President Biden released his FY 2025 budget request on March 11, 2024. The President’s fourth and final budget request of his first term builds on past efforts to address the domestic HIV response, including by proposing slight funding increases for the “Ending the HIV Epidemic” (EHE) initiative and the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) Program. In addition, this is the third year the budget proposes a new mandatory HIV prevention program aimed at expanding the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a medication that prevents HIV for those at higher risk.

The request also includes discretionary funding levels for key programs aimed at addressing the domestic HIV epidemic, including at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) Ryan White HIV/AIDS and Health Center Programs, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Dept. of Housing, Urban Development’s HOPWA Program, the Minority AIDS Initiative, and the Indian Health Service (IHS). It also marks the fifth year of budget requests for the EHE. (Not included here are funding levels through mandatory accounts, including Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security Insurance (SSI), and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which make up the majority of HIV spending by the federal government.)

As the FY 2024 budget has not yet been approved by Congress, comparisons are made to the FY 2023 level, when possible. An overall request total for discretionary HIV funding is not yet available as we await the domestic HIV funding level from NIH. The funding request for the EHE initiative totals $593.25 million, $20 million (3.5%) over the FY 2023 enacted level.

Key budget highlights are as follows.

CDC – HIV prevention

• The FY 2025 funding request for domestic HIV prevention at the CDC, which accounts for almost all federal funding for domestic HIV prevention, totals $1.0 billion which is the same level as the FY 2023 enacted amount.

HRSA – Ryan White and Health Center HIV Funding

• The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, the nation’s safety net for HIV care and treatment, receives $2.6 billion in the FY 2025 request, a $10 million (0.4%) increase over the FY 2023 enacted level. The small increase is attributed to EHE activities; the EHE receives $175 million in the request, an increase of $10 million (6.1%) over the FY 2023 enacted level.
• The FY 2025 budget request also includes $157.25 million in HIV funding for the Health Center Program at HRSA, all of which is for the EHE initiative, and is the same amount as the FY 2023 enacted level.

NIH – Domestic HIV Research

• The National Institutes of Health (NIH) carries out almost all federally funded HIV research activities. The domestic share of HIV funding is not yet known. The FY 2023 enacted level for domestic HIV research at NIH was $2.7 billion. (This line will be updated with FY 2025 request level, when possible.)
• Included in the overall HIV funding at NIH is funding for the EHE. The agency received $26 million in EHE funding in the request which is the same as the FY 2023 enacted level.

Indian Health Service (IHS)

• The FY 2024 budget request includes $15 million for EHE activities at the Indian Health Service (IHS). This is a $10 million, or 200% increase, over the FY 2023 enacted level of $5 million.

Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA)

• HOPWA is a program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development which provides housing assistance and supportive services to low-income people with HIV facing housing insecurity. The FY 2023 budget request includes $505 million, a $6 million (1%) increase over the FY 2023 enacted level.

PrEP Access through Medicaid and CHIP

• The budget creates a proposal which would require state Medicaid and CHIP programs to cover PrEP and associated laboratory services without cost-sharing for beneficiaries. It also “places guardrails on utilization management practices like prior authorization and step therapy.”

Mandatory PrEP Program

• For the third year in a row, the Budget proposes to repropose $9.8 billion over 10 years for a new mandatory Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Delivery Program to End the HIV Epidemic in the United States (“PrEP Delivery Program”). The program would aim to “provide PrEP and associated services at no cost to uninsured and underinsured individuals and expand the number of providers serving underserved communities.”

The tables below compare federal funding levels for domestic HIV, where specified, in the FY 2025 request to the FY 2023 enacted levels. (As noted, FY24 funding levels are yet available for comparison.) Funding for the “Ending the HIV” Initiative is included in the overall table (Table 1) and in a dedicated table (Table 2). Funding for the new PrEP program is not included below as the following tables include discretionary funding only.

Key Documents:

• White House Budget Resources 
• HHS Budget Justification
• CDC Congressional Budget Justification
• HRSA Congressional Budget Justification 
• NIH Congressional Budget Justification 
• HUD Congressional Budget Justification
• IHS Congressional Budget Justification

President Biden released his FY 2025 Budget Request on March 11, 2024. Since FY 2024 appropriations have not been finalized yet, comparisons here are made to the FY 2023 enacted level. The budget request includes discretionary funding for U.S. global health programs at the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).[i] Highlights include:

• Total funding would decline: Funding provided to the State Department and USAID through the Global Health Programs (GHP) account, which represents the bulk of global health assistance, totals $9.8 billion in FY 2025, a decrease of $733 million below the FY 2023 enacted level.
• The entire decline is due to a decreased contribution to the Global Fund (but, there are specific technical reasons for the decrease): Funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) totals $1.2 billion, a decrease of more than $800 million compared to FY 2023 ($2 billion). This decrease is due to a funding match requirement that limits the amount the U.S. can contribute, which is a cap of 33% of total contributions from other donors; the FY 2025 Global Fund amount is expected to support the third tranche of U.S. funding as part of its three-year pledge of $4.8 billion toward the Global Fund’s seventh replenishment.
• Two areas would increase slightly:
  • Maternal and child health (MCH) programs would receive a slight increase, partly due to an increased contribution to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, as part of the first year of a four-year pledge towards Gavi’s next replenishment cycle.
  • Family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH)[ii], is the only other area that would receive a slight increase – for both bilateral funding and the U.S. contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
• All other areas would remain flat: Funding for bilateral HIV, TB, malaria, nutrition, vulnerable children, neglected tropical diseases, global health security, and the Health Reserve Fund are the same as the FY 2023 amount.
• Also of note:
  • The FY 2025 request also includes funding for the Global Financing Facility (GFF), provided under MCH funding; the Pandemic Fund, provided under global health security funding; and the Global Health Worker Initiative, provided as its own separate line item.
  • Global health funding at CDC remains flat.

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

Resources:

• White House budget resources
• State Department, FY 2025 International Affairs Budget
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FY 2025 CDC Congressional Justification
• National Institutes of Health, Overview of FY 2025 President’s Budget

[i] Total funding for global health is not currently available as some funding provided through USAID, NIH, and DoD is not yet available.

[ii] Funding through the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account for FP/RH was specified by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during a conference call on the international affairs budget, per PAI.

Following implementation of Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in North Carolina and South Dakota in 2023, there has been a recent surge in expansion activity early in 2024 among several of the ten states that have not yet adopted Medicaid expansion. While activity in Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas may have stalled, there continues to be growing potential for action in Mississippi. While expansion activity is ongoing in several states, President Biden continues to urge Congress to close the coverage gap in the remaining non-expansion states, though that is unlikely in a divided Congress. This policy watch takes a look at recent activity, what expansion could mean in Mississippi, and what to watch as things continue to play out.

What is the status of Medicaid expansion in Mississippi?

Medicaid expansion legislation (HB 1725) was recently passed in the Mississippi House by a 99-20 vote (a veto-proof majority) that directs the Division of Medicaid to seek a waiver to implement the expansion. The waiver would require individuals to be working in a job without health insurance, enrolled as a full-time student, or enrolled full-time in a workforce training program. Coverage would be delivered through managed care plans, which would provide workforce training and skills building and financial literacy materials. Individuals who have insurance through employer or private health insurance and who voluntarily disenroll from that coverage would not be eligible for Medicaid expansion coverage for 12 months. A $10 copay would be required for nonemergency use of the emergency room.

The legislation requires the Medicaid agency to submit a State Plan Amendment (SPA) to implement the expansion if the waiver is not approved by Sept. 30, 2024 or if approved and subsequently terminated. The SPA would be “substantially the same” as the waiver plan in terms of coverage group, delivery system, benefits package, and funding but would exclude the work requirement.

The bill includes financing and other provisions. The legislation stipulates that the expansion is contingent upon continuation of the current federal matching rate (FMAP) of 90%. Through waiver or SPA, the legislation calls for an assessment on hospitals and managed care plans to fund portion of the state share. The legislation would implement expansion starting January 1, 2025 and would require reauthorization to extend expansion beyond January 31, 2029.

What are the implications of Medicaid in Mississippi?

Medicaid eligibility for adults in Mississippi is very limited. In Mississippi, current eligibility limits for parents is 28% of the federal poverty level (FPL) or $7,230 annually for a family of three. There is no pathway for coverage for childless adults, so most childless adults with incomes below the poverty level have no options for affordable, comprehensive health coverage, since ACA premium subsidies are available only for people with income levels at or above poverty.

KFF estimates that 123,000 uninsured adults could be eligible for Medicaid if the state adopts the Medicaid expansion. This number includes 74,000 adults with incomes below poverty who fall into the coverage gap and an additional 49,000 uninsured adults with incomes between 100% and 138% FPL. Adults who fall into the coverage gap have incomes above current Medicaid eligibility limits, but below poverty, making them ineligible for subsidies in the ACA Marketplaces. Most uninsured adults with incomes between 100% and 138% FPL are currently eligible for Marketplace coverage but not enrolled. Most of the adults who are currently eligible for coverage in the Marketplace qualify for plans with zero premiums; however, even with no premiums, Medicaid could provide more comprehensive benefits and lower cost-sharing compared to Marketplace coverage.

What are key developments to watch?

Mississippi Medicaid expansion legislation is now under consideration in the Senate. The outcome of the legislation remains uncertain, and Senate leaders plan to introduce their own proposal so it is likely that there will be further negotiations between the two chambers. CMS under the Biden Administration is not expected to approve work requirement waivers. Unlike the House bill, the Senate proposal could include language and dates that would wait for a future presidential administration to take office and approve a waiver before expansion would be implemented. Even if a bill is passed by both legislative chambers, Governor Reeves has remained opposed to expansion.

A temporary financial incentive for states that newly adopt Medicaid expansion has made expansion more attractive for states. Under the American Rescue Plan Act states that newly adopt expansion are eligible for an additional 5 percentage point increase in the state’s traditional FMAP for two years, resulting in a temporary net fiscal benefit for these states. This fiscal incentive was key in moving expansion forward in North Carolina. KFF had estimated that Mississippi could realize a net fiscal benefit of $690 million over two years if expansion had been implemented in 2022; however, the fiscal incentive is available for two years whenever a state adopts expansion.

Provider organizations in the state, including the Mississippi State Medical Association and Mississippi Hospital Association, have been supporters of expansion. A KFF review of studies on the economic impact of Medicaid expansion on providers identified positive economic impacts for providers (particularly rural hospitals), in line with prior research.

The high cost of prescription drugs continues to be a top health care priority for the public. Policymakers from both parties at the federal and state level have been pursuing a range of options to lower drug prices for Americans, one of which would allow for the safe importation of prescription drugs from Canada. This idea is based on data showing that people in the U.S. often pay more for medications than people in other countries.

On January 5, 2024, Florida became the first state to gain authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to import certain prescription drugs from Canada. Florida’s plan is based on an approach developed under the Trump Administration and executed under the Biden Administration, following an executive order issued by President Biden in July 2021 directing the FDA to work with states to import prescription drugs from Canada. The idea of importing prescription drugs has bipartisan support among the general public (Figure 1), although there are long-standing concerns with this approach in terms of ensuring drug safety, and the idea is opposed by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the Canadian government.

Many studies have shown that people in the United States often pay more for their prescription drugs than in other developed countries, including Canada. One analysis of a broad range of drugs found that Canadian prices are 44% of those in the United States, and according to a KFF analysis, per capita spending on prescribed medicines was 42% higher in the United States than Canada. Canada’s drug prices are generally lower than those in the United States because the Canadian government has various mechanisms to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

The Inflation Reduction Act included many provisions that affected Medicare drug prices and out-of-pocket costs, but did not address drug prices for others, which has contributed to ongoing interest in adopting strategies, such as importation, to lower drug costs for other Americans.

These FAQs address questions related to prescription drug importation, including the current status of importation proposals, details of Florida’s importation program recently authorized by the FDA, and concerns and challenges with this approach.

1. How does the U.S. currently regulate the importation of prescription drugs from other countries?

Currently, the only type of legally imported FDA-approved drugs are those that are: 1) manufactured in foreign FDA-inspected facilities, intended for use by U.S. consumers, and imported into the U.S. by the drug manufacturer, and 2) those that are U.S.-approved and manufactured in the U.S., sent abroad, then imported back into the U.S. under rare circumstances such as for emergency medical purposes or in the case of product recalls.

Drug importation as part of efforts to lower drug prices in the U.S. takes a different form. In 2000, Congress enacted the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety (MEDS) Act, which added Section 804 to the FD&C Act, to allow pharmacists and wholesalers to import prescription drugs directly from certain industrialized countries, including Canada. The MEDS Act allows such importation only if the HHS Secretary certifies that the program: “poses no additional risk to the public’s health and safety,” and “results in a significant reduction in the cost of covered products to the American consumer.” The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) amended Section 804 by specifying that wholesalers and pharmacists can only import prescription drugs from Canada, not other industrialized countries. The MMA also requires the HHS Secretary to issue regulations that would grant waivers to individuals to import drugs for personal use under certain circumstances.

In September 2020, the Trump Administration issued a final rule that created a new pathway, called the Section 804 Importation Program (SIP) pathway, for states and other entities to import drugs from Canada. To comply with the statutory requirements related to health and safety and cost savings, then-HHS Secretary Alex Azar certified that importation of prescription drugs poses no risk to public health and safety and would result in significant cost savings to the American consumers.

2. How did Florida gain approval to import drugs from Canada and what requirements must be met before the plan can be implemented?

In January 2024, the FDA under President Biden granted its approval to Florida’s state plan to import certain prescription drugs from Canada for a period of two years, stating that it met the requirements that importation would provide savings to consumers without sacrificing health and safety. When submitting its SIP application for approval, Florida was required to specify: the drugs it seeks to import; the foreign seller in Canada that would purchase the drug directly from its manufacturer; the importer in the U.S. that would buy the drug directly from the foreign seller in Canada; the re-labeler or re-packager of the drug itself that would ensure the drug meets all labeling requirements in the U.S.; the qualifying lab that would conduct testing of the drug for authenticity and degradation; and steps that would be taken by the SIP to ensure the supply chain is secure.

Even with FDA approval, Florida will need to meet additional requirements before the plan can be implemented. For example, before Florida is permitted to import any drugs from Canada, it will need to submit a pre-import request to the FDA for each drug it seeks to import, and it can only import that drug if the FDA approves that request. The state of Florida will also be required to conduct quality testing of the drugs and ensure that drug labels meet FDA standards.

3. Which drugs can be imported by Florida and other states under the SIP importation pathway?

Under the SIP pathway, only drugs that are currently marketed in the U.S. are eligible for importation. In addition, in order for a drug to eligible, it must also be approved by the Health Canada’s Health Products and Food Branch (HPFB) and have appropriate labeling to be marketed in Canada.

As under current law, certain types of drugs are excluded from the definition of a prescription drug eligible for importation including: controlled substances, biological products (including insulin), infused drugs, intravenously injected drugs, and inhaled drugs during surgery. Furthermore, drugs that are subject to risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS), which are high-risk products with serious safety concerns, such as opioids, are not eligible for importation.

Florida seeks to initially import 14 drugs that treat HIV/AIDS, mental illness, prostate cancer, and urea cycle disorder. In Florida, imported drugs will only be available for people receiving services through certain state agencies and government programs, including people covered under Medicaid, people served through county health departments, and others residing in certain state facilities. The program does not extend to people with other types of insurance, such as employer insurance, or the uninsured.

4. What are the estimated savings associated with Florida’s drug importation plan?

According to Florida’s January 5, 2024 press release, the state’s plan will save the state up to $183 million in the first year of implementation, and based on Florida’s October 20, 2023 estimate of cost savings, these savings will accrue to the state’s Medicaid program. Whether any Floridians will pay lower out-of-pocket costs on imported drugs, or how much they are likely to save, is unclear.

Neither the September 2020 final rule that created the SIP pathway nor the FDA’s full final regulatory impact analysis provided an estimate of the expected savings. The final regulatory analysis noted that responses by other stakeholders, such as Canadian regulatory agencies and drug manufacturers, could impact the potential benefits of this program.

5. What are other states doing to implement drug importation proposals?

Many states are considering legislation that would facilitate drug importation from Canada. Several states, including Colorado, Vermont, Maine, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Texas have enacted laws to establish importation programs and are actively pursuing the importation of prescription drugs from Canada.

• Colorado: In February 2024, Colorado submitted a revised version of its SIP to the FDA. In its proposal, Colorado notes that it has been having difficulty negotiating with drug manufacturers in Canada to allow exportation of their drugs to the U.S. and has been looking for more guidance from the FDA on how to address this issue. Colorado seeks to import 24 drugs to treat blood clots, cystic fibrosis, respiratory illnesses, cancer, type 2 diabetes, HIV/AIDS, psoriatic and rheumatoid arthritis. Of the drugs Colorado lists in its application, 4 overlap with those that are on Florida’s importation drug list.Colorado estimates the program will save $50.9 million in the first 3 years of implementation if all 24 eligible drugs are imported. Unlike the Florida analysis of savings, Colorado’s analysis assumes cost savings for individuals with commercial insurance, including employer-sponsored and individually purchased insurance. According to Colorado, Medicaid is not a targeted population because it “receives steep rebates for covered drugs, lower than what any importation program could provide,” and therefore, its estimates of savings do not include individuals covered by Medicaid, nor does it include Medicare or the uninsured. Colorado expects the nearly all of the savings (93.5%) will be passed onto consumers in the form of lower premiums though consumers will also see some savings in the form lower out-of-pocket expenses.

• New Mexico: New Mexico submitted its SIP application in December 2020 for FDA approval and is still awaiting a response from the FDA.
• New Hampshire: New Hampshire submitted a SIP proposal in August 2021, which was rejected by the FDA in November 2022 because the state had not identified a Foreign Seller nor provided other requested information. New Hampshire has not yet submitted a revised application.
• Vermont: Vermont submitted a concept paper in November 2019, but it has not submitted a new importation proposal following the SIP pathway being finalized in September 2020.
• Maine: Maine submitted an importation proposal in May 2020 for FDA approval, also prior to the SIP pathway being finalized, and has not submitted a new proposal.
• North Dakota: North Dakota passed a bill in April 2021 that requires a study on the potential impacts of prescription drug importation.
• Texas: In June 2023, Texas enacted legislation to establish an importation program and published a wholesale prescription drug importation report in December 2023 with research and recommendations to support implementation of the program. 

6. How does Canada view these importation programs?

When the SIP importation pathway was first proposed, the Government of Canada stated that it would be unable to meet the needs of the U.S. market without impacting access to medications for Canadians. The Canadian government also expressed concern that this policy would create drug shortages in Canada, and issued an order in November 2020 prohibiting the distribution of drugs that could cause or exacerbate a shortage. Therefore, it is possible that the Canadian government may impose barriers for importation to the U.S. Canadian law limits the sale of drugs outside of Canada that could create or worsen supply issues for Canadians. In response to the recent FDA action, Health Canada released a statement saying, “the Government of Canada is taking all necessary action to safeguard the drug supply and ensure Canadians have access to the prescription drugs they need” and added, “bulk importation will not provide an effective solution to the problem of high drug prices in the U.S.”

7. Under what circumstances can individuals legally import drugs from other countries, like Canada?

In most circumstances, it is illegal for individuals to import FDA-approved drugs from other countries for personal use. However, based on changes enacted by the MMA, personal importation of prescription drugs that have not been approved by the FDA for use in the U.S. is permitted on a case-by-case basis. Under this statutory authority, FDA has put out guidance that lays out certain circumstances where importation of non-FDA approved drugs for personal use might be allowed. For example, personal importation is generally allowed if the treatment is for a serious condition, there is no effective treatment available in the U.S., and there is no commercialization of the drug for U.S. residents. Typically, only a three-month supply is allowed, and individuals must confirm in writing that the drug is for personal use and provide information about the physician responsible for their treatment.

There appears to be little enforcement by the FDA of the ban against importing FDA-approved drugs for personal use. Even if the personal importation of a drug is technically illegal, current law directs the FDA to exercise discretion in permitting personal importation of drugs when the product is “clearly for personal use, and does not appear to present an unreasonable risk to the user,” which is reinforced in FDA guidelines.

Updated February 20, 2025, to correct the average deductible amount for standalone dental plans offered on the Marketplace in 2023.The 2023 KFF Consumer Survey of Consumer Experiences with Health Insurance finds cost barriers to adult dental care across coverage types. Conducted in February and March of 2023, the survey includes a nationally representative sample of 3,605 U.S. adults who have health insurance. This Policy Watch discusses a new proposal in the Health and Human Services (HHS) Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2025 that aims to expand access to adult dental care in Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace plans.

Background

While dental coverage for children under the age of 18 is an essential health benefit (EHB) under the ACA statute, adult dental care is currently prohibited by agency regulation from being considered an EHB in individual and small group plans. As a result, it is excluded from the ACA’s major cost-sharing protections that apply to EHBs such as the ban on annual and lifetime dollar limits and maximum annual limits on out-of-pocket cost sharing for consumers and is not covered by premium subsidies. There are still coverage options for adults seeking dental care through the Marketplace, offered through stand-alone dental plans (SADPs) or embedded plans (medical plans that include dental coverage). Dental care is usually subject to a deductible, though the National Association of Dental Plans reports that many dental plans waive the deductible for preventive dental care such as cleanings or cover preventive care 100%. Dental coverage that is included in an embedded plan is generally subject to the medical deductible for the plan, which, on average, was $3,057 in 2024. This translates to greater consumer cost sharing before coverage of dental services begins. In contrast, the average deductible for standalone dental plans offered on the Marketplace in 2023 was $52 according to KFF analysis of the Health Insurance Exchange Plan Attributes Public Use Files, which includes all qualified and non-qualified stand-alone dental plans sold on- and off- the exchange.

The KFF Consumer Survey of Consumer Experiences with Health Insurance finds that consumers who reported having insurance coverage at the time of the survey tend to avoid seeking dental care if the out-of-pocket costs are high. Across coverage types, at least one in four adults with health insurance report cost barriers to accessing dental care in the past year, including about four in ten of those with Medicaid (39%) and Marketplace coverage (37%) and a quarter of those with ESI (25%) and Medicare (26%) (Figure 1).

Delaying needed dental care could lead to more serious health problems down the road. Poor dental health is associated with chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and oral cancer, and could also lead to additional burdens on the healthcare system as patients seek care elsewhere.

The HHS Benefit and Payment Parameters Notice for 2025 proposes to remove the prohibition on the classification of routine adult dental health coverage as an EHB. Under this proposed rule, states would have the option of classifying adult dental care as an EHB. If a state chose to classify adult dental health as an EHB, the state (or the federal government as a fallback) would be required to enforce the same ACA protections for adult dental coverage that apply to other EHBs. They would also have the option of applying additional protections for adult dental coverage offered as an EHB that goes beyond the federal requirements for EHBs.

What Are the Key Issues to Watch?

Embedded deductibles might not provide consumers with financial protection for dental care. One issue raised in comment letters for the 2025 Payment Notice is that consumers who receive dental care through embedded dental coverage may have to meet the medical deductible before coverage of dental services can begin. If a state chooses to offer adult dental care as an EHB, medical plans would be required to cover it, and the medical deductible could apply. Deductibles under medical plans can be thousands of dollars, which may deter consumers from seeking dental care, especially people with lower incomes.

Classifying adult dental care as an EHB could come at an increased cost to the federal government and health issuers. CMS stated in the proposed rule that it does not anticipate any immediate costs as a result of giving states the option to include adult dental care as an EHB. However, it is possible that application of advanced premium tax credits towards dental care could raise costs for the federal government. Additionally, cost sharing provisions that apply to EHBs, such as the ban on annual and lifetime coverage limits and the maximum annual out of pocket limit, could increase costs for health plan issuers since they could no longer apply these restrictions on dental care.

The new provision could affect employer-sponsored plans. Small employer plans, like those in the individual market, are required to cover EHBs. While large employer plans do not have to meet EHB rules, federal regulations require that these plans choose a state benchmark in order to comply with the ACA’s prohibition on annual and lifetime dollar limits. CMS pointed out in the proposed Payment Notice that if a self-insured or fully-insured large employer plan selects a state benchmark plan that includes adult dental care as an EHB, they would be required to abide by the cost-sharing requirements that apply to other EHBs. Employer plans that offered dental plans separately as “excepted benefits” (which are not subject to ACA requirements for comprehensive medical insurance), however, would presumably not be required to abide by these requirements.

Consumers could be subject to cost-sharing for preventive dental services. The ACA requires most private health plans to cover, without cost sharing, preventive health services rated as an A or B in the United States Preventive Service Task Force recommendations; however, no adult dental services have received this A or B rating. Consumers could be subject to cost sharing for routine preventive dental services or be required to meet the deductible before coverage of preventive services began, although as stated above, many private health plans already cover preventive health services such as cleanings before the deductible.

Looking Forward

The ACA’s EHB requirements seek to ensure consumers in the individual and small group markets have comprehensive coverage that meets vital health needs. The law requires the Secretary of HHS to define EHB that covers at least 10 general categories of benefits and has a scope equal to those “under a typical employer plan.” According to the 2023 KFF Employer Health Benefits Survey, 90% of small firms and 94% of large firms offer dental insurance programs to their employees. If the proposed 2025 Payment Rule is finalized as proposed, this will allow states to choose to include adult dental care as a required benefit in state-regulated health plans. This could enhance efforts to increase access to dental care, especially for lower income adults who are particularly susceptible to having unmet dental health needs. In addition, KFF research shows that dental costs are a contributor to medical debt. CMS and states may evaluate the most appropriate ways to structure an adult dental benefit that provides financial protections to avoid debt for common basic care, balanced by potential increases in federal costs.

About 1 in 8 voters (12%) now say that abortion is the most important issue for their vote in the 2024 elections, highlighting how the issue could motivate groups of voters who largely say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a new KFF Health Tracking Poll finds.

The issue resonates with certain key groups of women voters. More than 1 in 4 Black women voters (28%), and about a fifth of Democratic women (22%), women who live in states where abortion is banned (19%), women voters who plan to vote for President Biden (19%), and women of reproductive age (18-49) (17%) identify as abortion voters.

Overall, the majority of abortion voters say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. This is a significant shift from elections prior to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, when abortion voters were largely those who identified as pro-life.

About half (48%) of this election’s abortion voters say that they would vote for President Biden if the election were held today, nearly double the share (26%) who say that they would vote for former President Trump. This group says they voted for Biden over Trump by a similar margin in 2020, though about 1 in 5 say they did not vote in that election.

At the same time, 43% of Republicans overall say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but few Republicans who want abortion to be legal seem ready to buck their party over the abortion issue. In tight races, however, even small shifts could become important. Republicans who say abortion should be illegal are more likely to be abortion voters (14%, or 8% of all Republican voters) than those who say abortion should be legal (4%, or 2% of all Republican voters).

Partisans largely trust their own party and their own party’s presumptive nominee more on the issue of abortion. Larger shares of independent voters trust the Democratic Party (38%) and President Biden (35%) than the Republican Party (15%) and former President Trump (19%), though a significant share of independent voters say they don’t trust either party (39%) or candidate (31%) on this issue. 

About half of voters overall say this year’s presidential election (51%), Congressional election (53%), and which party controls their state legislature (55%) will have a “major impact” on access to abortion. The shares who say it will have a major impact rises to at least two-thirds among abortion voters and Democratic voters.

Majorities, Including Most Women of Reproductive Age, Favor Policies to Protect Abortion Access and Oppose Policies that Could Restrict It

The poll also gauges the public’s support for specific abortion policies, including a national 16-week abortion ban that media reports suggest Trump is considering for his platform.

Most of the public (58%), including most women under age 50 (61%), oppose a national 16-week abortion ban, though most Republicans (63%) would favor it.

On other policy changes, the poll finds the public overall – and most Democrats – largely supportive of policies protecting access to abortion. Examples include:

• Adults (86%) overwhelmingly say they support protecting access to abortion for patients experiencing pregnancy-related emergencies, such as miscarriages. This includes large majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.
• Two thirds (66%) support guaranteeing a federal right to an abortion, including three quarters (76%) of women under age 50. Large majorities of Democrats (86%) and independents (67%), and a sizeable minority of Republicans (43%), support such a guarantee.
• Most of the public opposes several policies advocated by abortion opponents, such as making it a crime for health care providers to mail abortion pills to patients in states where abortion is prohibited (62% oppose) and policies that prohibit clinics that receive federal funds from providing abortions or referring patients to abortion providers (61% oppose). Narrow majorities of Republicans support each of those policies.

The public’s views on specific policies likely reflect their broader views of abortion. When asked how they think about abortion, most of the public says it is an issue of individual rights and freedoms (81%), a health care issue (68%), and a moral issue (62%). This includes at least half of Democrats, independents, and Republicans. Fewer see it as a religious issue (41%), though most Republicans (55%) do.

Other poll findings include:

• Former President Trump has taken credit for the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, as the three justices he appointed to the court joined that decision. About two thirds of voters (65%) say he had at least some responsibility for the decision, including half of Republican voters.
• On March 26, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could affect access to mifepristone, a drug used for medication abortion that can currently be prescribed via telehealth and mailed to patients. About two thirds (64%) of the public has not heard anything about the case.
• In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to end the constitutional right to abortion, just under half (45%) of adults say they consider the right to use contraception as “secure,” while one in five (21%) say it is “a threatened right likely to be overturned,” and a third (34%) say they are not sure whether the right is threatened or secure. Among partisans, Democrats are most likely to see the right to contraception as threatened (38%).

Designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at KFF, the survey was conducted from February 20-28, 2024, online and by telephone among a nationally representative sample of 1,316 U.S. adults, including 1,072 registered voters. Interviews were conducted in English and in Spanish. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample and 4 percentage points for the sample of registered voters. For results based on other subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher.

Patient-provider email messaging accelerated early in the COVID-19 pandemic as more patients sought medical care remotely, and the addition of billing codes for digital health services and subsequent changes in insurers’ payment policies have enabled providers to bill insurers and patients for messaging. This analysis examines the typical cost of patient-provider email messaging in 2020 and 2021 using private health insurance claims data.

The typical cost for an email messaging claim was $39 in 2021, including both the portion paid by insurance and that paid by patients. Although the health plan covered the full cost for most of these claims (82%), those patients with at least some out-of-pocket costs typically paid $25.

The analysis is available through the KFF-Peterson Health System Tracker, an online information hub that monitors and assesses the performance of the U.S. health system.

The first FDA-approved over-the-counter daily oral contraceptive pill in the United States— Perrigo’s Opill— is now available for pre-order at major online retailers and will soon be available in stores.

Although the new over-the-counter pill could broaden access to contraceptive options in the United States, KFF research suggests consumers are likely to face some hurdles if they seek to have their plan cover the costs. For example, while federal policy requires most private health insurance plans and Medicaid expansion programs to cover—without patient copays—the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods with a prescription, there is no federal requirement that plans cover nonprescription contraception.

As Opill officially launches and federal regulators consider public input on how best to ensure coverage and access to over-the-counter preventive services like it, these three charts provide insights into the coverage and affordability issues raised by the over-the-counter availability of these pills.

1) Many women who say they are likely to use an over-the-counter oral contraceptive pill say they would not be willing to pay Opill’s suggested retail price.

The suggested retail price of Opill is $19.99 for one month’s supply or $49.99 for three months’ supply. Four in ten (39%) of those who say they are likely to use over-the-counter pills say they would be willing and able to pay $1-$10 per month and 11% would not be willing to pay anything ($0) for the pills. A third (34%) would pay $11-$20.

2) More than one third of oral contraceptive users have missed taking their birth control because they were unable to get their next supply on time.

Traditionally, patients need to get a prescription for oral contraceptives from a clinician and then pick up their supply at a pharmacy. Dispensing qualities vary by insurer, but the vast majority of oral contraceptive pills users receive fewer than 6 packs of pills at a time. The added convenience and time saved by obtaining oral contraception directly in stores or having them delivered from online retailers could reduce the share of women who miss taking their contraception on time because of difficulties in keeping a continuous supply on hand.

3) Seven states require state-regulated private health insurance plans to cover at least some methods of over-the-counter contraception without a prescription free of cost-sharing, and seven states use state funds to offer the same coverage for Medicaid enrollees.

Several states have taken action to address affordability barriers to over-the-counter contraception by requiring plans to cover certain products such as emergency contraception and condoms without a prescription. However, the reach of these measures is limited because the majority of those with private health insurance are enrolled in plans that are only subject to federal laws, not to state laws. In most of these states, the language of these private health insurance policies is broad enough to include an over-the-counter daily oral contraceptive such as Opill without a change in policy.

KFF has many resources about Opill’s potential impact and the coverage landscape in which the pill will be available. Take a deeper dive into the following:

• Insurance Coverage of OTC Oral Contraceptives: Lessons from the Field
• Will Insurance Cover Over-the-Counter Contraceptive Pills? A Discussion of Coverage Options and Challenges
• Over-the-Counter Oral Contraceptive Pills
• Oral Contraceptive Pills: Access and Availability
• Interest in Using Over-the-Counter Oral Contraceptive Pills: Findings from the 2022 KFF Women’s Health Survey

Note: For the latest information on states with approved HRSN waivers, view our  Section 1115 tracker “Key Themes Maps.”

In December 2022, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a Section 1115 demonstration waiver opportunity to expand the tools available to states to address enrollee health-related social needs (or “HRSN”). In November 2023, CMS released a detailed Medicaid and CHIP HRSN Framework accompanied by an Informational Bulletin (CIB). CMS defines health-related social needs as an individual’s unmet, adverse social conditions (e.g., housing instability, homelessness, nutrition insecurity) that contribute to poor health and are a result of underlying social determinants of health (SDOH). CMS outlines federal guardrails and requirements attached to the new demonstration opportunity (e.g., expenditure limits, service delivery requirements, and monitoring and evaluation requirements). CMS indicates broadening the availability of HRSN services is “expected to promote coverage and access to care, improve health outcomes, reduce health disparities, and create long-term, more cost-effective alternatives or supplements to traditional medical services.” While health programs like Medicaid can play a supporting role, CMS stresses the new HRSN initiatives are not designed to replace other federal, state, and local social service programs but rather to complement and coordinate with these efforts. And, the amount of funding allocated to HRSN programs is modest as a share Medicaid spending in states with approved waivers.

This issue brief identifies states with approved and pending Medicaid 1115 waivers with SDOH-related provisions and summarizes approvals under the new Biden administration HRSN 1115 framework, highlighting approved services, target populations, and key requirements related to financing HRSN services.

As of February 2024, the Biden administration has approved eight 1115 demonstrations under the new HRSN waiver framework (Figure 1). These waivers authorize evidence-based housing and nutrition services for specific high-need populations. Several approvals build on prior 1115 waiver initiatives (including California’s “CalAIM” transformation). Approvals include coverage of rent/temporary housing and utilities for up to 6 months and meal support up to three meals per day (for up to 6 months), departing from longstanding prohibitions on payment of “room and board” in Medicaid.¹  Eleven other states have approved 1115 waivers with SDOH-related provisions that pre-date the new Biden administration HRSN framework. These waivers are generally narrower in scope (services and target populations) or pilot programs targeting specific regions. For example, in October 2018, CMS approved North Carolina’s Healthy Opportunities Pilots, that operate in three geographic regions. Six additional states have SDOH-related 1115 waivers pending review at CMS.

The remainder of this brief highlights key provisions approved under the new HRSN 1115 framework in eight states (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington).

What HRSN services are states covering through recently approved 1115 waivers?

Authorized HRSN services include housing supports, nutrition supports, and case management but specific services offered vary by state demonstration (Appendix Table 1). States can add HRSN services to the benefit package and may require managed care plans to offer the services to enrollees who meet state criteria.

• Housing Supports. All states have approval to provide housing supports without “room and board” such as housing transition and navigation services, tenancy sustaining services (e.g., tenant rights education, eviction prevention), one-time transition and moving costs, home remediations, and home accessibility modifications. Some states have approval to provide housing supports with “room and board” including recuperative care (also called medical respite) and short-term housing and utility assistance (up to 6 months). As of February 2024, four states (Arizona, New York, Oregon, and Washington) have CMS approval to cover rent/temporary housing and utility costs for up to 6 months. Three states (California, New York, and Washington) have approval to cover recuperative care (up to 90 days) and short-term post-hospitalization housing (up to 6 months).
• Nutrition Supports. Approved nutrition services include nutrition counseling, home delivered meals or pantry stocking, nutrition prescriptions, and grocery provisions (meal/nutrition supports approved up to 3 meals/day, for up to 6 months). Nutrition services are frequently tailored to health risk or designed to support individuals with specific nutrition-sensitive health conditions (e.g., diabetes). Two states (Massachusetts and New York) have approval to provide additional meal/nutrition support for a household with a high-risk child or pregnant individual.

All states will also provide HRSN case management, outreach, and education services. A few states also have approval to cover transportation to HRSN services (Massachusetts, New York, and Washington). All states have CMS approval for HRSN infrastructure expenditures to support the implementation and delivery of HRSN services. Infrastructure investments may include technology; development of business or operational practices; workforce development; and outreach, education and stakeholder convening.

What populations will have access to HRSN services?

The target populations for HRSN services vary but in all instances are narrowly defined groups that must meet specified health and social risk criteria (Appendix Table 2). Subject to CMS approval, states have flexibility to define the target populations eligible to receive HRSN services, using clinical and social risk criteria. HRSN services must be medically appropriate and voluntary for enrollees. Target populations approved include individuals who are or are at risk of becoming homeless, individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) and/or substance use disorder (SUD), high-risk pregnant individuals, high-risk children/youth, and individuals experiencing high-risk care transitions (e.g., from institutional care, correctional setting, or child welfare system). CMS guidance specifies housing services that include “room and board” may only be offered to populations experiencing certain housing or care transitions (e.g., individuals experiencing homelessness, or individuals transitioning from institutions to the community).² 

What are key CMS requirements related to financing HRSN services under 1115?

Recent CMS changes to budget neutrality policy may create broader opportunities for states to pursue HRSN initiatives, but guidance also sets financing limits and guardrails. While not set in statute or regulation, a longstanding component of Section 1115 waiver policy is that waivers must be budget neutral for the federal government (i.e., federal costs under a waiver must not exceed what they would have been for that state without the waiver). In its approvals, CMS has indicated that HRSN spending will not require offsetting savings. In addition, CMS has specified that states may access federal matching funds for spending on “Designated State Health Programs (DSHP)” (which may free up state funds to finance HRSN initiatives), a policy that was phased out under the Trump administration. In conjunction with policies to broaden financing opportunities for HRSN, CMS has also included fiscal guardrails and requirements aimed at ensuring states prioritize coverage and access to basic medical services and ensuring HRSN spending complements, rather than supplants, existing local, state, and federal social supports. Key requirements include:

• CMS is limiting how much Medicaid funding a state can use for HRSN initiatives. CMS guidance specifies spending for HRSN services and infrastructure cannot exceed 3% of total annual Medicaid spending. HRSN infrastructure cannot exceed 15% of the state’s total HRSN expenditure authority. Waivers include spending caps (based on a state’s projected expenditures) for HRSN services and infrastructure (Appendix Table 3). States will not have access to federal matching funds for any spending above the cap. In its approvals, CMS indicates the HRSN spending caps “will ensure the state maintains its investment in the state plan benefits to which enrollees are entitled while testing the benefit of the HRSN services.”
• CMS is requiring states to meet provider payment rate requirements for core Medicaid services. To maintain and/or improve access to quality care for enrollees, as a condition of approval, states are required to maintain base Medicaid payment rates (fee-for-service and managed care) of at least 80% of Medicare rates for primary care, behavioral health, and obstetrics services and must increase rates that are below this level.
• Medicaid-covered HRSN services should complement but not supplant the work or funding of other federal or state non-Medicaid agencies. In addition, CMS guidance outlines state spending on related social services (before the waiver) must be maintained or increased.

What to watch as HRSN waivers move to implementation?

Looking ahead, the results of required monitoring and evaluation of HRSN initiatives could help inform future policy decisions about whether and how to use Medicaid to address enrollees’ health-related social needs. States are required to submit implementation plans and protocols to CMS for review and approval that provide operational details for new initiatives. States are also required to submit quarterly and annual monitoring reports to CMS that provide information on HRSN service implementation, HRSN service utilization, and quality of services. Finally, states must submit an evaluation strategy to CMS for review and approval. Independent evaluations must test whether HRSN services effectively address unmet HRSN, reduce potentially avoidable, high-cost services, and/or improve physical and mental health outcomes. States will also be required to report on health equity metrics. Implementation timing will vary across states. California began implementation of its “community supports” in 2022 (authorized under 1115 and managed care “in lieu of” authorities). Available implementation plans suggest two states (Arizona and Oregon) expect to roll out HRSN services in 2024, while Massachusetts plans to begin offering HRSN services in 2025. Implementation information from remaining states is forthcoming. Waiver priorities often shift from one presidential administration to another, so states’ ability to continue to pursue these initiatives may hinge on the outcome of the 2024 election.

Appendix Tables

1. Federal financial participation is not available to state Medicaid programs for room and board except in certain medical institutions, as codified in multiple regulatory provisions. See, for example, 42 CFR § 441.310(a)(2) and 42 CFR §441.360(b). CMS defines board as three meals a day or any other full nutritional regimen, and room as hotel or shelter type expenses including all property related costs such as rental or purchase of real estate and furnishings, maintenance, utilities, and related administrative services. See section 4442.3 of the State Medicaid Manual at www.cms.gov/regulations-andguidance/guidance/manuals/paper-based-manuals-items/cms021927. ↩︎
2. Allowable transitions include out of institutional care (NFs, IMDs, ICFs, acute care hospital); out of congregate residential settings such as large group homes; individuals who are homeless, at risk of homelessness, or transitioning out of an emergency shelter as defined by 24 CFR 91.5; out of carceral settings; and individuals transitioning out of the child welfare setting including foster care. https://www.medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/hrsn-coverage-table.pdf ↩︎