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.
In this perspective published by the Washington Post, KFF Executive Vice President for Health Policy Larry Levitt explains why the popular Affordable Care Act provisions that ensure people with pre-existing conditions can access affordable health insurance can't easily be preserved if other related provisions are overturned.
This month's KFF Health Tracking Poll finds that about four in ten are aware of the federal judge's ruling that the ACA is no longer valid but once made aware, most disapprove of the ruling. This poll also examines the public's favorability toward expanding the role of public health care programs, and majorities across partisan groups have a favorable opinion of programs such as Medicare buy-in and Medicaid buy-in, with a national Medicare-for-all being less popular but still receiving a majority of support overall.
Map detailing the status of litigation surrounding the new HHS Title X family planning rules, as of July 2, 2019.
This issue brief summarizes the DC federal district court's June 29, 2018 decision in Stewart v. Azar, the lawsuit brought by Medicaid enrollees challenging the HHS Secretary’s approval of the Kentucky HEALTH Section 1115 waiver program, which includes a work requirement, premiums, coverage lockouts, and other provisions that the state estimated would lead 95,000 people to lose coverage.
A new issue brief from the Kaiser Family Foundation explains the June 29 federal court ruling invalidating the Kentucky HEALTH Medicaid waiver program and its implications for other states. The DC Federal District Court decision in Stewart v.
This brief overviews the Biden Administration’s 2024 final rule implementing Section 1557 of the ACA, which is home to the law’s major nondiscrimination provisions. It provides a brief background on 1557 rulemaking and identifies key differences between this rule and the 2020 rule from the Trump Administration. It highlights two areas of growing interest impacted by the rule – nondiscrimination protections related to pregnancy and nondiscrimination protections for transgender people. Table 2 summarizes the major provisions of the new final rule with side-by-side comparison to the Obama (2016) and Trump (2020) administration rules.
In advance of oral arguments about access to medication abortion before the Supreme Court on March 26, KFF examines how a Court ruling for the plaintiffs would limit access to mifepristone blocking its use in telehealth and distribution through pharmacies, including in states where abortion is legal and protected.
This issue brief details some of the implications of the Supreme Court's June 13, 2024, ruling in the case Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA.
Before the ACA was passed, many states had enacted contraceptive equity laws that required plans to treat contraceptives in the same way they covered other services. In addition, since the ACA was passed, a number of states have enacted laws that basically codify in state legislation the ACA benefit rules. This issue brief provides an update on the status of the continuing litigation on the federal contraceptive requirement and explains the interplay between the federal and state contraceptive coverage laws and the implications for employers and women.
The outcome of the Texas v.
© 2026 KFF