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.
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.
Larry Levitt's March 2015 post explores what could happen if the U.S. Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs in the King v. Burwell case, the lawsuit that challenges the federal government’s authority to provide financial assistance to people who buy insurance in federally-operated marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act.
Following the Supreme Court’s King v.
This perspective addresses how insurance markets might respond if the US Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs in the King v. Burwell case. The case challenges the legality of premium and cost-sharing subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying insurance in states where the federal government rather than the state is operating the marketplace under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision by the end of June, 2014 on the cases brought forth by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, two for profit corporations challenging the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement. The plaintiffs contend that the requirement that they include coverage for certain contraceptive services (emergency contraceptive pills and intrauterine devices) in the insurance plans “substantially burdens” both the corporation’s and the owners’ religious rights. During the arguments, several of the justices discussed the extent to which the corporations did or not did not have a choice in offering coverage to their workers. In this brief, we explore some of the factors influencing coverage decisions and possible consequences for women and employers given possible Supreme Court decision options: either upholding the contraceptive coverage requirement, or in favor of Hobby Lobby.
One of the most politically polarizing elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the law’s requirement that new private health insurance plans cover prescription contraceptives and services, including all methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
The nomination of a new Supreme Court justice has placed heightened scrutiny on what President Trump’s administration would do to continue the Affordable Care Act’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions if the Supreme Court invalidates the law.
The repeal of the ACA could mean loss of Medicaid coverage for up to 15 million that were enrolled in the ACA Medicaid expansion group prior to the COVID-19 pandemic; however, repeal could also mean significant changes to Medicaid prescription drug policy with implications for state and federal spending for prescription drugs for non-expansion Medicaid enrollees.
This brief examines what the loss of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would mean for women's coverage and access to health care.
On Tuesday, Nov. 10, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a legal challenge supported by the Trump administration that seeks to overturn the Affordable Care Act, an outcome that would have major effects throughout the health care system as the law’s provisions have affected nearly all Americans in some way.
© 2025 KFF