural areas after the funds dry up.

The distribution of dollars from the rural health fund will occur before many of the health care spending cuts under the law are fully realized. The rural health fund was put in place, and doubled in size, to address concerns of lawmakers from rural states, and front loading these dollars could allow systems to absorb forthcoming cuts. As described above, the law specifies that rural health fund dollars will first be available for fiscal year 2026, with $10 billion dollars available per year over five years through fiscal year 2030, and all funds must be spent before October 1, 2032. Yet most of the health care spending reductions are backloaded and occur after fiscal year 2030. For example, based on KFF's analysis of CBO estimates, nearly two thirds (64%) of the ten-year reductions in federal Medicaid spending would occur after fiscal year 2030.

CMS will have broad leeway in how it distributes funds across states

The law grants CMS broad discretion over the distribution of funds and confirms that these decisions are not subject to administrative or judicial review. The law gives CMS authority to determine which state applications to approve or deny, without specifying the criteria CMS should use to make these decisions, though it does specify certain items that states must include in their applications.

As noted above, half of the funds ($25 billion) will be distributed equally among states with approved applications. For the second half of the funds ($25 billion), CMS has more flexibility. The law requires that CMS considers certain factors when distributing these funds (the share of the state population that lives in a rural part of a metropolitan area, the share of rural health facilities in the state as a share of all rural health facilities nationwide, and the situation of hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients with special needs). It also allows the CMS Administrator to consider “any other factors that [it] determines appropriate.”  CMS could choose to restrict this $25 billion pool of funds to a subset of states, though the law specifies that it must distribute these funds to at least a quarter of states with approved applications.

States will have discretion in how they distribute funds among hospitals, and other providers, and may be able to steer some dollars to nonrural areas, subject to CMS approval

Just as the law grants CMS broad discretion over the distribution of funds across states, it also permits states to use the funds for a wide variety of purposes, subject to CMS approval. States must use the funds for at least three of the following purposes:

• Promoting evidence-based, measurable interventions to improve prevention and chronic disease management.
• Providing payments to health care providers for the provision of health care items or services, as specified by the CMS Administrator.
• Promoting consumer-facing, technology-driven solutions for the prevention and management of chronic diseases.
• Providing training and technical assistance for the development and adoption of technology-enabled solutions that improve care delivery in rural hospitals, including remote monitoring, robotics, artificial intelligence, and other advanced technologies.
• Recruiting and retaining clinical workforce talent to rural areas, with commitments to serve rural communities for a minimum of 5 years.
• Providing technical assistance, software, and hardware for significant information technology advances designed to improve efficiency, enhance cybersecurity capability development, and improve patient health outcomes.
• Assisting rural communities to right size their health care delivery systems by identifying needed preventative, ambulatory, pre-hospital, emergency, acute inpatient care, outpatient care, and post-acute care service lines.
• Supporting access to opioid use disorder treatment services, other substance use disorder treatment services, and mental health services.
• Developing projects that support innovative models of care that include value-based care arrangements and  alternative payment models, as appropriate.
• Additional uses designed to promote sustainable access to high quality rural health care services, as determined by the CMS Administrator.

Within the contours of this list, states could restrict the funds to rural hospitals or specific types of rural hospitals (such as those that are isolated and in financial distress) or they could use them for additional or different purposes, such as paying nursing facilities or recruiting clinical workers to rural areas.

While the fund is described as a “rural” program, the law appears to give states some ability to direct some of the dollars to urban and suburban areas, pending CMS approval. For example, most of the permitted uses in the list above do not specify that the funds would need to go to rural areas, such as the description of payments to hospitals and other providers and of support for opioid use treatment services, other substance use disorder treatment services, and mental health services. The current CMS Administrator indicated that nonrural areas could potentially receive money from the fund. The law also does not define “rural” when describing the scope of the program, meaning that states or the administration could do so broadly.

The law does not direct CMS or states to be transparent about the allocation and use of funds

CMS is not required to publish information about how the funds are distributed—such as by posting the amount sent to each state or why certain state applications were approved or denied—though it could choose to do so. States are required to submit annual reports to CMS on the use of the allotments. CMS could require states to disclose information about the amount they receive or the use of funds to the public.

As of 2023, there were over 47 million immigrants residing in the country, accounting for 14% of the total population, including roughly 1.8 million living in rural America. The Trump administration has undertaken a range of actions aimed at restricting immigration; increasing interior immigration enforcement efforts, including among lawfully present immigrants; and eliminating access to health coverage and care for lawfully present and undocumented immigrants. Research shows that immigrants make significant contributions to the U.S. workforce. Efforts to limit immigration may have negative ramifications for the country’s labor supply and economy, particularly in key occupations such as health care that are already experiencing worker shortages. Research further shows that health care workforce shortages are particularly stark in rural areas, which are also home to larger shares of older residents as well as residents who have worse health conditions as compared to their urban counterparts.

This data note examines the role that immigrants play in the rural workforce, particularly in industries disproportionately filled by immigrants, including health care, agriculture, construction, and service. It is based on KFF analysis of the 2023 American Community Survey 1-year Public Use Microdata Sample (see Methods for more details). It also highlights the socioeconomic and health coverage barriers that immigrant workers in rural areas face. For the purposes of this analysis, rural areas (non-metropolitan) are defined as counties or a group of counties that have a population of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000.

This analysis shows that although immigrants account for a small share of the rural adult population (5%) and rural adult workforce (5%), they play an outsized role in certain occupations in rural areas, including as physicians and surgeons (14%), agriculture workers (28%), and construction workers (10%). Despite having similar rates of employment as their citizen counterparts, noncitizen immigrant workers in rural areas are somewhat more likely to have lower incomes (annual incomes below $20,000) (22% vs. 18% among U.S.-born workers) and to be uninsured (40% vs. 8% among U.S.-born workers).

Immigrant adults make up 5% of the rural workforce nationwide, with the share varying from 1% to 17% across states.

Overall, immigrants account for 5% of rural adults and the rural adult workforce. However, their share of the rural workforce ranges from 1% to 17% across the 40 states with sufficient data to examine immigrant workers in rural areas. In nine states (HI, FL, CT, DE, NM, AK, WA, TX, and CA), immigrants account for at least one in ten or more of rural adult workers, including 17% in Hawaii, 15% in Florida, and 14% in Connecticut, reflecting these states generally having higher shares of immigrant adults residing in rural areas and immigrants overall.

Immigrant adults make up nearly three times the share of physicians and surgeons in rural America than their share of the overall rural workforce (14% vs. 5%).

Immigrant adults account for similar shares of the total rural workforce (5%) and the total rural health care workforce (3%) but make up nearly three times (14%) the share of physicians and surgeons in rural America (Figure 2). These physicians and surgeons include one in ten naturalized citizens and 4% noncitizen immigrants. In addition, immigrant adults account for 6% of nursing assistants, 3% of nurses, 2% of therapists, 1% of physician assistants, and 4% of other clinical workers in rural America.

Immigrant adults also play an outsized role in the agriculture, construction, and service workforces in rural America.

In addition to their role as physicians and surgeons, immigrant adults make up significantly higher shares of the agriculture, construction, and service (including restaurant and cleaning) workforces in rural America compared to their share of the total rural workforce (Figure 3). These patterns are similar to the outsized role immigrant adults play in these workforces nationwide. In rural areas, immigrant adults account for nearly three in ten (28%) agricultural workers, including nearly a quarter (24%) who are noncitizen immigrants. Immigrant adults also make up about one in ten construction (10%) and service (9%) workers in rural America, again driven by larger shares of noncitizen immigrants who account for these workers.

More than one in five noncitizen immigrant workers in rural America earn less than $20,000 a year.

Despite their workforce contributions, noncitizen immigrant workers in rural America are somewhat more likely than their citizen counterparts to earn less than $20,000 a year (Figure 4). More than one in five (22%) of noncitizen immigrant workers earn less than $20,000 a year compared to 18% of U.S.-born citizen and 16% of naturalized citizen workers in rural America. In contrast, about one in six (17%) U.S.-born and one in five (21%) naturalized citizen workers in rural America report earning $80,000 or more per year compared to one in ten noncitizen immigrant workers. This pattern likely reflects noncitizen immigrants’ disproportionate employment in lower-wage jobs such as agriculture, construction, food services, and cleaning services.

Four in ten noncitizen immigrant workers in rural America are uninsured.

Roughly six in ten of naturalized citizen (60%) and U.S.-born citizen (57%) adults, as well as two in three noncitizen immigrant adults (66%) 18 years and older in rural America are employed. However, noncitizen immigrant workers in rural America are roughly four times more likely to lack health insurance coverage (40%) than their naturalized citizen (11%) and U.S.-born citizen (8%) counterparts (Figure 5). Roughly three in four U.S.-born (74%) and naturalized citizen (72%) workers have private coverage compared to half (51%) of noncitizen immigrant workers. U.S.-born and naturalized citizen (18%) workers also are twice as likely to be covered by Medicaid compared to noncitizen immigrant workers (9%). These patterns reflect noncitizen immigrants’ disproportionate employment in jobs that are less likely to offer employer-sponsored health coverage as well as their limited access to federally funded health coverage. Provisions in the recently passed tax and spending law will further limit access to health coverage for noncitizen immigrants, which could further increase their uninsured rates and result in workforce productivity losses as well as an exacerbation of worker shortages in rural areas.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations approved its FY 2026 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (Labor HHS) appropriations bill, accompanying report, and amendments on July 31, 2025.

While most U.S. global health funding is provided to the State Department through a separate appropriations bill, the Labor HHS appropriations bill includes funding for global health programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as well as funding for global health research activities at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Total global health funding at CDC and NIH through the Labor HHS bill is not yet known, as funding for some programs (i.e. global HIV/AIDS and malaria research) at NIH is determined at the agency level rather than specified by Congress in annual appropriations bills. Funding for global health programs at CDC totals $693 million in the bill and funding for global health research activities at the Fogarty International Center (FIC) at NIH totals $95 million; these are the same levels as the FY 2025 enacted amounts.^[i],[ii]

See the table below for additional details on global health funding (downloadable table here). See other budget summaries and the KFF budget tracker for details on historical annual appropriations for global health programs.

[i] Funding for FY25 was provided in a full-year Continuing Resolution (CR), which maintained FY24 levels. All FY25 amounts and associated notes are based on those specified in relevant FY24 appropriations bills.

[ii] The FY26 Request eliminates CDC's Global Health Center and most of its bilateral programs, except funding for "Global Disease Detection & Emergency Response", which is transferred to "Crosscutting Activities and Program Support", and "Parasitic Diseases and Malaria", which is transferred to "Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases".

Read the news release about these poll findings.

Section:

0 / 0

Findings

Key Findings

• Amid ongoing news from federal agencies about changing COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, the replacement of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory committee members (ACIP), and re-examination of the federal childhood vaccine schedule, there is confusion among the public about U.S. vaccine policy. While half of the public thinks Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made “major” (26%) or “minor” (26%) changes to vaccine policy in the U.S., the other half either say they “don’t know enough to say” (40%) or say no changes have been made (7%). At least three in ten adults across demographic groups and party identification say they don’t know enough about the recent changes from Kennedy to vaccine policy to describe them. In addition, half (48%) of parents are not sure if federal health agencies are currently recommending that healthy children receive a COVID-19 vaccine this fall or not.
• Once told about the changes to U.S. vaccine policy, the public is divided by partisanship in whether they think these changes will make people safer or less safe. About two in ten adults, including 41% of Republicans, think these changes will make people safer while about one-third of adults, including most Democrats (62%) and four in ten independents (41%) say they will make people less safe. Another third of adults (31%) say they “don’t know enough to say” as to whether the recent changes to U.S. vaccine policy will make people safer or not, and about one in ten say the changes won’t make a difference.
• Most of the public (59%) say they will either “definitely not” or “probably not” get the COVID-19 vaccine this fall – including about six in ten Republicans who say they will “definitely not” get the vaccine. Older adults and Democrats are much more likely to report that they will get the COVID-19 vaccine. About four in ten Black adults and Hispanic adults say they plan to get the COVID-19 vaccine as do 37% of White adults.
• With most of the public reporting that they will not get a COVID-19 vaccine this fall, few are worried about the availability of the vaccine or whether it will be covered by insurance. One-third (33%) of adults are concerned that COVID-19 vaccines won’t be available to them this fall, while a third (34%) of insured adults are also worried that their insurance won’t cover a shot. Concern about availability and coverage are tied to vaccine intention, with those who plan to get the vaccine much more likely to be concerned that it might not be available to them (66%), including specific demographic groups who are more likely to get vaccinated such as older adults and Democrats.
• Personal doctors or health care providers remain the most trusted source for information about vaccines among asked sources, with eight in ten (83%) adults who say they trust their own doctor at least “a fair amount.” Smaller shares of the public, but still majorities trust their local public health department and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, to provide information on vaccines, though the share who say so has been steadily in decline since September 2023. Fewer continue to say they trust HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to provide information on vaccines, with about four in ten (37%) saying they trust him at least a fair amount, unchanged since his appointment in April of this year.
• About half of the public have confidence in agencies like the CDC and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the safety and effectiveness of vaccines approved for use in the U.S. (49%), while less than half say they have at least some confidence in the agencies to make decisions based on science rather than the personal views of agency officials (42%), or act independently, without interference from outside interests (37%). Democrats continue to be more confident in federal health agencies than Republicans to ensure the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

Awareness of Changes to Vaccine Policy

Since his appointment as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made several headlines about changing vaccine recommendations, leaving many confused about the scope of changes to U.S. vaccine policy and unsure of how these changes might affect people.

About half (52%) of the public are aware that RFK Jr. has made changes to U.S. vaccine policy, with about a quarter describing them as “major changes” (26%) or “minor changes” (26%). Four in ten adults say they don’t know enough about the changes to say whether they are “major” or “minor.” In addition, another 7% are unaware that changes have been made.

Whether the public views the changes as “major” or “minor” is largely partisan, with Democrats more likely to say they are “major” changes while Republicans describe them as “minor” changes. About four in ten (39%) Democrats say the changes that have been made to U.S. vaccine policy are “major,” compared to a quarter (25%) of independents and one in six (16%) Republicans. Nearly four in ten Republicans describe the changes as “minor,” compared to a quarter of independents and 18% of Democrats.

Young adults and those without a college degree are more likely to report that they don’t know enough about the issue to say whether or not the Secretary of HHS has made changes to vaccine policy. About half of those ages 18-29 (47%) and those without a college degree (45%) report that don’t know enough to say about changes to vaccine policy, compared to smaller shares of older adults and those with a college degree or higher.

With RFK, Jr. focusing attention on the childhood vaccine schedule, about half of parents are aware that changes have been made but the other half of parents are either unaware that changes have been made (9%) or report they don’t know enough to say (39%). Similar to all adults, how parents described the scope of the changes is largely partisan with Democratic-leaning parents describing them as major changes, and Republican-leaning parents describing them as minor changes.

In light of the recent changes to policy, a third (36%) of the public say the changes that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made to vaccine policy will make people less safe while a smaller share (20%) say the changes to vaccine policy will make people safer. Similar to overall awareness of the changes, a substantial share (31%) say they don’t know enough about the recent changes to say whether they will make people safer or less safe. An additional one in ten (13%) say the changes will not make any difference.

Once again, views are largely partisan, including among parents. Pluralities of Democrats and independents say the changes RFK Jr. has made to vaccine policy will make people less safe, including six in ten (62%) Democrats and four in ten (41%) independents. However, Republicans are split, with similar shares who say the policy makes people safer (41%) and that they don’t know enough to say (34%).

Parents are also split, with a third (32%) who don’t know enough to say and three in ten (29%) who say these changes will make people less safe. Another quarter (22%) of parents say it’ll make people safer, while one in six (17%) say it won’t make a difference. Parents who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents are more likely to say the changes will make people less safe, while Republican-leaning parents are more likely to say the changes will make people safer.

The Fall 2025 COVID-19 Vaccines

Overall, most of the public (59%) say they will either “definitely not” or “probably not” get the COVID-19 vaccine this fall. KFF has been tracking uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine since early 2021. Older adults and Democrats are much more likely to report that they will get the COVID-19 vaccine, while six in ten Republicans (59%) say they will “definitely not” get the COVID-19 vaccine. Similar shares across race and ethnicity say they plan to get the vaccine this fall, but notably White adults are the most likely to be against getting the vaccine, with four in ten (42%) saying they will “definitely not” get the vaccine.

Views of the changes to U.S. vaccine policy also vary by vaccine intention. Those who say they will “definitely” or “probably” get the shot are more likely to say they think the changes to U.S. vaccine policy are “major changes” and these changes will make people less safe.

Few Are Worried About Availability of Vaccines

With the Trump administration instituting possible changes to vaccine recommendations, including the COVID-19 vaccine, and coverage of vaccines largely tied to recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), those who want a COVID-19 vaccine are worried about being able to access the vaccine.

With less than half of adults saying they plan to get a COVID-19 vaccine this fall, just one-third (33%) of all adults are “very” or “somewhat” concerned that COVID-19 vaccines won’t be available to them this fall. Most adults (67%) say they’re “not too” or “not at all” concerned about the availability of the vaccine. Similarly, among those who have insurance, a third (34%) are “very” or “somewhat” concerned that their insurance won’t cover a COVID-19 vaccine this fall, while two-thirds (65%) are “not too” or “not at all” concerned.

Those who plan to get the vaccine are much more likely to be concerned that it might not be available to them. Among those who say they’ll “definitely” or “probably” get a COVID-19 vaccine this fall, two-thirds (66%) are concerned that the vaccine won’t be available to them, while six in ten (62%) of insured adults who will likely get a vaccine this fall are concerned their insurance won’t cover it. Predictably, just about one in ten of those who likely won’t get the vaccine are concerned about availability (11%) or insurance coverage (14%).

Groups that are more likely to say they plan on getting the COVID-19 vaccine are predictably more concerned about both the availability of the vaccine and whether their insurance would pay for it. Over half (56%) of Democrats are concerned about the availability of the COVID-19 vaccine or insurance coverage (53%), compared to under four in ten independents and one in ten Republicans worried about availability or coverage.

In addition, people who are ages 50 and older are more concerned than younger adults that the vaccine won’t be available to them, though majorities still report they are not concerned, with about four in ten of older adults who are concerned about both availability and insurance coverage, compared to about a quarter of those under the age of 50.

Black adults and Hispanic adults are among the most concerned about the availability and insurance coverage of the COVID-19 vaccine, with half of Black adults concerned about availability (48%) and insurance coverage (46%), and half (47%) of Hispanic adults concerned about insurance coverage, compared to smaller shares of White adults concerned about either item.

Half (48%) of parents say they are not sure if federal health agencies are currently recommending that healthy children receive a COVID-19 vaccine this fall. Currently, the CDC is recommending that decisions around the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children ages 6 months to 17 years should be between the health care provider and the patient or their parents, with no formal recommendation from the CDC. This comes after RFK, Jr. announced that the COVID-19 vaccine is not being recommended for this group.

Two in ten (21%) parents believe the COVID-19 vaccines are being recommended, while three in ten (31%) say COVID-19 vaccines are not being recommended for healthy children this fall. This is similar across partisans, with half of parents regardless of party identification saying they don’t know enough to say, and about three in ten Republican and Republican-leaning independent parents (31%) and Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent parents (35%) aware that the CDC is not recommending the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children this fall.

Trust in Sources to Provide Vaccine Information

Personal doctors or health care providers remain the most trusted source for information about vaccines, with eight in ten (83%) adults saying they trust their doctor “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to provide reliable information about vaccines. Smaller shares of the public, but still majorities, trust their local public health department (62%) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC (57%), to provide information on vaccines. Four in ten trust their state government officials (43%). HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continues to be the least trusted source of information on vaccines with just over one-third of adults (37%) saying they trust him at least a fair amount.

Individuals’ doctors or health care providers also garner the highest shares of trust across partisans, with at least eight in ten Democrats (92%), independents (85%), and Republicans (80%) who trust them “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to provide vaccine information. Notably, Republicans’ next trusted source behind their own personal doctor is RFK Jr., with seven in ten Republicans saying they trust him to provide reliable information on vaccines, compared to three in ten independents and one in ten (11%) Democrats.

Democrats are more trusting of vaccine information from health agencies than independents or Republicans, with three-quarters (77%) of Democrats saying they trust their local public health department to provide reliable information on vaccines, compared to two-thirds (63%) of independents, and half (53%) of Republicans. Similarly, another seven in ten (72%) Democrats trust the CDC compared to six in ten (61%) independents and just under half (44%) of Republicans. These partisan divides in trust are consistent with findings from previous KFF polling.

Republicans or Republican-leaning independents who support the MAGA movement are consistently less trusting of sources of information about vaccines than non-MAGA Republicans and leaners, with significantly fewer who say they trust their local public health department, the CDC, and their state government officials. Similar shares say they trust their personal doctors “a great deal” or “a fair amount,” but larger shares of MAGA Republicans trust RFK Jr. to provide information on vaccines (77% vs. 48% of non-MAGA Republicans).

The latest polling shows that overall trust in government agencies, like the CDC or people’s local public health departments, to provide reliable information on vaccines is continuing a downward trend since first asked in September 2023. The share of adults who say they trust either the CDC or their local public health department has dropped six percentage points, while the share who trust their own provider has stayed relatively stable.

Even as majorities of the public express trust in government health agencies, like the CDC, to provide information on vaccines, few have confidence in agencies like the CDC and FDA to carry out many of their responsibilities, including ensuring the safety and effectiveness of vaccines approved for use in the U.S. (49%), making decisions based on science rather than the personal views of agency officials (42%), or acting independently, without interference from outside interests (37%). Fewer than one in five adults say they have “a lot” of confidence in these agencies to fulfill each of these tasks.

Despite the fact that Trump administration appointees lead these federal health agencies, larger shares of Democrats than Republicans have at least “some” confidence in government health agencies to ensure the safety and effectiveness of vaccines approved for use in the U.S. About six in ten (58%) Democrats say they are confident in these agencies to ensure the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, compared to less than half (45%) of Republicans who agree.

Similar shares of Democrats (41%), independents (42%), and Republicans (46%) have confidence in the government to make decisions based on science rather than personal views of agency officials, and similar shares of Democrats (41%) and Republicans (41%) are confident in the federal health agencies to act independently, without interference from outside interests. A smaller share of independents – about a third (32%) – say the same about agencies’ ability to act independently.

Methodology

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 July 8-14, 2025, online and by telephone among a nationally representative sample of 1,283 U.S. adults in English (n=1,212) and in Spanish (n=71). The sample includes 1,004 adults (n=58 in Spanish) reached through the SSRS Opinion Panel either online (n=979) 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 279 (n=13 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, 135 were interviewed by phone and 144 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. 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, 1 case was 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 2024 Current Population Survey (CPS), September 2023 Volunteering and Civic Life Supplement data from the CPS, and the 2025 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, political party identification by race/ethnicity, and education. 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.

Group	N (unweighted)	M.O.S.E.
Total	1,283	± 3 percentage points
Party ID
Democrats	439	± 6 percentage points
Independents	387	± 6 percentage points
Republicans	344	± 6 percentage points
MAGA Republicans	308	± 7 percentage points

 

As federal vaccine policy changes, most (59%) adults do not expect to get a COVID-19 vaccine this fall, while four in 10 (40%) say that they will “definitely” or “probably” get the shot, a new KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust finds.

The groups most likely to say they will “probably” or “definitely” get the vaccine this fall include older adults (55%) and Democrats (70%). In contrast, most Republicans say they won’t get the shot, including 59% who say they will “definitely not” get the vaccine.

Among those who plan to get the shot, two-thirds (66%) say they are concerned the vaccine won’t be available to them, and a similar share of those with insurance (62%) are concerned their insurance won’t cover the cost. 

The poll comes after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s announcement this spring that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend the vaccine for healthy children or pregnant women, and the CDC subsequently recommended shared decision-making between parents and doctors.

The poll finds that many parents of children under age 18 are confused and uncertain about whether COVID-19 vaccines are recommended for healthy children this year. 

About half (48%) of parents say they don’t know whether or not federal agencies recommend healthy children get the vaccine this fall. More say the vaccine is not recommended (31%) than recommended (21%) for healthy children.

When asked about the impact of the changes that Secretary Kennedy is making to vaccine policy, one in five (20%) adults nationally say they are making people safer, while more than a third (36%) say they are making people less safe. Others say that they don’t know enough to say (31%) or that the changes won’t make a difference (13%).

Views on the impact of the changes split along partisan lines, with Republicans much more likely to say the changes are making people safer (41%) than less safe (9%), and Democrats much more likely to say less safe (62%) than safer (4%). Among independents, more than twice as many say the changes are making people less safe (41%) than safer (16%). At least a quarter of adults across partisans say they don’t know enough to say how the changes will impact people.

The poll also assesses the public’s trust and confidence in federal authorities around vaccine issues. Findings include:

• More than half of people (57%) say they have at least “a fair amount” of trust in the CDC to provide reliable information on vaccines.
• Fewer than four in 10 (37%) say they trust Secretary Kennedy to provide reliable information on vaccines. Republicans (70%) are far more likely than independents (30%) or Democrats (11%) to say they trust Secretary Kennedy to provide reliable vaccine information.
• About half (49%) of the public says they have at least some confidence in federal agencies like the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, consistent with recent findings.

Designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at KFF, this survey was conducted July 8-14, 2025, online and by telephone among a nationally representative sample of 1,283 U.S. adults in English and in Spanish. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample. For results based on other subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher.

Note: This analysis was updated to include the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) latest cost estimates for the reconciliation package that was enacted on July 4, 2025, as well as new provisions in the law.

On July 4, President Trump signed into law a budget reconciliation package once called the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” that includes significant changes to the Medicaid program. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the Medicaid work requirement provisions in the passed budget reconciliation law will be the largest source of Medicaid savings, reducing federal spending by $326 billion over ten years and cause millions to become uninsured.

Implementing work requirements on a national scale, requiring states to verify individuals’ monthly work status (at least every 6 months) and implement a long list of exemptions are policies that proved challenging for Arkansas and Georgia to operationalize and led to 18,000 people losing coverage in Arkansas. KFF analysis shows most Medicaid adults under age 65 are working already (without a requirement) or face barriers to work. Many Medicaid adults who are working low-wage jobs are employed by small firms and in industries that have low employer-sponsored insurance offer rates. In previous analysis, CBO found that a Medicaid work requirement would not have any meaningful impact on the number of Medicaid enrollees working, and cited research from Arkansas indicating that “many participants were unaware of the work requirement or found it too onerous to demonstrate compliance,” resulting in coverage loss.

The law will require states to condition Medicaid eligibility for adults in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion group at application and following enrollment on meeting work requirements starting January 1, 2027, with the option for states to implement requirements earlier. Currently, 41 states (including DC) have expanded their Medicaid programs under the ACA to nearly all adults up to 138% FPL ($21,597 for an individual in 2025). As of June 2024, over 20 million people were enrolled through Medicaid expansion, representing nearly a quarter of total Medicaid enrollment across all states and 31% of total enrollment in expansion states. The Medicaid expansion population includes adults without dependents as well as many parents and people with disabilities or chronic conditions who do not receive SSI.

Key takeaways include:

• CBO estimates. Of the Medicaid provisions included in the law, CBO estimates implementing work requirements will account for the largest share of federal Medicaid savings. Earlier CBO estimates found work requirements will cause the largest increase in the number of people without health insurance.
• Verification requirements. The law requires states to verify at application and at renewal that individuals in the ACA expansion group meet work requirements (80 hours of work activities per month) or exemption criteria. States can also require verification more frequently.
• Implementation timeline. The law requires HHS to release an interim final rule by June 2026 leaving states with limited time to develop or change implementation plans, protocols, and systems (and to test systems changes) before the January 2027 work requirement implementation deadline.
• State implementation choices. State choices to impose more stringent requirements than the minimum federal requirements outlined in the law (e.g., requiring more frequent verification or imposing longer “look-back” periods when verifying coverage) as well as state effectiveness in using existing data to automate verification processes, will affect the number of individuals at risk of losing coverage.
• Comparison to other waivers and proposals. The Medicaid work requirement policies included in the law are more stringent than previous policies considered by Congress and work requirements implemented under state Medicaid demonstration waivers; for example, the law makes it harder to gain coverage and to re-enroll and does not exempt older adults from requirements

What does CBO say?

Of the Medicaid provisions included in the enacted reconciliation package, CBO estimates implementing work requirements will account for the largest share of federal Medicaid savings; earlier CBO estimates also found work requirements will cause the largest increase in the number of people without health insurance. Over ten years, work requirements are estimated to reduce federal Medicaid spending by $326 billion, representing the largest share of the estimated $911 billion in total Medicaid cuts included in the law (Figure 1). (CBO also projects indirect effects from the work requirement provision will decrease federal revenues by $8.65 billion over a decade.) The savings will largely stem from coverage losses. CBO has not published updated estimates of the number of people who will lose Medicaid under the reconciliation package previously referred to as the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” Earlier CBO analysis of the House-passed version of the reconciliation bill estimated 18.5 million people will be subject to the requirements each year and by 2034 federal Medicaid coverage will decrease by an estimated 5.2 million adults, with work requirements ultimately increasing the number of people without health insurance by 4.8 million in 2034. CBO expects few of those disenrolled to have access to employment-based coverage and that no one will be eligible for Marketplace premium tax credits (as the law makes those losing or denied Medicaid coverage due to work requirements ineligible for premium tax credits to purchase coverage through the ACA Marketplaces).

What does the law require?

Expansion adults will be required to complete 80 hours of work or community service activities per month or meet exemption criteria to enroll in and maintain coverage (Figure 1). (Work requirements will also likely apply to states like Wisconsin and Georgia that have partial adult coverage expansions under 1115 waivers.) Individuals applying for coverage and those enrolled in coverage will need to work or engage in specified “qualifying activities” for at least 80 hours per month. States will be required to verify qualifying activities or exemptions in (at least) the month before application and (at least) one month between eligibility redeterminations (see Figure 2 and additional discussion below). The law specifies mandatory exemptions including parents and caretakers with children ages 13 and under, individuals who are “medically frail,” and individuals who are pregnant or postpartum, among others (Figure 1). The “medically frail” designation includes individuals who are blind or disabled, individuals with physical, intellectual, or developmental disabilities, individuals with substance use disorder or a “disabling” mental disorder, and those with “serious or complex” medical conditions. States may allow short-term hardship exceptions from work requirements, for enrollees (or applicants) experiencing certain extenuating circumstances (Figure 2).

At a minimum, states will be required to verify individuals’ work or exemption status when individuals apply for coverage and at eligibility renewal (Figure 3). At application, states will be required to “look back” one or more consecutive months (immediately preceding the application month, up to three total months) to confirm compliance with the requirements. Every six months when eligibility is redetermined (or more frequently as determined by states), states will be required to “look back” one or more months (consecutive or non-consecutive) to verify compliance. In effect, states could require individuals to comply with work requirements for multiple months before they can enroll in coverage or for multiple months within any six-month eligibility period (or more frequently than every six months). The law directs states to use available information (e.g., payroll data) “where possible” to verify compliance with work activities or exemption status, without requiring additional documentation from individuals.

When a state is unable to verify compliance with the requirements or that an individual meets exemption criteria, it must issue a “notice of noncompliance” and deny the application or disenroll the individual from coverage if the individual is unable to show compliance (Figure 3). Individuals will have 30 days to show compliance (coverage will be maintained during this period if already enrolled). After 30 days, if an individual is unable to demonstrate compliance with the requirements or show they are exempt, the state will be required to deny the application or disenroll the individual from coverage (no later than the end of the month following the 30-day period). States will be required to follow standard Medicaid termination processes, including determining whether an individual qualifies for Medicaid coverage on another basis and provide written notice and opportunity for a fair hearing. To regain Medicaid coverage, individuals will need to reapply (triggering another compliance check at application). Individuals will also be barred from receiving subsidized Marketplace coverage, as the law makes those losing (or denied) Medicaid coverage due to work requirements ineligible for premium tax credits to purchase coverage through the ACA Marketplaces.

What is the timeline for implementation?

The law specifies key work requirement implementation and compliance dates (Figure 4). The law directs the Secretary of HHS to issue an interim final rule on implementing work requirements by June 1, 2026 (the law specifies the interim rule will not be subject to public notice or public comment). States will be required to condition Medicaid expansion eligibility and coverage on meeting work requirements by January 1, 2027, with an option to implement requirements sooner. States must begin outreach to notify individuals of the new requirements at least three months before the start of the first compliance “look-back” period and notify individuals “periodically thereafter.” The law allows the Secretary to exempt states from compliance with the new requirements until no later than December 31, 2028, if the state is demonstrating a “good faith” effort to comply.

Figure 4

A forthcoming HHS interim rule may identify implementation parameters and additional state requirements; however, if the rule is slated to be released by June 2026, states will have limited time to develop or change implementation plans, protocols, and systems (and to test systems changes). The work requirement provisions outlined in the law raise many operational and implementation questions (Appendix Table 1). The law includes references to areas where additional HHS guidance may further define standards and processes for states (Table 1). Implementing work requirements will involve complex systems changes (e.g., developing or adapting eligibility and enrollment systems), enrollee outreach and education, staff training, and coordination with managed care plans, providers, and other stakeholders. The law allows states flexibility to impose more stringent requirements than the minimum requirements specified (e.g., requiring more frequent verification or imposing longer “look-back” periods when verifying coverage) and allows states to implement requirements sooner than January 2027.

How could implementation vary across states?

States will have flexibility to impose more stringent requirements than the minimum federal requirements outlined in the law. For example, states will have flexibility to determine how many months to “look back” at application (up to three months) and redetermination to verify compliance (and whether to verify compliance more frequently than at redetermination). In effect, states could choose to require compliance with work requirements for multiple months prior to the application month and for every month following enrollment (Box 1).

State data matching process decisions and how effective states are with data matching will affect how many individuals will need to submit proof of work hours or exemption status, and ultimately the number of individuals at risk of losing coverage. States with older or weaker systems or less integration (e.g., with SNAP or TANF) may be less effective. But even with effective systems, not all work can be verified through existing data sources, including, for example, community service and self-employment. As noted earlier, the law directs states (“where possible”) to data match work activities and automate the verification of exempted individuals/groups. Some exemptions may be easier to identify with existing data including parent/caretaker status, recent incarceration, and compliance with SNAP/TANF work requirements. Others may be more difficult such as participation in SUD program or meeting the “medically frail” definition (e.g., individuals with SUD, individuals with physical, intellectual, or developmental disabilities, those with "serious or complex" medical conditions).

How does this law compare to state waivers and previous proposals?

The Medicaid work requirement policies included in the law are more stringent than previous policies considered by Congress and work requirements implemented under state Medicaid demonstration waivers (Table 2). The law shares some similarities in structure to other federal legislative proposals and waivers, including requiring 80 hours per month of qualifying activities such as employment, community service, or work programs, and allowing exemptions for parents and individuals with certain health conditions (although Georgia’s waiver currently offers no exemptions). However, the law will condition eligibility at initial application and after enrollment on meeting work requirements, making it harder to gain coverage and to re-enroll (than in Arkansas or under the Limit, Save, Grow Act considered by Congress in 2023). Individuals lost coverage after three months of noncompliance in Arkansas and under the Limit, Save, Grow proposal, while under the law individuals could lose coverage more quickly (if the state chooses to verify monthly). The policy in the law will also extend to older age, through age 64 (unlike Arkansas’s waiver and the Limit, Save, Grow Act). In Georgia where the work requirement extends through age 64, the state’s interim evaluation found that work requirements have had a significant impact on lowering program enrollment, particularly for adults ages 50-64. For more on lessons learned from Arkansas’ and Georgia’s experience implementing work requirements (under demonstration waivers), see KFF’s previous explainers.

Appendix

Key Takeaways

• Multiple policy changes resulting from Congressional action, Trump administration efforts, and a Supreme Court decision will significantly weaken the family planning safety net at a time when there will be increasing demand for safety-net providers in every state due to growth in the number of uninsured Americans. The 2025 Federal Budget Reconciliation Law is projected to result in significant growth in the uninsured rate over the next decade through loss of Medicaid and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace coverage. Among women of reproductive age on Medicaid, 8 million (36%) are eligible through the ACA coverage expansion and could be at risk for losing their coverage due to the new work and eligibility verification requirements.
• The 2025 Budget Reconciliation law also bans federal Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood clinics for one year; however, this provision is currently blocked for all Planned Parenthood members by a federal district court order. The program is the largest source of public financing to Planned Parenthood and also affects a subset of other family planning clinics that also offer abortion services. Among women on Medicaid who obtained family planning services, 11% (about 1 million) got care at a Planned Parenthood in 2021 and the vast majority of them (85%) got contraceptive services.
• The Supreme Court ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood has enabled states to exclude Planned Parenthood clinics from their Medicaid provider networks. In the past decade, at least 14 states have used state-level policies or sought federal permission to block the provider from participating in their state Medicaid programs, though they have often been blocked by court action, until this ruling.
• The Trump Administration is currently withholding Title X family planning funds from close to 300 family planning clinics and proposed to eliminate the program altogether in their FY2026 budget. The federal Title X program provides grant funding to nearly 4,000 clinics to deliver free and low-cost family planning care to people with low incomes.
• Combined, these actions could result in closures and cutbacks in contraceptive care and STI services when there will be a greater need for free or low-cost reproductive health care.

Introduction

Over the next few years, a confluence of policy changes at the federal level will significantly weaken and challenge the family planning safety net of publicly supported health centers and clinics. The clinics that currently serve millions of women with low incomes will simultaneously face greater demand for reproductive health care as a growing number of uninsured people turn to the safety net for free or reduced cost care. The reproductive health safety net includes Federally Qualified Health Centers, Title X clinics, Indian Health Service and Rural Health Clinics, state and local health departments, and Planned Parenthood clinics. The impact of the 2025 Federal Budget Reconciliation Law is projected by the Congressional Budget office to increase the number of people uninsured by 10 million over the next decade, and the sunsetting of supplemental ACA premium tax credits at the end of this year could lead to millions more uninsured. The new law would also eliminate Planned Parenthood’s eligibility to receive federal Medicaid funds provider for one year; however, this payment ban is temporarily blocked by court order. This change, combined with the withdrawals of Title X funds to several non-profit organizations and Planned Parenthood grantees, and the rise in uninsured will place additional pressure on an already fragile reproductive health safety net.

Each of these changes alone place considerable pressure on the family planning safety-net and taken together, could result in major access problems not just for low-income people seeking contraceptive care, STI screening and treatment, and other preventive services, but others who rely on this network in every state in the country. This brief details the likely impact of these different actions on the family planning safety net and its ability to provide reproductive health care to millions of people across the nation (Figure 1).

The 2025 Budget Reconciliation Law

The 2025 Federal Budget Reconciliation Law, signed into law on July 4, 2025, will have major impacts on the uninsured rate, as well as the reproductive health safety net that was designed to serve individuals who have low incomes or who do not have health insurance.

Growth in Uninsured Patients

The 2025 Budget Reconciliation Law places additional requirements on Medicaid eligibility that are projected to lead to a major increase in the number of uninsured, a population that relies on the health care safety net for their reproductive health care. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that over the course of 10 years, the new law will increase the number of people without health insurance by 10 million because of the law’s changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Medicaid expansion has provided an important eligibility pathway for low-income women of reproductive age. Today, 8.0 million women ages 19-49 (36% of reproductive age women enrolled in Medicaid) qualify through the expansion alone (Figure 2). The 2025 Federal Reconciliation Law would require Medicaid enrollees who qualify through ACA expansion to work or look for work, but exempts parents with dependent children under age 14. KFF research shows that most adult women covered by Medicaid meet work requirements or would qualify for an exemption, but many would be at risk of losing coverage because of the administrative burden related to reporting requirements. Although work requirements are the largest source of coverage loss, all states are estimated to experience reductions in Medicaid enrollment due to additional administrative hurdles related to eligibility determination, verification, and the frequency of renewals required by the new law.

This erosion in coverage could be compounded by the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits for ACA Marketplace enrollees at the end of 2025 if Congress does not act to extend them.

Faced with higher costs or challenges getting reproductive care, uninsured women could decide to stop using contraception because they cannot afford it or switch to a less effective method, which could result in an increase of unwanted pregnancies and a loss of reproductive autonomy. The 2024 KFF Women’s Health Survey found one in five uninsured women of reproductive age has had to stop using a birth control method in the past 12 months because they couldn’t afford it, a rate that is four times greater than those with Medicaid (5%) or private insurance (2%).

Medicaid and Planned Parenthood

The most immediate impact of the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Law is the prohibition of federal payments for one year to certain family planning providers that receive at least $800,000 in Medicaid revenue and are affiliated with providers that also offer abortion services. This narrow definition affects all Planned Parenthood clinics as well as two other networks of clinics in Massachusetts and Maine and will be a major economic blow to these clinics that rely heavily on Medicaid as a source of financing for care as well as the over one million women on Medicaid who rely on them for their care. This provision is being challenged by Planned Parenthood and Maine Family Planning and is currently blocked for all Planned Parenthood members as the case moves through the courts.

The federal Medicaid program pays 90% of all family planning services and supplies, and states pay 10%. This is considerably higher than the federal match that states receive for most other services. If the cases challenging the payment ban do not ultimately succeed, it will be difficult if not impossible for states to fill the gap in the loss of funds.

The largest source of financing to Planned Parenthood is the Medicaid program, which reimburses clinics for services provided to enrollees in the same way that it pays private doctors and hospitals. In 2021, one in ten (11%) Medicaid enrollees received their family planning services at a Planned Parenthood clinic and 85% of them received contraceptive services. The share of Medicaid enrollees served by Planned Parenthood varies considerably from state to state (Figure 3).

Federal Medicaid funds do not pay for abortion care, except under very limited circumstances (rape, incest, life endangerment of the pregnant person), because of the Hyde Amendment. Nonetheless, over the last decade, many states have made efforts to ban Planned Parenthood from participating in Medicaid because they also offer abortion services. Federal Medicaid law permits any willing and qualified provider to participate in the program to serve enrollees. States have the right to determine who is a “qualified” provider and some have tried to disqualify Planned Parenthood because they provide abortion services. While Congress was voting on the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Law, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, and gave states that oppose abortion more latitude to disqualify Planned Parenthood clinics from their network of Medicaid participating providers. Regardless of the outcome of the cases challenging the provisions of the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Law, the Supreme Court’s ruling on Medina will mean that states will be able to act on their own to block their state from including Planned Parenthood as a Medicaid provider.

Over the past decade, at least 14 states have sought to ban Planned Parenthood clinics from qualifying for reimbursement in their Medicaid programs. When Texas excluded Planned Parenthood from participating in their state-funded family planning program in 2013, fewer people received contraception, there was a reduction in the rate of contraceptive continuation, and an increase in the share of childbirth covered by Medicaid. While Planned Parenthood clinics make up a relatively small share of the reproductive health safety net, they serve one third of all patients that obtain contraceptive care from publicly supported clinics (Figure 4). In some communities, this loss could leave residents without a source of reproductive care.

The loss of Planned Parenthood clinics through Medicaid means that there could be fewer providers available to serve women, especially in some rural or medically underserved communities. According to Planned Parenthood, 76% of their clinics are located in rural or medically underserved areas and excluding them from the Medicaid program could force clinic closures or cutbacks in care for these populations.

The Role of Title X

Over the last few years, the Title X program, which has been providing assistance with family planning costs to clinics that serve low-income individuals since 1970, has been the focus of significant restrictions that have made it difficult for many clinics to continue to participate in the program. Title X distributes grant funds to support family planning services to low-income and uninsured people through a network of participating clinics. These services include contraceptive care, STI screening, and preventive cancer screenings, like Pap smears and breast exams. The types of sites that rely on this support include Federally Qualified Health Centers, state and local health departments, school-based clinics, independent clinics, hospital outpatient departments, and currently some Planned Parenthood clinics.

During the first Trump Administration, HHS changed the Title X regulations so that clinics that offered abortion referrals or that had co-located abortion services were disqualified from participating in the program. Others left voluntarily because they felt that this policy violated their mission and values. Approximately 1,000 clinics, including over 400 Planned Parenthood clinics across the country, stopped receiving Federal Title X support as a result of this policy. Many of the clinics later rejoined the Title X program after the Biden Administration reversed the Trump Administration regulations, however, the Trump Administration is currently withholding Title X funds from 12 grantees since April 1, 2025, affecting close to 300 clinics (Figure 5).

While the administration has not yet moved to change the Biden era regulations, they may still reinstate the restrictions of the first Trump Administration if the program continues to exist. This was a priority that was highlighted by the authors of Project 2025. Title X Clinics that lost their funding in 2025 have already had to make difficult decisions about reducing services, laying off staff, or potentially closing their doors. Planned Parenthood has already announced the closure of at least 32 clinics this year spread across California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. Utah and Vermont’s entire Title X networks are comprised of exclusively Planned Parenthood clinics, so as these clinics close or lose Title X and Medicaid funding, women in Utah and Vermont may find it difficult to find another provider that offers the range of care they have been receiving at no or low cost. Two of Vermont’s Title X funded Planned Parenthood sites are in areas that do not have any other nearby publicly funded clinics. Many of these clinic closures are also occurring in the Midwest, impacting many rural communities, and leaving them with fewer options to obtain low or no cost sexual and reproductive health care.

President Trump’s FY 2026 Discretionary Budget Request would eliminate the $286 million appropriated for Title X for 2026. The Republican-sponsored House Appropriations FY 2025 Labor-HHS bill was approved by the Appropriations Committee in July 2024 and would have eliminated all support for the Title X program. There is uncertainty as to whether Congress will pass a budget this year or simply pass a continuing resolution that carries forward existing funding levels for government programs. In 2023, the Title X program administered funds to 3,744 clinics that served 2.8 million clients.

Federally Qualified Health Centers

As Planned Parenthood and Title X clinics are under threat and face closure or service reductions, a common argument by abortion opponents is that federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) will be able to fill in the gaps. FQHCs are funded under Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act and rely heavily on Medicaid payments for services. FQHCs comprise an extensive national network of more than 16,000 service sites across the U.S. They are located in medically underserved urban and rural communities and provide a range of medical, behavioral, and supportive services to all patients regardless of their ability to pay.

By law, FQHC networks are required to provide “voluntary family planning services,” as part of the broad range of primary care and related services they offer. This typically includes services such as contraceptive care, testing and treatment for STIs, and pregnancy options counseling. However, not all clinics within an FQHC network necessarily offer family planning services, and among those that do, many do not offer their patients the full range of contraceptive methods (Figure 6). It is unlikely that FQHCs could make up for the loss of services from Planned Parenthood and expand to serve more patients, especially in the face of significant revenue losses that will result from the reduction in the share of patients with Medicaid and the growth in uninsured that are spurred by the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Law.

Additionally, the Trump Administration recently announced that programs that are deemed federal “public benefits” are barred from serving individuals who are undocumented. This includes Title X and health centers. As a result, clinics receiving Title X and Section 330 funds may be denied these funds if they do not verify immigration status for the patients they serve. This is in conflict with federal law that requires community health clinics to serve patients regardless of immigration status, so questions remain about how this new limitation will be implemented.

Indian Health Service and Rural Health Clinics

Indian Health Service (IHS) clinics and Rural Health Clinics are also part of the reproductive health safety net that provides contraceptives and will likely be affected by cuts to Medicaid. IHS, an agency under the Department of Health and Human Services, provides a wide range of federal health services to approximately 2.8 million American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) individuals via a network of hospitals, clinics and health stations. Federal regulations require IHS to cover health promotion and disease prevention services, which include family planning services and STI services. However, the availability of contraceptive methods varies by clinic. While services at IHS and tribal clinics are provided with no cost-sharing, services are generally only available to members or descendants of members of federally recognized Tribes who live on or near federal reservations. An estimated 70% of revenues generated by reimbursements come from Medicaid. Given projected growth in the uninsured due to the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Law, IHS facilities could have fewer resources to cover the costs of the reproductive health care they provide to Native American communities.

Clinics that are part of the Rural Health Clinic program are certified by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) because they are located in rural areas designated as shortage areas and are required to provide primary and preventive care and basic laboratory services. Rural Health Clinics consist of a network of about 4,500 clinics and receive enhanced reimbursement rates for services provided to Medicaid and Medicare patients. Rural Health Clinics can provide contraceptives, but like IHS clinics, the extent of contraceptive services that are provided varies by clinic and state. The ban on federal Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood clinics could also put pressure on Rural Health Clinics in certain locations to provide additional reproductive health care services, particularly for women who live in rural communities that have been historically served by Planned Parenthood.

Figure 1 and Appendix Table 1 were updated on May 15, 2026 to reflect policy updates.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, there has been an increased focus on the use of telehealth as a way to both expand and restrict access to medication abortion at both the federal and state level. Several states that support abortion rights have enacted “shield” laws which aim to reduce the legal risks for clinicians who provide abortion medication via telehealth to patients who live in states where abortion is banned or restricted. An estimated one in four abortions are obtained via telehealth, and about half those are from abortion providers practicing in states with shield laws who mailed abortion pills to people living in states with bans or early stage gestational abortion restrictions. Recently, Louisiana and Texas, two states with abortion bans, filed lawsuits against a New York doctor for mailing medication abortion into their states. At the federal level, the possible enforcement of the Comstock Act, an 1873 anti-vice law, a recently initiated federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review of mifepristone safety, along with the potential reinstatement of FDA restrictions for mifepristone could result in the limitation or prohibition of the use of telehealth for medication abortion and restrict the availability of mifepristone nationwide.

The tension between the state right to ban or restrict abortion and federal jurisdiction to regulate medication abortion is a central issue in ongoing legal challenges. In addition, there is a conflict also playing out in the courts between states that ban abortion and those seeking to protect abortion providers in their states. Organizations on both sides of the abortion issue are advocating for the Trump administration’s FDA to take action to address access to mifepristone. This brief reviews current state and federal policies, ongoing litigation, and potential federal actions that may impact access to telehealth for medication abortion.

FDA Regulation of Medication Abortion

Mifepristone, often referred to as medication abortion, RU-486, or the abortion pill, was approved by the FDA as a medication to end pregnancy 25 years ago. A regimen of mifepristone, followed by misoprostol, is the FDA approved protocol for abortion during the first 70 days or up to 10 weeks after the first day of a missed period. Mifepristone works by blocking progesterone, a hormone essential to the development of a pregnancy, and thereby preventing an existing pregnancy from progressing. Misoprostol, taken 24–48 hours after mifepristone, works to empty the uterus by causing cramping and bleeding, similar to an early miscarriage. The national median self-pay price for medication abortion at a bricks and mortar provider in 2023 was $563, although the cost was significantly lower when obtained through a virtual clinic ($150). Medication abortions account for two-thirds (63%) of all abortions in the US and it is a safe and highly effective method of pregnancy termination. The pregnancy is terminated successfully 99.6% of the time, with a 0.4% risk of major complications, and an associated mortality rate of less than 0.001 percent (0.00064%).

A robust body of research has confirmed that the use of telehealth for medication abortion is safe and effective. Studies have found similar pregnancy termination rates without the need of interventions between telehealth and in-person abortion patients. Adverse events (such as infections, blood transfusions or hospital admissions) are very rare (<1%) among both in-person and telehealth patients. Telehealth patients also report high satisfaction rates with their use of telehealth. Despite the high share of states with abortion bans and early-stage gestational restrictions, the total number of abortions in the US has increased in the three years since the Dobbs decision. While this increase is due to a number of factors, telehealth has played a role in that increase. By the end of 2024, one in four abortions in the U.S. were provided via telehealth.

Since 2011, how mifepristone is dispensed has been subject to the FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) restrictions. Currently, the REMS for mifepristone do not require in-person dispensing and allow certified non-physicians and pharmacies to prescribe and dispense the drug (Table 1). The original 2011 REMS only permitted certified physicians to prescribe and dispense mifepristone and required three in-person visits, thereby restricting the use of telehealth for medication abortion across the country. Over the years as new research has emerged, the FDA has modified the REMS, and in 2021 it removed the in-person dispensing requirements, which were formalized in 2023. In addition, in 2016, the FDA updated and approved a new evidence-based regimen and drug label for medication abortion. This protocol approved the use of medical abortions for up to 70 days (10 weeks) of pregnancy. Until 2019, mifepristone was only sold under the brand name Mifeprex, manufactured by Danco Laboratories. In 2019, the FDA approved GenBioPro, Inc.’s application for generic mifepristone.

State Policies Affecting Telehealth for Medication Abortion

Access to medication abortion hinges on whether state laws ban or restrict abortion, abortion-specific regulations that are on the books in many states, and the FDA prescribing and dispensing protocol (Appendix 1). As of July 2025, 12 states have laws banning abortion and four states have a 6-week LMP gestational limit, often before many women know that they are pregnant. State laws that ban or restrict abortion apply to both medication and procedural abortions.

Currently nine states (AR, FL, IN, KY, OK, SC, TX and WV) have laws in place explicitly prohibiting the use of telehealth for medication abortion and/or the mailing of medication abortion drugs. Six of these states also have total abortion bans in place, and two have 6-week abortion bans, limiting access to all abortion services in the state.

In addition to the laws banning abortion or directly banning the use of telehealth for abortion, other state regulations—including ultrasound and counseling requirements, waiting periods, and specific in-person dispensing mandates—also play a role in limiting the feasibility of using telehealth for medication abortion (Figure 1). In states without these restrictions, people do not need to make any in-person visits to a clinic to safely have a medication abortion under the supervision of a health care provider.

In the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, some states started passing “shield” laws. These laws aim to protect physicians from prosecution brought by states where abortion is banned as long as the physician is located within the state with the shield law and the care they provided is legal in that same state, regardless of patient location. As of July 2025, eight states have shield laws in place that explicitly protect providers regardless of where the patient lives. By the end of 2024, over one in seven (15%) abortions in the U.S. were medication abortions for which the pills were mailed by providers practicing in states with shield laws to states where abortion is banned, with 6-week gestational limits, or the state has telehealth restrictions in place (Figure 2).

Potential Federal Actions that Could Restrict Medication Abortion

Questions remain about what actions the federal government can and/or will take to restrict the use of telehealth for medication abortion. The Comstock Act – an 1873 anti-vice law banning the mailing of obscene matter and articles used to produce abortion could be used to sharply restrict abortion nationwide. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, anti-abortion activists have argued in federal court that the Comstock Act prohibits the mailing of mifepristone directly to patients, as well as the general distribution of the medication to physicians, hospitals, and pharmacies.

A literal interpretation of the Act could potentially apply to materials used to produce all abortions, not just medication abortions; would not have exceptions; and could affect other medical care, such as miscarriage management. 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. While he was running for a second term, President Trump made inconsistent statements about whether he would enforce the Act. If the Trump administration follows the Project 2025 blueprint and enforces the Comstock Act people across the country would be impacted, even those that have a guaranteed right to abortion in their state constitutions.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has directed the FDA commissioner, Dr. Martin Makary, to launch a safety review of mifepristone following the release of a report which has been criticized as having methodological flaws and lack of data transparency aiming to cast doubt on the long-standing research on the safety of mifepristone. Project 2025 and other anti-abortion advocates have long been calling for the FDA to retract the approval of mifepristone or for the FDA to revert to the older FDA mifepristone REMS that would reduce the gestational period for the use of mifepristone, prohibit telehealth appointments, and access through pharmacies.

Four citizen petitions have recently been filed with the FDA about mifepristone, calling for the agency to either restrict or expand access to the drug (Table 2). FDA citizen petitions allow individuals and organizations to petition the agency to issue, change, or cancel regulations. The FDA is required to respond to citizen petitions within 180 days by granting or denying the request, or saying it needs more time. The FDA must document its position in its response.

Current Litigation on Mifepristone Access

There are multiple ongoing cases seeking either to restrict or expand the availability of medication abortion (Table 3). In June 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the case filed by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, finding that the anti-abortion doctors and organization did not have standing to sue the FDA. Before this case was reviewed by the Supreme Court, three states (Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas) intervened as parties in this case at the district court level. This case is now proceeding as State of Missouri v. FDA, and the states are seeking the reinstatement of the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone and the requirement for three in-person visits which would prohibit the use of telehealth for medication abortion. In May 2025, the Trump administration filed a motion asking for the dismissal or transfer the states’ lawsuit to an appropriate venue instead of allowing the case to be considered by the federal district court in the northern district of Texas. GenBioPro, a manufacturer of generic mifepristone, filed a lawsuit in April 2023 in a federal district court in Maryland to prevent other federal court rulings from suspending FDA approval of mifepristone without following the required statutory and regulatory procedures. This case is currently paused pending the Texas district court decision in the case, Missouri v. FDA.

In February 2023, the Oregon and Washington Attorneys General joined by 16 other states filed a case in federal district court in the eastern district of Washington challenging the FDA’s decision-making about mifepristone, calling into question the FDA’s decision to impose restrictions on prescribing and dispensing mifepristone through the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation System (REMS). In April 2023, the judge in this case issued a preliminary injunction blocking the FDA from changing any rules that would impact the availability of mifepristone in states bringing the lawsuit (WA, OR, CO, CT, IL, NV, AZ, RI, OR, DE, MI, NM, VT, HA, MD, ME, MN, PA, and DC). The states alleged that the REMS imposes “hurdles” to drug access “without any corresponding medical benefit” in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). In July 2025, the federal district court vacated the preliminary injunction and dismissed the case finding that the “FDA did assess whether mifepristone qualifies for REMS…based on the criteria” set forth in the law, and came to a “reasonable conclusion.”

In addition, in May 2023, Whole Woman’s Health and other independent abortion providers in Virginia, Montana and Kansas filed a lawsuit challenging the imposition of REMS on mifepristone. The federal district court for the western district of Virginia heard the case on May 19, 2025, and is expected to rule on the case soon. A similar case originally filed in October 2017, now called Hawaii, Purcell v. Kennedy, is pending in the Hawaii District Court, where a hearing is scheduled for August 22, 2025.

There are two cases challenging state restrictions that go beyond what the FDA requires, contending the FDA rules preempt state laws regulating mifepristone. One of these cases was brought by GenBioPro, a manufacturer of generic mifepristone, challenging West Virginia’s law banning telehealth for medication abortion and the other case was brought by a North Carolina physician contending that North Carolina cannot require in-person dispensing only by a physician in a hospital or clinic certified by the state. On July 15, 2025, the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the West Virginia case, affirming the District Court’s decision in favor of West Virginia. The North Carolina case is currently pending in the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

There is one active case in Louisiana state court that could impact the availability of mifepristone. After Louisiana reclassified misoprostol and mifepristone as controlled substances, subjecting these drugs to stricter regulation in the state, a doula collective, two patients, a physician and a pharmacist brought a legal challenge contending that the law violates the state constitution.

Challenges to State Shield Laws

States with abortion bans are testing the use of shield laws in the courts. In December 2024, in the first action testing a shield law, the Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit against a New York doctor for mailing medication abortion pills into the state. The lawsuit alleges the physician violated Texas law by practicing medicine in the state of Texas without a Texas license and for violating the state’s abortion ban and prohibitions on telehealth for abortion care. On February 13, 2025, after the physician did not respond to the lawsuit or appear at court proceedings, a trial court issued a default judgment for the state, blocking the physician from prescribing medication abortions to Texas residents and ordering her to pay $100,000 in civil fines. Additionally, in January 2025, a Louisiana grand jury indicted the same New York physician for violating Louisiana’s abortion ban and restrictions. The New York shield law has blocked enforcement of the Texas and Louisiana judgments. A county clerk has refused the Texas Attorney General’s request to file the Texas judgment twice, once in March 2025 and again in July 2025. The New York’s Governor cited the shield law when she blocked an extradition request from Louisiana’s Governor. Louisiana and Texas might seek help from a federal court to enforce their orders in New York, and this would serve as test case for shield laws and their ability to protect clinicians providing abortion care via telehealth to patients located in states that ban or restrict abortion. In another case filed in Texas on July 20, 2025, citing Texas state law and the Comstock Act, a man is seeking civil damages from a California doctor for mailing medication abortion drugs to his girlfriend.

 Appendix 1: State Policies Affecting Access to Medication Abortion via Telehealth