FY 2026 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (Labor HHS) Global Health Funding in the Consolidated Appropriations Act

Published: Feb 4, 2026

Update: On February 3, 2026, the President signed the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026” which includes funding provided in the FY 2026 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (Labor HHS) conference bill and accompanying report detailed below. This resource was originally published on January 22, 2026.

The Committee on Appropriations released its FY 2026 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (Labor HHS) conference bill and accompanying report on January 20, 2026.

While most U.S. global health funding is provided to the State Department through a separate appropriations bill (see the KFF budget summary on this funding here), the Labor HHS appropriations bill includes funding for global health programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as well as funding for global health research activities at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Total global health funding at CDC and NIH through the Labor HHS bill is not yet known, as funding for some programs (i.e. global HIV/AIDS and malaria research) at NIH is determined at the agency level rather than specified by Congress in annual appropriations bills. Funding for global health in the Labor HHS bill remained flat compared to the FY 20251 level as follows:

  • CDC: Funding for global health programs at CDC totals $693 million, the same level as the FY 2025 enacted amount.2 Within CDC, funding for each specific global health program area was also maintained at the FY 2025 level.
  • NIH: Funding for global health research activities at the Fogarty International Center (FIC) at NIH totals $95 million, the same level as the FY 2025 enacted amount.

In addition, Section 236 under the Labor HHS section of the bill specifically states that funding “shall be for the budget activities, and in the amounts specified in the table under each such heading in the explanatory statement” instructing the administration to provide the amounts for the areas specified.

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

KFF Analysis of Global Health Funding in the FY 2026 Conference Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (Labor HHS) Appropriations Bill

  1. Funding for FY25 was provided in a full-year Continuing Resolution (CR), which maintained FY24 levels. All FY25 amounts and associated notes are based on those specified in relevant FY24 appropriations bills. ↩︎
  2. The FY26 Request eliminates CDC’s Global Health Center and most of its bilateral programs, except funding for “Global Disease Detection & Emergency Response”, which is transferred to “Crosscutting Activities and Program Support”, and “Parasitic Diseases and Malaria”, which is transferred to “Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases”. ↩︎

How State Policies Shape Access to Abortion Coverage

Editorial note: Updated February 2, 2026 with new updates for Delaware.

State and federal efforts to limit abortion coverage began soon after the 1973 Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision. In 1977, the Hyde Amendment banned federal funding for abortion, with exceptions for pregnancies that endanger the life of the woman, or result from rape or incest. Some states use their own funds to cover other medically necessary abortions for their Medicaid enrollees or have been compelled to do so by the courts. The passage of the ACA in 2010 led to renewed legislative efforts to limit abortion coverage, this time in private insurance plans. The ACA maintains the Hyde Amendment’s limits, and permits states to ban abortion coverage from Marketplace plans. Since 2010, many states have enacted private plan restrictions and also banned abortion coverage from Marketplace plans, some of which are more restrictive than the Hyde limitations. A handful of states, however, have enacted laws that require private plans to cover abortion and state funds to cover abortions for Medicaid enrollees.

The interactive map below shows the increase in states with laws restricting abortion coverage for Medicaid and private insurance enrollees in 2010 compared to the present.

State Policies on Abortion Coverage in Medicaid, Private Insurance, and ACA Exchange Plans – 2026

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the federal constitutional standard that had protected the right to abortion. States can now set their own policies to ban or protect abortion. As of January 6, 2026, 13 states have banned abortion (Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia). For more details about legal status of abortion in states, please visit our Abortion in the United States Dashboard.

Medicaid Coverage Limitations (30 states & DC) – State limits Medicaid coverage of abortion to the Hyde Amendment restrictions (only allowed in the cases of rape, incest or life endangerment).

Private Insurance Coverage Limitations (10 states) – State has a law that prohibits coverage of abortions from being included in private insurance policies sold in the state (with certain exceptions). Private insurance includes individual, small group, and large group. Some states may allow abortion coverage to be purchased as a rider.

State Marketplace Coverage Limitations (25 states) – State has a law that prohibits plans sold on state Marketplaces from covering abortion (with certain exceptions).

No Coverage Limitations (6 states) – State does not limit coverage of abortion in private insurance or the state Marketplace and the state does not ban the use of state funds (non-federal) to pay for abortion for Medicaid enrollees in circumstances outside of those allowed by the Hyde Amendment.

Requires Abortion Coverage in Private and ACA Marketplace Plans and for Medicaid Enrollees (13 states) – State requires all fully-insured group plans and individual plans to include abortion coverage and state funds to cover abortion for Medicaid enrollees. Ten of these states require no cost-sharing for abortion—Illinois and Minnesota allow cost sharing if there is cost-sharing for similar services in the plan and Delaware prohibits cost-sharing for abortions up to $750.

News Release

Poll: People View Prior Authorization as Greatest Burden in Navigating the Health System

Many Report Impact on their Care, Finances and Well-being

Published: Feb 2, 2026

New KFF polling explores the challenges beyond costs that people with insurance face in navigating the health care system. People cite prior authorization review as their top problem by a wide margin, with a third (32%) saying prior authorization requirements are a “major burden.”

That’s more than say the same about understanding their bill or what they owe (23% say it is a major burden), getting appointments when they need them (20%), or finding providers who accept their insurance (17%).

When asked to choose which of those four factors is “the single biggest burden,” prior authorization before accessing certain tests, treatments, or medication ranks at the top (34%). Among people with a chronic condition that requires ongoing medical treatment (about half of all insured adults), 4 in 10 (39%) say prior authorization is the single biggest burden when it comes to getting care, more than twice the share who say the same about other obstacles.

“The complexity of the health system drives patients crazy, can have real consequences, and disproportionately affects people who are sick,” KFF President and CEO Drew Altman said. “Prior authorization review is the poster child for that complexity.”

Prior authorization ranks as the single biggest burden for people with employer coverage and Medicaid, as well as those who buy their own coverage (largely through the Affordable Care Act’s Marketplaces).

During the prior authorization process, some treatments or medications recommended by a provider may be delayed and, in some instances, an insurance company may end up denying medication or treatment.

About half (47%) of insured adults – and a larger share (57%) of those with chronic conditions – say their access to a certain health care service, treatment, or medication has been denied, delayed, or altered in the past two years by their health insurer.

Among those who report such denials, delays, or alterations, about a third say it had a “major negative impact” on their mental health and emotional well-being (34%) and finances (33%), and a quarter say it had a “major negative impact” on their physical health (26%). This translates to about 1 in 5 of all adults with insurance saying that their mental or physical health, or finances, have been majorly impacted.

Designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at KFF, this survey was conducted January 13-20, 2026, online and by telephone among a nationally representative sample of 1,426 U.S. adults in English and in Spanish. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample. For results based on other subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher.

Poll Finding

KFF Health Tracking Poll: Prior Authorizations Rank as Public’s Biggest Burden When Getting Health Care

Published: Feb 2, 2026

Findings

As the latest KFF Health Tracking Poll shows, affordability is the public’s biggest concern, with the cost of health care ranking as their top economic worry. However, KFF polls have demonstrated that beyond costs, insured people report a whole host of issues navigating the health care system. This report looks at which aspects of accessing care and health insurance are the biggest problem for insured adults and finds that prior authorizations – or the process of having to get insurance approval before accessing certain tests, treatments, or medications – are having an outsized impact on insured adults.

One in three insured adults in the U.S. say they find prior authorizations a “major burden” to getting health care. An additional four in ten (37%) say the process is a “minor burden,” bringing the total share of insured adults who find the process burdensome to about seven in ten (69%). This is larger than the share who say other aspects are burdensome such as understanding bills or what is owed (60%), getting needed appointments (60%), or finding providers who accept their insurance (53%).

About Seven in Ten Insured Adults Say Prior Authorization Is a Burden Including a Third Who Call It “Major”

When asked to choose which aspect of getting health care, beyond costs, is the single biggest burden, one in three insured adults (34%) choose prior authorizations, followed by getting needed appointments (19%), understanding their bill (17%), or finding providers who accept their insurance (15%). The choice of prior authorizations as the single biggest burden is even more stark among adults with a chronic condition that requires ongoing medical treatment (about half of all adults). These individuals often require more treatments and medications, resulting in more interactions with health insurance companies and health care providers. Four in ten (39%) insured adults with a chronic condition say prior authorizations are the single biggest burden when it comes to getting health care, at least twice the share who say the same about the other aspects of health care asked about.

Four in Ten Insured Adults With a Chronic Condition Say Prior Authorization Is Their Single Biggest Health Care Burden Beyond Costs

Prior authorizations are also identified as the single biggest burden for insured adults across partisans, as well as among individuals across insurance types that typically require prior authorizations such as individuals with Medicaid, people who buy their own health insurance, and people who get health insurance through an employer. Notably, about three in ten (28%) Medicaid enrollees identify finding providers who accept their insurance as the biggest burden, but small shares identify other issues as their biggest burden.1

A Third of Insured Adults Across Insurance Types and Party Say Prior Authorization Is Their Single Biggest Burden

During the prior authorization process, some treatments or medications recommended by a provider may be delayed and, in some instances, an insurance company may end up denying medication or treatment. Overall, about two-thirds of adults say delays and denials of health care services by health insurance companies are a “major problem” with an additional one in four (24%) who say they are a “minor problem.” Just one in ten adults say delays and denials of services by insurance companies are not a problem in our current health care system.  More than six in ten across Medicaid enrollees, self-purchasers, and those with employer coverage say the delays and denials of care by insurance companies are a “major problem.”

Majorities of Adults Across Coverage Types Say Delays and Denials Are a Major Problem, Including About Seven in Ten Adults Who Have a Chronic Condition

About one in three insured adults (33%) say they have had a health insurance company deny coverage for a certain health care service treatment, or medication prescribed by their doctor in the past two years. Three in ten insured adults say that a health insurance company has delayed their ability to get such services, treatments, or medications (29%) or required them to try a lower-cost drug or treatment before covering the one that was originally recommended by their provider (29%). These issues are even more common among insured adults with a chronic condition with about four in ten reporting that an insurance company has required them to try a lower-cost drug or treatment (38%), deny coverage for a certain service or medication (42%), or delayed their ability to get prescribed care (37%). Overall, nearly half (47%) of insured adults say they have had a certain service, treatment, or medication either denied or delayed in the past two years, rising to nearly six in ten (57%) among those with a chronic condition.

Nearly Half of Insured Adults Say They Have Experienced Their Health Insurance Company Denying Care, Delaying Care, or Requiring Them To Try Alternatives

Denial and delays by health insurance companies can lead to negative consequences for people’s physical, mental, and financial health. One in three of those who experienced a denial or delay say the actions required by their health insurance company had a “major negative impact” on their mental health and emotional well-being as well as on their finances (about one in six of all insured adults).  One in four (one in eight of all insured adults) say the delays or denials has a “major negative impact” on their physical health.

Many of Those Who Have Experienced Denials, Delays, or Changes in Care Due to a Prior Authorization Say It Had a Negative Impact on Them

 


  1. Prior authorization is more common in Medicare Advantage than Traditional Medicare. Because this analysis is unable to break out individuals with traditional Medicare versus Medicare Advantage, we do not include Medicare as a subgroup in our analysis. These individuals are included in both the total group and the group with chronic conditions.  To learn more about prior authorizations for Medicare, more available at https://www.kff.org/medicare/medicare-advantage-insurers-made-nearly-53-million-prior-authorization-determinations-in-2024/. ↩︎

Methodology

This KFF Health Tracking Poll/KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust was designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at KFF. The survey was conducted January 13-20, 2026, online and by telephone among a nationally representative sample of 1,426 U.S. adults in English (n=1,355) and in Spanish (n=71). The sample includes 1,028 adults (n=60 in Spanish) reached through the SSRS Opinion Panel either online (n= 1,003) or over the phone (n=25). The SSRS Opinion Panel is a nationally representative probability-based panel where panel members are recruited randomly in one of two ways: (a) Through invitations mailed to respondents randomly sampled from an Address-Based Sample (ABS) provided by Marketing Systems Groups (MSG) through the U.S. Postal Service’s Computerized Delivery Sequence (CDS); (b) from a dual-frame random digit dial (RDD) sample provided by MSG. For the online panel component, invitations were sent to panel members by email followed by up to three reminder emails. 

Another 398 (n=11 in Spanish) adults were reached through random digit dial telephone sample of prepaid cell phone numbers obtained through MSG. Phone numbers used for the prepaid cell phone component were randomly generated from a cell phone sampling frame with disproportionate stratification aimed at reaching Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black respondents. Stratification was based on incidence of the race/ethnicity groups within each frame. Among this prepaid cell phone component, 149 were interviewed by phone and 249 were invited to the web survey via short message service (SMS). 

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

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

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

GroupN (unweighted)M.O.S.E.
Total1,426± 3 percentage points
 
Party ID
Democrats473± 6 percentage points
Independents483± 6 percentage points
Republicans367± 6 percentage points
  
MAGA Republicans/Rep leaners352± 6 percentage points
MAHA supporters618± 5 percentage points
Parents or guardians of children under 18 living in their household436± 6 percentage points

Recent Trends in GLP-1 Use and Spending in Medicare

Published: Jan 30, 2026

Ahead of the Trump administration’s planned expansion of Medicare coverage for GLP-1s to treat obesity through temporary models and the availability of Medicare’s negotiated price for certain GLP-1 products beginning in 2027, new data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) shows that use and spending for these drugs under Medicare has grown substantially in recent years, reflecting their demonstrated effectiveness at treating type 2 diabetes and other conditions. Medicare currently covers GLP-1s for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and sleep apnea, but coverage for weight loss drugs is prohibited by law, even as GLP-1s have proved to be highly effective for this purpose (and even cost-effective, according to a recent analysis).

To address this gap in coverage for GLP-1s to treat obesity, CMS is launching a model called BALANCE (Better Approaches to Lifestyle and Nutrition for Comprehensive hEalth) under which CMS will negotiate pricing and coverage rules for GLP-1s, with the aim of expanding access to these medications and lifestyle interventions to support weight loss. The model, beginning in 2026 for Medicaid and 2027 for Medicare, is voluntary for drug manufacturers, state Medicaid programs, and Medicare Part D plans.

This analysis examines CMS’s Medicare Part D claims data from 2019 to 2024 to document the increase in the number of beneficiaries being treated with GLP-1 drugs and the growth in Medicare spending and claims for GLP-1s. Expansion of coverage under Medicare of GLP-1s to treat obesity under the BALANCE model is likely to increase utilization above current levels, as Medicare begins to meet the demand for obesity drugs among beneficiaries who have been unable to access or afford these medications to date. At the same time, the availability of Medicare’s lower negotiated price for certain GLP-1 products under the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program (semaglutide beginning in 2027 and dulaglutide beginning in 2028) could mitigate the increase in Medicare spending that could come about from ongoing and expanded use of these medications.

Ozempic Was Used by Two Million Medicare Part D Enrollees in 2024, Up from Fewer Than 150,000 in 2019

Semaglutide, the GLP-1 drug branded as Ozempic, Rybelsus, and Wegovy, was the most used GLP-1 in 2024. Two million Part D enrollees took Ozempic, which was approved by the FDA in 2017 to treat type 2 diabetes, up from fewer than 150,000 in 2019 (Figure 1). Nearly 1 million Part D enrollees took Mounjaro, approved in 2022 for type 2 diabetes, up from 54,000 in 2022. This increase reflects a pattern of growing use of newer GLP-1s, such as Ozempic and Mounjaro, while use of older products, such as Byetta (approved in 2005), Victoza (approved in 2010), and Trulicity (approved in 2014), has declined. While most GLP-1 drugs are currently available as injections, the introduction of new oral formulations, which could be easier for patients to take, could result in additional shifts in utilization among GLP-1s.

The Number of Medicare Part D Enrollees Using Ozempic Has Increased Dramatically in Recent Years, Even as Medicare Coverage of GLP-1s for Obesity Remains Prohibited Under Current Law

Medicare Part D Gross Spending on GLP-1s Increased Five-Fold Between 2019 and 2024, But Estimated Rebates of Around 50% Mean That Net Spending is Much Lower

Gross Medicare Part D spending on GLP-1s in 2024 (not accounting for rebates) totaled $27.5 billion, a five-fold increase from 2019, reflecting an expansion in use of GLP-1s with more recent FDA approvals for type 2 diabetes. (FDA approvals of Wegovy for cardiovascular disease and Zepbound for sleep apnea occurred in 2024 and therefore these uses are likely not reflected in Part D data through 2024.) More than half of gross spending in 2024 was on semaglutide products (Ozempic, 47%; Rybelsus, 7%; Wegovy, 1%) and nearly one fourth (23%) was for Mounjaro. Gross spending overstates the true cost of these products to the Medicare program, however. According to estimates from MedPAC, negotiated rebates for diabetic therapy were equal to or greater than 50% in 2023. Assuming rebates of 50% across all GLP-1 products in 2024 would mean net spending of around $14 billion in 2024.

Medicare Part D Gross Spending on GLP-1s Increased Five-Fold Between 2019 and 2024, But Estimated Rebates of ~50% Mean That Net Spending is Much Lower

Claims for GLP-1s Increased Four-Fold Between 2019 and 2024

In accordance with an increase in both the number of Medicare Part D enrollees using GLP-1s and spending on these products, the number of claims for GLP-1s increased four-fold between 2019 and 2024, from 4.8 million to 21.8 million, with claims doubling between 2022 and 2024 alone. More than 10 million claims for Ozempic were submitted in 2024, up from 524,000 in 2019 (an 82% average annual growth rate) and another 5.1 million for Mounjaro, up from 122,000 in 2022 (average annual growth of 549%).

The Number of GLP-1 Claims in Medicare Part D Increased Four-Fold Between 2019 and 2024, With Claims Doubling Between 2022 and 2024 Alone

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

A Closer Look at Nebraska, the First State Planning to Implement a Medicaid Work Requirement

Authors: Amaya Diana and Anna Mudumala
Published: Jan 30, 2026

In December, Nebraska was the first state to announce that it would be enforcing Medicaid work requirements early, starting May 1, 2026. The 2025 reconciliation law requires states to condition Medicaid eligibility for adults in the ACA Medicaid expansion group and enrollees in partial expansion waiver programs (Georgia and Wisconsin) on meeting work requirements starting January 1, 2027; however, states have the option to implement requirements sooner through a state plan amendment (as is the case for Nebraska) or through an approved 1115 waiver. Implementing work requirements will require complex changes to eligibility and enrollment systems, as well as enrollee outreach and education, staff training, and coordination with managed care plans, providers, and other stakeholders. Early reports from the state during its recent January Medicaid Advisory Committee (MAC) meeting and data from KFF’s Medicaid work requirements tracker provide initial insight into how Nebraska is preparing to implement Medicaid work requirements. Similar information from MAC meetings in other states and data on the KFF tracker can be helpful to assess how other states may implement new requirements as well. 

Most Medicaid adults in Nebraska under age 65 who will be subject to the new work requirements are working already or attending school. As of March 2025, there were about 72,000 expansion enrollees in Nebraska who could be affected by the new requirements. KFF analysis indicates that roughly 65% of Medicaid adults without dependent children in Nebraska who could be subject to work requirements work 80 or more hours per month or are attending school. In addition, many enrollees who are not working the required hours will likely qualify for exemptions from the new work requirements.

In a recent Medicaid Advisory Committee (MAC) meeting, Nebraska provided a first look into how the state is planning to implement work requirements. All states are required to have a Medicaid Advisory Committee to advise the State Medicaid agency about health and medical care services. These groups include Medicaid enrollees, advocates, and providers. In its January 15, 2026 meeting, Nebraska state officials provided early insight into key decisions related to work requirements and look-back periods, data matching, medically frail exemptions, enrollee verification, short-term hardship exceptions, and outreach (Table 1). State officials also confirmed that the state does not intend to hire or increase staffing levels to facilitate implementation of work requirements or other eligibility changes.

Nebraska Work Requirement Implementation Decisions

There remain multiple operational and implementation issues the state will need to resolve in the next four months. State officials emphasized that conversations with the federal government are ongoing, and that Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) staff had recently travelled to Nebraska to plan implementation with state officials. As part of the MAC meeting discussion, state officials noted areas where there is ongoing work to identify data sources to verify compliance or exemption status:

  • Volunteer activities. Officials acknowledged they had not yet determined how volunteer activities will be defined or how volunteer activities could be identified through data matching. Current guidance from CMS does not clearly outline what types of volunteer activities count towards compliance with Medicaid work requirements.
  • Education activities. Officials said the state is working on specifics for defining hours of educational activity using course credit hours. The state is also exploring data matching for educational activities, including higher education enrollment data.
  • Work verification. Data matching for work hours was not discussed during the meeting, though officials confirmed that, as required by the reconciliation law, individuals can meet the work requirement if they are working and earn the equivalent of the federal minimum wage multiplied by 80 hours in a qualifying month.
  • Number of enrollees affected. State officials could not yet provide internal estimates of how many enrollees could already be identified as in compliance with the new requirements using currently available data sources, but explained they are currently running models to see who they can identify as being in compliance or exempt from Medicaid work requirements.

KFF is tracking metrics related to Medicaid enrollment, renewal outcomes, and application processing times that can provide insight into a state’s potential readiness to implement data matching and other necessary system changes. As of September 2025, Nebraska was performing in line or better across several renewal metrics compared to the United States national average (Figure 1). Nearly nine in ten applications were processed within 30 days and eight in ten individuals going through a Medicaid eligibility redetermination had their coverage renewed. Of people who retained coverage, 88% were renewed via ex parte processes (meaning the state verifies ongoing eligibility through available data sources before sending a renewal form or requesting documentation from an enrollee), although this percentage in September 2025 was higher than the average of 69% across the prior 6 months. Among those who were disenrolled, 53% were terminated for procedural reasons (meaning an individual was disenrolled because they did not complete the renewal process). While these metrics provide insight into Nebraska’s Medicaid eligibility systems, they are not the only indicators or predictors of successful implementation of work requirements, which will also require enrollee outreach and education, staff training, and coordination with managed care plans, providers, and other stakeholders.

Nebraska Renewal Outcomes and Application Processing Times, September 2025

As states implement work requirements, ongoing monitoring can help assess how processes are working and identify areas of concern. Central to that oversight is timely data on renewal outcomes, including data on disenrollments related to work requirements. While available data (highlighted above) from CMS can be helpful, these data are not timely enough for real-time monitoring and they do not isolate outcomes for the expansion population. States can fill that gap by reporting more timely data on application and renewal outcomes that include breakouts for individuals subject to work requirements. During the MAC meeting, state officials in Nebraska communicated their intention to be transparent in reporting how many enrollees are disenrolled.

Potential Impact of the Federal Pause on Immigrant Visas From 75 Countries on the U.S. Health Care Workforce

Published: Jan 29, 2026

As part of broader efforts to reduce immigration, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) recently announced that it will pause issuance of all immigrant visas for individuals from 75 countries. This analysis shows that workers from 69 of the 75 countries affected by the pause for which data are available make up nearly one in ten (8%) of the U.S. health care workforce. The pause will likely reduce the supply of workers and particularly health care workers in the U.S., which could exacerbate existing health care worker shortages. Shortages are likely to be compounded by other policies limiting immigration into the U.S. as well as ongoing deportation efforts. Estimates suggest the Trump administration’s policies could reduce legal immigration to the U.S. by 33% to 50% over four years.

On January 14, 2026, the DOS announced that it will pause processing of immigrant visas for individuals from 75 countries who it identified as at, “high risk for use of public benefits” and becoming a public charge. (See Methods for full list of impacted countries). This policy is part of broader efforts to expand public charge policies.The DOS indicates that the pause is being implemented to ensure “immigrants must be financially self-sufficient and not be a financial burden to Americans”. However, the DOS has not provided details about the process used to identify countries subject to the pause. Moreover, few immigrants are eligible for federal benefits due to longstanding restrictions. For example, most lawfully present immigrants have to wait five years after obtaining a “qualified” immigration status to be eligible for federal programs including Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).  

The pause went into effect on January 21, 2026, for nationals from the 75 countries applying for immigrant visas. Immigrant visas allow an individual to live and work in the U.S. on a permanent basis and can provide a pathway to citizenship. Examples of immigrant visas include family-based visas (when a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR or “green card” holder) sponsors a family member for permanent residency), certain types of employment-based  visas, as well as refugee visas (although entry of refugees to the U.S. has already largely been eliminated through executive action). Individuals applying for non-immigrant visas such as a student visa, tourist visa, or temporary work visa like H-1B are not impacted by the pause. The DOS states that, during this pause, applicants from impacted countries may submit visa applications and attend visa interviews, but that it will not issue any immigrant visas. The pause does not impact immigrants from the 75 countries who are already present in the U.S.

Foreign-born workers from 69 of the 75 countries impacted by the DOS visa pause for which data are available make up nearly one in ten (8%) of health care workers in the U.S. Based on KFF analysis of 2025 Current Population Survey data, there were 7.8 million foreign-born workers (ages 19 to 64) from 69 of the 75 countries impacted by the visa pause as of 2025, including 1.2 million health care workers. A little over half (55%) of health care workers from these countries are employed in health care support occupations such as home health aides and nursing aides, and the remaining 45% are in health care practitioner and technical occupations such as physicians, surgeons, and nurses. These workers include individuals who may have arrived on immigrant or non-immigrant visas since the data do not include information on visa type. Separate data for the remaining six countries affected by the pause (The Gambia, Kosovo, Kyrgyz Republic, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Tunisia) were not available. Among foreign-born workers from the 69 countries, those from Haiti (13%), Jamaica (10%), and Nigeria (9%) made up about one in three (32%), or the highest shares, of health care workers. Workers from 69 of the 75 countries affected by the DOS visa pause accounted for 6% of the total U.S. adult workforce and 8% of health care workers under age 65 (Figure 1). Immigrants from other countries not impacted by the pause accounted for 14% of the U.S. adult workforce and 11% of health care workers, and U.S.-born citizens accounted for the remaining eight in ten workers.

Foreign-Born Workers from 69 of the 75 Countries Impacted by the DOS Visa Pause Make Up Nearly One in Ten U.S Health Care Workers

Methods

Data source: These findings are based on KFF analysis of the 2025 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS-ASEC). The CPS is a nationally representative U.S. household survey sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and is the “primary source of labor force statistics for the population of the United States”.

Identifying foreign-born workers from impacted countries in CPS-ASEC: Foreign-born workers are identified as those between ages 19 and 64 who report their citizenship group as either “foreign born, US cit by naturalization” or “foreign born, not a US citizen”. Those who further indicate their country of birth as being one of the 75 countries impacted by the DOS visa pause (listed below) are included in the sample of foreign-born workers from countries subject to the visa pause. Of note, CPS does not include country of birth data separately for 6 of the 75 countries impacted by the DOS visa pause, namely The Gambia, Kosovo, Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyztan), Rwanda, South Sudan, and Tunisia.

List of impacted countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, The Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, and Yemen(Source: DOS).

Identifying health care workers in CPS-ASEC: Health care workers are identified as those whose detailed occupation in CPS-ASEC is reported as either “healthcare practitioner and technical occupations” or “healthcare support occupations”.

Americans’ Challenges with Health Care Costs

Authors: Grace Sparks, Lunna Lopes, Alex Montero, Marley Presiado, and Liz Hamel
Published: Jan 29, 2026

Editorial Note: This brief was updated on January 29, 2026, to include the latest KFF polling data. It was originally published on December 14, 2021.

For many years, KFF polling has found that the high cost of health care is a burden on U.S. families, and that health care costs factor into decisions about insurance coverage and care seeking. These costs also rank as the top financial worry for adults and their families. This data note summarizes recent KFF polling on the public’s experiences with health care costs. Main takeaways include:

  • Just under half of U.S. adults say it is difficult to afford health care costs, and about three in ten say they or a family member in their household had problems paying for health care in the past 12 months. Hispanic adults, young adults, and the uninsured are particularly likely to report problems affording health care in the past year.
  • The cost of health care can lead some to put off needed care. About one-third (36%) of adults say that in the past 12 months they have skipped or postponed getting health care they needed because of the cost. Notably three in four (75%) uninsured adults under age 65 say they went without needed care because of the cost.
  • The cost of prescription drugs prevents some people from filling prescriptions. About one in five adults (21%) say they have not filled a prescription because of the cost while a similar share (23%) say they have instead opted for over-the-counter alternatives. About one in seven adults say they have cut pills in half or skipped doses of medicine in the last year because of the cost. A third of all adults say they have taken at least one of these cost saving measures in the past year, including larger shares of women and those with lower incomes.
  • Health care debt is a burden for a large share of Americans. In 2022, about four in ten adults (41%) reported having debt due to medical or dental bills including debts owed to credit cards, collections agencies, family and friends, banks, and other lenders to pay for their health care costs, with disproportionate shares of Black and Hispanic adults, women, parents, those with low incomes, and uninsured adults saying they have health care debt.
  • Those who are covered by health insurance are not immune to the burden of health care costs. Almost four in ten insured adults under the age of 65 (38%) worry about affording their monthly health insurance premium and large shares of adults with employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) and those with Marketplace coverage rate their insurance as “fair” or “poor” when it comes to their monthly premium and to out-of-pocket costs to see a doctor.
  • Notable shares of adults say they are worried about affording medical costs such as the cost of health care services (including the cost of health insurance and out-of-pocket costs for things like office visits and prescription drugs). About two-thirds of adults say they are either “very worried” (32%) or “somewhat worried” (34%) about being able to afford the cost of health care for themselves and their families. The cost of health care ranks at the top of the list when it comes to things that people worry about affording, followed by food, utilities, and other household expenses.

Difficulty Affording Medical Costs

Many U.S. adults have trouble affording health care costs. While lower income and uninsured adults are the most likely to report this, those with health insurance and those with higher incomes are not immune to the high cost of medical care. Just under half of U.S. adults say that it is very or somewhat difficult for them to afford their health care costs (44%). Uninsured adults under age 65 are much more likely to say affording health care costs is difficult (82%) compared to those with health insurance coverage (42%). Additionally, a slight majority of Hispanic adults (55%) and half of Black adults (49%) report difficulty affording health care costs compared to about four in ten White adults (39%). Adults in households with annual incomes under $40,000 are more likely than adults in households with higher incomes to say it is difficult to afford their health care costs. (Source: KFF Health Tracking Poll: May 2025)

Nearly Half of Adults Say It Is Difficult To Afford Health Care Costs, Including Large Shares of the Uninsured, Black and Hispanic Adults, and Those With Lower Incomes

When asked specifically about problems paying for health care in the past year, about three in ten (28%) adults say they or a family member in their household had problems paying for care, rising to four in ten among Hispanic adults (41%) and young adults ages 18 to 29 (40%). Among those under age 65, six in ten (59%) uninsured adults report problems paying for health care in the past year, about twice the share of insured adults who say the same (30%). (Source: KFF Health Tracking Poll: November 2025)

Reports of Problems Paying for Health Care Highest Among Hispanic and Black Adults and the Uninsured

The cost of care can also lead some adults to skip or delay seeking services, with one-third (36%) of adults saying that they have skipped or postponed getting needed health care in the past 12 months because of the cost. Women are more likely than men to say they have skipped or postponed getting health care they needed because of the cost (38% vs. 32%). Adults ages 65 and older, most of whom are eligible for health care coverage through Medicare, are much less likely than younger age groups to say they have not gotten health care they needed because of cost.

Three-quarters of uninsured adults say they have skipped or postponed getting the health care they needed due to cost. Having health insurance, however, does not offer ironclad protection as about four in ten adults with insurance (37%) still report not getting health care they needed due to cost. (Source: KFF Health Tracking Poll: May 2025)

Three-Quarters of Uninsured Adults Say They Have Skipped or Postponed Getting Health Care They Needed in the Past 12 Months Due to Cost

Skipping care due to costs can have notable health impacts. Nearly two in ten adults (18%) report that their health got worse because they skipped or delayed getting care. Among adults under age 65, those who are uninsured are twice as likely as those with health coverage to say that their health worsened due to skipped or postponed care (42% vs. 20%). About four times as many adults under age 65 (23%) say their health got worse after skipping or postponing care as adults ages 65 and older (6%), most of whom have Medicare coverage. (Source: KFF Health Tracking Poll: May 2025)

Nearly Two in Ten Report Their Health Got Worse After Skipping or Postponing Care Due to Cost

A 2022 KFF report found that people who already have debt due to medical or dental care are disproportionately likely to put off or skip medical care. Half (51%) of adults currently experiencing debt due to medical or dental bills say in the past year, cost has been a probititor to getting the medical test or treatment that was recommended by a doctor. (Source: KFF Health Care Debt Survey: Feb.-Mar. 2022)

Prescription Drug Costs

The high cost of prescription drugs also leads some people to cut back on their medications in various ways. About one in four adults (23%) say in the past 12 months they have taken an over-the-counter drug instead of getting a prescription filled because of cost concerns and about one in five (21%) say they have not filled a prescription due to the cost. Additionally, about one in seven adults (15%) say that in the past 12 months they have cut pills in half or skipped doses of medicine due to cost.

One-third of the public (33%) say they have taken any of these cost saving measures in the past 12 months. Four in ten women (39%) say they have taken any of these prescription medication measures compared to one-quarter (26%) of men. Additionally, just under half of Hispanic adults (46%) say they’ve either taken an over-the-counter drug, skipped doses, or not filled prescriptions because of the cost, compared to three in ten (29%) White adults who say the same. Similarly, larger shares those with lower incomes report having taken a cost-saving measure in the last year compared to those with higher incomes (41% of those with a household income of less than $40,000 a year vs. 29% of those with an income of $40,000 or more). (Source: KFF Health Tracking Poll: May 2025)

Notably, adults with chronic conditions, who tend to have higher health care and medication needs, can often face challenges affording prescriptions. In KFF’s 2023 Survey of Consumer Experiences with Health Insurance, insured adult with a chronic condition were twice as likely as those without a chronic condition to say they had delayed or gone without prescription drugs due to the cost (18% vs. 9%).

About Two in Ten Adults Say They Have Not Filled a Prescription or Taken an Over-the-Counter Drug Instead Due to Cost

Health Insurance Cost Ratings

Health insurance provides some financial protection, but premiums and out-of-pocket costs can still present a financial burden for many individuals. Overall, most insured adults rate their health insurance as “excellent” or “good” when it comes to the amount they have to pay out-of-pocket for their prescriptions (61%), the amount they have to pay out-of-pocket to see a doctor (53%), and the amount they pay monthly for insurance (54%). However, at least three in ten rate their insurance as “fair” or “poor” on each of these metrics, and affordability ratings vary depending on the type of coverage people have.

Adults who have private insurance through employer-sponsored insurance or Marketplace coverage are more likely than those with Medicare or Medicaid to rate their insurance negatively when it comes to their monthly premium, the amount they have to pay out of pocket to see a doctor, and their prescription co-pays. About one in four adults with Medicare give negative ratings to the amount they have to pay each month for insurance and to their out-of-pocket prescription costs, while about one in five give their insurance a negative rating when it comes to their out-of-pocket costs to see a doctor.

Medicaid enrollees are less likely than those with other coverage types to give their insurance negative ratings on these affordability measures (Medicaid does not charge monthly premiums in most states, and copays for covered services, where applied, are required to be nominal). (Source: KFF Survey of Consumer Experiences with Health Insurance)

Large Shares of Adults With ESI and Marketplace Coverage Rate Their Insurance Negatively When It Comes to Premiums and Out-of-Pocket Costs

Health Care Debt

In June 2022, KFF released an analysis of the KFF Health Care Debt Survey, a companion report to the investigative journalism project on health care debt conducted by KFF Health News and NPR, Diagnosis Debt. This project found that health care debt is a wide-reaching problem in the United States and that 41% of U.S. adults currently have some type of debt due to medical or dental bills from their own or someone else’s care, including about a quarter of adults (24%) who say they have medical or dental bills that are past due or that they are unable to pay, and one in five (21%) who have bills they are paying off over time directly to a provider. One in six (17%) report debt owed to a bank, collection agency, or other lender from loans taken out to pay for medical or dental bills, while similar shares say they have health care debt from bills they put on a credit card and are paying off over time (17%). One in ten report debt owed to a family member or friend from money they borrowed to pay off medical or dental bills.

While four in ten U.S. adults have some type of health care debt, disproportionate shares of lower income adults, the uninsured, Black and Hispanic adults, women, and parents report current debt due to medical or dental bills.

Four in Ten Adults Currently Have Debt Due to Medical or Dental Bills

Vulnerabilities and Worries About Health Care and Long-Term Care Costs

At the start of 2026, health care costs are at the top of the list of people’s financial worries, with two-thirds (66%) saying they are at least somewhat worried about affording the cost of health care, including the cost of health insurance and out-of-pocket costs for things like office visits and prescription drugs for themselves and their families. This is larger than the shares who say they worry about affording food and groceries (57%), utilities (57%), housing costs (52%), and gas or other transportation expenses (52%) for their families.

Notably, about nine in ten uninsured adults under age 65 say they are worried about affording the cost of health care (88%), but a large share of insured adults are also worried (68%). Health care costs are at the top of household cost worries across insurance types and partisans. (Source: KFF Health Tracking Poll: January 2026)

Health Care Costs Are the Top Household Expense the Public Worries About

Many U.S. adults may be one unexpected medical bill from falling into debt. About half of U.S. adults say they would not be able to pay an unexpected medical bill that came to $500 out of pocket. This includes one in five (19%) who would not be able to pay it at all, 5% who would borrow the money from a bank, payday lender, friends or family to cover the cost, and one in five (21%) who would incur credit card debt in order to pay the bill. Women, those with lower household incomes, Black and Hispanic adults are more likely than their counterparts to say they would be unable to afford this type of bill. (Source: KFF Health Care Debt Survey: Feb.-Mar. 2022)

About Half of Adults Would Be Unable To Pay for an Unexpected $500 Medical Bill in Full, Including Larger Shares of Women, Those With Lower Household Incomes, Black and Hispanic Adult

Among older adults, the costs of long-term care and support services are also a concern. Almost six in ten (57%) adults 65 and older say they are at least “somewhat anxious” about affording the cost of a nursing home or assisted living facility if they needed it, and half say they feel anxious about being able to afford support services such as paid nurses or aides. These concerns also loom large among those between the ages of 50 and 64, with more than seven in ten saying they feel anxious about affording residential care (73%) and care from paid nurses or aides (72%) if they were to need these services. See The Affordability of Long-Term Care and Support Services: Findings from a KFF Survey for a deeper dive into concerns about the affordability of nursing homes and support services.

VOLUME 39

Abortion Pill Safety Decisions by FDA Were Science-Based, New JAMA Study Finds


Highlights

A new study found that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decisions about the abortion pill mifepristone consistently followed scientific evidence, even as misleading claims about the drug’s safety continue to shape public understanding.

And Google removed some health AI summaries after a Guardian investigation reported that AI-generated summaries for search results about multiple health topics, including cancer screening, liver disease, and mental health conditions, shared false and potentially dangerous health information. While the full extent of inaccurate health information in these AI-generated summaries is unclear, patient advocacy organizations described the examples as “dangerous” and “alarming.”


What We’re Watching

Claims That the FDA Failed to Properly Evaluate Mifepristone Persist as New Study Finds Decisions Were Science-Based 

As FDA leadership initiates a new safety review of mifepristone following claims by abortion opponents that the drug was not adequately evaluated before it was granted approval, a new study published in JAMA examining more than 5,000 pages of internal FDA documents from 2011 to 2023 finds that agency decisions were consistently driven by scientific evidence, not politics. The study found that agency leaders almost always followed the recommendations of career scientists, repeatedly reviewed safety data, and reaffirmed that mifepristone is safe while making cautious changes to access. Despite this detailed analysis documenting the rigor of the FDA’s review process, the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing this month framed as an inquiry into the abortion pill’s safety, with statements describing mifepristone as putting women in “serious danger.” Evidence continues to demonstrate that mifepristone is a safe medication. KFF polling shows that while twice as many adults say mifepristone is “safe” (42%) than say it is “unsafe” (18%) when taken as directed by a doctor, four in ten express uncertainty over the pill’s safety. Perception of the abortion pill’s safety has declined since 2023 among the public overall (42% view as safe now v. 55% in 2023) and among women ages 18 to 49 (41% view as safe now v. 59% in 2023).

Polling Insights:

KFF’s November 2025 Health Tracking Poll found that the public is largely divided over the intention underlying the FDA’s review of mifepristone. Just over half (53%) of adults and a similar share of women of reproductive age say that Secretary Kennedy’s decision to have the FDA review the safety of the abortion pill is mostly to “make it more difficult to access abortion pills,” while a somewhat smaller share of the public say the decision is mostly to “protect the health and safety of women” (46%).

Views on FDA’s review of mifepristone are largely shaped by partisanship, with most Democrats (81%) saying the decision is largely about curbing access to abortion pills and most Republicans (73%) saying the decision is mostly about protecting the health of women.

Slightly Larger Shares Say Secretary Kennedy’s Call for an FDA Review of Abortion Pill Aims to Restrict Access Rather Than Protect Health

U.S. Withdraws from International Health Organizations as Trust in Public Health Institutions Declines

The U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization took effect this month, with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warning that the decision “makes the U.S. unsafe” and “makes the rest of the world unsafe” by cutting access to disease surveillance and emergency response systems. The withdrawal is part of broader U.S. disengagement from international health efforts, including the recent announcement that the U.S. is withdrawing from 31 U.N. entities such as the U.N. Population Fund, the lead U.N. agency focused on global population and reproductive health. Public opinion data suggests the decision lands amid declining and polarized public confidence in the WHO itself. According to an April 2024 poll from Pew Research, about six in ten U.S. adults believed the U.S. benefitted from its membership in the WHO, fewer than the share who said the same in 2021, including an 8 percentage point decrease in the share who say the U.S. benefitted a “great deal.” These concerns reflect institutional and diplomatic trust and intersect with broader trust challenges in health. The withdrawal occurs as the U.S. public’s trust in federal health agencies has continued to erode.  As global health partnerships change, health communicators may benefit from tracking changes in trust in health agencies to better understand where audiences turn to for health information.

Fraudulent Ads on Social Media Continue Despite Enforcement Measures 

Fraudulent advertising on social media continues to expose users to misleading and dangerous health claims, impacting how people assess and trust health information online. In early January, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) issued a “scam alert” about fraudulent ads using AI-generated videos of celebrities to promote fake weight-loss products, including unauthorized endorsements for supplements claiming to be GLP-1 medications. The BBB reported receiving more than 170 reports about one such product, with customers spending hundreds of dollars after seeing the fraudulent ads. The use of celebrity likenesses and medical terminology may increase the perceived credibility of these claims, even when the products are not legitimate treatments. The persistence of these false health advertisements is part of broader challenges platforms face in content moderation, with recent investigations finding thousands of deceptive ads remaining active despite prior enforcement. A Reuters investigation also reported that Meta allowed a high number of ads from Chinese partners, including ads for fake health supplements, prioritizing revenue while some enforcement measures were delayed or paused. As misleading health advertising continues, KFF will continue monitoring the types of health information that the public reports seeing and trusting on social media to better inform health communicators of when to intervene.


AI & Emerging Tech

Google’s AI Overviews in Search Results May Give Harmful Health Information

What’s happening?

An investigation conducted by The Guardian found that the artificial intelligence (AI)-generated summaries that appear at the top of Google search results, called “AI Overviews,” at times provided inaccurate and misleading information about health topics, potentially giving users false reassurance about serious illness. The Guardian found that the overviews wrongly advised people with pancreatic cancer to avoid high-fat foods, provided misleading information about liver blood test results, and incorrectly identified pap smears as screenings for vaginal cancer. Since the investigation was published, Google removed some AI health summaries tied to specific search queries, but similar prompts can still trigger AI-generated results and broader risks from AI-produced health information remain.

How often do people encounter and trust these overviews?

  • July 2025 polling from the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that nearly two-thirds of Americans who search for health information online had seen AI-generated responses at the top of search results, and most who see these responses consider them at least somewhat reliable, though just 8% consider them “very reliable.” Among adults who have seen AI-generated responses when searching for health information online, about three in ten said the AI responses provided them the answer they needed either “always” or “often.” At the same time, most adults who see these AI-generated responses to health inquiries said they either always or often continue searching by following links to specific websites or other resources.
  • A qualitative study published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research found that participants often skipped these overviews in favor of traditional search results, with some expressing skepticism about them because of a lack of sourcing. Even participants who read the AI-generated summaries continued scrolling to review other results rather than stopping their search, suggesting that some users are adopting a “trust but verify” approach to AI for health information.

Why this matters

The continued prevalence of AI-generated health information, which can contain misleading and harmful advice, suggests a need for both better safeguards from technology companies and clear guidance from health communicators about how to critically evaluate AI-generated health information. Even as research indicates that some users may skip these overviews or try to independently verify their contents, communicators should be aware that patients may be using these AI overviews as starting points for health research.

About The Health Information and Trust Initiative: the Health Information and Trust Initiative is a KFF program aimed at tracking health misinformation in the U.S., analyzing its impact on the American people, and mobilizing media to address the problem. Our goal is to be of service to everyone working on health misinformation, strengthen efforts to counter misinformation, and build trust. 


View all KFF Monitors

The Monitor is a report from KFF’s Health Information and Trust initiative that focuses on recent developments in health information. It’s free and published twice a month.

Sign up to receive KFF Monitor
email updates


Support for the Health Information and Trust initiative is provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of RWJF and KFF maintains full editorial control over all of its policy analysis, polling, and journalism activities. The data shared in the Monitor is sourced through media monitoring research conducted by KFF.