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.
Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability in health programs and activities receiving federal funds. Here are the significant ways HHS's final rule would narrow the scope of this regulation.
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.
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.
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.
In this post on The Huffington Post, Alina Salganicoff and Laurie Sobel offer a Q&A on “contraceptive-only” plans, an approach mentioned during oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court case Zubik v. Burwell. In the Zubik case, a group of religiously affiliated nonprofits with religious objections to providing birth control coverage seek an exemption from the Affordable Care Act's provision requiring most plans to offer such coverage without cost-sharing.
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.
This analysis finds that about 10 million privately insured people received at least one ACA preventive service or drug that could be affected by a now-stayed U.S. District Court ruling, which found the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) requirement to cover certain preventive services without any cost sharing to be partially unconstitutional.
This partnership survey with theGrio examines the mood and views of Black voters ahead of the 2022 midterm election, including their motivation to vote, experiences with voter suppression, and key issues including inflation and abortion. With a large sample of Black voters, it includes breakdowns by age, gender, education, and party identification.
With the Supreme Court set to hear oral arguments in King v.
In this column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank, Drew Altman lays out the news media’s challenge covering the upcoming Supreme Court King v. Burwell decision about the ACA.
© 2026 KFF