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 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).
With the Supreme Court set to hear oral arguments in King v.
A map and table showing the number of people now receiving premium subsidies who would lose them if the Court finds for the challengers; the total amount of federal subsidy dollars; the average subsidy (or average premium tax credit) that subsidized enrollees have qualified for; and the average increase in premiums that subsidized enrollees would face if the subsidies are disallowed.
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.
A week after the 2020 elections, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear 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.
Without the ACA, there is nothing in federal law to assure people with pre-existing health conditions access to affordable individual market coverage. This post looks at how overturning the ACA would disproportionately affect older adults, younger women, and people living outside metro areas
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.
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.
The April 2019 KFF Health Tracking Poll examines the public’s position on the future of ACA and its protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions, in light of the ongoing legal battle which may end up in the Supreme Court. With lawmakers proposing legislation to address surprise medical bills, this month’s survey also measures the public’s support for federal government action to protect patients from having to pay the cost incurred from an inadvertent out-of-network provider.
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.
© 2025 KFF