Oral Contraceptive Pills: Access and Availability

Published: Mar 10, 2026

Editorial Note: Originally published on March 20, 2024, this brief was updated on March 10, 2026 to incorporate new data and the latest policy developments on contraceptive coverage.

Introduction

For over 60 years, American women have relied on oral contraceptive pills to prevent pregnancy. Oral contraceptives are the most widely used form of reversible contraception and are also commonly used to manage other health conditions. In the U.S., daily oral contraceptive pills have traditionally only been available with a prescription. In July 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first over-the-counter daily oral contraceptive pill, eliminating the requirement for a prescription from a clinician. This progestin-only pill is now available for purchase in stores and online at most major retailers. This brief provides an overview of oral contraception, discusses private insurance and Medicaid coverage, and reviews strategies to promote and expand women’s access to oral contraceptives. 

Background

In 1960, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the sale of Enovid for use as the first oral contraceptive. Controversial from its earliest days, in 1965, the Supreme Court ruling in Griswold v Connecticut upheld married women’s rights to contraception, followed in 1972 by the Supreme Court’s decision in Eisenstadt v Baird which extended the right to single, unmarried individuals.

Oral contraceptive pills (OCP) consist of the hormones progestin and estrogen, or only progestin, and must be taken orally once per day in order to prevent pregnancy. Currently, there are three different types available on the market: the combination pill, the progestin-only pill, and the continuous use pill. The three formulations vary in their chemical hormonal composition as well as regimen for use (Table 1). Different brands further add to the diversity of OCP available by altering the type and/or dose of hormones. Emergency contraceptive pills are also a type of OCP, consisting of the progestin levonorgestrel, but are not intended for daily use. Rather, they are used to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex.

Both the combined and progestin-only pills are highly effective with perfect use, with a failure rate (rate at which women become pregnant while using the contraceptive) of less than 1%. However, the failure rate with “typical use” is 9%, which accounts for inconsistent or incorrect use.

Types, Composition and Regimen for Daily Oral Contraceptive Pills (Table)

Use

The pill was the first FDA-approved contraceptive to be used in the U.S. and is still the most commonly used form of reversible contraception. According to KFF analysis of the 2022-2023 National Survey of Family Growth, the most recent years for which data are available, about one-quarter (23%) of women ages 15-44 who currently use contraception reported using the pill as their method of choice, a decline from 31% in 2002 (Figure 1). At the same time, there has been an increase in the use of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants, which have been promoted by several medical groups in recent years.

Women's Contraceptive Choices and Options Changed in the Past Two Decades (Grouped column chart)

Among women ages 15-44 who use any form of contraception, OCP use is higher among younger women and decreases with age. A larger share of White women (27%) use OCP than Hispanic (19%) or Black (14%) women. OCP use increases with higher educational attainment (Figure 2).

Contraceptive Pill Use Varies by Demographic Characteristics (Bar Chart)

OCPs are primarily used for pregnancy prevention, but they can also be used to address other health conditions, particularly menstrual-related disorders such as menstrual pain, irregular menstruation, fibroids, endometriosis-related pain, and menstrual-related migraines. Use of combined pills for acne has been formally approved by the FDA for specific brands. While most (82%) women who use OCP take them primarily to prevent pregnancy, 18% use them solely for non-contraceptive reasons such as to manage a medical condition (unpublished analysis from the 2022 KFF Women’s Health Survey).

Oral contraceptives are safe for most women. Possible side effects include headache, nausea, breast tenderness, and breakthrough bleeding. The combined hormonal pills may be associated with a small increased risk of deep vein thrombosis, heart attack and stroke for some women.

Insurance Coverage and Financing of Oral Contraceptives

OCPs have not always been covered by insurance plans in the same way as other prescriptions drugs. This became the focus of legislative action in the early 1990’s, first at the state and then the federal level.State legislatures began passing “contraceptive equity” laws which typically required that plans offering prescription drug coverage also cover contraceptives on the same terms as other prescriptions. Some state laws went further to require that plans cover all FDA-approved contraceptives. However, these state laws only applied to plans that were regulated by the state and did not include self-funded employer-sponsored plans, which are federally regulated through ERISA and cover most workers with employer-sponsored insurance. Minimum coverage standards for employer-sponsored plans were established in 2000, when a federal ruling from the Employment Equal Opportunity Commission found it unlawful under the Civil Rights Act for plans to deny coverage for contraceptives if they covered other preventive prescription drugs and services. By 2010, 28 states required insurers that cover prescription drugs to provide coverage for the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives.

Private Insurance and the ACA

In 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) took state laws further by requiring most private plans (including self-funded, small and large group, and individual plans) to cover a wide range of recommended preventive services, without patient cost-sharing. In 2011, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), following recommendations issued by the Institute of Medicine, added that all FDA-approved, prescribed contraceptive methods and patient counseling for women with reproductive capacity be covered, without cost sharing, as a preventive service. Plans that were in effect on or before March 23, 2010, known as “grandfathered plans,” are not required to cover preventive services, or they may require cost sharing. Additionally, plans offered by an employer with a religious objection to contraception may exclude this coverage from their plan.

Under the ACA, most private health insurance plans must cover at least one form of each of the 18 FDA-approved contraceptive methods for women without cost sharing. This means that plans must cover at least one of each of the three different types of oral contraceptives – the combined pill, the progestin-only pill and the continuous use pill – though it is up to an insurer’s discretion using reasonable medical management practices whether to cover a brand name or generic contraceptive if both are available. Insurers are required to cover other contraceptives if medically necessary and must provide a process for policyholders to request coverage of a contraceptive that is not already covered without cost sharing by the plan. While some contraceptive methods are available over the counter without a prescription, plans typically require a prescription to trigger coverage.

Additionally, 31 states and D.C. require state regulated plans to cover prescription contraception, and 19 of those states and D.C. passed laws that build on the federal requirement prohibiting cost-sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods for women (Figure 3). Some of these states have gone beyond the ACA requirements, mandating coverage of vasectomies and/or over-the-counter contraceptives.

19 States and DC Require State Regulated Plans to Cover Contraception Without Cost-Sharing (Choropleth map)

Today, fewer women are paying out of pocket for contraceptives as a result of the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement. According to a 2019 KFF analysis of the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database, among women with health insurance from a large employer who use OCP, the share experiencing out-of-pocket spending on OCP declined from 96% in 2010 to 11% in 2017.

Controversial since its inception, the provision has sparked litigation and new regulations in response to lawsuits that have reached the Supreme Court. Although the Obama administration allowed certain religious employers with an objection to contraception to request an exemption from the requirement, in 2020, the Supreme Court upheld two Trump administration rules that expanded eligibility to almost all employers that have a religious or moral objection. Female employees, dependents, and students of these exempt employers are not entitled to coverage for the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives.  

Public Programs

Federal law has long required state Medicaid programs to cover family planning services and supplies without cost sharing and provides states with an enhanced federal match for providing these services. States that expanded Medicaid under the ACA must follow the ACA requirements for private plans and are required to cover at least one form of all 18 FDA-approved contraceptive methods for women. There is no similar requirement for traditional full-scope Medicaid or through a Medicaid family planning expansion program, and there is variation between states on the specific services that are covered. 

Since the passage of the ACA, some states have also strengthened their contraceptive coverage requirements for Medicaid (Figure 3). For example, California passed the Contraceptive Coverage Equity Act of 2014 which extends the ACA’s coverage policy beyond private plan beneficiaries to all Medicaid managed care enrollees, regardless of whether they qualify as a result of the ACA expansion or through traditional pathways. California expanded this coverage in 2022 to cover OTC contraceptive drugs and products without a clinician’s prescription and extends this coverage to fee-for-service Medicaid beneficiaries. Thirteen (13) other states and D.C. have since enacted similar contraceptive equity laws that apply to both private insurance plans and Medicaid.

Medicare, the federal program for seniors 65 and older as well as younger adults with permanent disabilities, does not require coverage for oral contraceptives. According to KFF analysis of the 2021 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, over 1 million women under age 50 were enrolled in Medicare. Medicare beneficiaries that have enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans or who have opted into the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit may have coverage for oral contraceptives, but the scope of coverage varies between plans. Nearly 8 in 10 women of reproductive age in Medicare are dually eligible for Medicaid coverage. Coverage for oral contraceptives is also required in the Indian Health Service, the federal program that provides care on or near Indian reservations as well as in the Tricare program for active military personnel and their dependents.

Expanding Access to Contraception

The 2022 KFF Women’s Health Survey found that one-third (33%) of female hormonal contraceptive users have missed taking their birth control because they were not able to get their next supply on time. Furthermore, it is estimated that more than 19 million women of reproductive age in need of publicly-funded contraception live in an area considered to be a contraceptive desert, meaning there is limited access to a publicly-funded provider who offers contraception. Research also points to the impacts of state and federal policies on the shrinking number of family planning providers that offer the full scope of contraceptive methods in some communities.

In recent years, there has been public discussion and state and federal policy action to reduce contraceptive access barriers by expanding the availability of daily oral contraceptive pills through different mechanisms. Approaches that have been adopted include making OCP available over the counter without a prescription; expanding the ability of pharmacists to dispense or prescribe OCP; extending the supply of contraception that is dispensed at one time; and using mail-based online services or smartphone applications.  

Over the Counter (OTC) Access

In July 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the progestin-only Opill for OTC use, making it the first OTC daily oral contraceptive pill. Opill is available for over-the-counter purchase without age restriction in stores and online. The suggested retail price of Opill is $19.99 for one month’s supply or $49.99 for three month’s supply. Although it is farther behind in the process, another pharmaceutical company, Cadence, is working toward FDA approval of an OTC version of its combined (progestin and estrogen) oral contraceptive pill, Zena.

Research suggests that OTC access would increase the use of contraception and facilitate continuity of use. It could also allow women to save time spent on travel, at doctor’s office, and off work. Other research suggest that OTC oral contraceptives can especially benefit populations who have historically faced barriers to accessing contraceptive care, such as young adults and adolescents, those who are uninsured, and those living in contraceptive deserts or areas with limited access to health centers offering the full range of contraceptive methods. However, just a quarter (26%) of women 18 to 49 saying they have heard of the new daily oral contraceptive pill, and smaller shares of women who are uninsured (17%) and who live in rural areas (21%) have heard of Opill compared to those with private insurance (29%) and those living in urban or suburban areas (27%) (Figure 4).

A Quarter of Women Have Heard of Opill, the First Daily Contraceptive Pill Available Over-the-Counter (Bar Chart)

The ACA currently requires no-cost coverage for contraceptives in most private plans and for Medicaid expansion populations but plans typically require a prescription in order to trigger coverage, even for contraceptive methods that are available OTC without a prescription. Requiring plans to cover non-prescribed contraceptives would require legislation at the federal or state level, or administrative changes to the ACA’s preventive services policy. Nine states (CA, CO, DE, MD, ME, NJ, NM, NY, and WA) have laws or regulations requiring state-regulated private health insurance plans (individual, small group, and large group markets) to cover, without cost sharing, OTC contraception without a prescription. While New York’s law applies to emergency contraception only, the other state laws apply to non-prescribed contraceptive drugs broadly(Figure 5).

Eight states (CA, IL, MD, MI, NC, NJ, NY, and WA) use state-only funds to cover at least some OTC contraception without a prescription for Medicaid enrollees. However, these states, with the exception of California, cover non-prescribed emergency contraception and/or condoms only, so a change in law or policy would be needed to cover a daily oral contraceptive pill without a prescription. States wishing to cover OTC contraception without a prescription for enrollees must use state-only funds as federal funds are only available for prescribed drugs. (See KFF State Health Facts for more details on each state’s  private insurance law and Medicaid coverage, including contraceptive methods covered.)

Eleven States Require Private Health Plans and/or Medicaid to Cover at Least Some OTC Contraception Without a Prescription (Choropleth map)

For more information on how states have implemented insurance of OTC contraceptives, see KFF’s report Insurance Coverage of OTC Oral Contraceptives: Lessons from the Field and issue brief Over-the-Counter Oral Contraceptive Pills.

Pharmacist Prescribing

Another avenue that is gaining support in some states allows pharmacists to prescribe or dispense OCP without requiring an in-person medical visit to a physician. As of February 2026, 36 states and D.C. passed legislation to allow pharmacists to prescribe certain self-administered contraceptives to women (Figure 6). All of these states allow pharmacists to prescribe at least oral contraceptives, but states vary in other details, such as the type of prescriptive authority (e.g., collaborative practice agreements, statewide protocols, and standing orders), minimum age requirements, the type of contraceptive that pharmacists can prescribe, the length of the supply, and whether the patient needs a prior prescription from a physician.

36 States and D.C. Have Passed Laws Permitting Pharmacists to Prescribe Oral Contraceptive Pills (Choropleth map)

Although expanded scope of pharmacist practice can remove some barriers to obtaining contraceptives, challenges still remain for women seeking a prescription for contraception from a pharmacist. For example, pharmacies typically charge consultation fees, which some reports suggest can be as high as $50 in certain areas. Although insurers are generally required to cover contraceptives without cost sharing, they are not obligated to cover this fee. Also, pharmacies can choose not to participate or may not have any pharmacists trained to provide this service.

From the pharmacy perspective, pharmacists must elect to complete additional education requirements, which vary by state, and often include several hours of continuing education from an accredited training program. Additionally, states may not have a reimbursement mechanism in place to pay pharmacists for providing this service. For example, while Oregon and Hawaii require plans to reimburse the dispensing entities, California’s law does not require reimbursement for payers other than Medicaid. Lack of or low reimbursement for pharmacist prescribing can result in fewer pharmacies choosing to provide this service.

12-Month Supply

Another approach to facilitate access to oral contraceptives involves increasing the dispensing period of contraceptives to 12 months per prescription. Currently, dispensing patterns vary by insurer, with many plans limiting supply of pills to 1-3 packs at a time. The 2022 KFF Women’s Health Survey found that among females who reported using birth control pills in the past year, 32% receive 1-2 packs at a time, 63% receive 3-5 packs, and just 3% receive a 12-month supply. Providing women with an extended supply of pill packs may lead to more consistent contraceptive use. Women who receive a one-year supply have been found to be 30% less likely to have an unintended pregnancy compared to women receiving a 1–3-month supply.

In 2015, Oregon became the first state to pass a law requiring state-regulated plans to cover a three-month supply of contraceptives when first prescribed, followed by a 12-month supply of contraceptives. Laws requiring coverage for 12 months of oral contraceptives have since been enacted in 29 additional states and DC (Figure 6). Idaho, Louisiana, and New Mexico require coverage for a 6-month supply. While most of these states have also enacted policies that require no-cost contraceptive coverage similar to the ACA’s contraceptive coverage provision, eight states (HI, ID, LA, MI, MT, OK, TX, and WV) with extended supply laws have not done so. This means that although insurers must cover a 12-month supply in these states, state law does not prohibit cost sharing; however, most plans must abide by the federal requirement and not charge any cost sharing for prescribed, FDA-approved contraceptive methods.

More Than Half of States and D.C. Require Plans to Cover an Extended Supply of Oral Contraceptive Pills (Choropleth map)

Telecontraception

In recent years, a growing number of companies providing contraception through online platforms (“telecontraception”) have entered the market and are providing a new option for people to obtain contraceptive supplies without the need for an in-person visit. A growing number of online services and smartphone applications offer options for patients to speak with providers by video or chat, get prescriptions, and order birth control pills through mail delivery. These services work by collaborating with physicians, pharmacies, and sometimes health insurers to prescribe and ship OCP to the patient’s home or a local pharmacy.

Costs for these services vary between companies. Most charge a fee for the service, which is typically not covered by insurance and can range from a $15 fee per consultation/prescription to a $99 yearly membership that covers the medical evaluation and customer support for the duration of the prescription.

A KFF study on telecontraception companies found considerable variation in method availability and acceptance of insurance. Many telecontraception companies accept private insurance and/or Medicaid, to pay for the cost of the pills, while others do not. The price of contraception offered by these platforms vary by method and by brand; generic pills typically range in price from $5 to $25 per pack without insurance.

Most companies ship OCPs free of charge to the patient’s home, while some require pick up from a local pharmacy. Prescriptions are often valid for 12 months and patients are sent either a one- or three-month supply of pills. Video/audio consultations are required by certain services before receiving the prescription. Services that do not require a consultation do require patients to complete a health assessment or questionnaire to determine eligibility and the appropriate pill. People in every U.S. state have access to at least one of these services, but the minimum age to use the service varies by company and state law, although many require the person to be at least 18 years old.

Oral contraceptives are the most commonly used form of reversible contraception in the U.S. Most women with private insurance or Medicaid can receive no-cost coverage for OCPs. The FDA recently approved Opill, the first ever daily OCP available over the counter, though insurance coverage of the product will largely depend on state efforts in the absence of federal guidance.Several states have enacted policies to broaden OCP access, particularly through pharmacist prescribing and insurance coverage for extended supplies and non-prescribed OTC contraceptives. The use of telemedicine to expand OCP access continues to evolve, with many women now able to obtain OCP using smartphone and web-based services.

Over-the-Counter Oral Contraceptive Pills

Published: Mar 10, 2026

Editorial Note: Originally published on September 27, 2024, this brief was updated on March 10, 2026 to incorporate new federal policy developments on contraceptive coverage.

Overview

Oral contraceptives are the most commonly used method of reversible contraception in the U.S. Oral contraceptive pills were first approved for prescription use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1960. Over 70 years later, on July 13, 2023, the FDA approved Opill, the first daily oral contraceptive pill to become available over-the-counter (OTC) without a doctor’s prescription. It has been available online and in stores since March 2024 to people of all ages. The formulation in Opill was initially approved for prescription use by the FDA in 1973 (by a different manufacturer and with a different brand name). This issue brief provides an overview of OTC oral contraceptives and laws and policies related to insurance coverage. 

Safety, Efficacy, and Convenience

Oral contraceptive pills are highly effective at preventing pregnancy with “perfect use”, with a failure rate of less than 1%. However, the failure rate with “typical use,” which accounts for inconsistent or incorrect use, is 9%. Oral contraceptive pills must be taken once per day and are primarily used for pregnancy prevention, but they can also be used to address other health conditions such as menstrual pain, irregular menstruation, fibroids, endometriosis-related pain, menstrual-related migraines, and acne management. Oral contraceptives, especially progestin-only pills, are safe for most women.

Oral contraceptive pills, especially progestin-only pills, are safe for most people to use and have a very low risk of serious side effects or contraindications. Possible side effects from the pill include headache, nausea, breast tenderness, and breakthrough bleeding. Research has found that people, including those under the age of 18, are able to understand label instructions and contraindications for OTC contraception without clinician involvement.

Although it is not as far along in the FDA approval process, another pharmaceutical company, Cadence, is working toward FDA approval of an OTC version of its combined (progestin and estrogen) oral contraceptive pill, Zena. Combined oral contraceptive pills have more contraindications and small, but higher, risks of serious side effects than progestin-only pills like Opill. They are believed to be slightly more effective at preventing pregnancy than progestin-only pills and while they also must be taken every day, there is more flexibility on the precise timing.

Over-the-counter (OTC) status is an FDA designation meaning that a drug or product is available without a prescription from a health care provider. The ability to access oral contraceptives without a prescription from a clinician can save time spent on travel, at a doctor’s office, and off work. Studies suggest that OTC access to oral contraceptives could increase the use of contraception, facilitate continuity of use, and reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy.

Previous KFF research found that more than one-third (36%) of reproductive-age female respondents who use oral contraception have missed taking it on time because they were not able to get their next supply (Figure 1). The added convenience and time saved by obtaining oral contraception OTC instead of having to visit a doctor could reduce the share of women who miss taking their contraception on time.

More Than One-Third of Oral Contraceptive Users Have Missed Taking Their Birth Control Because They Weren’t Able to Get Their Next Supply

Consumer Awareness and Use

The nationally representative 2024 KFF Women’s Health Survey found that awareness of Opill is generally low, with just a quarter (26%) of women 18 to 49 saying they have heard of the new daily oral contraceptive pill (Figure 2). Compared to women ages 36 to 49 (24%), significantly larger shares of women ages 26 to 35 say they have heard of Opill. Smaller shares of Black (21%) and Hispanic (23%) women say they have heard of the new oral contraceptive compared to White women (29%).

Research suggest that OTC oral contraceptives can especially benefit populations who have historically faced barriers to accessing contraceptive care, such as young adults and adolescents, those who are uninsured, and those living in contraceptive deserts or areas with limited access to health centers offering the full range of contraceptive methods. However, smaller shares of women who are uninsured (17%) and who live in rural areas (21%) have heard of Opill compared to those with private insurance (29%) and those living in urban or suburban areas (27%).

A Quarter of Women Have Heard of Opill, the First Daily Contraceptive Pill Available Over-the-Counter

Among women 18 to 49 who have ever heard of Opill, just 4% say they have ever purchased the over-the-counter contraceptive pill for themselves or for someone else (Figure 3). An even smaller share (3%) say they have used or taken Opill since the contraceptive became available in stores and online earlier in 2024.

Small Shares of Reproductive Age Women Report Purchasing and/or Taking Opill Within the First Three Months of It Becoming Available In-Store or Online

A separate cross-sectional study from 2025 found that individuals who used an OTC oral contraceptive were more likely to be uninsured and reside in rural areas. The authors noted that many OTC oral contraceptive users previously used a less effective method or no method at all, suggesting that OTC availability could improve access to more effective birth control.

Other OTC Contraception

Levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive (EC) pills, known as “the morning after pill” and marketed as Plan B One-Step and other brands, are a form of backup birth control intended to be taken several days after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure. Levonorgestrel EC pills were the first hormonal contraception to have switched from prescription to OTC status, in 2006. Unlike daily oral contraceptives, emergency contraception is not intended for daily use and is FDA approved for use by women within 72 hours (3 days) after unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure to prevent pregnancy.

Other contraceptive products that are available over the counter without a prescription include male and female condoms, spermicides, and contraceptive sponges. These contraceptive methods are less effective than oral contraception at preventing pregnancy. FDA’s approval of Opill makes it the most effective form of contraception available over the counter intended for regular use.

Federal Laws on OTC Contraceptive Coverage

Private Insurance

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most private health plans (group and individual) to cover, without cost sharing, the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods, which includes oral contraceptive pills. The ACA tasks the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) with coverage requirements for a range of preventive services for women, which now includes contraception, that must be covered by insurance. Right after the ACA was passed, HRSA tasked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to identify gaps in preventive recommendations. This committee identified contraceptive services and supplies as one of the eight gaps in preventive health services to promote women’s health. The IOM recommended that all FDA-approved contraceptives be included as preventive services, and the HRSA coverage requirement for contraception included that they be covered “as prescribed,” which was reflected in the original guidance issued by the Obama administration in 2013.

Currently, HRSA has commissioned the Women’s Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) as the expert body it relies on to update and expand preventive services coverage recommendations, which WPSI last updated in 2021. The current coverage requirement posted by HRSA no longer includes a prescription requirement for coverage of contraception, but the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury (federal tri-agency) guidance has not been revised to drop the “as prescribed” requirement.

The prescription requirement is currently only mentioned in federal FAQs clarifying ACA coverage requirements, with the most recent one issued by the Biden administration in July 2022. The FAQ references coverage of emergency contraception and states that plans must cover OTC contraceptives when the product is prescribed. It also states that plans are “encouraged to cover OTC emergency contraceptives with no cost sharing when they are purchased without a prescription.”  In October 2024, the Biden administration proposed a new rule that would have broadened the ACA’s coverage requirements and, if finalized, would have required private insurers and states with ACA Medicaid expansion to cover OTC contraceptives without a prescription. However, the proposed regulation was withdrawn in January 2025, before the change in administration.

OTC medications and products do not require a prescription for purchase, but most people wishing to avoid cost-sharing for them need to obtain one. The prescription requirement re-introduces some of the same barriers that were intended to be reduced with OTC status such as eliminating the need to make and wait for a doctor appointment or find a pharmacy whose pharmacists are licensed and available to prescribe contraception (where permitted by state law).

Medicaid

Medicaid is the public health insurance program that covers approximately 20% of low-income children, adults, seniors, and people with disabilities. Medicaid is jointly financed by the federal government and the states. Federal statute sets broad minimum standards in exchange for federal matching funds and states have flexibility in determining other aspects of their Medicaid programs such as covered services and provider payment models.

Coverage for contraceptives is a key element in Medicaid coverage of family planning services. All states cover prescription drugs, even though it is technically an “optional” benefit category under federal law. Federal rules require state Medicaid programs that cover prescription drugs (including OTC drugs with a prescription) to cover all prescription drugs from manufacturers that have entered into a federal rebate agreement with the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, though states may determine whether and how to employ utilization management controls. In order to obtain federal matching funds, a prescription is required for over-the-counter drugs and products.

Federal law also requires state Medicaid programs to cover family planning services and supplies without cost-sharing to enrollees. The federal Medicaid law does not define what services must be included and also does not explicitly cite OTC contraceptives as part of the coverage requirement, but most state Medicaid programs cover a range of contraceptive methods, and some cover OTC methods. The ACA requires states to cover at least one form of all 18 FDA-approved contraceptive methods for enrollees who qualify through the ACA’s Medicaid expansion. In general, these services are defined and determined by the states within broad federal guidelines.

With few exceptions (such as prenatal vitamins, fluoride preparations for pregnant people, and tobacco cessation products), federal law does not require states to cover OTC drugs and products in their Medicaid programs. However, state Medicaid programs can opt to cover them by submitting a state plan amendment (SPA) to CMS, the federal agency that administers Medicaid in partnership with state Medicaid agencies. For example, CMS approved SPAs  Delaware, Montana, and Florida requesting to cover select OTC drugs generally. After obtaining approval from CMS to cover OTC products generally, states can choose which OTC products their program will cover. However, even when a drug is available to purchase without a prescription, enrollees usually need a prescription to obtain coverage under Medicaid and states cannot obtain federal matching dollars unless it is prescribed. If states wish to include coverage for OTC products without a prescription, state Medicaid programs may opt to use state-only funds.

State Laws on OTC Contraceptive Coverage

State-regulated private health insurance

To reduce access barriers to OTC contraception while also avoiding cost sharing, nine states (CA, CO, DE, MD, ME, NJ, NM, NY, and WA) have laws or regulations requiring state-regulated private health insurance plans (individual, small group, and large group markets) to cover, without cost sharing, at least some methods of OTC contraception without a prescription (Figure 4). With the exception of New York, which applies only to emergency contraception, the language of these laws is broad enough to encompass an OTC daily oral contraceptive such as Opill without a change in policy. (See KFF State Health Facts for more details on each state’s law, including contraceptive methods covered.)

Illinois and Oregon require private health plans to cover OTC contraception; however, while the laws do not state that a prescription is required in order for it to be covered by insurance, the laws also do not explicitly stipulate that plans must cover them without a prescription. Massachusetts requires private plans to cover OTC emergency contraception with a prescription or pursuant to a standing order or protocol. A standing order allows a physician of a state health department or other state agency to authorize pharmacists to prescribe drugs or provide care under certain conditions set forth in the order.

While federal law applies to all plans, state law applies to only individual plans and fully-insured group plans. Therefore, many people who live in states that require coverage of OTC contraception without a prescription may not have this coverage if they are enrolled in a self-funded employer-sponsored health plan (67% of covered workers nationally).

Coverage of Over-the-Counter Contraception Without a Prescription, State Policies as of February 2026 (Choropleth map)

Medicaid

To increase access to contraception, eight states (CA, IL, MD, MI, NC, NJ, NY, and WA) have opted to use state-only funds to cover at least some methods of OTC contraception for their Medicaid enrollees (primarily emergency contraception) without a prescription (Figure 4). With the exception of California and North Carolina, the language of these state-level policies does not appear broad enough to encompass an OTC daily oral contraceptive pill such as Opill without a change in policy (See KFF State Health Facts for more details on each state’s policy, including contraceptive methods covered.)

Challenges to the Broad Adoption of OTC Oral Contraception

There are some limitations to the potential reach of an over-the-counter progestin-only pill (POPs). While both progestin-only pills and combined pills (COCs) are safe and effective at preventing pregnancy, POPs are believed to be slightly less effective than COCs. It is recommended that users of POPs take the pill at the same time every day, which could be a barrier for people who are not able or would forget to do this. However, there is limited evidence that adhering to this precise timeframe actually reduces the efficacy of POPs. Clinical guidelines state that users have a three-hour window to take the POPs before back-up contraception is needed, though there have been recent efforts to reevaluate these guidelines as some evidence suggests there is a larger margin of error for some POPs and people have more flexibility in when they can take their pills without affecting effectiveness.

Opill’s reach may be limited because few women who use oral contraceptive pills use POPs and instead opt to use COCs. Currently,  breastfeeding women are the primary users of POPs  because these pills are safe for this population, and they are not advised to use COCs during this time. Whether users of COCs will opt to switch to Opill for reasons such as convenience or cost is not yet known.

Additionally, retailers can choose whether and how to stock Opill. Retailers who choose to sell it will also decide which supply option (one, three, or six-month packs) to stock. As is the case with emergency contraception at many retailers who stock it, Opill could be kept in a locked case on the shelf or behind the pharmacy counter to reduce the chance of theft, which could create access barriers.

The extent to which over-the-counter oral contraception is accessible will depend, in large part, on affordability and coverage. The suggested retail price for Opill is $19.99 for one month’s supply,  $49.99 for three month’s supply, or $89.99 for a six month’s supply. KFF’s 2022 Women’s Health Survey found that 11% of women would not be willing or able to pay anything for an OTC oral contraceptive, and 39% would pay $1-$10 per month. Only 16% said they would pay more than $20 a month. Other research that asked specifically about a progestin-only pill found that adult women would be willing to pay $15 per month and teens ages 15-17 would pay $10.

Insurance coverage of OTC oral contraception without a prescription would eliminate out-of-pocket costs, but for those who prefer not to use their insurance or those who do not have insurance, the price point will matter. Furthermore, while some states require private plans and Medicaid to cover non-prescribed OTC contraception, not everyone in those states is entitled to this coverage. Absent federal guidance, guaranteed coverage of OTC oral contraception without a prescription will continue to depend on where people live and their type of health plan.

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

Published: Mar 9, 2026

Tracker

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

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

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

 

Waivers with Eligibility Changes

(back to top)

Waivers with Benefit Changes

(back to top)

Waivers with SDOH & Other DSR Changes

(back to top)

All Approved Waivers by Topic

(back to top)

Approved Section 1115 Medicaid Waivers (Table)

All Pending Waivers by Topic

(back to top)

Pending Section 1115 Medicaid Waivers (Table)

Work Requirements

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

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

State Plan Amendments

Some states may choose to implement work requirements prior to the January 1, 2027 deadline through a state plan amendment. Nebraska is the first state to have announced that it will begin enforcing federal work requirements early through a state plan amendment, starting May 1, 2026.

1115 Waivers

States may also choose to implement work requirements early through an 1115 waiver. Since the start of the second Trump administration, several states have submitted waivers to implement work requirements, although some states may no longer be moving forward with proposed 1115 waivers due to the passage of federal work requirements or because they plan to implement early through a state plan amendment. While states are required to fully align with federal work requirements starting January 1, 2027, it is not clear how CMS will treat pending 1115 waivers that seek to implement early and deviate from federal requirements (specified in the law) prior to this deadline.

Currently, Georgia is the only state with a Medicaid work requirement waiver in place following litigation over the Biden administration’s attempt to stop it. CMS recently approved a temporary extension for Georgia’s waiver that added new exemptions from work requirements (see the table below for more details). Georgia’s waiver is now set to expire December 31, 2026, and the state will be required to come fully into compliance with new federal requirements starting January 1, 2027.

Early Implementation and Waiver Status

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

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

States with Work Requirement Waiver Activity (Table)

Key Themes Maps

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

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

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

Social Determinants of Health

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

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

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

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

Medicaid Pre-release Coverage for Individuals Who Are Incarcerated

In April 2023, the Biden administration released guidance encouraging states to apply for a new Section 1115 demonstration opportunity to test transition-related strategies to support community reentry for people who are incarcerated. This demonstration allows states a partial waiver of the inmate exclusion policy, which prohibits Medicaid from paying for services provided during incarceration (except for inpatient services). Reentry services aim to improve care transitions and increase continuity of health coverage, reduce disruptions in care, improve health outcomes, and reduce recidivism rates. The Biden administration approved 19 state waivers to facilitate reentry for individuals who are incarcerated. The map below identifies states with approved and pending waivers to provide pre-release services to Medicaid-eligible individuals who are incarcerated.  Medicaid pre-release waivers have been pursued by both Republican and Democratic governors. For more information, refer to KFF’s Medicaid Waiver Tracker (“Eligibility Changes” table) and related pre-release waiver watch (August 2024).

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

Multi-year Continuous Eligibility for Children

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

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

Section 1115 Waivers: Multi-year Continuous Eligibility for Children (Choropleth map)

Definitions

Section 1115 Waiver Tracker: Key Definitions and Notes (Table)

Related Resources

Recent Developments

General/Overview Resource

Eligibility and Enrollment Expansions

Eligibility and Enrollment Restrictions

Work Requirements:

Other:

Benefit Expansions

Benefit Restrictions, Copays, and Healthy Behaviors

Social Determinants of Health

Delivery System Reform

Racial Disparities in Life Expectancy

Published: Mar 6, 2026

Summary

Following the record declines in life expectancy amid the COVID-19 pandemic, life expectancy in the U.S. has rebounded but remains lower than that of comparable countries. Chronic diseases, homicide, and substance use disorders contribute to the U.S.’ lower life expectancy. While life expectancy is improving in the U.S., with 2024 estimates showing a return to pre-pandemic rates, racial and ethnic disparities persist.

This analysis examines trends in life expectancy between 2021 and 2023 by race and ethnicity as well as the drivers of life expectancy and leading causes of death by race and ethnicity. It is based on KFF analysis of National Center for Health Statistics data. While overall life expectancy data are available through 2024, the latest available data by race and ethnicity are as of 2023. Key takeaways include:

  • There was an increase in life expectancy between 2021 and 2023 across all racial and ethnic groups. American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) people experienced the largest increase in life expectancy of 4.5 years during this time, followed by Hispanic (3.5 years) and Black people (2.8 years).
  • Despite these increases, life expectancy was lowest for AIAN people at 70.1 years, followed by Black people, whose expectancy was 74 years as of 2023. In comparison, life expectancy was 78.4 years for White people and 81.3 years for Hispanic people. Life expectancy was highest for Asian people at 85.2 years. Data were not available for Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (NHPI) people.
  • The increases in life expectancy were largely driven by the decline in COVID-19 deaths, which disproportionately impacted groups of color during the pandemic. Although falling COVID-19 mortality was the primary contributor to the recent increase in life expectancy across groups, other contributors varied by race and ethnicity.

Multiple factors contribute to racial and ethnic differences in life expectancy, including differences in health insurance and access to care and social and economic factors that influence health. Some life expectancy patterns are not fully understood. Notably, Hispanic people have longer life expectancy than their White counterparts despite facing inequities typically associated with poorer health outcomes, which researchers have hypothesized may stem from better outcomes for some subgroups, particularly recent immigrants to the U.S. Measures of life expectancy for Asian people may mask underlying differences among subgroups of the population who vary across health access and social and economic factors.

Life expectancy at birth represents the average number of years a group of infants would live if they were to experience throughout life the age-specific death rates prevailing during a specified period. Life expectancy is one of the most used measures of population health, enabling comparisons in health status between countries, states, local communities, and demographic groups. Differences in life expectancy occur across a broad range of dimensions which often intersect with each other, including race, socioeconomic status, gender, geography, and other characteristics. For example, in the U.S. and all other comparable countries, men tend to have shorter life expectancy at birth than women. In 2024, life expectancy for women in the U.S. was 4.9 years higher than for men (81.4 years vs. 76.5 year, respectively), and similar gender disparities persisted within racial and ethnic groups. This analysis focuses on differences in life expectancy by race and ethnicity overall, but within racial and ethnic groups there is variation by these other factors.

Prior to COVID-19, life expectancy generally increased, with a peak in 2014 followed by small declines, with racial disparities persisting throughout. While gains in life expectancy were experienced across racial and ethnic groups, Black people have consistently had a lower life expectancy than White people, and Hispanic people have had a longer life expectancy. When life expectancy reached its peak in 2014, life expectancy for Black people was more than three years shorter than White people (75.3 vs. 78.8 years), and Hispanic people had a longer life expectancy at 82.1 years. Separate data were not reported for Asian, AIAN and NHPI people for this period. In 2018 and 2019, life expectancy remained relatively stable overall and across groups (Appendix Table 1).

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic life expectancy declined by 2.7 years and racial and ethnic disparities widened between the years 2019 and 2021 (Figure 1). Between 2019 and 2021, AIAN people experienced a decline of 6.6 years in life expectancy, the largest across racial and ethnic groups during that period, followed by Hispanic people at 4.2 years and Black people at 4.0 years. Declines were smaller for White (2.4 years) and Asian people (2.1 years). These declines widened gaps in life expectancy for AIAN and Black people compared to White people and reduced the advantage in life expectancy experienced by Hispanic people relative to White people.

Life Expectancy at Birth Increased Across All Race and Ethnicity Groups In Recent Years, Erasing the Declines Experienced During the COVID-19 Pandemic (Line chart)

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, life expectancy increased and racial disparities narrowed. Between 2021 and 2023 there was an increase of 2.3 years in life expectancy, largely erasing the decline experienced during the pandemic. Gains in life expectancy were larger for most racial and ethnic groups between 2021 and 2022 compared to 2022 and 2023, reflecting the large drop in COVID-19 deaths in these years. Between 2021 and 2022, there were larger increases in life expectancy for AIAN (2.6 years), Hispanic (2.3 years), and Black (2 years) people compared to White (1.1 years) and Asian (0.9 years) people, narrowing the gaps in life expectancy. While the increases between 2022 and 2023 were smaller, the trends were similar with AIAN people having the largest gain (2.3 years), followed by Hispanic (1.3 years) and Black people (1.2 years), and smaller increases for White (0.9 years) and Asian (0.8 years) people. Overall life expectancy estimates for 2024 show an increase of 2.9 years (76.1 to 79.0 years) between 2021 and 2024, reversing the declines experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, life expectancy data by race and ethnicity are not yet available for 2024.

Causes of Recent Life Expectancy Changes

The pandemic resulted in higher mortality rates, which drove rapid declines in life expectancy between 2019 and 2021. COVID-19 was the largest contributor to the decline in life expectancy for AIAN, Black, and White people and was the second largest contributor for Hispanic and Asian people, in 2020 and 2021. While COVID-19 was a major cause of death during the pandemic, it was the third leading cause of death in both 2020 and 2021, following heart disease and cancer. The variation in declines across racial and ethnic groups reflected underlying social and economic factors that affected communities’ exposure to the virus and subsequent access to COVID-19 vaccinations and treatment options.

The increase in life expectancy since 2021 largely reflects a decline in deaths due to COVID-19, which disproportionately affected AIAN, Black, and Hispanic people. As COVID-19 mortality fell, life expectancy rebounded among most groups, with larger increases among those that experienced the largest losses. Previous KFF analysis found that people of color accounted for 59% of excess years of life lost during the pandemic, despite making up 40% of the population. Research shows that between 2022 and 2023 falling COVID-19 deaths accounted for 56.9% of the increase in life expectancy for Hispanic people, 50.9% for Asian people, 50% for White people, 48.3% for Black people and 41.9% for Asian people. The magnitude of gains varied across groups, reflecting both the scale of each group’s pandemic-era losses and the degree to which other causes of death contributed to or offset the recovery.

Beyond declines in COVID-19 deaths, decreases in other causes of death also contributed to life expectancy gains across racial and ethnic groups. AIAN people experienced the largest overall increases in life expectancy in 2023, driven not only by falling COVID-19 mortality but also declines in deaths due to chronic liver disease, heart disease, diabetes, and accidents. Hispanic people saw the second largest increase, reflecting declines in COVID-19, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer disease, though increases in deaths related to perinatal conditions, suicide, and nutritional deficiencies tempered overall gains.For Black people, declines in COVID-19, heart disease, homicide, diabetes, and cancer drove improvements, partially offset by rising deaths due to suicide, birth defects, nutritional deficiencies, and certain other conditions. Among White people, reductions in COVID-19, heart disease, unintentional injuries, diabetes, and cancer contributed to gains, but increases in deaths from nutritional deficiencies, Parkinson disease, and several infectious diseases limited progress. Asian people experienced the smallest increase, with declines in COVID-19, heart disease, cancer, stroke, and Alzheimer disease offset by increases in deaths from birth defects, flu and pneumonia, septicemia, nutritional deficiencies, and homicide.

As in prior years, the leading causes of death in 2023 continued to vary by race and ethnicity, with the most significant change since 2021 being the disappearance of COVID-19 from the top causes of death (Table 1). In 2021, COVID-19 ranked among the top three leading causes of death across every racial and ethnic group. By 2023, it had fallen to eighth place among White people and dropped out of the top ten entirely for all other groups. Heart disease and cancer reemerged as the top two causes of death across nearly all groups, restoring a pre-pandemic mortality pattern. Among AIAN people, accidents and drug overdoses ranked third and liver disease fourth. Deaths by suicide were a significant contributor to deaths among AIAN people, ranking eighth in 2023. Other recent data show particularly high rates of opioid overdose deaths, alcohol use disorder related deaths and deaths by suicide among AIAN people compared to other groups. Among Black people, homicide remained the sixth leading cause of death in 2023, reflecting disparities in gun violence.

COVID-19 Has Fallen Out Of The Top Three Causes of Death Across All Race and Ethnicity Groups in 2023 (Table)

Research suggests that the factors driving disparities in life expectancy are complex and multifactorial. They include differences in health insurance coverage and access to care, social and economic factors, and health behaviors that are rooted in structural and systemic racism and discrimination. Data show that people of color are less likely to have health insurance and more likely to face barriers to accessing care, such as not having a usual source of care. Among AIAN people, chronic underfunding of the Indian Health Service further contributes to barriers to health care. Research shows that, overall, uninsured people are more likely than those with insurance to go without needed medical care due to cost and less likely to receive preventive care and services. Research further shows that uninsured people have higher mortality rates and lower survival rates than people with insurance.Hispanic, AIAN, and Black people are more likely to have lower incomes and educational attainment levels compared to White people, and studies find that people with higher incomes and more education live longer lives. Other social and economic factors may also affect life expectancy. For example, historic housing policies, including redlining, and ongoing economic inequities have resulted in residential segregation that pushed many low-income people and people of color into segregated urban neighborhoods.Research finds that living in racially segregated neighborhoods is associated with shorter life expectancy and higher mortality rates for Black people.

Some life expectancy patterns are not fully understood or observable in the data presented. Notably, Hispanic people have longer life expectancy than their White counterparts despite experiencing increased barriers to accessing health care and social and economic challenges typically associated with poorer health outcomes. Researchers have hypothesized that this finding, sometimes referred to as the Hispanic or Latino health paradox, in part, may stem from variation in outcomes among subgroups of Hispanic people by origin, nativity, and race, with better outcomes for some groups, particularly recent immigrants to the U.S. However, the findings still are not fully understood. Measures of life expectancy for Asian people as a broad group may mask underlying differences among subgroups of the population who vary across health access and social and economic factors. Research has shown variation in life expectancy among Asian subgroups, with Chinese people having the longest life expectancy and Vietnamese people having the shortest life expectancy, which may in part reflect differences in socioeconomic status. Additionally, data limitations for NHPI people prevented the ability to include them in this analysis. Efforts to expand and improve data collection for NHPI people will be important to gain a better understanding of their experiences, particularly since they suffered disproportionate impacts on mortality from COVID-19.

Life Expectancy at Birth in Years, by Race and Ethnicity, 2006-2023 (Table)

Tracking Implementation of the 2025 Reconciliation Law Medicaid Work Requirements

Published:

CMS Guidance and Information

Operational and Implementation Questions

Table

Tracking Implementation of the 2025 Reconciliation Law: Medicaid Work Requirements

Published:

The 2025 reconciliation law, once called the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” signed by President Trump on July 4, 2025, conditions Medicaid eligibility for adults in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion group and enrollees in partial expansion waiver programs (Georgia and Wisconsin) on meeting work requirements starting January 1, 2027. Currently, 41 states (including DC) have expanded their Medicaid programs under the ACA to nearly all adults with income up to 138% FPL ($21,597 for an individual in 2025).

To implement Medicaid work requirements, states will need to make important policy and operational decisions, implement needed system upgrades or changes, develop new outreach and education strategies, and hire and train staff, all within a relatively short timeframe. The information tracked here can serve as a resource to understand Medicaid work requirements and state options, gauge readiness, and track implementation of the requirements, including:

  • State and national data and current state policies related to Medicaid enrollment, renewal outcomes, and application processing times that can serve as a baseline for assessing the potential readiness to implement the requirements and the impact of work requirements once implemented;
  • Federal guidance and a list of policy and operational questions that states will need to answer as they implement work requirements;
  • Updates on 1115 waivers submitted by states to implement work requirements (while waivers will no longer be needed starting January 2027, some states may pursue waivers to implement work requirements earlier than January 2027); and
  • A compilation of KFF issue briefs and other resources on Medicaid work requirements.

This resource will be updated to include guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), information on state policy decisions as they are made, and new data when available.

Continue scrolling to learn more about the Medicaid work requirements in the 2025 reconciliation law.

Tracking Implementation of the 2025 Reconciliation Law Medicaid Work Requirements

Published:

KFF Resources on Medicaid Work Requirements

Work requirements overview:

Implementation of work requirements:

Research and analysis on Medicaid and work:

1115 work requirement waivers:

Work requirements implications and state experience:

Arkansas work requirement experience:

KFF Polling on Work Requirements:

Beyond the Data by KFF CEO Drew Altman:

Tracking Implementation of the 2025 Reconciliation Law Medicaid Work Requirements

Published:

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

State Plan Amendments (SPAs)

Some states may choose to implement work requirements prior to the January 1, 2027 deadline through a state plan amendment. Nebraska is the first state to have announced that it will begin enforcing federal work requirements early through a state plan amendment, starting May 1, 2026.

1115 Waivers

States may also choose to implement work requirements early through an 1115 waiver. Since the start of the second Trump administration, several states have submitted waivers to implement work requirements, although some states may no longer be moving forward with proposed 1115 waivers due to the passage of federal work requirements or because they plan to implement early through a state plan amendment. While states are required to fully align with federal work requirements starting January 1, 2027, it is not clear how CMS will treat pending 1115 waivers that seek to implement early and deviate from federal requirements (specified in the law) prior to this deadline.

Currently, Georgia is the only state with a Medicaid work requirement waiver in place following litigation over the Biden administration’s attempt to stop it. CMS recently approved a temporary extension for Georgia’s waiver that added new exemptions from work requirements (see the table below for more details). Georgia’s waiver is now set to expire December 31, 2026, and the state will be required to come fully into compliance with new federal requirements starting January 1, 2027.

Early Implementation and Waiver Status

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

States Implementing Work Requirements Early and/or Pursuing Work Requirement Waivers (Choropleth map)
States with Work Requirement Waiver Activity (Table)

Medicaid Workers and Job-Based Insurance: Who Is Offered, Eligible, and Enrolled?

Published: Mar 5, 2026

Passage of the 2025 reconciliation law, also known as the “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” in July 2025 and the inclusion of new work requirements for certain Medicaid enrollees in the law focused attention on the work status of adults enrolled in the program as well as their access to job-based insurance. Most adults who will be subject to the new Medicaid work requirements are already working. These adult workers rely on Medicaid because most work in jobs that do not offer health coverage or are not eligible for the offered coverage. While employer-sponsored insurance is the main source of coverage for working-age adults in the United States, access to job-based coverage is more limited for low-wage workers, those who work in certain industries, part-time workers, and those who work at smaller firms. Many employers— small and large— report that Medicaid provides important access to health care to their employees.

New work requirements are unlikely to increase employment (as most Medicaid adults are working or face barriers to work). Given the limited offers and eligibility for job-based coverage for low-wage workers, the new requirements are also not likely to substantially reduce reliance on Medicaid as a source of coverage for those workers. However, these requirements will likely reduce Medicaid enrollment because even some enrollees who are working will be unable to verify their work status.

Using data from the 2025 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC), this analysis examines the availability of job-based insurance in 2024 for adult Medicaid workers ages 19 to 64 and explores the reasons why Medicaid adults who are working are not eligible for employer coverage, and if eligible, why they do not take up the offer. The analysis excludes Medicaid adults who are self-employed, are also enrolled in Medicare, receive disability-related payments from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and focuses on states that have adopted the Medicaid expansion and Wisconsin, which has adopted a partial expansion. Medicaid adults enrolled through the expansion, or partial expansion in Wisconsin, will be subject to the new work requirements. Georgia is excluded from the analysis because enrollment in the Pathways to Coverage Program is too small to be captured in the data. This analysis does not attempt to identify adults who would be subject to work requirements. It covers a broader group of Medicaid enrollees, including adults with dependent children, some of whom may be exempt.

Most Medicaid adult workers work for an employer that does not offer job-based insurance or are not eligible if their employer offers coverage. For workers to enroll in job-based insurance, they need to work for an employer that offers coverage and be eligible to enroll in that coverage. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Medicaid adult workers in expansion states and Wisconsin either work for an employer that does not offer health coverage (52%) or are not eligible for coverage that is offered by their employer (13%) (Figure 1). In contrast, about one in five (21%) adult workers who are not covered by Medicaid in the same states are not offered (16%) or eligible (5%) for coverage offered by their employer.

About a quarter (26%) of adult Medicaid workers decline coverage when they are eligible compared to 17% of adult workers not covered by Medicaid. Many adult workers who are eligible for job-based insurance do not take up the offer because the coverage is unaffordable (Appendix Table 1). For adult Medicaid workers who did not enroll in job-based coverage, Medicaid likely provides coverage that is more affordable, and in some cases, more comprehensive than the health insurance available through their employer.

About one in ten (9%) adult Medicaid workers take up coverage offered by their employer and are covered by both Medicaid and the employer plan. In these cases, Medicaid provides wrap-around coverage, covering premiums and cost sharing, as well as providing coverage for benefits not included in the employer plan.

Even when adult Medicaid workers in low-wage jobs have access to job-based insurance, the employee share of the costs can be unaffordable. Workers in firms with many lower-wage workers (where at least 35% earn $37,000 or less annually) have higher average contribution rates toward their premium for family and single coverage compared to workers at firms with fewer low-wage workers (31% vs 26% for family coverage and 19% vs 16% for single coverage). These higher contributions likely mean low-income families with job-based coverage spend a greater share of their income on health costs overall (premium contributions and out-of-pocket expenses) than those with higher incomes, which may contribute to decisions not to enroll in the offered coverage.

Most Medicaid Adults Work for an Employer That Does Not Offer Job-Based Insurance or Are Not Eligible if Their Employer Offers Coverage (Stacked column chart)

Medicaid adults who work part time are less likely to be eligible for job-based insurance than those who work full time. About one-third (32%) of adult Medicaid workers work part time, and among these part-time workers, one in five (21%) are eligible for coverage from their employer compared to 42% of those who work full time (Figure 2). Under the Affordable Care Act’s shared responsibility mandate, employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees are required to provide minimum essential coverage to employees, but that requirement only extends to employees who work an average of at least 30 hours per week. As a result, among firms that offer health benefits, relatively few offer benefits to part-time workers.

Medicaid Adults Who Work Part Time Are Less Likely to be Eligible For Job-Based Insurance Than Full-Time Workers (Stacked column chart)

Eligibility for job-based insurance among adult Medicaid workers varies by industry. The share of adult Medicaid workers eligible for job-based insurance varies from 56% in the mining industry to 20% in the agricultural and forestry industry (Figure 3). Medicaid adults working in educational and health services industry represent nearly a quarter (23%) of adult Medicaid workers and 41% are eligible for job-based insurance. On the other hand, about one in six (16%) adult Medicaid workers have jobs in the leisure and hospitality industry where only 22% are eligible for employer-based insurance.

Eligibility for Job-Based Insurance Among Adult Medicaid Workers Varies by Industry (Table)

Among adult Medicaid workers who are offered insurance by their employer, most are not eligible because they do not work enough hours. About one in eight (13%) adult Medicaid workers work for an employer that offers health insurance but are not eligible (Figure 1). Nearly seven in ten (69%) of these workers reported they were not eligible because they did not work enough hours per week or weeks per year to qualify (Figure 4). About one in ten (13%) Medicaid workers were not eligible because they had not worked for the employer long enough, and another 5% said they were not eligible because contract and temporary employers were not allowed in the employer’s health plan.

Among Adult Medicaid Workers Who Are Offered Insurance by Their Employer, Most Are Not Eligible Because They Do Not Work Enough Hours (Pie Chart)
Reasons for Not Taking Up Job-Based Coverage Among Adult Workers Covered By Medicaid and Those Not Covered by Medicaid (Table)

How States Verify Citizenship and Immigration Status in Medicaid

Published: Mar 4, 2026

Editorial Note

This brief was updated on March 4, 2026 to include changes related to the 2025 reconciliation law and new federal Medicaid reverification requirements.

Medicaid is the primary program providing comprehensive coverage of health and long-term care to over 81 million low-income people in the U.S. Medicaid is jointly financed by states and the federal government but administered by states within broad federal rules. In addition to meeting federal and state income and residency requirements, eligibility for coverage under Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is limited to U.S. citizens and certain lawfully present immigrants. Starting October 1, 2026, the 2025 reconciliation law will further restrict lawfully present immigrant eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP. Federal Medicaid funds cannot be used to cover undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants also are excluded from other federally funded health programs, including Medicare and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces.

On February 19, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order to “end taxpayer subsidization of open borders”, which includes language calling for enhanced verification systems to ensure taxpayer-funded benefits exclude unauthorized immigrants and requires federal agencies to identify sources of federal funding for undocumented immigrants. Current federal rules require states to verify an applicant’s eligible immigration status through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as part of the process for determining Medicaid eligibility. On August 19, 2025, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) announced a new initiative to require states to reverify whether certain individuals enrolled in Medicaid are citizens or have a satisfactory immigration status. This reverification process may increase administrative burdens for states and lead to coverage losses among eligible individuals due to administrative barriers. This brief describes federal citizenship and immigration status eligibility and eligibility verification requirements for Medicaid and the new reverification requirements.

What are Medicaid eligibility requirements for immigrants?

Federal rules limit Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) eligibility to U.S. citizens and certain lawfully present immigrants; undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federally funded coverage. In general, in addition to meeting other eligibility requirements, lawfully present immigrants must have a “qualified non-citizen” status to be eligible for Medicaid or CHIP (Table 1), and many, including most lawful permanent residents or “green card” holders, must wait five years after obtaining qualified status before they may enroll. These immigrants may enroll in Marketplace coverage and receive subsidies during this five-year waiting period. Some immigrants with qualified status, such as asylees and refugees, do not have to wait five years to enroll in Medicaid and CHIP coverage. Some immigrants, such as those with temporary protected status, are lawfully present but do not have a qualified status and are not eligible for Medicaid and CHIP coverage even after a five-year wait. The Trump administration reversed Biden administration actions that had expanded ACA Marketplace coverage to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, once again making them ineligible to purchase ACA Marketplace coverage effective August 25, 2025. States have the option to cover lawfully residing children and pregnant people in Medicaid or CHIP without the five-year waiting period otherwise known as the Immigrant Children’s Health Improvement Act (ICHIA) option. States can also provide prenatal care and pregnancy-related benefits to targeted low-income children beginning at conception through the CHIP From-Conception-to-End-of-Pregnancy (FCEP) option regardless of their parent’s citizenship or immigration status. Some states provide fully state-funded coverage to fill gaps in coverage for immigrants, including lawfully present immigrants and undocumented immigrants.

The 2025 reconciliation law will further restrict lawfully present immigrant eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP. Starting October 1, 2026, the 2025 reconciliation law will restrict immigrant Medicaid and CHIP eligibility to lawful permanent residents (LPRs) (i.e., “green card” holders), Cuban and Haitian entrants, people residing in the U.S. as citizens of the Freely Associated (COFA) nations of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau residing in U.S. states and territories, and lawfully residing children and pregnant immigrants in states that cover them under the Medicaid or CHIP option (Table 1). States also will still have the option to extend prenatal and pregnancy-related benefits to targeted low-income children from conception through the end of pregnancy through the FCEP option. These restrictions will eliminate eligibility for many other groups of lawfully present immigrants, including refugees and asylees without a green card, among others.

Eligible Immigration Statuses for Medicaid and CHIP (Table)

Emergency Medicaid reimburses hospitals for emergency care provided to individuals ineligible for Medicaid due to their immigration status. Emergency Medicaid spending reimburses hospitals for emergency care they are obligated to provide to individuals who meet other Medicaid eligibility requirements (such as income) but do not have an eligible immigration status, including undocumented immigrants and lawfully present immigrants who remain ineligible for Medicaid or CHIP. Emergency services include those requiring immediate attention to prevent death, serious harm or disability, although states have some discretion to determine reimbursable services. Spending on Emergency Medicaid accounts for less than 1% of total Medicaid expenditures. Without Emergency Medicaid, the costs of emergency care would be shifted to hospitals that are required to treat individuals in emergency situations or fully to states. Starting October 1, 2026, in states that have expanded Medicaid under the ACA, the 2025 reconciliation law will limit federal matching payments for Emergency Medicaid for individuals who would otherwise be eligible for expansion coverage except for their immigration status to the state’s regular federal Medicaid match rate (which ranges from 50% to 77%) as opposed to the expansion match rate (which is 90% in all states).

How do states verify citizenship and immigration status to determine Medicaid eligibility?

States must verify citizenship and immigration status with the Social Security Administration (SSA) and DHS to determine eligibility for Medicaid coverage at the initial application. Applicants who are U.S. citizens must provide documentation of citizenship, or states must verify the applicant’s Social Security number with the SSA. Applicants who are not U.S. citizens must provide documentation showing that they have a qualified immigration status eligible for Medicaid coverage (Figure 1). States verify immigration status through the DHS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, which can provide automatic real-time verification. If the system cannot provide real-time verification, the state must request an additional review and may request additional documentation of eligible immigration status from the applicant. Applicants cannot self-attest to having an eligible immigration status without documentation for the state, with the exception of qualified immigrants exempt from the five-year wait due to a military connection. Current federal rules prohibit states from requiring applicants to disclose the immigration status of non-applicants, such as household members, which is not relevant to eligibility determination, and under statute, the SAVE system cannot be used for non-criminal immigration enforcement.

States are required to provide Medicaid benefits to applicants during a “reasonable opportunity period” of 90 days while their immigration status is being verified, if they otherwise meet all eligibility criteria. The reasonable opportunity period is allowed when the SAVE system cannot verify immigration status in real time and the state needs to conduct additional review and collect additional documentation to verify the qualified immigration status. This period gives applicants the opportunity to correct information in SAVE or submit additional documentation in support of their application. States may extend the period if they need more time to complete verification or if applicants are attempting to correct issues with documentation. States are entitled to receive federal matching funds for expenditures for Medicaid services provided to individuals during the reasonable opportunity period, regardless of whether eligibility is ultimately verified. If states determine an applicant ineligible for Medicaid coverage due to their immigration status at any point during the reasonable opportunity period, they must terminate eligibility within 30 days. This may also occur if applicants do not provide additional requested documentation or correct any discrepancies in the application. Applicants have the right to dispute the state’s decision in a fair hearing process, but states are not required to provide Medicaid benefits during this time.

In some cases, states need to reverify immigration status as part of Medicaid annual redetermination of eligibility processes. States do not need to reverify immigration status for most enrollees during the annual renewal if that status is unlikely to change (e.g., the enrollee is a lawful permanent resident). However, immigrant children and pregnant people who have been lawfully residing in the U.S. for less than five years receiving coverage through the ICHIA option must have their immigration status re-verified at renewal. If, at any point during the coverage period, the state receives information about a change in an enrollee’s immigration status that might affect ongoing eligibility, the state is required to act on that change in circumstance to review eligibility and request additional documentation from the enrollee if needed. The 2025 reconciliation law will require states to conduct eligibility redeterminations at least every 6 months for Medicaid expansion adults for renewals scheduled on or after December 31, 2026.

On August 19, 2025, CMS announced a new initiative to require states to reverify whether certain individuals enrolled in Medicaid are citizens or have a satisfactory immigration status. CMS will use Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) enrollment data to attempt to verify enrollee citizenship and immigration status in the SAVE system and send states a sample of Medicaid enrollees whose immigration status it could not verify. States are required to reverify the status of those individuals in accordance with current federal rules, including the requirement to provide a reasonable opportunity period, and disenroll individuals who do not verify a satisfactory immigration status.

These new reverification requirements may increase administrative burdens for states and may lead to coverage lapses among eligible individuals if they are unable to complete reverification-related requests from states. Under the new requirements, states will need to reverify eligible immigration status for individuals CMS identifies in the sample shared with states, which can include immigrants as well as citizens. For several reasons, the CMS process for identifying individuals in the sample may include individuals who do not need reverification, which will increase the administrative burden on states. For example, the sample may include people in the reasonable opportunity period who do not require immediate verification or those receiving Emergency Medicaid services only who do not need a qualified immigration status. In addition, the T-MSIS data used by CMS is at least 2-3 months behind that of state enrollment data, so CMS may flag enrollees that states have since verified or already removed from Medicaid. The CMS sample may also include citizens because the SAVE system may not be able to verify citizenship in certain cases if that information is not available in the databases that SAVE has access to, such as for naturalized citizens whose citizenship information may not be up-to-date with the SSA. This could result in states reverifying citizenship status for citizens even though citizenship is not typically reverified. Some individuals may lose coverage during the reverification process even if they are still eligible if they have trouble completing the process, for example, if they miss notices or face challenges submitting required documentation.

CMS will require states to share reports on eligibility redeterminations for individuals whose citizenship or satisfactory immigration status CMS was unable to verify through its data match. CMS will require each state to report back on reverifications using a standardized template on the procedures used, the outcomes of the states’ independent verification efforts, and resulting redeterminations. CMS may publish monthly, de-identified counts of individuals for whom federal verification was unsuccessful and may issue disallowances or deferrals of federal matching funds when states claim federal matching funds for services or administrative Medicaid expenditures associated with individuals for whom they could not verify a satisfactory immigration status. The new reporting requirements will increase administrative burdens for states that are already working to meet implementation requirements tied to the 2025 reconciliation law.