Insurer Strategies to Control Costs Associated with Weight Loss Drugs

Authors: Justin Lo and Cynthia Cox
Published: Jun 12, 2024

Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace plans rarely cover GLP-1 drugs approved solely for obesity treatment, according to a an analysis of 2024 federal plan data. Wegovy, a drug that is approved for weight loss, is covered by just 1% of Marketplace prescription drug plans, compared to 82% of Marketplace prescription drug plans for Ozempic, which contains the same active ingredient as Wegovy (semaglutide) but is approved only for diabetes.

This analysis examines publicly available formularies of plans available on the federally facilitated ACA Marketplaces in 2024 and does not include states that run their own Marketplaces, where coverage patterns may differ. The ACA Marketplaces represent a small share of people with private health insurance, as most people with private coverage have plans sponsored by their employers.

The full chart collection and other data on health costs are available on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an online information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system.

Key Data on Health and Health Care by Race and Ethnicity

Published: Jun 11, 2024

Executive Summary

Introduction

Copy link to Introduction

Racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care remain a persistent challenge in the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic’s uneven impact on people of color drew increased attention to inequities in health and health care, which have been documented for decades and reflect longstanding structural and systemic inequities rooted in historical and ongoing racism and discrimination. KFF’s 2023 Survey on Racism, Discrimination, and Health documents ongoing experiences with racism and discrimination, including in health care settings. While inequities in access to and use of health care contribute to disparities in health, inequities across broader social and economic factors that drive health, often referred to as social determinants of health, also play a major role. Using data to identify disparities and the factors that drive them is important for developing interventions and directing resources to address them, as well as for assessing progress toward achieving greater equity over time.

This analysis examines how people of color fare compared to White people across 64 measures of health, health care, and social determinants of health using the most recent data available from federal surveys and administrative sets as well as the 2023 KFF Survey on Racism, Discrimination, and Health, which provides unique nationally-representative measures of adults’ experiences with racism and discrimination, including in health care (see About the Data). Where possible, we present data for six groups: White, Asian, Hispanic, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN), and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (NHPI). People of Hispanic origin may be of any race, but we classify them as Hispanic for this analysis. We limit other groups to people who identify as non-Hispanic. When the same or similar measures are available in multiple datasets, we use the data that allow us to disaggregate for the largest number of racial and ethnic groups. Future analyses will reflect new federal standards that will utilize a combined race and ethnicity approach for collecting information and include a new category for people who identify as Middle Eastern or North African. Unless otherwise noted, differences described in the text are statistically significant at the p<0.05 level.

We include data for smaller population groups wherever available. Instances in which the unweighted sample size for a subgroup is less than 50 or the relative standard error is greater than 30% — which are outside of what we would typically include in analysis like this — are noted in the figures, and confidence intervals for those measures are included in the figure. Although these small sample sizes may impact the reliability, validity, and reproducibility of data, they are important to include because they point to potential underlying disparities that are hidden without disaggregated data. For some data measures throughout this brief we refer to “women” but recognize that other individuals also give birth, including some transgender men, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming persons.

Key Takeaways

Copy link to Key Takeaways

Black, Hispanic, and AIAN people fare worse than White people across the majority of examined measures of health and health care and social determinants of health (Figure 1). Black people fare better than White people for some cancer screening and incidence measures, although they have higher rates of cancer mortality. Despite worse measures of health coverage and access and social determinants of health, Hispanic people fare better than White people for some health measures, including life expectancy, some chronic diseases, and most measures of cancer incidence and mortality. These findings may, in part, reflect variation in outcomes among subgroups of Hispanic people, with better outcomes for some groups, particularly recent immigrants to the U.S. Examples of some key findings include:

  • Nonelderly AIAN (19%) and Hispanic (18%) people were more than twice as likely as their White counterparts (7%) to be uninsured as of 2022.
  • Among adults with any mental illness, Hispanic (40%), Black (38%), and Asian (36%) adults were less likely than White adults (56%) to receive mental health services as of 2022.
  • Roughly, six in ten Hispanic (63%), AIAN (63%), and Black (58%) adults went without a flu vaccine in the 2022-2023 season, compared to less than half of White adults (49%).
  • AIAN (67.9 years) and Black (72.8 years) people had a shorter life expectancy compared to White people (77.5 years) as of 2022, and AIAN, Hispanic, and Black people experienced larger declines in life expectancy than White people between 2019 and 2022; however, all racial and ethnic groups experienced a small increase in life expectancy between 2021 and 2022.
  • Black (10.9 per 1,000) and AIAN (9.1 per 1,000) infants were at least two times as likely to die as White infants (4.5 per 1,000) as of 2022. Black and AIAN women also had the highest rates of pregnancy-related mortality.
  • AIAN (24%) and Black (21%) children were more than three times as likely to have food insecurity as White children (6%), and Hispanic children (15%) were over twice as likely to have food insecurity than White children (6%) as of 2022.
Health and Health Care among People of Color Compared to White People

Asian people in the aggregate fare the same or better compared to White people for most examined measures. However, they fare worse for some measures, including receipt of some routine care and screening services, and some social determinants of health, including home ownership, crowded housing, and experiences with racism. They also have higher shares of people who are noncitizens or who have limited English proficiency (LEP), which could contribute to barriers to accessing health coverage and care. Moreover, the aggregate data may mask underlying disparities among subgroups of the Asian population. Asian people also report experiences with discrimination in daily life, which is associated with adverse effects on mental health and well-being.

Data gaps largely prevent the ability to identify and understand health disparities for NHPI people. Data are insufficient or not disaggregated for NHPI people for a number of the examined measures. Among available data, NHPI people fare worse than White people for the majority of measures. There are no significant differences for some measures, but this largely reflects the smaller sample size for NHPI people in many datasets, which limits the power to detect statistically significant differences.

These data highlight the importance of continued efforts to address disparities in health and health care and show that it will be key for efforts to address factors both within and beyond the health care system. While these data provide insight into the status of disparities, ongoing data gaps and limitations hamper the ability to get a complete picture, particularly for smaller population groups and among subgroups of the broader racial and ethnic categories. As the share of people who identify as multiracial grows, it will be important to develop improved methods for understanding their experiences. How data are collected and reported by race and ethnicity is important for understanding disparities and efforts to address them. Recent changes to federal standards for collecting and reporting racial and ethnic data are intended to better represent the diversity of the population and will likely support greater disaggregation of data to identify and address disparities.

Racial Diversity Within the U.S. Today

TOTAL POPULATION BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

Copy link to TOTAL POPULATION BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

About four in ten people (42%) in the United States identify as people of color (Figure 2). This group includes 19% who are Hispanic, 12% who are Black, 6% who are Asian, 1% who are AIAN, less than 1% who are NHPI, and 5% who identify as another racial category, including individuals who identify as more than one race. The remaining 58% of the population are White. The share of the population who identify as people of color has been growing over time, with the largest growth occurring among those who identify as Hispanic or Asian. The racial diversity of the population is expected to continue to increase, with people of color projected to account for over half of the population by 2050. Recent changes to how data on race and ethnicity are collected and reported may also influence measures of the diversity of the population.

Total United States Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

RACIAL DIVERSITY BY STATE

Copy link to RACIAL DIVERSITY BY STATE

Certain areas of the country—particularly in the South, Southwest, and parts of the West—are more racially diverse than others (Figure 3). Overall, the share of the population who are people of color ranges from 10% or fewer in Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia to 50% or more of the population in California, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas. Most people of color live in the South and West. More than half (59%) of the Black population resides in the South, and nearly eight in ten Hispanic people live in the West (38%) or South (39%). About three quarters of the NHPI population (75%), almost half (49%) of the AIAN population, and 43% of the Asian population live in the Western region of the country.

People of Color as a Share of the Total Population by State, 2022

TOTAL POPULATION BY AGE, RACE, AND ETHNICITY

Copy link to TOTAL POPULATION BY AGE, RACE, AND ETHNICITY

People of color are younger compared to White people. Hispanic people are the youngest racial and ethnic group, with 31% ages 18 or younger and 56% below age 35 (Figure 4). Roughly half of Black (48%), AIAN (50%), and NHPI (51%) people are below age 35, compared to 42% of Asian people and 38% of White people.

Total Population by Age and Race and Ethnicity, 2022

Health Coverage, Access to and Use of Care

RACIAL DISPARITIES IN HEALTH COVERAGE, ACCESS, AND USE

Copy link to RACIAL DISPARITIES IN HEALTH COVERAGE, ACCESS, AND USE

Overall, Hispanic and AIAN people fare worse compared to White people across most examined measures of health coverage, and access to and use of care (Figure 5). Black people fare worse than White people across half of these measures, and experiences for Asian people are mostly similar to or better than White people across these examined measures. NHPI people fare worse than White people across some measures, but several measures lacked sufficient data for a reliable estimate for NHPI people.

Coverage, Access, and Use of Care Among People of Color Compared to White People

HEALTH COVERAGE

Copy link to HEALTH COVERAGE

Despite gains in health coverage across racial and ethnic groups over time, nonelderly AIAN, Hispanic, NHPI, and Black people remain more likely to be uninsured compared to their White counterparts. After the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Medicaid, and Marketplace coverage expansions took effect in 2014, all racial and ethnic groups experienced large increases in coverage. Beginning in 2017, coverage gains began reversing and the number of uninsured people increased for three consecutive years. However, between 2019 and 2022, there were small gains in coverage across most racial and ethnic groups, with pandemic enrollment protections in Medicaid and enhanced ACA premium subsidies. Despite these gains over time, disparities in health coverage persist as of 2022. Nonelderly AIAN (19%) and Hispanic (18%) people have the highest uninsured rates (Figure 6). Uninsured rates for nonelderly NHPI (13%) and Black (10%) people are also higher than the rate for their White counterparts (7%). Nonelderly White (7%) and Asian (6%) people have the lowest uninsured rates.

Uninsured Rate Among the Nonelderly Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2010-2022

ACCESS TO AND USE OF CARE

Copy link to ACCESS TO AND USE OF CARE

Most groups of nonelderly adults of color are more likely than nonelderly White adults to report not having a usual doctor or provider and going without care. Roughly one third (36%) of Hispanic adults, one quarter of AIAN (25%) and NHPI (24%) adults, and about one in five (21%) Asian adults report not having a personal health care provider compared to 17% of White adults (Figure 7). The share of Black adults who report not having a personal health care provider is the same as their White counterparts (17% for both). In addition, Hispanic (21%), NHPI (18%), AIAN (16%), and Black (14%) adults are more likely than White adults (11%) to report not seeing a doctor in the past 12 months because of cost, while Asian adults (8%) are less likely than White adults to say they went without a doctor visit due to cost. Hispanic (32%) and AIAN (31%) adults are more likely than White adults (28%) to say they went without a routine checkup in the past year, while Asian (26%), NHPI (24%), and Black (20%) adults are less likely to report going without a checkup. Hispanic and AIAN (both 45%) and Black (40%) adults are more likely than White adults (34%) to report going without a visit to a dentist or dental clinic in the past year.

Percent of Nonelderly Adults Without a Personal Health Care Provider by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

In contrast to the patterns among adults, racial and ethnic differences in access to and use of care are more mixed for children. Nearly one in ten (9%) Hispanic children lack a usual source of care when sick compared to 5% of White children, but there are no significant differences for other groups for which data are available (Figure 8). Similar shares of Hispanic (7%), Asian (7%), and Black (4%) children went without a health care visit in the past year as White children (6%). However, higher shares of Asian (23%) and Black (21%) children went without a dental visit in the past year compared to White children (17%). Data are not available for NHPI children for these measures, and data for AIAN children should be interpreted with caution due to small sample sizes and large standard errors.

Percent of Children Without a Usual Source of Care When Sick Other Than the Emergency Room by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

Among adults with any mental illness, Black, Hispanic, and Asian adults are less likely than White adults to report receiving mental health services. Roughly half (56%) of White adults with any mental illness report receiving mental health services in the past year. (Figure 9). In contrast, about four in ten (40%) Hispanic adults and just over a third of Black (38%) and Asian (36%) adults with any mental illness report receiving mental health care in the past year. Data are not available for AIAN and NHPI adults.

Percent of Adults with Any Mental Illness Who Received Mental Health Services in the Past Year by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

Experiences across racial and ethnic groups are mixed regarding receipt of recommended cancer screenings (Figure 10). Among women ages 50-74 (the age group recommended for screening prior to updates in 2024, which lowered the starting age to 40), Black people (24%) are less likely than White people (29%) to go without a recent mammogram. In contrast, AIAN (41%) and Hispanic (35%) people are more likely than White people (29%) to go without a mammogram. Among those recommended for colorectal cancer screening, Hispanic, Asian, AIAN, NHPI, and Black people are more likely than White people to not be up to date on their screening. Increases in cancer screenings, particularly for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers, have been identified as one of the drivers of the decline in cancer mortality over the past few decades.

Percent of Females Ages 50-74 Who did not Receive a Mammogram in Past 2 Years by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

Racial and ethnic differences persist in flu and childhood vaccinations (Figure 11). Roughly six in ten Hispanic (63%), AIAN (63%), and Black (58%) adults went without a flu vaccine in the 2022-2023 season compared to about half (49%) of White adults. However, among children, White children (44%) are more likely than Asian (28%) and Hispanic (39%) children to go without the flu vaccine; data are not available to assess flu vaccinations among NHPI adults and children. In 2019-2020, AIAN (42%), Black (37%), and Hispanic (33%) children were more likely than White children (28%) to have not received all recommended childhood immunizations.

Percent of Adults Who Did Not Receive a Flu Vaccine in the 2022-2023 Season by Race and Ethnicity

Health Status and Outcomes

RACIAL DISPARITIES IN HEALTH STATUS AND OUTCOMES

Copy link to RACIAL DISPARITIES IN HEALTH STATUS AND OUTCOMES

Black and AIAN people fare worse than White people across the majority of examined measures of health status and outcomes (Figure 12). In contrast, Asian and Hispanic people fare better than White people for a majority of examined health measures. Nearly half of the examined measures did not have data available for NHPI people, limiting the ability to understand their experiences. Among available data, NHPI people fare worse than White people for more than half of the examined measures.   

Health Status and Outcomes Among People of Color Compared to White People

LIFE EXPECTANCY

Copy link to LIFE EXPECTANCY

AIAN and Black people have a shorter life expectancy at birth compared to White people, and AIAN, Hispanic, and Black people experienced larger declines in life expectancy than White people between 2019 and 2021. Life expectancy at birth represents the average number of years a group of infants would live if they were to experience the age-specific death rates prevailing during a specified period. Life expectancy declined by 2.7 years between 2019 and 2021, largely reflecting an increase in excess deaths due to COVID-19, which disproportionately impacted Black, Hispanic, and AIAN people. AIAN people experienced the largest life expectancy decline of 6.6 years, followed by Hispanic (4.2 years) and Black people (4.0 years), and a smaller decline of 2.4 years for White people. Asian people had the smallest decline in life expectancy of 2.1 years between 2019 and 2021. Provisional data from 2022 show that overall life expectancy increased across all racial and ethnic groups between 2021 and 2022, but racial disparities persist (Figure 13). Life expectancy is lowest for AIAN people at 67.9 years, followed by Black people at 72.8 years, while White and Hispanic people have higher life expectancies of 77.5 and 80 years, respectively, and Asian people have the highest life expectancy at 84.5 years. Life expectancies are even lower for AIAN and Black males, at 64.6 and 69.1 years, respectively. Data are not available for NHPI people.

Life Expectancy at Birth in Years by Race and Ethnicity, 2019-2022

SELF-REPORTED HEALTH STATUS

Copy link to SELF-REPORTED HEALTH STATUS

Black, Hispanic, and AIAN adults are more likely to report fair or poor health status than their White counterparts, while Asian adults are less likely to indicate fair or poor health. Nearly three in ten (29%) AIAN adults and roughly two in ten Hispanic (23%) and Black (21%) adults report fair or poor health status compared to 16% of White adults (Figure 14). One in ten Asian adults report fair or poor health status.

Percent of Adults Reporting Fair or Poor Health Status by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

BIRTH RISKS AND OUTCOMES

Copy link to BIRTH RISKS AND OUTCOMES

NHPI (62.8 per 100,000), Black (39.9 per 100,000), and AIAN (32 per 100,000) women have the highest rates of pregnancy-related mortality (deaths within one year of pregnancy) between 2017-2019, while Hispanic women (11.6 per 100,000) have the lowest rate (Figure 15). More recent data for maternal mortality, which measures deaths that occur during pregnancy or within 42 days of pregnancy, shows that Black women (49.5 per 100,000) have the highest maternal mortality rate across racial and ethnic groups in 2022 (Figure 16). However, maternal mortality rates decreased significantly across most racial and ethnic groups between 2021 and 2022. Experts suggest the decline may reflect a return to pre-pandemic levels following the large increase in maternal death rates due to COVID-19 related deaths. The Dobbs decision eliminating the constitutional right to abortion could widen the already large disparities in maternal health as people of color may face disproportionate challenges accessing abortions due to state restrictions.

Pregnancy-Related Mortality per 100,000 Births by Race and Ethnicity, 2017-2019
Maternal Mortality per 100,000 Births by Race and Ethnicity, 2018-2022

Black, AIAN, and NHPI women have higher shares of preterm births, low birthweight births, or births for which they received late or no prenatal care compared to White women (Figure 17). Additionally, Asian women are more likely to have low birthweight births than White women. Notably, NHPI women (22%) are four times more likely than White women (5%) to begin receiving prenatal care in the third trimester or to receive no prenatal care at all.

Preterm Birth Rate by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

Teen birth rates have declined over time, but the birth rates among Black, Hispanic, AIAN, and NHPI teens are over two times higher than the rate among White teens (Figure 18). In contrast, the birth rate for Asian teens is more than four times lower than the rate for White teens.

Birth Rate per 1,000 for Teens Ages 15-19 by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

Infants born to women of color are at higher risk for mortality compared to those born to White women. Infant mortality rates have declined over time although provisional 2022 data suggest a slight increase relative to 2021. As of 2022, Black (10.9 per 1,000) and AIAN (9.1 per 1,000) infants are at least two times as likely to die as White infants (4.5 per 1,000) (Figure 19). NHPI infants (8.5 per 1,000) are nearly twice as likely to die as White infants (4.5 per 1,000). Asian infants have the lowest mortality rate at 3.5 per 1,000 live births.

Infant Mortality per 1,000 Live Births by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

HIV AND AIDS DIAGNOSIS INDICATORS

Copy link to HIV AND AIDS DIAGNOSIS INDICATORS

Black, Hispanic, NHPI, and AIAN people are more likely than White people to be diagnosed with HIV or AIDS, the most advanced stage of HIV infection. In 2021, the HIV diagnosis rate for Black people is roughly eight times higher than the rate for White people, and the rate for Hispanic people is about four times higher than the rate for White people (Figure 20). AIAN and NHPI people also have higher HIV diagnosis rates compared to White people. Similar patterns are present in AIDS diagnosis rates, the most advanced stage of HIV, reflecting barriers to treatment. Black people have a roughly nine times higher rate of AIDS diagnosis compared to White people, and Hispanic, AIAN, and NHPI people also have higher rates of AIDS diagnoses. Most groups have seen decreases in HIV and AIDS diagnosis rates since 2013, although the HIV diagnosis rate has remained stable for Hispanic people and increased for AIAN and NHPI people.

HIV Diagnosis per 100,000 Among Teens and Adults by Race and Ethnicity, 2021

Among people ages 13 and older living with diagnosed HIV infection, viral suppression rates are lower among AIAN (64%), Hispanic (64%), NHPI (63%), and Black (62%) people compared with White (72%) and Asian (70%) people (Figure 21). Viral suppression refers to having less than 200 copies of HIV per milliliter of blood. Increasing the viral suppression rate among people with HIV is one of the key strategies of the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. initiative. Viral suppression promotes optimal health outcomes for people with HIV and also offers a preventive benefit as when someone is virally suppressed, they cannot sexually transmit HIV.

Viral Suppression Rates Among People Ages 13 Years and Older Living with Diagnosed HIV Infection by Race and Ethnicity, 2021

CHRONIC DISEASE AND CANCER

Copy link to CHRONIC DISEASE AND CANCER

The prevalence of chronic disease varies across racial and ethnic groups and by type of disease. Diabetes rates for AIAN (18%), Black (16%), and Hispanic (13%) adults are all higher than the rate for White adults (11%). AIAN people (11%) are more likely to have had a heart attack or heart disease than White people (8%), while rates for Black (6%), NHPI (6%), Hispanic (4%) and Asian (3%) people are lower than White people. Black (12%) and AIAN (13%) adults have higher rates of asthma compared to their White counterparts (10%), while rates for Hispanic (8%) and Asian (5%) adults are lower, and the rate for NHPI is the same (10%). Among children, Black children (16%) are nearly twice as likely to have asthma compared to White children (9%), while Asian children (6%) have a lower asthma rate (Figure 22). Differences are not significant for other racial and ethnic groups, and data are not available for NHPI children.

Percent of Adults Told by Doctor They Have Diabetes by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

AIAN, NHPI, and Black people are roughly twice as likely as White people to die from diabetes, and Black people are more likely than White people to die from heart disease (Figure 23). Hispanic people (28.3 per 100,000) also have a higher diabetes death rate compared to White people (21.3 per 100,000). In contrast, Asian people (17.2 per 100,000) are less likely than White people (21.3 per 100,000) to die from diabetes, and AIAN, Hispanic, and Asian people have lower heart disease death rates than their White counterparts.

Age-Adjusted Death Rates per 100,000 for Selected Diseases by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

People of color generally have lower rates of new cancer cases compared to White people, but Black people have higher incidence rates for some cancer types (Figure 24). Black people have lower rates of cancer incidence compared to White people for cancer overall, and most of the leading types of cancer examined. However, they have higher rates of new colon, and rectum, and prostate cancer. AIAN people have a higher rate of colon and rectum cancer than White people. Other groups have lower cancer incidence rates than White people across all examined cancer types.

Age-Adjusted Rate of Cancer Incidence per 100,000 by Race and Ethnicity, 2020

Although Black people do not have higher cancer incidence rates than White people overall and across most types of cancer, they are more likely to die from cancer. Black people have a higher cancer death rate than White people for cancer overall and for most of the leading cancer types (Figure 25). In contrast, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, and AIAN people have lower cancer mortality rates across most cancer types compared to White people. The higher mortality rate among Black people despite similar or lower rates of incidence compared to White people could reflect a combination of factors, including more limited access to care, later stage of diagnosis, more comorbidities, and lower receipt of guideline-concordant care, which are driven by broader social and economic inequities.

Age-Adjusted Rate of Cancer Mortality per 100,000 by Race and Ethnicity, 2020

COVID-19 DEATHS

Copy link to COVID-19 DEATHS

AIAN, Hispanic, NHPI, and Black people have higher rates of COVID-19 deaths compared to White people. As of March 2024, provisional age-adjusted data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that between 2020 and 2023, AIAN people are roughly two times as likely as White people to die from COVID-19, and Hispanic, NHPI and Black people are about 1.5 times as likely to die from COVID-19 (Figure 26). Asian people have lower COVID-19 death rates during this period compared to all other race and ethnicity groups.

Age-Adjusted Rates of COVID-19 Deaths per 100,000 by Race and Ethnicity, 2020-2023

OBESITY

Copy link to OBESITY

Obesity rates vary across race and ethnicity groups. As of 2022, Black (43%), AIAN (39%), and Hispanic (37%) adults all have higher obesity rates than White adults (32%), while Asian adults (13%) have a lower obesity rate (Figure 27).

Obesity Rate Among Adults by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

Mental Health and Drug Overdose Deaths

Copy link to Mental Health and Drug Overdose Deaths

Overall rates of mental illness are lower for people of color compared to White people but could be underdiagnosed among people of color. About one in five Hispanic and Black (21% and 20%, respectively) adults and 17% of Asian adults report having a mental illness compared to 25% of White adults (Figure 28). Among adolescents, the share with symptoms of a past year major depressive episode were not significantly different across racial and ethnic groups, with roughly one in five White (21%) and Hispanic (20%) adolescents, 17% of Black, and about one in seven Asian (15%), and AIAN (14%) adolescents reporting symptoms. Data are not available for NHPI people. Research suggests that a lack of culturally sensitive screening tools that detect mental illness, coupled with structural barriers could contribute to underdiagnosis of mental illness among people of color.

Percent of Adults with Any Mental Illness by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

AIAN and White people have the highest rates of deaths by suicide as of 2022. People of color have been disproportionately affected by recent increases in deaths by suicide compared with their White counterparts. As of 2022, AIAN (27.1 per 100,000) and White (17.6 per 100,000) people have the highest rates of deaths by suicide compared to all other racial and ethnic groups (Figure 29). Rates of deaths by suicide are also over three times higher among AIAN adolescents (32.9 per 100,000) than White adolescents (10.6 per 100,000). In contrast, Black, Hispanic, and Asian adolescents have lower rates of suicide deaths compared to their White peers.

Suicide Death Rate per 100,000 Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

Drug overdose death rates increased among AIAN, Black, Hispanic, and Asian people between 2021 and 2022. As of 2022, AIAN people continue to have the highest rates of drug overdose deaths (65.2 per 100,000 in 2022) compared with all other racial and ethnic groups. Drug overdose death rates among Black people (47.5 per 100,000) exceed rates for White people (35.6 per 100,000), reflecting larger increases among Black people in recent years (Figure 30). Hispanic (22.7 per 100,000), NHPI (18.8 per 100,000), and Asian (5.3 per 100,000) people have lower rates of drug overdose deaths than White people (35.6 per 100,000). Data on drug overdose deaths among adolescents show that while White adolescents account for the largest share of drug overdose deaths, Black and Hispanic adolescents have experienced the fastest increase in these deaths in recent years.

Age-Adjusted Drug Overdose Deaths per 100,000, by Race and Ethnicity

Social Determinants of Health

RACIAL DISPARITIES IN SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS

Copy link to RACIAL DISPARITIES IN SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS

Social determinants of health are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age. They include factors like socioeconomic status, education, immigration status, language, neighborhood and physical environment, employment, and social support networks, as well as access to health care. There has been extensive research and recognition that addressing social, economic, and environmental factors that influence health is important for advancing health equity. Research also shows how racism and discrimination drive inequities across these factors and impact health and well-being.  

Black, Hispanic, AIAN, and NHPI people fare worse compared to White people across most examined measures of social determinants of health (Figure 31). Experiences for Asian people are more mixed relative to White people across these examined measures. Reliable or disaggregated data for NHPI people are missing for a number of measures.

Social Determinants of Health among People of Color Compared to White People

WORK STATUS, FAMILY INCOME, AND EDUCATION

Copy link to WORK STATUS, FAMILY INCOME, AND EDUCATION

Across racial and ethnic groups, most nonelderly people live in a family with a full-time worker, but Black, Hispanic, AIAN, and NHPI nonelderly people are more likely than White people to be in a family with income below poverty (Figure 32). While most people across racial and ethnic groups live in a family with a full-time worker, disparities persist. AIAN (68%), Black (73%), NHPI (77%), and Hispanic (81%) people are less likely than White people (83%) to have a full-time worker in the family. In contrast, Asian people (86%) are more likely than their White counterparts (83%) to have a full-time worker in the family. Despite the majority of people living in a family with a full-time worker, over one in five AIAN (25%) and Black (22%) people have family incomes below the federal poverty level, over twice the share as White people (10%), and rates of poverty were also higher among Hispanic (17%) and NHPI (16%) people.

Percent of the Nonelderly Population With a Full-Time Worker in the Family by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

Black, Hispanic, AIAN, and NHPI people have lower levels of educational attainment compared to their White counterparts. Among people ages 25 and older, over two thirds (69%) of White people have completed some post-secondary education, compared to less than half (45%) of Hispanic people, just over half of AIAN and NHPI people (both at 52%), and about six in ten Black people (58%) (Figure 33). Asian people are more likely than White people to have completed at least some post-secondary education, with 74% completing at least some college.

Educational Attainment by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

NET WORTH AND HOME OWNERSHIP

Copy link to NET WORTH AND HOME OWNERSHIP

Black and Hispanic families have less wealth than White families. Wealth can be defined using net worth, a measure of the difference between a family’s assets and liabilities. The median net worth for White households is $285,000 compared to $44,900 for Black households and $61,600 for Hispanic households (Figure 34). Asian households have the highest median net worth of $536,000. Data are not available for AIAN and NHPI people.

Family Median Net Worth by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

People of color are less likely to own a home than White people (Figure 35). Nearly eight in ten (77%) White people own a home compared to 70% of Asian people, 62% of AIAN people, 55% of Hispanic people, and about half of Black (49%) and NHPI (48%) people.

Home Ownership Rate by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

FOOD SECURITY, HOUSING QUALITY, AND INTERNET ACCESS

Copy link to FOOD SECURITY, HOUSING QUALITY, AND INTERNET ACCESS

Black and Hispanic adults and children are more likely to experience food insecurity compared to their White counterparts. Among adults, AIAN (18%), Black (14%), and Hispanic (12%) adults report low or very low food security compared to White adults (6%) (Figure 36). Among children, AIAN (24%), Black (21%) and Hispanic (15%) children are over twice as likely to be food insecure than White children (6%). Data are not available for NHPI adults and children.

Percent of Adults With Food Insecurity, 2022

People of color are more likely to live in crowded housing than their White counterparts (Figure 37). Among White people, 3% report living in a crowded housing arrangement, that is having more than one person per room, as defined by the American Community Survey. In contrast, almost three in ten (28%) NHPI people, roughly one in five (18%) Hispanic people, 16% AIAN people, and about one in ten Asian (12%) and Black (8%) people report living in crowded housing.

Percent of Individuals Living in Crowded Housing by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

AIAN, NHPI, and Black people are less likely to have internet access than White people (Figure 38). Higher shares of AIAN (12%), and Black and NHPI people (both at 6%) say they have no internet access compared to their White counterparts (4%). In contrast, Asian people (2%) are less likely to report no internet access than White people (4%).

	Percent of Individuals Without Internet Access by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

TRANSPORTATION

Copy link to TRANSPORTATION

People of color are more likely to live in a household without access to a vehicle than White people (Figure 39). About one in eight Black people (12%) and about one in ten AIAN (9%) and Asian (8%) people live in a household without a vehicle available followed by 7% of Hispanic and NHPI people. White people are the least likely to report not having access to a vehicle in the household (4%).

Percent of Individuals Living in a Household Without Vehicle Access by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

CITIZENSHIP AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY

Copy link to CITIZENSHIP AND ENGLISH PROFICIENCY

Asian, Hispanic, NHPI, and Black people include higher shares of noncitizen immigrants compared to White people. Asian and Hispanic people have the highest shares of noncitizen immigrants at 25% and 19%, respectively (Figure 40). Asian people are projected to become the largest immigrant group in the United States by 2055. Immigrants are more likely to be uninsured than citizens and face increased barriers to accessing health care.

Percent of Total Population Who is a Noncitizen by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

Hispanic and Asian people are more likely to have LEP compared to White people. Almost one in three Asian (31%) and Hispanic (28%) people report speaking English less than very well compared to White people (1%)(Figure 41). Adults with LEP are more likely to report worse health status and increased barriers in accessing health care compared to English proficient adults.

Percent of Individuals Ages Five and Older Who have Limited English Proficiency by Race and Ethnicity, 2022

EXPERIENCES WITH RACISM, DISCRIMINATION, AND UNFAIR TREATMENT

Copy link to EXPERIENCES WITH RACISM, DISCRIMINATION, AND UNFAIR TREATMENT

Racism is an underlying driver of health disparities, and repeated and ongoing exposure to perceived experiences of racism and discrimination can increase risks for poor health outcomes. Research has shown that exposure to racism and discrimination can lead to negative mental health outcomes and certain negative impacts on physical health, including depression, anxiety, and hypertension.

Black, AIAN, Hispanic, and Asian adults are more likely to report certain experiences with discrimination in daily life compared with their White counterparts, with the greatest frequency reported among Black and AIAN adults. A 2023 KFF survey shows that at least half of AIAN (58%), Black (54%), and Hispanic (50%) adults and about four in ten (42%) Asian adults say they experienced at least one type of discrimination in daily life in the past year (Figure 42). These experiences include receiving poorer service than others at restaurants or stores; people acting as if they are afraid of them or as if they aren’t smart; being threatened or harassed; or being criticized for speaking a language other than English. Data are not available for NHPI adults.

Percent of People Who Report Experiences of Discrimination by Race and Ethnicity, 2023

About one in five (18%) Black adults and roughly one in eight AIAN (12%) adults, followed by roughly one in ten Hispanic (11%), and Asian (10%) adults who received health care in the past three years report being treated unfairly or with disrespect by a health care provider because of their racial or ethnic background. These shares are higher than the 3% of White adults who report this (Figure 43). Overall, roughly three in ten (29%) AIAN adults and one in four (24%) Black adults say they were treated unfairly or with disrespect by a health care provider in the past three years for any reason compared with 14% of White adults.

Percent of People Who Report Experiences of Discrimination by a Health Care Provider by Race and Ethnicity, 2023

About the Data

Data Sources

Copy link to Data Sources

This chart pack is based on the KFF Survey on Racism, Discrimination, and Health and KFF analysis of a wide range of health datasets, including the 2022 American Community Survey, the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the 2022 National Health Interview Survey, the 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, and the 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances as well as from several online reports and databases including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) on vaccination coverage, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) National Vital Statistics Reports, the CDC Influenza Vaccination Dashboard Flu Vaccination Coverage Webpage Report, the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP) Atlas, the United States Cancer Statistics Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report, the 2022 CDC Natality Public Use File, CDC Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) database, and the CDC WONDER online database.

Methodology

Copy link to Methodology

Unless otherwise noted, race/ethnicity was categorized by non-Hispanic White (White), non-Hispanic Black (Black), Hispanic, non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN), non-Hispanic Asian (Asian), and non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (NHPI). Some datasets combine Asian and NHPI race categories limiting the ability to disaggregate data for these groups. Non-Hispanic White persons were the reference group for all significance testing. All noted differences were statistically significant differences at the p<0.05. We include data for smaller population groups wherever available. Instances in which the unweighted sample size for a subgroup is less than 50 or the relative standard error is greater than 30% are noted in the figures, and confidence intervals for those measures are included in the figure.

News Release

Walgreens and KFF’s Greater Than HIV Join with Community Partners to Offer Free HIV and STD Testing at Record Number of Stores on June 27

The Collaboration Is The Largest National HIV Testing Day Event in the Nation

Published: Jun 11, 2024

DEERFIELD, Ill. & SAN FRANCISCO, June 11, 2024 – Walgreens and Greater Than HIV, a public information initiative of KFF, are teaming up with health departments and community organizations to offer free rapid HIV testing in more than 550 Walgreens stores on June 27 in the largest coordinated National HIV Testing Day event.

Additionally, to address the rising rates of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), free rapid syphilis and/or hepatitis C testing will also be offered by partners this year in many locations.

“This unique public-private partnership brings free rapid HIV and STD testing directly to communities in a familiar setting and connects individuals to trusted local prevention and treatment service providers in their area,” said Tina Hoff, senior vice president, KFF.

A list of participating Walgreens stores and hours when free HIV and STD testing will be offered is available here; no appointment needed. Testing is provided by local partners, in a private area of the store or mobile unit, with results available in 20 minutes or less. Counselors can also answer questions about HIV and STDs and provide the latest on prevention and treatment options, including referrals for PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis), FDA-approved medications that are highly effective in preventing HIV, and other needed care.

“This program is instrumental in reaching people in community settings, making HIV prevention and treatment options more equitable, accessible and convenient,” said Rick Gates, chief pharmacy officer, Walgreens. “In addition to providing services to help prevent and treat HIV for more than 40 years, Walgreens invests in training its pharmacy team members to address the specific challenges faced by people living with HIV – including confidential medication counseling, information on prevention options and how to apply for financial assistance programs.”

Major HIV rapid test manufacturers including Abbott Laboratories, BioLytical Laboratories, ChemBio Diagnostics, and OraSure Technologies donated tests to support this year’s effort. Additionally, ChemBio Diagnostics and Diagnostics Direct donated rapid syphilis tests.

Since 2011, KFF’s Greater Than HIV and Walgreens National HIV Community Partnership has provided more than 82,000 free HIV tests through the in-store NHTD program, including over 15,000 self-tests distributed during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is the 14th year of the partnership and marks the highest level of participation – both in terms of testing partners and stores – in the program’s history.

About Walgreens

Walgreens (www.walgreens.com) is included in the U.S. Retail Pharmacy and U.S. Healthcare segments of Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (Nasdaq: WBA), an integrated healthcare, pharmacy and retail leader. True to its purpose of “more joyful lives through better health,” Walgreens has a more than 120-year heritage of caring for communities and providing trusted pharmacy services, and today is playing a greater role as an independent partner of choice offering healthcare services that improve care, lower costs, and help patients. Operating nearly 9,000 retail locations across the U.S. and Puerto Rico, Walgreens is proud to serve nearly 9 million customers and patients daily. The company’s pharmacists are playing a more critical role in healthcare than ever before, providing a wide range of pharmacy and healthcare services, including those that drive equitable access to care for some of the nation’s most underserved populations. Walgreens offers customers and patients a true omnichannel experience, with fully integrated physical and digital platforms designed to deliver high-quality products and healthcare services. Within the U.S. Healthcare segment, Walgreens portfolio also includes businesses in primary care, multi-specialty, post-acute care, urgent care, specialty pharmacy services, population health and provider enablement.

About KFFKFF is the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. Its mission is to serve as a nonpartisan source of information for policymakers, the media, the health policy community, and the public.  

KFF’s Greater Than HIV initiative is a leading public information response focused on HIV in the U.S. Through localized Greater Than HIV campaigns, KFF works with health departments and community partners to reach those most affected and in need with the latest on testing, prevention and treatment. This public-private partnership model helps extend the reach of limited resources in high need areas.

A Review of Exceptions in State Abortion Bans: Implications for the Provision of Abortion Services

Authors: Mabel Felix, Laurie Sobel, and Alina Salganicoff
Published: Jun 6, 2024

Issue Brief

Note: Originally published in May 2023, this brief has been updated and expanded to address ongoing litigation in many states that is underway to challenge exceptions laws.

Key Takeaways

Abortion is currently banned in 14 states and many other states have attempted to ban or severely restrict access to abortion. All of these bans have an exception to prevent the death of the pregnant person and some bans include other exceptions that fall into three categories: when there is risk to the health of the pregnant person, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and when there is a lethal fetal anomaly.

  • In practice, health and life exceptions to bans have often proven to be unworkable, except in the most extreme circumstances, and have sometimes prevented physicians from practicing evidence-based medicine.
  • Abortion bans and restrictions have led physicians to delay providing miscarriage management care. Many states allow for the removal of a dead fetus or embryo, but pregnant people who are actively miscarrying may be denied care if there is still detectable fetal cardiac activity or until the miscarriage puts the life of the pregnant person in jeopardy.
  • Mental health exceptions are rare despite the fact that 20% of pregnancy-related deaths are attributable to mental health conditions.
  • Law enforcement involvement is often required to document rape and incest, which often prevents survivors from accessing abortion care. Furthermore, survivors in states where abortion care is restricted can have difficulty finding an abortion provider.
  • In many states there is more than one abortion ban in the books, and in some of those states, the exception provisions in the bans are often at odds with each other. These multiple bans and varying exceptions create confusion among patients and providers.

Introduction

Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, state abortion bans and the exceptions they contain – or lack – have garnered significant attention. The Supreme Court is considering a case this term about whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law requiring hospitals to provide stabilizing treatment to patients who present to their emergency rooms, preempts state abortion laws and requires hospitals to provide abortion care when it is necessary to stabilize a patient, even when the abortion does not qualify foris not including in an exception to the state’s abortion ban. Discussions about exceptions to state abortion bans often obscure the reality that many of these exceptions can be unworkable in practice. There are reports of people being unable to obtain abortions, despite the fact that their pregnancies fall into these broad exception categories. While there is no accurate estimate of the number of people seeking abortion care in circumstances that qualify for an exception in states than ban abortion, the number of people who have received abortion care post-Dobbs in states that have banned abortion is very low.  Many of the exceptions included in these bans use definitions that are vague, narrow, and non-clinical, and effectively remove the ability of health care providers to best manage the care of pregnant people, instead leaving that decision to the state or the clinician’s home institution. Further complicating matters, several states have multiple bans in effect, often with contradicting definitions, requirements, exceptions, and standards, creating ambiguity for clinicians and their patients. This brief analyzes the exceptions to abortion bans and discusses how their purported aims to provide life-saving care may not be achieved in practice.

What kinds of exceptions do abortion bans contain?

Exceptions to state abortion bans generally fall into four general categories: to prevent the death of the pregnant person, to preserve the health of the pregnant person, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and when the embryo or fetus has lethal anomalies incompatible with life.

States with Abortion Bans and Restrictions with Exceptions for Life

To prevent the death of the pregnant person

All state abortion bans currently in effect contain exceptions to “prevent the death” or “preserve the life” of the pregnant person. As explained in further detail in the section below, these exceptions may create difficulties for physicians, as it is unclear how much risk of death or how close to death a pregnant patient may need to be for the exception to apply and the determination is not up to the physician treating the pregnant patient.

When there is risk to the health of the pregnant person

Many state bans currently in effect – with the exception of bans in Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakotan, and Texas – contain some form of health exception. Exceptions to preserve the health of the pregnant person can vary (sometimes significantly) from state to state (Table 1).

Language in health exceptions to abortion bans

Most states with bans that contain a health exception permit abortion care when there is a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. These exceptions are limited by the lack of specific clinical definitions of the conditions qualifying for the exception. Only the Arizona 15-week LMP (last menstrual period) limit explicitly defines the bodily functions that may be considered “major.”  The other states that use this language in their bans do not define what constitutes a “major bodily function,” nor what constitutes a “substantial impairment” to a major bodily function. This vague language puts physicians providing care to pregnant people in a difficult situation should their patients need an abortion to treat a condition jeopardizing their health and can leave the determination of whether an abortion can be legally provided to lawyers for the institution in which the clinician practices. For instance, in South Carolina where the 6-week LMP abortion limit has a health exception, the law lists a couple of conditions that may fall under this exception, such as severe pre-eclampsia and uterine rupture, but with no further detail. Using this language as guidance, it would be difficult for physicians to know if a significant health issue would fall under the exception. The difficulties presented by the simultaneous vagueness and narrowness of the exceptions are exacerbated by the lack of deference given to clinicians’ medical judgment under these bans.

However, even if the terms in the exceptions were defined more clearly, they would still exclude many health conditions pregnant people face. In Georgia, for example, providers challenging the ban note that the exceptions do not permit abortion care when it is needed to prevent: “(1) substantial but reversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, (2) less than ‘substantial’ but irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, or (3) substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a bodily function that is not ‘major.’” A medical condition may still be a significant health event, yet not qualify under the exceptions, even if their limits were more clearly defined.

MENTAL HEALTH

Mental health conditions account for over 20% of pregnancy-related deaths in the US, yet almost all states with health exceptions limit them to conditions affecting physical health, with some going further and explicitly precluding emotional or psychological health conditions. Alabama, the only state that includes mental health concerns in its health exception, requires a psychiatrist to diagnose the pregnant person with a “serious mental illness” and document it is likely the person will engage in behavior that could result in their death or the death of the fetus that due to their mental health condition. The law does not define “serious mental illness” and does not allow physicians to determine what serious mental illnesses qualify for the exception. In addition, abortion bans and restrictions in Georgia, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming explicitly exclude mental/emotional health. Several other states (Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, the remaining Kentucky ban, and one of Arkansas’ total bans) limit their life and/or health exceptions to physical conditions, without explicitly calling out mental/emotional health exceptions.

ECTOPIC PREGNANCIES AND MISCARRIAGES

Some states’ abortion laws specify that care for ectopic pregnancies and pregnancy loss is not criminalized in its statutes. Most states with these provisions in their bans allow for the removal of a dead fetus or embryo, but not for miscarriage care, generally. This means that pregnant people who are actively miscarrying may be denied care if there is still detectable fetal cardiac activity. There have already been reports of such situations in Texas and Louisiana. In Louisiana, for example, a pregnant woman went to the hospital after experiencing sharp pain and bleeding. She was informed her fetus had likely stopped growing a few weeks prior, as its size did not correspond to the length of her pregnancy, and that it had very faint cardiac activity. Despite the pain and the blood loss she was experiencing, she could not receive the regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol commonly prescribed to pregnant patients who are miscarrying to ensure that the pregnancy is safely expelled from the body completely in a timely manner, thereby decreasing the risk of sepsis and infection. Instead, she had to wait for the miscarriage to progress without medical intervention, which would have expedited the process and reduced her medical risk. In states where the abortion bans do not clarify that miscarriage care is not criminalized – even when there is still detectable cardiac activity – pregnant people may not be able to receive care to manage their pregnancy loss unless and until it becomes a medical emergency.

GREATER RISK TO THE HEALTH OF PREGNANT PEOPLE

In deciding whether or not to provide abortion care to preserve the health of a pregnant patient, physicians now face the risk of a jury or the state disagreeing with their judgment about the gravity of the health risk the pregnant person was experiencing, and as a result, face prison time, monetary fines, and loss of professional license. Before the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, the decision to have an abortion pre-viability when facing a health risk was made by the pregnant person in consultation with medical professionals in consideration of the needs and overall health history of the pregnant patient. In states with abortion bans, when deciding whether or not to provide abortion care to preserve the health of a pregnant patient, physicians now face the risk of prosecution, prison time, monetary fines, and loss of professional license.

In state court challenges against the bans, providers have argued that the vagueness of the bans is unconstitutional, since it places them in a situation where it is unclear how they might follow the law. As a result, physicians may be more reluctant to provide abortion care when pregnant patients present with serious medical conditions and may deny abortion care to pregnant people with conditions that threaten their health until their condition deteriorates and the narrow exceptions inarguably apply. This delay in care, however, creates greater and avoidable risks to the health of the pregnant person. Additionally, many conditions that threaten the health of pregnant people are not included in all or most health exceptions.

The difficulties these bans and their unclear exceptions create may additionally deter physicians from practicing medicine in states that ban abortion. There have already been reports of physicians expressing reluctance or refusing to relocate to these states, as well as physicians leaving these states due to their restrictive laws and fewer medical school graduates applying for residencies in these states. A substantial portion of these states’ residents already live in maternity deserts – areas where there are no obstetric providers or birth centers – and studies have shown that maternal mortality rates are higher in states that restrict abortion. Physicians being deterred from practicing in states with restrictive abortion laws may exacerbate these disparities in access to obstetric care and health outcomes.

Zurawski v. State of Texas

Five women who were denied abortion care in Texas ­- despite facing dangerous pregnancy complications – and two OB-GYNs filed a lawsuit in Texas state court asking the court to clarify the scope of the medical emergency exceptions in the state’s three abortion bans. Plaintiffs specifically asked the court to clarify that:

  • Physician judgment should be granted deference in measuring the risk the pregnant person is facing,
  • Impairment of a “major bodily function” includes harm to fertility and the reproductive system,
  • Acute risk does not have to be already present or imminent for the exceptions to apply, and
  • Health exceptions apply in situations where treatment for a condition is unsafe during pregnancy and for fetal conditions and diagnoses that can increase the risk to a pregnant person’s health.

Plaintiffs argued the misapplication of the health exceptions violates state constitutional guarantees to fundamental and equal rights. In August 2023, a County District Court judge issued an order blocking enforcement of Texas’ ban in situations where, in a physician’s good faith judgment, an abortion is needed due to an emergent medical situation. An appeal from the state to the Texas Supreme Court automatically blocked the lower court’s order. On May 31, 2024, the Texas Supreme Court issued its decision in this case, stating that the state’s abortion ban only contains exceptions when, in a physician’s reasonable medical judgment, there is a life-threatening physical condition.

THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT AND ACTIVE LABOR ACT (EMTALA)

Enacted in 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires Medicare-enrolled hospitals to perform an appropriate medical screening examination to any patient who presents to their dedicated emergency department. If a patient is identified as having an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide stabilizing treatment within the hospital’s capability or transfer the patient to another medical facility.

As states were starting to implement abortion bans after the Dobbs decision, in July 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance regarding the enforcement of EMTALA that clarifies hospitals and physicians have obligations to provide stabilizing care, including abortion in medically appropriate circumstances, when a patient presenting at an emergency department is experiencing an emergency medical condition.

After HHS issued this guidance, two lawsuits were filed. HHS sued the State of Idaho to block enforcement of Idaho’s abortion ban to the extent it conflicts with EMTALA, and the State of Texas sued to block enforcement of the HHS guidance in Texas. The Supreme Court is considering the case from Idaho and a decision is pending.

At stake in this case is whether EMTALA preempts state abortion laws and requires hospitals to provide abortion care when it is necessary to stabilize a patient’s condition, even when this abortion care violates state law. While all state abortion bans have an exception for pregnancies that jeopardize the life of a pregnant person, some do not have an exception that would allow an abortion to preserve the health of the pregnant person. Even in states with health exceptions, the exception might be very narrow and not well defined, leaving significant gaps in emergency medical care for pregnant people. EMTALA, however, requires hospitals to provide stabilizing care to patients with emergency medical conditions, including conditions that may harm their health. According to the HHS guidance issued in the wake of the Dobbs decision, EMTALA requires hospitals to provide abortion care to pregnant patients with emergency medical conditions when abortion is necessary to stabilize the patient’s condition. However, Idaho contends that EMTALA does not require hospitals to provide treatment that violates state law. The Court’s decision in this case could impact access to abortion in emergency situations across the country and potentially lay the foundation for future challenges involving state laws granting fetal personhood.

Exception vs. Affirmative Defense

Some state abortion bans lack exceptions but identify situations that may be used as an affirmative defense in court – among these are Tennessee’s 6-week LMP ban, Kentucky’s 15-week ban (but not the state’s earlier gestational bans), Texas’ total bans, and all of Missouri’s bans.  An “affirmative defense” allows someone charged with a crime to show in court that their conduct was permissible even though the action itself is illegal. An affirmative defense does not make it legal to provide abortion care in the situations delineated in the law and means that a clinician who provided abortion care is open to prosecution – regardless of the reason they provided an abortion – and would bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that they provided care according to the conditions delineated as possible affirmative defenses in the abortion ban. Bans that rely on an affirmative defense leave physicians more vulnerable to criminal prosecution and they make it even riskier for physicians to provide abortion care in situations where the life or health of the pregnant person is at risk.

Sexual Assault Exceptions

A few of the state abortion bans contain exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, generally requiring that the sexual assault be reported to law enforcement. Some states allow for a Child Protective Services (CPS) report in lieu of a law enforcement report for minors who are survivors of sexual assault or incest.

It is well documented that survivors are often afraid to report sexual violence to the police due to fear of retaliation and the belief that law enforcement would not or could not do anything to help. It is estimated that only 21% of sexual assaults are reported to law enforcement. Even for survivors who do report to law enforcement, state abortion bans do not make clear exactly what information needs to be given to a provider to make it clear that the abortion would be legal in that state. Reporting requirements place barriers in the way of survivors seeking abortion care in these states.

Among the few sexual assault exceptions, some have specific gestational limits. For instance, the total ban currently in effect in West Virginia contains an exception for cases of rape or incest, but it is limited to 8 weeks from the last menstrual period (LMP) for adults and 14 weeks LMP for minors.

Although sexual assault exceptions are intended to protect survivors, experts agree that they rarely work. There is anecdotal evidence of survivors in states with rape exceptions and who have compiled the necessary documentation, but still not being able to access abortion because they couldn’t find any abortion providers in their state.

Hyde Amendment

The Hyde Amendment is a policy that restricts the use of federal funds to cover abortion, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the pregnant person is endangered (Hyde Exceptions). The policy is not a permanent law, but rather has been attached as a temporary “rider” to the Congressional appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and has been renewed annually by Congress. In the past, federal courts have interpreted the Hyde provisions to require states to pay for abortions that fall into the Hyde Exceptions and have blocked enforcement of state statutes that prohibit coverage for these cases. However, the enforceability of these requirements has been unclear since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs. Although all bans currently in effect contain exceptions to safeguard the life of the pregnant person, most states with abortion bans do not have exceptions for cases of rape or incest, and therefore, would not allow for the provision or coverage of those services to Medicaid recipients, contrary to previous court orders. To date, no court or federal agency has issued orders or guidance on states’ obligation to provide coverage for Hyde Exceptions when their bans prohibit the provision of abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Lethal Fetal Anomaly Exceptions

Bans in several states contain exceptions for lethal fetal anomalies, usually limited to those anomalies that would result in the death of the baby at birth or soon after. As with health exceptions, lethal fetal anomaly exceptions are poorly defined and limited in statutes. The only state with this kind of exception that has a comprehensive list of conditions that fall under this category is Louisiana, but since the state has multiple abortion bans in effect (one of which does not include exceptions for fatal fetal anomalies), the applicability of this exception is still unclear. Other states, like Indiana, provide some general criteria, such as how long after birth the baby can be expected to live for a pregnancy to fall under the fetal anomaly. Any condition that would result in a life expectancy shorter than three months fits under the exception. The religious freedom lawsuit against the state’s ban – Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana — specifically challenges the narrow limits of the exception, arguing that other common conditions, such as Tay-Sachs disease would result in the death very early in childhood.

What happens in states with more than one abortion ban in effect?

In many states there is more than one abortion ban in the books, and in some of those states, the exception provisions in the bans are at odds with each other. In Louisiana, two bans and a 15-week LMP limit are in effect, but only one of the total bans and the 15-week limit have the same exceptions; the remaining total ban does not. One of the total criminal bans in the state has exceptions to prevent the death or substantial risk of death, of the pregnant person and to prevent “serious, permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ”. The state’s other total ban and the 15-week limit have exceptions for these same cases and additionally in cases of fatal fetal anomalies, and clarify that the bans’ prohibitions do not apply for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages. The conflicting exceptions in the bans result in a situation where the only real exceptions in the state are for cases where an abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant person or to prevent serious, permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ. Providing abortion care under any other exception in the states’ other total ban or 15-week limit would open physicians to criminal penalties and loss of license.

Mississippi is another state with multiple bans in effect that contain contradicting exceptions. The state’s total ban only has exceptions for cases when an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant person or when the pregnancy was caused by rape (there is no exception for incest in the state). However, the state’s 15-week LMP ban contains exceptions for fatal fetal abnormalities and serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function, along with a life exception. In situations where there is more than one ban in effect, it might seem that the easiest way to follow the law would be to adhere to the abortion ban with the strictest gestational limit. This would not suffice in Mississippi, however, since the total ban contains an exception for pregnancies caused by rape, but the state’s 15-week LMP ban does not contain such an exception. Therefore, following any one of the state’s abortion bans would not remove the legal risk of providing abortion care in the state. Instead, providers must assess how the abortion bans and their exceptions work in conjunction.

Conclusion

Although a lot of attention has been devoted to debates about exceptions in abortion bans, many of these exceptions are not workable in practice. Outside of testimony from providers, it is difficult to assess how many people who qualify for abortion care under the exceptions are actually able to do so, since states underreport or do not report this information. However, it is apparent these bans create barriers to accessing abortion care, even in situations where the exceptions they outline should apply. Most importantly, these bans place the health and lives of pregnant people at risk by potentially preventing physicians from providing medically appropriate care. The Supreme Court’s decision in Idaho v. United States will determine whether EMTALA preempts state laws and requires hospitals to provide abortion care to stabilize pregnant patients when “necessary to assure that no material deterioration of the condition is likely to occur.” If the Court rules in favor of Idaho, the inability to provide evidence-based care may additionally make physicians reluctant to practice medicine in restrictive states, amplifying already-existing discrepancies in ability to access obstetric care and adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.

Appendix

Abortion Bans and Exceptions

How ACA Marketplace Premiums Changed by County in 2024

Published: Jun 6, 2024

Premiums for ACA Marketplace benchmark silver plans grew by about 5% in 2024, on average before taking into account subsidies. Meanwhile, premiums for the lowest cost unsubsidized bronze plans grew by about 6%, on average, in 2024.

Change in the Average Premium by Metal Level Before Tax Credit, 2023-2024 for a 40-year-old

However, premium changes vary by location and by metal level, with premiums decreasing in some cases. As most enrollees receive premium subsidies on the ACA Marketplaces, the net premium amount an exchange enrollee pays depends on their income and the difference in the cost between the benchmark plan (second-lowest-cost silver plan) and the premium for the plan they choose.

The map below illustrates changes in premiums for the lowest-cost bronze, silver, and gold plans by county, with and without subsidies. For data at the state-level, see our Health Insurance Marketplace tables.

2024 ACA Premium and Subsidy Changes

In 2024, 9 in 10 marketplace enrollees received premium tax credit subsidies and therefore will not necessarily pay a higher premium, even if the unsubsidized premiums in their county are rising. To account for premium increases, federal spending to finance subsidies will also increase. With the enhanced financial assistance for ACA Marketplace coverage provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, subsidized enrollees with incomes at or below 150% of poverty ($21,870 for an individual and $45,000 for a family of 4) can get a free ($0 premium) or nearly free silver plan with a very low deductible if they sign up for the lowest or second-lowest cost silver plan. Relative to the original ACA subsidies, the Inflation Reduction Act also reduced payments for middle-income enrollees and removed the upper income limit on subsidy eligibility.

Methods

We analyzed Marketplace premium data for 2023 and 2024 to determine lowest-cost premiums by metal level and benchmark premiums, as well as calculate tax credits and net premiums after tax credits for the scenarios presented. Federal Marketplace files are available through HealthCare.gov. Premiums for state-based marketplaces are from a review of insurer rate filings, state plan finders, or data provided directly by state exchanges or insurance departments. Premiums for California and Massachusetts were collected at the zip code level; premiums for Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Virginia and Washington were collected at the county level; and premiums for Maryland and Pennsylvania were collected at the county or zip level depending on whether premiums are uniform throughout the county. For the remaining states running their own exchanges, premiums presented in this analysis were collected at the rating area level.

Because ACA subsidies only cover the “essential health benefits” (EHB) portion of the premium, enrollees with incomes between 100% to 150% of poverty may have to pay a nominal amount (e.g., $1 per month) for health coverage in counties where the lowest-cost silver plan and the second-lowest-cost silver plan include non-EHB benefits (for example, dental or vision coverage for adults or non-Hyde abortion coverage). In this analysis, we do not adjust for the non-EHB portion of premiums because that is not possible in all states with available data. Therefore, net premiums after subsidies may differ in some counties.

Calculation of the 2024 national average premium by metal level was weighted by county using 2023 plan selections obtained from the 2023 Marketplace Open Enrollment Period (OEP) County-Level Public Use File provided by CMS. In states running their own exchanges, we gathered county-level plan selection data where possible or we estimated county-level plan selections by determining the share of plan selections by county for a given state in a prior year and applying this to the total state plan selection value from the CMS 2023 OEP State-Level Public Use File.

2024 Medical Loss Ratio Rebates

Published: Jun 5, 2024

The Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) limits the amount of premium income that insurers can keep for administration, marketing, and profits. Insurers that fail to meet the applicable MLR threshold are required to pay back excess profits or margins in the form of rebates to individuals and employers that purchased coverage.

In the individual and small group markets, insurers must spend at least 80% of their premium income on health care claims and quality improvement efforts, leaving the remaining 20% for administration, marketing expenses, and profit. The MLR threshold is higher for large group insurers, which must spend at least 85% of their premium income on health care claims and quality improvement efforts. MLR rebates are based on a 3-year average, meaning that rebates issued in 2024 will be calculated using insurers’ financial data in 2021, 2022 and 2023 and will go to people and businesses who bought health coverage in 2023.

This analysis, using preliminary data reported by insurers to state regulators and compiled by Mark Farrah Associates, finds that insurers estimate they will issue a total of about $1.1 billion in MLR rebates across all commercial markets in 2024. Since the ACA began requiring insurers to issue these rebates in 2012, a total of $11.8 billion in rebates have already been issued to individuals and employers, and this analysis suggests the 2012-2024 total will rise to about $13 billion when rebates are issued later this year.

Nearly $12 Billion in Rebates Have Been Issued So Far, with Another $1 Billion Expected in 2024

Estimated total rebates across all commercial markets in 2024 ($1.1 billion) are similar to total rebates issued in 2022 ($1.0 billion) and in 2023 ($950 million). In 2023, rebates were issued to 1.7 million people with individual coverage and 4.1 million people with employer coverage. In the individual market, the 2023 average rebate per person was $196, while the average rebates per person for the small group market and the large group market were $201 and $104, respectively (though enrollees could receive only a portion of this as rebates may be shared between the employer and employee or be used to offset premiums for the following year).

The estimated $1.1 billion in rebates to be issued later this year will be larger than those issued in most prior years but fall far short of recent record-high rebate totals of $2.5 billion issued in 2020 and $2.0 billion issued in 2021, which coincided with the onset of the pandemic.

Average Simple Loss Ratios, by Market, 2011-2023

In 2023, the average individual market simple loss ratio (meaning that there’s no adjustment for quality improvement expenses or taxes and therefore, don’t align perfectly with ACA MLR thresholds) was 84%, meaning these insurers spent an average of 84% of their premium income in the form of health claims in 2023. However, rebates issued in 2024 are based on a three-year average of insurers’ experience in 2021-2023. Consequently, even insurers with high loss ratios in 2023 may expect to owe rebates if they were highly profitable in the prior two years.

In the small and large group markets, 2023 average simple loss ratios were 84% and 88%, respectively. Only fully-insured group plans are subject to the ACA MLR rule; about two thirds of covered workers are in self-funded plans, to which the MLR threshold does not apply.

Rebate Payment Logistics

The 2024 rebate amounts in this analysis are still preliminary. Rebates or rebate notices are mailed out by the end of September and the federal government will post a summary of the total amount owed by each issuer in each state later in the year.

Insurers in the individual market may either issue rebates in the form of a check or premium credit. For people with employer coverage, the rebate may be shared between the employer and the employee depending on the way in which the employer and employee share premium costs.

If the amount of the rebate is exceptionally small (less than $5 for individual rebates and less than $20 for group rebates), insurers are not required to process the rebate, as it may not warrant the administrative burden required to do so.

Methods

This analysis is based on insurer-reported financial data from Health Coverage Portal TM, a market database maintained by Mark Farrah Associates, which includes information from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The Supplemental Health Care Exhibit dataset analyzed in this report does not include data from California HMOs regulated by California’s Department of Managed Health Care. All individual market figures in this analysis are for major medical insurance plans sold both on and off exchange. Simple loss ratios are calculated as the ratio of the sum of total incurred claims to the sum of health premiums earned.

Rebates for 2024 are based on preliminary estimates from insurers. In some years, final rebates are higher than expected and in other years, final rebates are lower.

Poll Finding

Public Opinion on the Future of Medicaid: Results from the KFF Medicaid Unwinding Survey and KFF Health Tracking Poll

Published: Jun 4, 2024

Medicaid is the primary program providing comprehensive coverage of health care and long-term services and supports to about 80 million low-income people in the United States. Medicaid accounts for one-sixth of health care spending (and half of spending for long-term services and support) and a large share of state budgets. Medicaid is jointly financed by states and the federal government but administered by states within broad federal rules. Because states have the flexibility to determine what populations and services to cover, how to deliver care, and how much to reimburse providers, there is significant variation across states in program spending and the share of people covered by the program.

Medicaid has been a political touchstone for the past several decades. Republican candidates often run on the promise on cutting back on federal Medicaid spending and giving states more flexibility to administer programs, while Democrats have run on expanding Medicaid coverage to reduce the number of lower-income people who are uninsured. Amidst all of this, large majorities of the public, across partisanship, continue to hold favorable views of the program and most say the current program is working well for most low-income people covered by the program.

Earlier this year, the KFF Medicaid Unwinding Survey found Medicaid enrollees1  reporting overall positive experiences with their Medicaid coverage even as some of them lost their coverage as states began unwinding their Medicaid enrollment. The latest release from KFF examines the attitudes of the public overall on the future of the Medicaid program, as well leveraging the survey of adult Medicaid enrollees, to better understand how the public’s perception of the program compares to the population who most recently was enrolled by the program.

The Public and Medicaid Enrollees Want Medicaid Financing To Stay As Is

Former President Trump said that he would not cut Social Security or Medicare if elected, but has notably not released any detailed statements on his plans for the future of Medicaid, though his budget proposals as president included plans to cap federal Medicaid spending. One way to do this is through the “block grants” – a recurring Republican proposal that would give a set amount of funding each year (usually lower than anticipated under current law) and in turn states have greater flexibility to administer program but the entitlement to coverage for enrollees and the guarantee of federal of matching dollars to states without a cap would end.

Asked which comes closer to their view of what Medicaid should look like in the future, nearly nine in ten (86%) Medicaid enrollees say “Medicaid should largely continue as it is today, with the federal government guaranteeing coverage for low-income people, setting standards for who states cover and what benefits people get, and matching state Medicaid spending as the number of people on the program goes up or down.” This is more than six times the share of enrollees (14%) who say “Medicaid should be changed so that instead of matching state Medicaid spending and setting certain requirements for health coverage, the federal government limits how much it gives states to help pay for Medicaid and states have greater flexibility to decide which groups of people to cover without federal guarantees.”

While an overwhelming majority of Medicaid enrollees prefer the program to “largely continue as it is today,” somewhat fewer adults overall – though notably still a large majority – say the same (86% vs. 71%).

Majorities of Medicaid Enrollees and the Public Overall Want Medicaid to Largely Stay as Is

Among Medicaid enrollees, majorities across gender, age, racial and ethnic groups, and partisanship agree that Medicaid should largely continue as it is today. For example, more than eight in ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent enrollees (89%) and Republicans and Republican-leaning independent enrollees (83%) say they want Medicaid to largely continue as it is. One in ten (11%) Democratic enrollees and one in seven (16%) of Republican enrollees would rather move to a block grant system.

While partisans among Medicaid enrollees are in consensus of keeping Medicaid as it is, the public is more divided along party lines. Among all adults, nearly nine in ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say the future of Medicaid should largely continue as it is today (87%) compared to just half of Republicans or Republican-leaning independents (53%).

At Least Eight in Ten Medicaid Enrollees Want Medicaid to Remain as Is, with Overall Adults Divided by Partisanship

The Public and Medicaid Enrollees Largely Support Medicaid Expansion

Under the ACA, most states have expanded their Medicaid programs to cover nearly all adults with incomes up to 138% of poverty ($20,783 for an individual in 2024). For states that expand their Medicaid program, the federal government pays for 90 percent of the costs of this expansion with the state paying 10 percent. Under the American Rescue Plan Act states that newly adopt expansion are eligible for an additional 5 percentage point increase in the state’s traditional FMAP (federal medical assistance percentage) for two years, resulting in a temporary net fiscal benefit for these states. Several of the ten states that have not yet expanded their Medicaid programs debated expansion, but ultimately no new states adopted expansion after North Carolina implemented expansion in December 2023.

The KFF Survey of Medicaid unwinding finds that more than three in four (78%) enrollees in a non-expansion state say their state should expand Medicaid to cover more low-income uninsured people. Similarly, our recent KFF Health Tracking Poll found that a majority of adults in non-expansion states support their state expanding its Medicaid program – but to a lesser degree (66%).

Once again, among the public overall, expanding Medicaid is largely split along partisan lines, with eight in ten (83%) Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents saying they want to expand Medicaid, compared to six in ten (58%) of Republicans or Republican-leaning independents who want to keep Medicaid as it is today.

Eight in Ten Enrollees, Two-Thirds of Adults in Non-Expansion States Think Their State Should Expand Medicaid
  1. KFF interviewed 1,227 U.S. adults who had Medicaid coverage in prior to April 1, 2023 – as states began the process of determining who was still eligible for Medicaid in their state ↩︎

Global Health Policy Quiz

Published: May 31, 2024

Despite significant improvements to health throughout the world over the century, many global health challenges remain, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The United States government has been engaged in global health activities for more than 100 years and its involvement has grown considerably over time. How much do you know about U.S. efforts to improve health around the world?

Step 1 of 10

What percentage of the U.S. federal budget is spent on global health activities?(Required)

DMPA Contraceptive Injection: Use and Coverage

Published: May 30, 2024

Note: Figure 1 was updated on Sept. 18, 2024, to correct a typographical error. The FPL for a family of three in 2017 was $19,730, not $19,370.

The DMPA contraceptive injection is a commonly used reversible contraceptive method among women in the United States. Also known as the “shot,” the injection is commonly known by its brand-name Depo Provera (depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate or DMPA), although generic alternatives are available. It was first introduced in the United States in 1959 for management of menstruation and was approved for contraceptive use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1992. This factsheet provides an overview of the types, use, awareness, availability, and insurance coverage of contraceptive injection in the U.S.

How does the DMPA Injection work?

The shot works by releasing the hormone DMPA, a progestin, which suppresses ovulation and thickens cervical mucus that also helps keep sperm from fertilizing an egg. DMPA can be provided by an intramuscular shot (DMPA-IM) administered by a clinician or by a subcutaneous shot (DMPA-SC) that can be injected by the patient at home (Table 1). Both forms are FDA-approved and need to be administered once every 12 weeks to be effective. Brand-name Depo-Provera and the generic equivalents for medroxyprogesterone acetate are intramuscular injections, providing 150mg of progestin in one dose. The Depo-subQ Provera 104 injection uses a smaller needle and a lower dose of progestin (104 mg) than the intramuscular alternative. Because Depo-subQ Provera 104 uses a smaller needle, it can be less painful than the intramuscular injection and can be administered by the patient at home. This method is considered a safe, “off-label” method while having the same contraceptive effectiveness. Like most contraceptives, the DMPA shot does not protect against STDs; use of condoms is recommended to reduce the risk for STDs, including HIV, while using DMPA shots.

Table 1

Types of Birth Control Injections

Injection MethodInjection NameInjection AdministratorDosageInjection FrequencyPossible Side Effects
IntramuscularBrand: Depo-Provera

Generic alternatives are also available.

Provider only.150mg of progestin.12 weeks (3 months).Menstrual irregularities.

Weight gain.

Bone density loss.

SubcutaneousBrand: Depo-SubQ Provera 104

No generic alternative is available yet.

Provider or patient.104mg of progestin.

The DMPA shot has a typical use failure rate of 4% when used once every 12 weeks or three months. Long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARCs) methods such as implants, intrauterine devices (IUDs), and permanent contraceptive methods such as vasectomies and tubal ligations are typically more effective than the shot because these methods involve little to no follow-up care, while injections need to be repeated every 12 weeks in order to be effective. Condoms or another non-hormonal contraceptive are recommended as a back-up for 7 days after the first injection. If a patient is more than four weeks late for a shot (16 weeks after their last shot), it is recommended that they take a pregnancy test before the next dose and that they use condoms or another non-hormonal contraceptive as a back-up for another 7 days if they receive another shot. It takes an average of 10 months for pregnancy to occur after stopping the injection, which is comparable to other methods such as IUDs and oral contraceptive pills.

Benefits and Side Effects

The DMPA shot has several non-contraceptive benefits but also has some side effects and risks. Benefits include lower risk of uterine cancer and reduced symptoms of endometriosis. However, the injectable has the highest discontinuation rate among contraceptives in the U.S., associated with side effects which include menstrual irregularities (spotting or cessation of periods) and weight gain. Of note, Depo-Provera comes with a black box warning from the FDA that the contraceptive injection should not be used as a long-term (longer than 2 years) method unless other contraceptive methods are considered inadequate, as women who use Depo-Provera may lose significant bone density. However, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the World Health Organization (WHO) disagree with this warning, stating that loss in bone density from DMPA is not associated with fractures and appears to be reversible after discontinuation of the injectable. Both organizations conclude that the benefits of DMPA use outweigh the theoretical fracture risk, and that DMPA may be prescribed without limitations on its duration of use.

Use, Awareness, and Availability of the Contraceptive Injection

Based on the most recent data on contraceptive use from the National Survey of Family Growth, approximately 3% of women who used contraception from 2017-2019 reported that they used the contraceptive injection in the past month. Over the last two decades, women’s access to and options of various contraceptive choices have changed, and overall use of the injection has declined, as more women are using LARCs, such as IUDs and implants. During the first few years of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the availability of and interest in using DMPA-SC increased due to restrictions placed on in-person clinic appointments. A 2023 Contraception study reports that there was a significant increase in provision of DMPA-SC for self-injection during this time, although this is still a small portion of overall use of DMPA-SC.

Among reproductive age women who used any form of contraception from 2017-2019, the contraceptive injection was most often used by young women, lower-income women, and Black women. Use of the injection also decreased with educational attainment – smaller shares of women with bachelor’s degrees reported using the shot as their contraceptive method (Figure 1).

Figure 1: "The Contraceptive Injection Is Most Frequently Used by Women Who Are Younger, Black, and Have Lower Incomes"

Insurance Coverage and Cost of the Contraceptive Injection

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most private insurance plans and Medicaid expansion programs to cover one of each of the 18 FDA-approved contraceptive methods without cost sharing. Women with private insurance and those with Medicaid coverage are eligible for patient education, counseling, and access to at least one form of the contraceptive injection without cost-sharing. Coverage also includes the first doctor’s visit, discontinuation of the shot, and management of side effects. Although coverage includes at least one form of the injection, plans may not cover both the intramuscular formulation and Depo-subQ Provera 104; however, if a clinician determines that a particular injectable formulation is medically appropriate for a patient then the plan must cover that form.

Safety-net clinics that participate in the federal Title X family planning program offer low or no-cost contraceptives to uninsured adults and teens on a sliding scale and may forego charges for those on the lowest end of the income scale. The Office of Population Affairs (OPA) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported that, in 2022, approximately 302,000 women received the DMPA injection as their primary contraceptive method from a Title X service provider.

16 States and D.C. Allow Pharmacists to Prescribe the Contraceptive Injection

In 16 states (CA, CO, HI, ID, IL, IN, MD, ME, MN, NV, NM, NH, OR, SC, TN, VA) and the District of Columbia, pharmacists can provide the intramuscular contraceptive shot directly to women without the need to first visit a physician to obtain the prescription and injection (Figure 2). In some states like Hawaii, Indiana, and Maryland, the statewide protocol or standing order does not explicitly state that the DMPA injection can be offered but does state that all FDA-approved hormonal contraceptive methods can be administered by pharmacists. However, pharmacist participation in these programs is not required and implementation has varied across states. Furthermore, while the actual DMPA shot is typically covered, women will likely have to have to pay out-of-pocket for a pharmacist consultation fee, which is not required to be covered under the contraceptive coverage laws in most of these states and by federal law through the ACA.

What the Election Could Mean for the Mexico City Policy and U.S. Foreign Aid

Published: May 30, 2024

Issue Brief

Overview

The outcome of the next presidential election will have significant implications for U.S. global health programs and policy, as well as U.S. international engagement more broadly. Among other things, if President Trump is elected, he is expected to reinstate the expanded Mexico City Policy (MCP) from his first term, which applied to most U.S. global health assistance. Moreover, there are indications that the policy could be expanded even further, as recommended by Project 2025 (a series of proposals for a new administration from a broad coalition of conservative organizations) – specifically, one of its proposals recommends expanding the MCP to include virtually all U.S. foreign assistance. Members of Congress have also introduced legislation to this effect for the past several years. Given that Project 2025’s proposals are widely seen as a blueprint for a next Trump administration, this analysis outlines the potential reach of such a proposal, looking at the amount of funding, the number of organizations, the range of foreign assistance sectors, and other variables that could be affected. Among the key findings:

  • In FY 2022, more than $51 billion in U.S. foreign aid, spanning almost 180 countries, was obligated to non-USG prime recipients, the funding most likely to be directly implicated by the expansion proposal (additional funding could be subject to the policy if it were ultimately provided, directly or indirectly, to non-USG recipients).
  • Notably, this is tens of billions more than the amount of global health assistance likely implicated under the Trump administration’s previously expanded policy ($7.3 billion in FY 2020), and significantly more than the amount of family planning assistance implicated by the policy, when in place, during earlier administrations (between $300-$600 million).
  • More than half of the $51 billion (58%) was provided to multilateral organizations, recipients that have, to date, not been subject to the policy before. Indeed, nine of the top 10-funded prime recipients were multilateral organizations.
  • By sector, humanitarian assistance accounted for the largest share of funding, followed by economic development, two sectors that would be newly subject to the policy under the expansion proposal. Health was the third largest sector.
  • There were more than 2,400 non-USG prime recipients of U.S. foreign aid in FY 2022, those subject to the policy under the proposal, a significantly higher number than for health alone (662 prime recipients). This number should be considered a floor, since any sub-recipients of U.S. foreign aid would also be subject to the MCP. Although most funding was provided to multilaterals, most prime recipients were foreign entities (61%); U.S.-based entities accounted for 35%
  • Whether or not the full extent of the expansion proposal could be instituted (for example, there would likely be legal challenges to some aspects of the proposal, which could limit its reach), it would represent a significant expansion in terms of funding and number of organizations, well beyond the reach of the expanded policy that was in place during the Trump administration.

Background

The Mexico City Policy (MCP) is a U.S. government (USG) policy that – when in effect – has required foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs)1  to certify that they will not “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” using funds from any source (including non-U.S. funds) as a condition of receiving U.S. global family planning assistance and, when in place under the Trump administration (called “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance”), most other U.S. global health assistance. First announced in 1984 by the Reagan administration, the MCP has been rescinded and reinstated by subsequent administrations along party lines since and has been in effect for 21 of the past 40 years. It has also been steadily expanded to apply to additional types of U.S. foreign assistance and recipients over time (see Table 1). Should it be implemented, the Project 2025 proposal –“Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance” – would mark the most significant expansion of the policy to date. Specifically, the proposal seeks to:

  • apply the MCP to all U.S. foreign assistance (not just global health assistance2 ) provided to non-USG recipients, including sectors (such as humanitarian aid) and agencies (such as global health funding appropriated to Department of Health and Human Services agencies) that have not been subject to the policy before;
  • expand recipients subject to the policy to also include multilateral organizations (such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria), foreign governments, and U.S.-based NGOs (not just foreign NGOs); and
  • include funding provided through contracts (not just grants and cooperative agreements).
Table 1

Expansion of the Mexico City Policy Over Time

Phase 1^ Phase 2Phase 3Project 2025 Proposal
President/TermRonald Reagan, 1985-1989George H.W. Bush,1989-1993George W. Bush, 2001-2009Donald Trump,2017-2021Donald Trump,2024-2028 (if elected)
SectorFamily Planning AssistanceFamily Planning AssistanceGlobal Health Assistance, including PEPFARForeign Assistance, including Humanitarian Assistance
AgencyUSAIDUSAID/State DepartmentUSAID/State Department/DoD#All Agencies (more than 20)
Type of Award Grants & Cooperative AgreementsGrants & Cooperative AgreementsGrants & Cooperative Agreements+Grants, Cooperative Agreements, Contracts
Bilateral/MultilateralBilateralBilateralBilateralBilateral/Multilateral
RecipientsForeign NGOsForeign NGOsForeign NGOs*U.S. and Foreign NGOs, Foreign Governments, Multilaterals
^ While the MCP has generally been implemented through Presidential Executive Action, there was a temporary, one-year legislative imposition during President Bill Clinton’s second term (FY 2000),3  which included an option for the president to partially waive restrictions, as President Clinton chose to do, but only against not more than $15 million of total USAID family planning funds. # When such funding was transferred to another agency, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or National Institutes of Health (NIH), it remained subject to the policy, to the extent that such funding was ultimately provided to foreign NGOs, directly or indirectly. + The Trump administration had sought to apply the policy to contracts and issued a proposed rule to this effect,4  but it was not finalized prior to leaving office. (Note that “grants under contracts” were subject to the policy.) *Clarified in 2019 that under the policy, U.S.-supported foreign NGOs could not provide any type of financial support, no matter the source of funds, to any other foreign NGO that performs or actively promotes abortion as a method of family planning.

Findings

To assess the potential reach of the Project 2025 proposal, this analysis looks at U.S. government foreign assistance obligation data for FY 2022 (the most recent year for which complete obligation data by sector are available) to quantify the amount of funding and number and type of prime recipients that could be affected. Obligations were analyzed because the MCP applies to funding once obligated to a recipient. Data were obtained from foreignassistance.gov, the U.S. government’s centralized data portal for budgetary and financial data provided by more than 20 federal agencies that manage foreign assistance programs. The analysis focused on funding obligations provided to non-USG recipients, as this is the funding most likely to be subject to the MCP expansion proposal (see Box 1 for key terms, Methodology for more detail, and Appendix for detailed data).

Box 1: Key Terms

  • Obligation: A binding agreement that will result in outlays of funds immediately or at a later date.
  • Prime Recipient: The main recipient, or those that receive funding directly from the U.S. government to carry out foreign assistance work.
  • Sub-Recipient: Those that receive funding indirectly from the U.S. government through an agreement with the prime recipient.
  • Non-Governmental Organization (NGO): a for-profit or not-for-profit organization that is not part of the U.S. government, a foreign government, or a multilateral organization; includes private sector organizations, non-profit organizations, and educational institutions.5 
  • Multilateral Organization: an organization that is jointly supported by multiple governments and, often, other partners (versus bilateral efforts, which are carried out on a country-to-country basis); includes specialty agencies of the United Nations (U.N.) and international financing mechanisms that pool and direct resources from multiple public and private donors for specific causes.
  • Of the $67.5 billion of U.S. foreign assistance obligated in FY 2022, $51.5 billion (76%) was provided to non-USG prime recipients, the funding most likely subject to the expanded MCP proposal. The remainder – funding provided to U.S. government agencies ($15.1 billion, or 22%) or unknown recipients ($850 million, or 2%) – would only be subject to the policy if funding were subsequently awarded to a non-USG recipient.6 
  • Notably, this is tens of billions more than the amount of global health assistance likely implicated under the Trump administration’s previously expanded policy ($7.3 billion in FY 2020), and significantly more than the amount of family planning assistance implicated by the policy, when in place, during earlier administrations (between $300-$600 million). See Box 2.
  • The majority of funding was provided to multilateral organizations ($29.8 billion, or 58%), which would be newly subject to the policy under the proposal. The non-profit sector received the next largest amount of funding ($11.1 billion, or 22%), followed by the private sector ($8.6 billion, or 17%). Smaller amounts were provided to foreign governments ($862 million, or 1.7%) and educational institutions ($1.2 billion, or 2.3%) (see Figure 1).
  • U.S.-based recipients received $15.1 billion (29%). These included U.S. NGOs (newly subject to the policy). Foreign recipients, both governments and NGOs, received $6.6 billion (13%); foreign governments would also be newly subject to the policy.
  • Collectively, the $51.5 billion in foreign assistance was provided to 178 countries, with more countries likely reached through “regional” and “worldwide” activities.7  This is significantly more countries than would be reached with global health assistance alone (93 countries).

Box 2: Examples of Funding Newly Subject to the MCP Under Proposal

By Recipient Type:-Multilateral organizations: $29.8 billion-Foreign governments: $862 million-U.S. NGOs: $10.4 billion in non-health sectors^-Foreign NGOs: $3.9 billion in non-health sectors

By Sector:-Non-health sectors: $40.9 billion, including (for example):

  • Humanitarian assistance: $16.4 billion
  • Economic development: $12.1 billion
  • Peace and security: $2.4 billion
  • Democracy, human rights, and governance: $2.1 billion
  • Education and social services: $1 billion

-Health sector: $4 billion in multilateral and foreign government funding

Note: Amounts by recipient type and sector are not mutually exclusive categories. ^ Not included in this total is $4.8 billion provided to U.S. NGOs in the health sector, as that funding would have been subject to the Trump administration’s expanded MCP if provided to foreign NGO sub-recipients.8  Still, it is important to note that under the previous policy, U.S. NGOs were not directly subject to MCP abortion restrictions. Under the proposal, they would be subject to these restrictions for the first time.

  • The humanitarian assistance sector accounted for the largest share of funding ($16.4 billion, or 32% in FY 2022), followed by economic development ($12.1 billion, or 23%), two sectors that would be newly subject to the policy (see Figure 2). Health was the third largest sector, with $10.6 billion (21%); remaining sectors accounted for $4.6 billion (9%) or less, each.
  • There were 2,437 non-USG prime recipients of U.S. foreign assistance in FY 2022; most9  (2,091, or 86%) would be subject to the policy for the first time. This number should be considered a floor, since any sub-recipients of U.S. foreign aid would also be subject to the MCP.
  • Whereas most funding was provided to multilateral organizations, most recipients (61%, or 1,490) were foreign-based organizations. Just over a third (35%, or 844) were U.S.-based organizations. Multilateral organizations accounted for the remaining 4% (103) (see Figure 3).
  • The majority of recipients (1,347, or 55%) were non-profits, followed by private sector organizations (758, or 31%). The next largest group was educational institutions (160, or 7%).
  • The sectors with the largest numbers of non-USG recipients in FY 2022 were health (662) and economic development (635). The next largest sector was program support (476), followed by democracy, human rights, and governance (367); the environment and humanitarian assistance sectors each had 312 recipients (see Figure 4).
  • The top 10 highest-funded recipients accounted for nearly half (47%, or $24.2 billion) of all funding provided to non-USG prime recipients in FY 2022 (see Figure 5). Nine of the top 10-funded recipients were multilateral organizations, though this varied by sector. For example, in the humanitarian assistance sector, the top 10 were split between multilaterals and non-profits, and in the health sector, four of the top 10 were U.S. non-profits (see Appendix Tables 5-6).
Foreign Aid Funding, by Recipient Type, FY 2022E
U.S. Foreign Aid Funding, Share by Sector, FY 2022
Number of Recipients, by Recipient Type, FY 2022
Number of Recipients, by Sector, FY 2022
op 10 Recipients as a Share of Total U.S. Foreign Aid Funding, FY 2022

Methodology

This analysis looks at FY 2022 foreign assistance obligation data, downloaded from foreignassistance.gov on January 29, 2024. ForeignAssistance.gov is the U.S. government’s centralized data portal for budgetary and financial data provided by more than 20 federal agencies that manage foreign assistance programs. Obligations are binding agreements that will result in outlays of funding, immediately or sometime in the future. The MCP, when in place, is applied to funding that is obligated to recipients, as a condition of their awards.

Data on funding amounts and recipients were analyzed by agency, sector, location, and type of entity. To the extent possible, COVID-19 emergency funding was excluded from this analysis, as it represented one-time funding for a particular event.

Recipients were categorized into the following groups (see table below) based on classifications already present in the ForeignAssistance.gov data as well as background research, where such classifications were not provided. Each recipient was reviewed, and the review sought to correct any mis-categorization in the original data and remove duplicates. “Other/Unknown” recipients were those that could not be easily identified as belonging to a particular recipient type/sub-type. Where it was not possible to identify a recipient as a single, implementing entity, they were excluded from analysis looking at the number of unique recipients.

Recipient TypeRecipient Sub-Type
Educational InstitutionForeign Educational Institution
U.S. Educational Institution
GovernmentForeign Government
U.S. Government
MultilateralMultilateral – United Nations
Multilateral – World Bank Group
Multilateral – Other
Non-ProfitForeign Non-Profit
U.S. Non-Profit
Other/UnknownForeign Other/Unknown
Other/Unknown
U.S. Other/Unknown
Private SectorForeign Private Sector
U.S. Private Sector

Appendix

Appendix Table 1

U.S. Foreign Aid Funding, FY 2022

Recipient CategoryFY 2022
Amount of FundingShare of Overall Funding
Overall$67,480,452,544100.0%
Non-USG$51,511,551,29576.3%
U.S. Government$15,118,596,75522.4%
Unknown$850,304,4941.3%
Note: Does not include COVID-19 funding.
Appendix Table 2

U.S. Foreign Aid Funding and Number of Recipients, by Recipient Type, FY 2022

Recipient TypeFY 2022
Amount of FundingNumber of Recipients
Total $51,511,551,295                                       2,437
Educational Institution$1,206,080,543160
Foreign Government$862,462,32869
Multilateral$29,756,290,613103
Non-Profit$11,095,848,5491,347
Private Sector$8,590,869,262758
Note: Does not include COVID-19 funding or funding provided to the U.S. Government and unknown recipients.
Appendix Table 3

U.S. Foreign Aid Funding and Number of Recipients, by Recipient Type and Sub-Type, FY 2022

Recipient TypeRecipient Sub-TypeFY 2022
Amount of FundingNumber of Recipients
Total $51,511,551,2952,437
Educational InstitutionForeign Educational Institution$260,665,07666
U.S. Educational Institution$945,415,46794
   Sub-Total$1,206,080,543160
Foreign GovernmentForeign Government$862,462,32869
   Sub-Total$862,462,32869
MultilateralU.N.$13,010,127,78834
World Bank Group$11,579,692,3496
Other$5,166,470,47663
   Sub-Total$29,756,290,613103
Non-ProfitForeign Non-Profit$4,087,152,676997
U.S. Non-Profit$7,008,695,873350
   Sub-Total$11,095,848,5491,347
Private SectorForeign Private Sector$1,402,899,146358
U.S. Private Sector$7,187,970,116400
   Sub-Total$8,590,869,262758
Note: Does not include COVID-19 funding or funding provided to the U.S. Government and unknown recipients.
Appendix Table 4

U.S. Foreign Aid Funding and Number of Recipients, by Sector, FY 2022

SectorFY 2022
Amount of FundingNumber of Recipients
Total$51,511,551,2952,437
Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance$2,116,085,009367
Economic Development$12,076,541,335635
Education and Social Services$1,018,422,323256
Environment$355,168,237312
Health$10,624,290,568662
Humanitarian Assistance$16,441,768,585312
Multi-Sector$4,563,075,652159
Peace and Security$2,387,886,115198
Program Support$1,928,313,471476
Note: Does not include COVID-19 funding or funding provided to the U.S. Government and unknown recipients. Recipients could receive funding in more than one sector and as such, the sum of recipients by sector will be greater than the number of unique, total recipients. Multi-sector funding represents funding that could not be attributed to a single sector.
Appendix Table 5

Top 10 Overall Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid Funding, by Type and Funding, FY 2022

RankingFY 2022
Recipient TypeRecipientAmount of Funding
1MultilateralWorld Bank Group$8,702,988,044
2MultilateralWorld Food Programme (WFP)$5,497,828,038
3MultilateralGlobal Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria$2,197,000,000
4MultilateralOffice of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)$2,056,648,509
5MultilateralU.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF)$1,344,630,781
6MultilateralInternational Development Association (IDA)$1,303,400,000
7MultilateralClean Technology Fund (CTF)$950,790,183
8U.S. Non-ProfitCatholic Relief Services (CRS)$891,035,271
9MultilateralInternational Organisation for Migration (IOM)$663,023,572
10MultilateralGavi, the Vaccine Alliance$580,000,000
Appendix Table 6

Top 10 Sector Recipients of U.S. Foreign Aid Funding, by Type and Funding, FY 2022

SectorRanking

 

FY 2022
Recipient TypeRecipientAmount of Funding
Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance1U.S. Private SectorDevelopment Alternatives, Inc. (DAI)$107,229,953
2U.S. Non-ProfitConsortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening$101,950,873
3MultilateralU.N. Development Programme (UNDP)$66,412,214
4U.S. Private SectorChemonics International, Inc.$62,088,345
5U.S. Non-ProfitFHI 360$58,919,285
6U.S. Non-ProfitPact World$50,618,605
7U.S. Non-ProfitFreedom House$32,852,434
8U.S. Non-ProfitInterNews$29,080,895
9MultilateralInternational Organisation for Migration (IOM)$28,064,018
10U.S. Non-ProfitInternational Research and Exchanges Board$27,189,226
Economic Development1MultilateralWorld Bank Group$8,533,870,596
2U.S. Private SectorDevelopment Alternatives, Inc. (DAI)$278,393,340
3MultilateralCGIAR$215,135,654
4Foreign GovernmentGovernment of Jordan$180,529,371
5U.S. Private SectorChemonics International, Inc.$174,930,258
6MultilateralGlobal Agriculture and Food Security Program$155,000,000
7U.S. Private SectorARD, Inc.$120,965,511
8U.S. Non-ProfitAgriculture Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance$118,223,915
9MultilateralFood and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)$103,095,414
10U.S. Private SectorFutures Group Global$91,754,897
Education and Social Services1MultilateralWorld Bank Group$132,167,989
2MultilateralU.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF)$76,437,316
3U.S. Non-ProfitEducation Development Center$74,150,934
4Foreign GovernmentGovernment of Jordan$64,979,510
5U.S. Non-ProfitRTI International$62,696,240
6U.S. Educational InstitutionAmerican University$59,598,209
7U.S. Non-ProfitFHI 360$36,598,594
8Foreign Educational InstitutionLebanese American University$34,910,124
9U.S. Private SectorCreative Associates International$34,277,591
10U.S. Non-ProfitWorld Learning, Inc.$24,219,147
Environment1MultilateralGlobal Environment Facility$149,288,000
2U.S. Non-ProfitDucks Unlimited$30,489,824
3MultilateralU.N. Development Programme (UNDP)$23,326,545
4MultilateralU.N. Environment Programme (UNEP)$11,869,500
5MultilateralMultilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol$8,326,000
6U.S. Non-ProfitWorld Resources Institute$7,087,283
7Foreign Non-ProfitProfonanpe$6,673,373
8MultilateralPacific Community Secretariat$4,769,000
9MultilateralCommission for Environmental Cooperation$3,550,000
10U.S. Non-ProfitWildlife Conservation Society$3,467,784
Health1MultilateralGlobal Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria$2,197,000,000
2MultilateralGavi, the Vaccine Alliance$580,000,000
3MultilateralInternational Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)$255,000,000
4U.S. Private SectorAbt Associates, Inc.$239,034,392
5U.S. Educational InstitutionColumbia University$189,014,298
6U.S. Non-ProfitJhpiego Corporation$184,778,396
7U.S. Non-ProfitFHI 360$181,204,456
8U.S. Private SectorChemonics International, Inc.$177,191,645
9U.S. Non-ProfitJohn Snow International$160,468,418
10U.S. Non-ProfitElizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation (EGPAF)$157,959,949
Humanitarian Assistance1MultilateralWorld Food Programme (WFP)$5,340,240,907
2MultilateralOffice of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)$2,056,648,509
3MultilateralU.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF)$820,629,094
4U.S. Non-ProfitCatholic Relief Services (CRS)$663,167,801
5MultilateralInternational Organisation for Migration (IOM)$585,014,710
6MultilateralU.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)$363,937,718
7U.S. Non-ProfitWorld Vision$127,520,684
8Foreign Non-ProfitACF International$125,220,543
9U.S. Non-ProfitSave the Children Federation, Inc.$104,943,410
10U.S. Non-ProfitInternational Rescue Committee$103,046,021
Multi-Sector1MultilateralInternational Development Association (IDA)$1,301,400,000
2MultilateralClean Technology Fund (CTF)$950,790,183
3MultilateralEuropean Bank for Reconstruction and Development$500,000,000
4MultilateralU.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF)$309,280,000
5MultilateralWorld Health Organization (WHO)$279,961,538
6MultilateralAfrican Development Bank$265,948,752
7MultilateralInternational Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)$206,900,000
8Foreign GovernmentGovernment of Micronesia (Federated States)$104,488,159
9MultilateralU.N. Development Programme (UNDP)$101,054,831
10Foreign GovernmentGovernment of Marshall Islands$90,185,391
Peace and Security1U.S. Private SectorPacific Architects and Engineers Incorporated$140,432,078
2MultilateralInternational Atomic Energy Agency$117,913,332
3MultilateralU.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations (UNOPS)$106,104,346
4MultilateralU.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)$88,308,392
5Foreign Non-ProfitMines Advisory Group$74,711,132
6MultilateralU.N. Development Programme$66,622,573
7Foreign Non-ProfitHalo Trust$54,827,844
8Foreign Non-ProfitNorwegian People’s Aid$54,200,868
9U.S. Private SectorAAR Corp$42,156,287
10U.S. Private SectorChemonics International, Inc.$41,595,616
Program Support1U.S. Private SectorMacfadden & Associates, Inc.$101,501,494
2U.S. Private SectorAlutiiq, LLC$81,480,174
3U.S. Private SectorConfederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation$75,694,890
4U.S. Private SectorIron Bow Technologies, LLC$74,838,367
5Foreign Private SectorDeloitte$31,637,972
6U.S. Private SectorEnCompass, LLC$30,659,745
7U.S. Private SectorPM Consulting Group$29,580,823
8U.S. Private SectorPacific Architects and Engineers Incorporated$27,585,992
9Foreign Private SectorCGI Group, Inc.$27,360,583
10U.S. Private SectorSincerus Global Solutions, Inc.$20,151,467

Endnotes

  1. Per USAID Standard Provisions, when the MCP provision was included, “a foreign non-governmental organization is a for-profit or not-for-profit non-governmental organization that is not organized under the laws of the United States, any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.” See USAID, “Standard Provisions for U.S. Nongovernmental Organizations: A Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 303,” ADS Reference 303maa, partial revision May 18, 2020; “Standard Provisions for Non-U.S. Nongovernmental Organizations: A Mandatory Reference for ADS Chapter 303,” ADS Reference 303mab, partial revision Aug. 18, 2020. ↩︎
  2. Specifically, funding appropriated to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of State, and the Department of Defense. ↩︎
  3. The policy included language that prohibited USAID from providing family planning assistance to any foreign private, nongovernmental, or multilateral organization until they certified that during the period for which the funding was made available 1) they would not perform abortions as a method of family planning in any foreign country and 2) they would not violate the laws of any foreign country regarding abortion and would not engage in lobbying any foreign country regarding abortion. ↩︎
  4. See FAR Case 2018–002, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/14/2020-17551/federal-acquisition-regulation-protecting-life-in-global-health-assistance. ↩︎
  5. In this analysis, NGOs include some U.S. public universities within the U.S. educational institution category, as well as some foreign public universities within the foreign educational institution category. It is possible that U.S. public universities could be exempted from the MCP if considered part of the U.S. government. ↩︎
  6. The analysis excluded approximately $2.9 billion in FY 2022 foreign aid funding that was identifiable as emergency COVID-19 assistance since it inflates the amount of foreign aid funding that may be subject to MCP in the event of reinstatement. However, it is notable that most of this COVID-19 funding was directed to non-USG recipients who also already received other foreign aid funding, suggesting their numbers are already accounted for in this analysis. Included in the total used for analysis is supplemental funding provided to Afghanistan and the Ukraine. ↩︎
  7. Number of countries represents countries that received funding directly from the U.S. government; additional countries may be reached through regional and worldwide programming. ↩︎
  8. U.S. NGOs have not been directly subject to the Mexico City Policy but, when in place in the past, must also agree to ensure that they do not provide funding to any foreign NGO sub-recipients unless those sub-recipients have first certified adherence to the policy. See KFF, The Mexico City Policy: An Explainer. ↩︎
  9. Includes number of foreign governments, multilaterals, and U.S. NGOs that received foreign assistance as well as the number of foreign NGOs that received non-health assistance only. ↩︎