The independent source for health policy research, polling, and news.
KFF’s policy research provides facts and analysis on a wide range of policy issues and public programs.
KFF designs, conducts and analyzes original public opinion and survey research on Americans’ attitudes, knowledge, and experiences with the health care system to help amplify the public’s voice in major national debates.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the organization’s core operating programs.
Millions of low-income Americans currently covered by Medicaid likely would become uninsured if the Supreme Court were to strike down the Affordable Care Act in California v. Texas, a legal challenge the high court is scheduled to hear in early November, KFF experts explain in a new Policy Watch post.
In his first 2015 column for The Wall Street Journal's Think Tank, Drew Altman explains why this year, status quo for the Affordable Care Act is not an option and how the Supreme Court rules in King v. Burwell will determine its path. All previous columns by Drew Altman are available online.
On January 20, 2015, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, a case that raises the issue of whether Medicaid providers can challenge a state law in federal court on the basis that it violates the federal Medicaid Act and therefore is preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This issue brief examines the major questions raised by the Armstrong case, explains the parties’ legal arguments, and considers potential effects of a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Following the Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell decision, the Affordable Care Act could use a break from the intense political heat, though it may not get a long one as the 2016 election season heats up and presidential candidates play to their bases on health care, writes Drew Altman in his latest column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank.
With the Supreme Court ruling on King v. Burwell upholding the Affordable Care Act’s federal subsidies, Drew Altman's column in The Wall Street Journal's Think Tank explores what the decision means and what’s next for the health law.
This issue brief dissects the issues raised by the legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that private insurance plans include contraception as part of their coverage of preventive services for women. Over 40 for-profit corporations and over 40 nonprofit corporations have filed lawsuits claiming that the requirement to provide their employees with contraceptives violates their religious rights. On November 26, 2013, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases filed by for-profit corporations, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, that claim that this requirement violates their religious rights. At the crux of these cases is a question that the Supreme Court has not previously addressed: Do for-profit corporations have religious protections under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment? The brief provides background on how the ACA’s contraceptive requirement works, summarizes some of the legal challenges brought by for-profit and non-profit organizations and discusses the implications of potential rulings by the Supreme Court.
While inflation was clearly at the top of voters’ minds in this year’s midterm elections, the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade played a significant role in motivating key voting blocs that likely contributed to the Democratic party’s stronger-than-expected performance, a new analysis of KFF’s supplemental questions on the Associated Press VoteCast survey of midterm voters.
7 in 10 Worry About Voter Suppression Interfering with a Fair and Accurate Count Allen Media Group’s African American-focused news, lifestyle, and entertainment platform theGrio and KFF today released a joint national survey examining the mood and views of Black voters, the only in-depth public survey this election cycle focused exclusively on this group, which…
This analysis estimates that almost 54 million people – or 27% of all adults under 65 —have pre-existing health conditions that would likely have made them uninsurable in the individual markets that existed in most states before the Affordable Care Act. Almost half (45%) of non-elderly families include at least one adult with such a pre-existing condition. The analysis also includes estimates by age, state and gender.
In this June 2018 post for The JAMA Forum, Larry Levitt examines the potential impact of the Trump Administration's legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act's protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
© 2026 KFF