Home Blog

How TrumpRx Brand-Name Drug Prices Compare to Other Countries



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

TrumpRx prices for brand-name drugs are about as likely to be higher as lower compared to average prices in other wealthy countries, according to an analysis that compares 32 brand-name drugs (without generics or biosimilars) on the TrumpRx website with publicly available prices in one or more of 11 OECD member countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

For 17 of the 32 drugs, the TrumpRx price is lower than the average price in comparable countries. This includes five drugs for which the TrumpRx price is lower than the prices available in any of the other countries. Eight drugs have a price that is $100 less than the average in other countries. For the other 15 drugs, the TrumpRx price is higher than the average price in comparable countries. This includes 13 drugs for which the TrumpRx price is higher than prices available in any of the other countries.

The full analysis and other data on health costs are available on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an online information hub dedicated to monitoring and assessing the performance of the U.S. health system.



Source link

Analysis: Prices for Many Brand-Name TrumpRx Drugs Are Cheaper than the Average Price in Other Wealthy Countries, But Are Almost as Likely To Be More Expensive



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Consumers who buy brand-name prescription drugs without an available generic or biosimilar at the prices available through the new TrumpRx website are about as likely to pay more as pay less for those drugs relative to the publicly listed prices available in other comparatively wealthy countries, a new KFF analysis finds.

The Trump administration has promoted the TrumpRx website as a way for consumers to get the lowest prices for prescription medications in the world, drawing on voluntary pricing agreements with drug manufacturers aimed at securing “Most Favored Nation” prices for American consumers. For many brand-name drugs listed on the website, TrumpRx directs consumers to manufacturers’ discount coupons to get the drugs at a pharmacy without using insurance.

The analysis compares the prices of 32 brand-name drugs listed on the TrumpRx website with those in other countries. Key findings include:

  • For 17 of the 32 drugs, the TrumpRx price is lower than the average price in comparable countries. This includes five drugs for which the TrumpRx price is lower than the prices available in any of the other countries. Eight drugs have a price that is $100 less than the average in other countries.
  • For the other 15 drugs, the TrumpRx price is higher than the average price in comparable countries. This includes 13 drugs for which the TrumpRx price is higher than prices available in any of the other countries.
  • There are wide variations in the price differences between TrumpRx and other countries. For nine of the drugs, the prices on TrumpRx are at least double the average across other countries. This includes Enbrel, a drug used to treat rheumatoid arthritis; the TrumpRx price is $2,725 higher than the average across other countries ($3,354 versus $641).

This analysis compares the TrumpRx drug prices with available prices in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom for the brand-name drugs listed on the TrumpRx site (as of August 25, 2026) that do not have generics or biosimilars available in the U.S. and that had publicly available prices in at least one of the other nations. It does not compare the prices available on TrumpRx now to the prices that may have been available to consumers in the U.S. prior to its launch.

There is no one source of data for drug prices in other countries. In many cases, the publicly listed prices used in the analysis represent the price paid by the government’s national health system, or similar entity, and not necessarily what a consumer living in the country and covered by its health system would pay.

The analysis also examines some of the factors that contribute to differences in prices across countries and through TrumpRx, including the role of government in setting drug prices. The analysis is available through the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, an online hub monitoring how well the U.S. health system is operating through cost and quality measures.



Source link

KFF/AP Rural Voters Survey | KFF



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Key Takeaways

  • Economic frustrations in rural America have significantly worsened over the past decade, and growing dissatisfaction with the rising cost of living appears to be chipping away at rural voters’ historical support for President Trump. Rural voters overwhelmingly name the cost of living as their top election issue, and three quarters, including majorities across partisanship, now rate the cost of living in their area as either “fair” or “poor,” a 25-percentage point increase from 2017. While more rural voters prefer the Republican Party than the Democrats to best address the cost of living (40% v. 25%), many (27%) say they trust neither party, including most independents (67%) and four in ten (42%) Republicans who do not support the MAGA movement.
  • President Trump continues to garner strong approval among his base of Republicans across rural America, but growing economic frustrations may be impacting some Republicans’ enthusiasm to turn out in the 2026 midterms. About one-quarter (27%) of rural Republican voters disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy, and this group is substantially less likely than Republicans who approve of Trump on the economy to say they are “absolutely certain” to vote in the upcoming election (59% vs. 79%). Overall, eight in ten Democratic rural voters (81%) say they are certain to vote, slightly higher than the share of Republican rural voters who say the same (74%).
  • As KFF polling has found nationally, health care costs play a large part in rural voters’ concerns about the cost of living. Two-thirds of rural voters say they are at least “somewhat worried” about affording health care for themselves or their families, on par with the share who say they are worried about affording gas (67%) and higher than worries about affording food (60%), monthly utilities (59%), or housing costs (46%).
  • More than half (54%) of rural voters disapprove of President Trump’s handling of health care, and views on the impact of his administration’s policies on areas like health care costs, Medicare, Medicaid, and the availability of health care are largely negative. For example, by more than a 2-to-1 margin, rural voters say the Trump administration’s policies have had a negative rather than a positive impact on their own health care costs (41% vs. 17%). Still, the Republican Party has a narrow advantage over the Democratic Party in rural voters’ trust to handle the cost of health care (33% vs. 28%), though about three in ten Republicans (28%) say they trust neither party on health care costs, rising to six in ten (59%) among independent rural voters. 
  • The overwhelming majority (92%) of rural voters say Medicaid is important for people in their local community and half have had a personal or family connection to the program at some point in their lives. However, awareness of future cuts to the program included in President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” is low among rural voters, with most saying they don’t know whether the legislation increases or decreases future federal spending on Medicaid. Despite this, nearly twice as many rural voters say Trump’s health care policies have had a negative rather than a positive impact on Medicaid (44% vs. 24%). While rural Republican voters are more likely to say the impact of Trump’s policies on Medicaid has been positive (40%), a similar share (43%) say they have had no impact.
  • Provider shortages have been a persistent challenge in rural areas, and the poll finds increases since 2017 in the share of rural voters saying their area lacks sufficient doctors (46%, up from 33%) and hospitals (35%, up from 21%) to serve the needs of the local community. Some voters appear to attribute responsibility to the Trump administration, with more than twice as many saying the administration’s policies have had a negative rather than a positive impact on the availability of health care in their area (37% vs. 15%).

Partisan Identification Among Rural Voters

The KFF/AP Rural Voters Survey draws from a nationally representative sample of 2,241 registered voters who currently live in census tracts classified as rural areas.

Rural voters skew more Republican compared to voters nationally, a difference that plays a role in their overall views and preferences on a range of issues.

Slightly more than half (54%) of rural voters identify as Republicans or Republican-leaning independents versus one-third (32%) who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents. A previous KFF poll found the national electorate is more evenly divided, with roughly similar shares identifying as either Democratic/Democratic-leaning (43%) or Republican/Republican-leaning (39%).

In addition to partisanship, this report also breaks out Republican/Republican-leaning rural voters by their support for President Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement. Three quarters of Republican rural voters say they support the MAGA movement, while a quarter (24%) do not.

Stacked bar chart showing the partisan breakdown of total voters and rural voters.

Cost of Living is the Top Issue for Rural Voters in 2026

A key theme echoed by majorities of rural voters across the country is that the current economic situation in the U.S. is putting significant pressure on them and their families – and it is what they want the candidates to be focused on during the 2026 election.

Cost of living is the top issue that rural voters want to hear midterm candidates talk about. About seven in ten (69%) rural voters say it is “extremely important” for candidates in the 2026 midterm elections to talk about cost of living, followed by health care costs (56%) and fraud in government programs (54%). Four in ten or more of these voters say it’s “extremely important” for candidates to talk about immigration (45%) or the conflict with Iran (42%), while smaller shares say they want to hear candidates talk about agriculture and farm policy (35%), abortion policy (28%), or gun policy (26%).


Stacked bar chart showing how important rural voters say certain issues are for midterm candidates to talk about.

While cost of living is a top concern across partisans,1 the ranking of issues differs. The top three issues Republican rural voters want candidates to discuss are fraud in government programs (65%), cost of living (62%), and immigration (56%). For Democratic voters in rural areas, the top three concerns are cost of living (80%), health care costs (72%), and the conflict with Iran (57%).

Split bar chart showing the share of rural voter partisans who say it is extremely important for midterm candidates to talk about certain issues.

In addition, rural voters overwhelmingly name economic factors, especially the rising cost of living, as the biggest problem in their communities. When asked what the biggest issue facing their local community is, roughly six in ten (57%) of these voters offer responses related to economic concerns as their community’s biggest issue, including rising costs, lack of jobs, low wages, housing affordability, and stagnant local economies.

In Their Own Words: Rural Voters Describe the Biggest Economic Problems Facing Their Local Communities

“Everything is expensive, the price of living is horrendous. It is impossible to even think of raising a family in this current climate. You can’t even sustain one single person with one form of income, when most places aren’t hiring full time so you have to have 2-3 part time jobs to sustain yourself.” – 27-year-old rural voter from Alabama, Democratic-leaning independent

“I think prices are too high right now. Also, the government takes way, way too much in taxes, leaving people too little to live on. We have to live within our means and balance our finances …Almost all of the politicians are hypocrites.” – 66-year-old rural voter from Ohio, Republican

“Gas prices are financially impacting me in a major way, someone who has to drive 45 minutes, each way, to work because I live rural, is impacting my budget. Between the gas prices and food prices increasing, I pay over $300 more on my budget. That’s not a little amount when every penny counts. Also, property taxes have doubled in the last 4 years.” – 51-year-old rural voter from Florida, independent who doesn’t lean toward either party

“Healthcare and our economy, no new jobs, inflation, gas prices, electricity, water supply is not clean, hard to save money when you’re paying it just to survive and support yourself and your children and grandchildren.” – 56-year-old rural voter from West Virginia, Democrat

“Electric bills and bills period. No one can afford to live anymore with the high food prices, high rent. Making do and I work 48 hrs a week with a family of 5 at home” – 36-year-old rural voter from New York, Republican

“We have lost several major manufacturing plants in my town. This resulted in a large portion of the community becoming unemployed. This has created a huge ripple effect of issues including a huge migration of people out of the area. Lower number of students enrolled has led to a drop in school funding and we are having to close an elementary school. The city council is proposing allowing a data center to be built close to town to “bring in jobs/opportunities” even though the majority of the community is against it and actively fighting it.” – 32-year-old rural voter from Kansas, Democrat

“The amount I am paying for groceries is too high for the income I make, and I am a teacher. I have a degree I should be able to afford a vacation for my family. I should be able to go to the local store and not pay about double what it is at Walmart.” – 26-year-old rural voter from North Dakota, Republican

Note: Responses are lightly edited for length and spelling, but reflect respondents’ own language and do not represent the views of KFF.

Current Economic Conditions Weigh Heavily on Rural Voters

While most rural voters continue to have positive views of their community in terms of safety and raising children, their views on cost of living in their areas has gotten markedly worse over the past decade. Three in four rural voters now say the cost of living in their community is “only fair” or “poor”, a 25-percentage point increase since 2017, when half of rural voters said the same. This includes double-digit increases in the shares of Republican, Democratic, and independent rural voters who rate the cost of living in their community negatively.  

Seven in ten rural voters (72%) also rate job opportunities in their communities negatively, a slight increase from two-thirds (67%) in 2017.


Range plot showing the share of rural voters who rate their community as only fair or poor in 2017 and 2026.

Majorities of rural voters across partisanship describe the cost of living in their community negatively, including more than eight in ten independents (87%) and Democrats (85%) and fewer, but still a majority, of Republicans (66%). Republican rural voters who do not support President Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement are somewhat more negative in their views of the cost of living where they live compared to MAGA supporters (73% v. 64%).


Stacked bar chart showing how rural voters rate the cost of living in their community. Results shown among party identification and Republican MAGA and non-MAGA supporters.

A plurality of rural voters say good-paying jobs have faded in their communities in the past five years. Overall, more than four in ten (44%) say there are fewer good paying jobs in their community compared to five years ago, while just one in six (17%) say there are more of these jobs. Another four in ten say the number of well-paid jobs in their area is about the same as it was five years ago. 

Democratic and independent rural voters are more likely than their Republican counterparts to say good-paying jobs have waned in their communities in the past five years, but similar to dynamics seen on other economic sentiments, non-MAGA supporting Republicans are nearly twice as likely as MAGA supporting Republicans to say good-paying jobs have declined where they live. Views that good-paying jobs have declined in their community are also held by larger shares of rural voters who are Hispanic (66%), Black (61%), have annual household incomes below $40,000 (51%), or are under age 50 (50%) compared to their counterparts.

Stacked bar chart showing the share of rural voters who think there are fewer, more, or about the same number of good paying jobs in their community compared to five years ago.

More than four in ten (44%) rural voters say their local economy has gotten worse during the second Trump presidency, including eight in ten (82%) Democratic rural voters, half (51%) of independents, and one in five (19%) Republican rural voters, though this rises to a third (35%) among non-MAGA supporting Republicans.

All of these negative economic sentiments may be contributing to rural voters’ views of President Trump overall and on the economy. About six in ten rural voters (57%) disapprove of President Trump’s handling of the economy. While about half (48%) of rural voters approve of his overall job performance, this has dropped slightly from a similar question asked in 2017, when 56% of rural registered voters said they approved. Notably, a larger share of Republican rural voters disapprove of President Trump’s handling of the economy (27%) than of his overall job performance (18%).

For Republican rural voters, however, approval of President Trump varies widely between MAGA supporters and non-MAGA supporters, suggesting that the President’s approval among rural Republicans outside his core base is much weaker. Half or more non-MAGA Republican rural voters (who make up a quarter of Republican rural voters overall) say they disapprove of the president’s job performance (52%) and his handling of the economy (55%) compared to one in six or fewer MAGA-supporting Republicans.

Split bar chart showing the share of rural voters who say they approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president and the economy. Results shown by party identification and MAGA support.

Republican Rural Voters Sour on the Economy May Not Turn Out in 2026

While the overwhelming majority (98%) of rural Republican voters say they would be more likely to vote for a Republican candidate than a Democrat in the upcoming election, dissatisfaction with President Trump’s handling of the economy may be impacting some Republican rural voters’ motivation to turn out for the 2026 midterms.

Republican rural voters overall are somewhat less likely than Democrats to say they are “absolutely certain” to vote in the upcoming election (74% vs. 81%). Further, Republicans who say they disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy (27% of Republican rural voters overall) are 20 percentage points less likely than those who approve of his handling of the economy to say they are “absolutely certain” to vote (59% vs. 79%).

Bar chart showing the share of rural voters who say they are absolutely certain they will vote in the 2026 midterm elections. Results shown by party identification and republicans who approve and disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy.

Health Costs and Price of Gas Top Household Affordability Worries

While rural voters express concern about affording a wide range of household necessities, health care costs and the price of gasoline top the list. Two-thirds of rural voters say they are either “very” or “somewhat worried” about being able to afford gasoline or transportation costs (67%) or health care (66%) for themselves or their families. Somewhat smaller majorities express worry about affording food and groceries (60%) or monthly utilities (59%), while nearly half (46%) are worried about affording their rent or mortgage.

While health care costs and gas remain the top affordability concern across partisanship, as with other economic sentiments, Democratic voters in rural areas are more likely than their Republican counterparts to express affordability worries across the board. Likely reflecting their lower incomes, younger rural voters are also more worried than older voters about being able to afford a variety of expenses. But for the youngest cohort of rural voters under age 30, health care costs rise to the top of their economic concerns, with about three quarters (77%) saying they are worried about affording health care for themselves or their families.

Stacked bar chart showing how worried rural voters are about being able to afford household essentials.

Who Voters Trust to Handle Key Issues

The Republican Party has an advantage when it comes to which party rural voters trust more to address the cost of living – rural voters’ top election priority – but voters are more divided on which party they trust to address health care costs, a key factor in their affordability concerns. At the same time, at least a quarter of rural voters say they prefer neither party across these issues.

Overall, four in ten rural voters say they trust the Republican Party to do a better job handling the cost of living, compared to a quarter who trust the Democratic Party and another quarter (27%) who trust neither party.

The Republican Party has a much narrower advantage on health care costs.  One-third of rural voters say they trust the Republican Party more to handle health care costs compared to about three in ten (28%) who trust the Democratic Party more. And similar shares of rural voters say they prefer the Democrats and the Republicans on handling Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act, while at least a quarter say they trust neither party to handle each of these health care programs.


Stacked bar chart showing which party rural voters trust to do a better job handling the cost of living and health care issues.

Partisans largely pick their own party on handling cost of living and health issues. For health-related issues, the Democrats tend to have a stronger advantage with their own rural voters than Republicans do with theirs, and this drops to fewer than half among non-MAGA supporting Republicans. For example, three-quarters (76%) of Democratic rural voters say they trust the Democratic Party to do a better job handling health care costs, while a smaller share (60%) of Republican rural voters say the same about the Republican Party, dropping to a quarter (26%) among non-MAGA supporting Republicans. Republican rural voters who do not support the MAGA movement largely still do not prefer Democrats, but rather say they trust neither party to handle costs.

While small shares of independent rural voters prefer the Democratic Party over the Republican Party to address the cost of health care, majorities of these independents say they trust neither party to address cost of living or health care cost (67% and 59%, respectively).

Stacked bar chart showing which party rural voters trust to do a better job handling the cost of living and the cost of health care. Results shown by partisan identification and MAGA support.

Views of Trump Administration’s Recent Changes to Health Care Policies

With slightly more than half (54%) of rural voters saying they disapprove of Trump’s handling of health care, views on the impact of the administration’s specific health care policies also skew negative. Roughly twice as many rural voters say the Trump administration’s health care policies have had a negative impact rather than a positive impact when it comes to their own health care costs (41% v. 17%), Medicare (44% v. 21%), Medicaid (44% v. 24%), and the availability of health care in their area (37% vs. 15%). Between three in ten and half of rural voters say the administration’s health care policies have had “no impact” in each of these areas. Views are slightly more divided on the impact of the administration’s policies on prescription drug costs, with three in ten (30%) saying the impact has been positive and about one-third each saying it has been negative (35%) or had no impact (35%).

Stacked bar chart showing how much impact rural voters believe the Trump administration's health care policies have had.

Partisans’ views are unsurprisingly divided on the impact of Trump’s health care policies, with most Democratic voters and at least half of independent voters saying they’ve had a negative impact. While Republican rural voters are less negative in their views, they are not overwhelmingly positive, either: over half say the administration’s policies have had “no impact” on their own health care costs, or the availability of health care in their area. Republican rural voters are somewhat more positive when it comes to the impact of the administration’s policies on Medicaid, with four in ten saying the impact has been positive, 16% viewing it as negative, and another four in ten (43%) saying there has been no difference.

Most (57%) rural voters who purchase their own health coverage (10% of rural voters overall) say the administration’s health care policies have negatively impacted their health care costs, higher than the share of rural voters with employer sponsored insurance or Medicare. This likely reflects the impact of rising costs for those who purchased coverage through the ACA Marketplaces following the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits last year.


Stacked bar chart showing whether rural voters believe the Trump administration's health care polices have had an impact. Results shown by party identification.

Medicaid’s Role for Rural Voters

Roughly half (49%) of rural voters say they or a family member have gotten support from the Medicaid program at some point in their lives, including four in ten (38%) who say they or a family member currently receives some form of coverage through the program. More than half of rural voters who are Hispanic (72%), Black (67%), under age 30 (65%), or women (56%) say they or someone in their family has ever gotten coverage from Medicaid, with at least four in ten across partisanship saying the same.

Similar to sentiments held by the general population, nine in ten (92%) rural voters, including large majorities across partisanship and among Republican MAGA supporters say Medicaid is important for people in their local community.

The Overwhelming Majority of Rural Voters Across Partisanship Say Medicaid Is Important for People in Their Community (Stacked Bars)

In late 2025, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law a legislative package known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” that included significant changes to the Medicaid program including reducing future federal spending on the program by more than $900 billion.

Awareness of reduced Medicaid funding among rural voters is low, with just one-third correctly saying the bill decreases future spending on Medicaid while six in ten (59%) say they don’t know enough to say, including more than seven in ten Republican voters.


Most Rural Voters, Including Those With Medicaid, Are Unaware of Recent Cuts to Future Medicaid Spending (Split Bars)

During the drafting of the 2025 budget bill, lawmakers added $50 billion in funding for a Rural Health Transformation Program, or “Rural Health Fund,” in response to concerns over the impact that reductions in health spending could have in rural areas. Most rural voters, however, remain unaware of the fund, with more than eight in ten saying they have heard either “a little” (23%) or “nothing at all” (61%) about the program. More than half of voters across partisanship say they have heard “nothing at all” about this fund.

Most Rural Voters Have Heard Nothing at All About the Rural Health Fund (Stacked Bars)

A majority of rural voters say it’s more often that government assistance goes to undeserving people, though their views on this have softened somewhat over the years. Six in ten (59%) rural voters say it’s more common in America that “irresponsible people get government help they don’t deserve” compared to four in ten (41%) who say it’s more common that “needy people go without government help.” These views have shifted moderately among rural voters over the past nine years, with a 10-percentage point rise in the share who say it’s more common that needy people are going without help. These sentiments have shifted most dramatically among Democrats and independents, while Republicans’ views have largely remained unchanged.

For Republican rural voters, having a current connection to the Medicaid program appears to soften their views on government assistance more broadly: Republicans who say they or a family member are currently receiving some type of Medicaid coverage are three times as likely as those with no such current connection to say it’s more common in America that people are going without government assistance they need (33% v. 10%).

Rural Voters' Views on Government Assistance Have Shifted Over Time, With More Now Saying Needy People Are Going Without Help (Stacked Bars)

A Growing Share of Rural Voters Say Their Communities Lack Key Health Care Services

Rural areas in the U.S. can face unique health care challenges, including provider shortages, lack of internet access, and hospital closures. The KFF/AP Rural Voters Survey shows that many rural voters rate health care in their communities poorly, a sentiment shared by Democrats, independents, and Republicans. As with other economic sentiments, views on the availability of some health care services have worsened over the years.

Many rural voters say their communities lack sufficient health care services and providers to serve local residents, including mental health care providers (62%) and doctors or other health care providers (46%). While most rural voters say their communities have enough pharmacies (81%) or hospitals (65%) to serve local residents, a notable share (35%) say their communities do not have enough hospitals, rising to half among Black (52%) and Hispanic (52%) rural voters.

Rural voters’ perceptions of the availability of doctors and hospitals have worsened since 2017 overall and across partisans, however the rise in the share saying their community lacks enough providers and hospitals has been steeper among Democrats than among Republicans. Between 2005 and 2026, nearly 200 rural hospitals have closed or converted, with closures recently outpacing openings in rural areas.

The Share of Rural Voters Who Say Their Communities Lack Enough Health Care Providers and Hospitals Has Risen Over the Years, With Growing Partisan Divisions (Range Plot)

In Their Own Words: Rural Voters Who Say Health Care-Related Issues Are the Biggest Problem Facing Their Community

“We need more help affording healthcare for our family.  Our health insurance tripled this past year and we can barely afford to pay for it plus afford food!   We were hoping Trump, with his business sense would figure out a way that every person in the country would have health insurance, the price of food would finally come down, and the price of gas would be at its lowest ever.  Instead, we are at war…” – 54-year-old rural voter from Wisconsin, Republican

“No decent permanent facilities for the elderly. There’s one really nice place that only the rich can afford. The hospital emergency room is horrific, at times there are very sick individuals in the waiting room or on stretchers in the hallway.” – 67-year-old rural voter from Tennessee, Republican

“The lack of a living wage is a major issue, but our greatest crisis is the lack of quality healthcare. Those with the ability to travel, go to [nearby cities] for medical care. The local hospital is stocked with part-time traveling nurses, and doctors. There is no stability in healthcare, and I worry that the proposed Medicare, and Medicaid cuts will endanger the future of the hospital.” – 70-year-old rural voter from Texas, Democrat

“There’s a somewhat vague sense of dreadful anticipation that our small rural community is going to lose its hospital due to Trump and his administration’s cuts, which apparently kick in on January 1, 2027.  The hospital employs a great many people and it is the only reasonable option for emergency care and other kinds of medical services for about a 25 to 30 miles radius.” – 64-year-old rural voter from New York state, Democrat

Note: Responses are lightly edited for length and spelling, but reflect respondents’ own language and do not represent the views of KFF.



Source link

KFF/AP Survey Probes Rural Voters’ Increasing Anxieties About the Rising Cost of Living, Including Health Costs, Heading into the Midterm Elections



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Rural voters’ frustrations about the cost of living in their community are growing and appear to be chipping away at Republicans’ enthusiasm to vote as the midterm elections near, a new KFF/Associated Press (AP) Survey of Rural Voters finds.

The survey of more than 2,000 rural voters probes the views and experiences of a group who have been strong supporters of President Trump and Republicans but are feeling economically stressed and facing higher health care costs. The project includes a polling analysis from KFF, which often partners with media organizations on surveys, and reporting from journalists at the AP and KFF Health News. Additional stories drawing on the poll findings and rural voters’ perspectives will come out in the coming weeks.

The survey’s key takeaways include:

  • Cost of living concerns are increasing, and Republicans maintain an edge with rural voters. Rural voters overwhelmingly name the cost of living as the top issue they want candidates to talk about, and three quarters now rate the cost of living in their area as either “fair” or “poor,” a 25-percentage point increase from 2017. When it comes to household expenses, rural voters worry most about health costs and gas prices. More rural voters prefer the Republican Party than the Democratic Party to best address the cost of living (40% v. 25%), though a quarter (27%), including most independents, trust neither party.
  • Cost of living concerns are increasing, and Republicans maintain an edge with rural voters. Rural voters overwhelmingly name the cost of living as the top issue they want candidates to talk about, and three quarters now rate the cost of living in their area as either “fair” or “poor,” a 25-percentage point increase from 2017. When it comes to household expenses, rural voters worry most about health costs and gas prices. More rural voters prefer the Republican Party than the Democratic Party to best address the cost of living (40% v. 25%), though a quarter (27%), including most independents, trust neither party.
  • Cost of living concerns are increasing, and Republicans maintain an edge with rural voters. Rural voters overwhelmingly name the cost of living as the top issue they want candidates to talk about, and three quarters now rate the cost of living in their area as either “fair” or “poor,” a 25-percentage point increase from 2017. When it comes to household expenses, rural voters worry most about health costs and gas prices. More rural voters prefer the Republican Party than the Democratic Party to best address the cost of living (40% v. 25%), though a quarter (27%), including most independents, trust neither party.
  • Cost of living concerns are increasing, and Republicans maintain an edge with rural voters. Rural voters overwhelmingly name the cost of living as the top issue they want candidates to talk about, and three quarters now rate the cost of living in their area as either “fair” or “poor,” a 25-percentage point increase from 2017. When it comes to household expenses, rural voters worry most about health costs and gas prices. More rural voters prefer the Republican Party than the Democratic Party to best address the cost of living (40% v. 25%), though a quarter (27%), including most independents, trust neither party.

The survey also examines rural voters’ views about job opportunities and safety in their community, who they trust to handle key economic and health care issues, and health care access issues in their communities, including provider and hospital shortages.

METHODOLOGY

Designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at KFF and the Associated Press, this survey was conducted August 12-24, 2026, online and by telephone among a nationally representative sample of 2,241 U.S. adults registered to vote in rural areas of the country. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for the full sample of rural voters. For results based on other subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher. The survey was conducted in English and Spanish.

About KFF

KFF is the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. Its mission is to serve as a nonpartisan source of information for policymakers, the media, the health policy community, and the public. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF.

About the Associated Press

The Associated Press is an independent global news organization dedicated to factual reporting. Founded in 1846, AP today remains the most trusted source of fast, accurate, unbiased news in all formats and the essential provider of the technology and services vital to the news business. More than half the world’s population sees AP journalism every day. Online: http://www.ap.org



Source link

A Closer Look at the $50 Billion Rural Health Transformation Program



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Structure

The rural health fund will provide $50 billion in grants to states over five years.

The rural health fund was added to the 2025 reconciliation law as a political compromise just prior to the law’s passage. The fund emerged during Senate negotiations in response to concerns about the impact of federal spending cuts on rural hospitals. Nonetheless, the program is not specific to rural hospitals but instead supports a much broader set of activities (see below). The law specifies that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will oversee the program. It grants the agency substantial leeway to determine how to distribute funding across states and flexibility to expand the permitted uses of funding and determine the terms and conditions. CMS is administering the program through the new Office of Rural Health Transformation.

Under the rural health fund, CMS will award $10 billion in grants to approved states each year from fiscal years 2026 to 2030, a five-year period, for a total of $50 billion. States will be allowed to spend funds that they receive at a given point through the end of the following fiscal year, and CMS will redistribute any unused funds over time, but all funds must be spent by the end of fiscal year 2032. States will administer their programs, subject to terms agreed upon with CMS. However, the funding is occurring through a mechanism known as a “cooperative agreement,” which “require[s] substantial CMS project involvement after an award is made.”  

States had a one-time opportunity to apply for funding and all states were approved, meaning that they are eligible for funding for all five years of the program. However, CMS may withhold, reduce, eliminate, or recover funding over time if it determines that a state is not in compliance with program rules, the state has not made “satisfactory progress,” or that funding is no longer “in the government’s best interest.” The law indicates that there will be no administrative or judicial review of these and other funding decisions made by CMS.

The law and CMS established a fast-paced timeline for states to apply for funding and initiate programs during the first year of the program. CMS issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity in September 2025 with guidance on how to apply. States then had less than two months to prepare their applications. Those applications affect the scope of activities states can engage in and the amount of funding they receive for the life of the program. CMS announced first-year awards in December 2025. States were then given less than a year to finalize their plans through discussions with CMS, develop their own application process for entities within the state to receive funding, process applications, obligate funding, and submit their first annual progress reports (which will affect second-year awards). States likely differ in their capacity to manage procurement processes and have varied widely in terms of how quickly they have distributed funds during the first year.

Key Dates

Enactment and State Applications

  • July 4, 2025: The 2025 reconciliation law is enacted. The law includes large cuts to federal health care spending and the creation of the rural health fund.
  • September 15, 2025: CMS releases Notice of Funding Opportunity that includes guidance on how CMS will administer the program and how states can apply.
  • November 5, 2025: Deadline for states to apply.

First-Year Awards (fiscal year 2026)

  • December 29, 2025: CMS announces awards, totaling $10 billion.
  • Following first-year award announcement: States work with CMS to reconcile their plans with awarded amounts and program requirements and to determine how funds will be apportioned across initiatives, after which CMS makes first-year funding available.
  • August 31, 2026: Deadline for states to submit first of five annual reports.
  • October 30, 2026: Deadline for states to obligate funding.
  • November 29, 2026: Deadline for states to submit first of thirteen quarterly reports.
  • September 30, 2027. Deadline for states to spend first-year awards. CMS will redistribute unused funds in fiscal year 2028.

Second-Through Fifth-Year Awards (fiscal years 2027-2030)

  • October 31 of fiscal year: CMS will announce fiscal year awards totaling $10 billion by this date.
  • September 30 of following fiscal year: Deadline for states to spend awards. CMS will redistribute unused funds in the following fiscal year.

Program Wind-Down

  • February 27, 2031: Deadline for states to submit final report.
  • September 30, 2031: Deadline for states to spend fifth-year awards. CMS will redistribute unused funds in the next fiscal year.
  • September 30, 2032: Deadline for states to spend any remaining dollars redistributed by CMS.
  • October 1, 2032: Unused funds returned to Treasury Department.

The rural health fund is intended to transform the delivery of health care in rural communities and is being used to support a wide variety of activities.

The rural health fund is designed to help “support…rural communities to improve healthcare access, quality, and outcomes through system transformation” according to CMS. CMS also indicated that it “expects States to design initiatives that invest in long-term, sustainable improvements rather than temporary fixes or funding perpetual operating expenses.” States can use funding for eleven purposes detailed in law and through guidance from CMS, with certain restrictions (see textbox below and Appendix Table 1). CMS has also identified five strategic goals of the program that align with these uses: make rural America healthy again, sustainable access, workforce development, innovative care, and tech innovation (see Appendix Table 2).

In line with the broad scope of the rural health fund, states are implementing a wide variety of activities under the program. For example, states are using funds to promote prevention and chronic disease management interventions, support collaboration among rural health care facilities (such as by sharing administrative services) and between rural providers and regional health systems, recruit clinical workers to rural areas, promote technological advancements (such as by expanding telehealth or promoting AI diagnostic tools), invest in existing hospital buildings and infrastructure, help hospitals determine which services should and should not be maintained, and support the adoption of value-based care and alternative payment models.

Specific state examples include the following (each state is undertaking multiple initiatives):

  • Alabama is funding the use of telerobotics to provide ultrasounds remotely.
  • Alaska is funding the use of drones to deliver medications to remote areas.
  • California is funding new provider collaboration networks, connecting regional hospitals with critical access hospitals, clinics, birthing centers, and other providers.
  • Michigan is funding an initiative to bring “services closer to where people work and live,” such as by “expanding…home-based care for older adults to allow them to age in place.”
  • North Carolina is increasing access to healthy foods, such as by “facilitat[ing] farm-to-hospital [programs], mobile food markets, and community-based food access.”
  • Montana is helping rural hospitals “right size” their services, which could entail eliminating some service offerings to improve hospitals’ financial sustainability.
  • Nevada is funding an expansion of its rural workforce, such as through provider recruitment incentives.

Permitted Uses

States must use funding for at least three of the following permitted uses.

  • Promote consumer tech solutions. For the prevention and management of chronic diseases. Examples include remote patient monitoring (e.g., through wearable devices), apps that connect patients with providers and health information, and digital health tools in community access points. States can also provide seed funding for innovative, high-impact tech solutions through a Rural Tech Catalyst Fund, subject to spending restrictions.
  • Support IT advances. Such as by expanding access to telehealth, upgrading or replacing electronic health record systems (replacements are subject to spending restrictions), facilitating health information exchange and interoperability, enhancing cybersecurity, and promoting artificial intelligence for clinical and administrative uses.
  • Provide training and technical assistance for technology that improves care delivery in rural hospitals. Such as for “remote [patient] monitoring, robotics, artificial intelligence, and other advanced technologies.”
  • Recruiting and retaining clinical workers. Such as by promoting health careers among local high school students, developing new residency and fellowship programs, offering advanced training for clinical workers, and providing tuition reimbursement or other incentives. Clinical workers who directly benefit must commit to serve rural areas for at least five years.
  • Improving prevention and chronic disease management. Such as through screening and early detection (e.g., mobile cancer screening), nutrition education, improving access to healthy food and to outdoor activities, early maternal and infant interventions (e.g., home visits), and care management programs.
  • Matching service offerings to local need. Such as by expanding access through telehealth, mobile units and satellite sites, strengthening emergency medical services, and providing non-medical transportation. This could also include “right sizing” delivery systems by eliminating services that cannot be sustained.
  • Paying providers for health care items or services. Provider payments are subject to a number of restrictions: they cannot exceed 15% of a state award in a given budget period, be used for short-term relief, supplement or duplicate existing funding sources (including Medicaid), or cover gender-affirming care or most abortion services. Examples of permitted uses include incentive payments for providers to improve quality or reduce costs.
  • Supporting innovative models of care. Including value-based care arrangements and alternative payment models. Such as by helping providers participate in the Achieving Healthcare Efficiency through Accountable Design (AHEAD) model (which, among other things, replaces traditional hospital reimbursement from multiple payers with global budgets for a given facility).
  • Investing in existing health care facility buildings and infrastructure. Investments cannot exceed 20% of a state award in a given budget period and cannot be used for new buildings or equipment. Examples include repairing existing buildings and equipment, minor renovations, interior modifications, upgrading lighting and electrical systems, and installing or upgrading security systems.
  • Fostering collaboration among providers. Such as through hub-and-spoke models (which connect anchor facilities, like larger regional hospitals, with local “spokes,” like clinics and small rural hospitals), shared services or group purchasing (e.g., of administrative services), or clinically integrated networks (groups of providers that join together to improve care and reduce costs without formally merging).
  • Supporting access to behavioral health care services. Such as through telehealth options, substance use disorder and opioid treatment, Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics, and mobile crisis teams and centers.

States may also use up to 10% of their award in a given budget period on administrative expenses. Program restrictions listed above are not comprehensive.

Uses for Hospitals

Rural health funds are not just for hospitals, and there are restrictions on how hospitals can benefit.

While the fund emerged in response to concerns about the impact of the reconciliation law on rural hospitals, the extent to which it will benefit these facilities is unclear. States can choose how much of the funds will go to hospitals versus other rural providers and various other entities, such as contractors providing technical assistance, universities participating in workforce initiatives, regional health systems in urban areas collaborating with rural providers, and vendors developing new health technologies. Of the dollars going to rural hospitals, it is not yet clear which specific facilities will receive funding and the extent to which states will target resources to particular types of hospitals, such as those that are isolated or in financial distress. Additionally, hospitals that are not in rural areas can also receive funding, as long as it is to the benefit of rural communities and residents.

Initiatives could benefit hospitals to varying degrees. For example, uses of the funds that could more directly benefit hospitals include investing in existing hospital infrastructure (permitted within limits), strengthening collaboration among rural facilities and other providers, and supporting alternative payment models. Other initiatives, such as programs to promote health literacy and healthy behaviors, may have less direct or no obvious benefits for hospitals. The benefit to rural hospitals—and to other providers, patients, and rural communities—will also depend on how effective state initiatives are, which is difficult to predict. 

While funding could benefit hospitals in a number of ways, there are also limitations on how it can do so. For example, CMS guidance indicates that rural health funds cannot be used for:

  • Propping up struggling hospitals with temporary relief. The funds are not intended “to be used for perpetual operating expenses, but rather for investments…that will have sustainable impact beyond the end of the program,” according to CMS.
  • Payments to providers for care that exceed 15% of a state award in a given budget period. Payments to providers must be related to the strategic goals of the program, such as bonus payments for providing high-quality care, and cannot be used to supplement or duplicate existing funding, including payments from Medicaid or private insurance.
  • Construction, building expansion, or purchasing buildings, though they can be used for certain investments in existing rural health care facility buildings and infrastructure, not to exceed 20% of a state award in a given budget period.
  • Replacements for previous HITECH-certified electronic medical record (EMR) systems that exceed 5% of a state award in a given budget period.
  • Funds for gender-affirming care (a limitation that is not restricted to care for minors, as are many other federal measures) and reimbursement for most abortion services. There are also limitations related to “citizenship documentation requirements for payments made with respect to an individual.” Many hospitals do not currently collect patient immigration status but may need to do so to be reimbursed for patient care with rural health funds.

The rural health fund may help hospitals adapt to the loss of federal funding under the reconciliation law, though the extent to which it will do so is unclear. The reconciliation law made historic reductions in federal support for health care and is expected to result in an unprecedented increase in the number of people without health insurance. An increasing uninsured rate results in fewer patients with health coverage for hospital care, and an increase in the amount of uncompensated care hospitals provide. At the same time, the 2025 reconciliation law made significant changes to Medicaid financing that could result in major reductions to the rates Medicaid pays for hospital services in most states.

Just as it is unclear how much hospitals will benefit under the rural health fund, it is also hard to predict how much hospitals will lose due to spending cuts under the reconciliation law. As detailed below, the rural health fund is smaller than estimated cuts to federal Medicaid spending when looking at rural areas in aggregate, and most of the cuts will persist over time, in contrast to the rural health fund.

The hospital industry and some members of Congress have called for a greater focus on hospitals. The hospital industry has recommended that the rural health fund give greater priority to supporting rural hospitals, including by lifting restrictions on provider payments and capital investments. A group of Senators also recommended that the program focus more on rural hospitals and other rural providers and expressed concern that small rural providers will have a harder time vying with larger systems and organizations for funding. Increasing funding for rural hospitals would do more to address concerns about the financial standing of these facilities, an original motivation for the program, but would involve tradeoffs with competing initiatives.



Source link

Survey: Adults With Multiple or Complex Health Conditions Face Significant Challenges with Health Costs and Commonly Struggle to Access Care 



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Adults with multiple or complex health conditions, who already face unique physical and mental challenges, commonly struggle to pay their medical bills and access needed care and medication—challenges that fall hardest on uninsured adults, according to a new KFF survey of more than 25 thousand adults. A companion Beyond the Data column by KFF Founding President and CEO Dr. Drew Altman explores the survey’s findings about uninsured adults with greater health needs and considers why the national discussion of the affordability crisis has largely ignored this group.

“If the first obligation of a health care system is to take care of the sick, we are failing that test. Cost and access problems are hitting the chronically ill hard, and the chronically ill and uninsured especially hard,” said Dr. Drew Altman.

The survey’s large sample size allowed KFF analysts to examine the experiences of adults with certain serious health conditions—including cancer, lung disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or a mental health condition—as well as those managing care for multiple health problems.

About a third of adults ages 18-64 with multiple or certain complex health conditions say they struggled to pay or could not pay their medical bills in the past year. Adults with three or more conditions (36%), those with cardiovascular disease (37%), and those with a mental health condition (36%) are particularly likely to report struggling with medical bills. As part of these affordability challenges, about a quarter of adults with three or more conditions say they have had to cut back on household expenses to cover medical costs, compared to just about 1 in 10 of those without active health conditions.

High health costs can create major barriers to care, sometimes determining who is able to access the treatments and medications they need. About half of adults with three or more health conditions say they skipped or delayed care in the past year, including about 1 in 3 who did so due to cost. About 1 in 5 or more adults with multiple or complex health conditions also report not taking their medications as prescribed because they could not afford the cost.

Skipping or delaying care can have serious consequences. Substantial shares of adults across health conditions say their health got worse because they skipped or delayed care, including about 3 in 10 of those with a mental health condition (32%) or lung disease (29%), one quarter of those with cardiovascular disease (24%), and about 1 in 5 of those with cancer (18%) or diabetes (21%).

In addition to challenges with costs, insured adults with greater health needs commonly encounter insurance coverage delays or denials—problems that occur across specific health conditions. About half of insured adults ages 18-64 with three or more conditions say their insurer denied or delayed coverage for a service, treatment, or medication their doctor prescribed, as do about 4 in 10 or more insured adults with certain complex conditions, including diabetes (38%), lung disease (43%), cancer (43%), cardiovascular disease (45%), or a mental health condition (47%).

Uninsured Adults Struggle the Most to Afford and Access Care
As Drew Altman writes in his new column, health care affordability is most challenging for uninsured adults with multiple health conditions—most of whom say they struggle with medical bills (72%) and half of whom say they cut back on household spending to cover their health costs. Uninsured adults with three or more health conditions are twenty percentage points more likely than their insured counterparts to say they skipped or delayed needed care in the past year (71% vs. 51%). They are also about twice as likely as those who are insured to say they did not take their medication as prescribed due to cost (51% vs. 24%).

For uninsured adults, going without needed care and medications may carry even greater risks that worsen existing barriers to care. Untreated health conditions can worsen over time and become more difficult and costly to treat. Among uninsured adults, about 4 in 10 with multiple conditions (43%) and about half with a mental health condition (47%) say their health got worse after skipping or delaying care—making them about one and a half times as likely as their insured counterparts to experience a decline in health.

Other findings about older adults (aged 65+) with multiple and complex health conditions are available in the full report.

Dr. Altman will discuss KFF’s findings about chronic health conditions and the broader health policy landscape in his keynote address at the National Academy of Medicine’s Annual Meeting in October.

Designed and analyzed by KFF public opinion researchers, KFF’s Survey of Health Access and Caregiving was conducted in English and in Spanish May 4 – 26, 2026, online and by telephone among a large, nationally representative sample of 25,873 adults, including 16,677 who say they have received treatment for at least one serious or complex health condition in the past year. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus one percentage point for the full sample. For results based on other subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher.



Source link

The Group that Struggles the Most in American Health Care



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

There are more than enough needs to go around in American health care, but if I had to pick the one group that struggles the most with costs and access, it would be people with chronic illnesses who are also uninsured. These are people with cancer or heart disease or diabetes or mental health conditions, or multiple chronic health problems, who also don’t have insurance coverage. We don’t have an exact count of the number of people with multiple medical conditions who are uninsured, but we can say it’s millions of people: about a quarter of the uninsured report that they have been treated for one or two health conditions over the past year and 1 in 10 for three or more conditions. There are about 27 million uninsured people in the U.S., and that number is projected to grow into the low 40 millions when the cuts in federal funding for Medicaid and ACA coverage fully kick in (unless they are reversed).

You could say that’s no surprise—people with multiple conditions use the most care, so they experience greater problems getting and paying for care; that result is so expected in our health system it’s almost tautological to treat it as a discovery. Fair enough, no tenure for me. You could also say that the first obligation of any health system is to take care of people who are sick; it’s a leading indicator of a health system that isn’t working as it should.

Here are a few of the numbers and a chart from a new survey of over 25,000 adults focusing on the chronically ill, which we’ll release tomorrow:

  • Seventy-two percent of adults with multiple health conditions who are uninsured had problems paying for their care or could not pay their medical bills in the last year.
  • Fifty percent had to cut back on other household needs as a result.
  • Sixty-eight percent skipped care because of costs over the last year.

These are about double the already very high rates experienced by people with conditions like cancer, heart disease, diabetes and mental health issues who have insurance. (The chronically ill with insurance experience cost and access problems at rates that are much higher than people who are generally healthy and use less health care).  

And when they need care, the chronically ill uninsured rely on emergency rooms three times as often as their insured counterparts do.

Split bar chart showing share of adults who say they had problems paying or where unable to pay medical bills or they had to cut back on household expenses due to medical bills in the past 12 months. Reported among insured and uninsured adults with 3 or more active health conditions and adults who were treated for a mental health condition in the past year.

Looking at the chronically ill uninsured as a research grouping enables us to examine what’s happening in the health care system more broadly, in this case to people with serious medical problems without insurance. There is no Association for the Multiply Chronically Ill Uninsured on K Street in Washington, D.C., and they don’t have their own powerful advocacy group working on their behalf, although the big disease groups in D.C. have combined forces to advocate for Medicaid and the ACA, which provide coverage for constituents who otherwise would be uninsured. Most of the members of these groups, however, have insurance coverage and advocacy and lobbying focuses on the problems they face paying for and getting care and the drugs they need, including the problems people with significant illnesses have navigating the health insurance system, such as their encounters with prior authorization review. People tell us in polls that prior authorization review is their top concern after costs in health care. The uninsured, of course, would feel lucky to have that problem.

There has been substantial discussion of the chronically ill in health care for years. In October, I’m delivering the keynote address at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Medicine, which is focused on chronic disease. However, most of the discussions to date have focused on prevention and disease management, including better delivery and payment models. Almost none have focused on the fact that when it comes to the “affordability crisis” driving the national discussion of health care today, the chronically ill, and most of all the chronically ill uninsured, are the tip of the spear. 

View all of Drew’s Beyond the Data Columns



Source link

2027 ACA open enrollment: What’s changing



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

The ACA (Affordable Care Act) open enrollment period for plan year 2027 begins November 1, 2026, in most states – and for people who buy their own health coverage, this year’s enrollment period comes with a number of important changes.

Insurers are leaving the Marketplace in more than 20 states, premiums are rising substantially in many areas, and federal rules have changed who will qualify for subsidies and how much consumers will pay out of pocket. There are also changes to Marketplace platforms, state-funded subsidies, HSA contribution limits, and Catastrophic plan eligibility.

Whether you already have Marketplace coverage or are shopping for a plan for the first time, you’ll want to carefully compare your 2027 options during open enrollment. Here’s a look at the key changes to know before you enroll.

Insurers are entering and exiting the Marketplace

As is always the case, insurers are joining the Marketplace in some areas, and others are exiting the Marketplace. For 2027, there are far more exits than entries.

  • Who’s affected? Hundreds of thousands of Marketplace enrollees have plans that will be terminated at the end of 2026 because of carrier exits. But in some states, many enrollees will have access to new plans due to a carrier entry.
  • What can you do? Carefully compare the plan options available to you during open enrollment. Don’t rely on auto-renewal. If your Marketplace plan is ending, the auto-renewal process will use an algorithm to pick a new plan for you, and it’s in your best interest to pick your own replacement plan. If new plans will be available in your area, comparison shopping during open enrollment will help you know whether any of those plans (or any other available plan) might be the best option for you.

What you need to know if your insurer is exiting the market.

Premiums will be higher on average, subsidies will also be larger

Nationwide, the median proposed rate increase (the midpoint of insurers’ proposed increases) for individual-market policies is about 15% for 2027. This means that roughly half of Marketplace insurers have proposed increases above 15% and the other half have proposed increases of less than 15%. The weighted average proposed increase (which accounts for how many people are enrolled in each insurer’s plans) ranges from under 7% in Vermont, Iowa, and Utah to 29% in Arizona.

But those increases are for full-price premiums, and most individual-market enrollees do not pay full price. The majority of people with individual-market coverage buy it through the Marketplace (as opposed to off-exchange). And 87% of Marketplace enrollees were receiving premium subsidies at the start of 2026.

Subsidy amounts are based on the cost of the second-lowest-cost Silver (benchmark) plan. When the benchmark plan’s premium increases, subsidies also increase. Many enrollees will be fully or partially insulated from the rising premiums, due to increases in their subsidy amounts. But the benchmark plan’s premium change won’t be the same as other plans’ premium changes, and people who don’t get a subsidy (including everyone who buys coverage outside the exchange) will bear the full brunt of the rate increases.

  • Who’s affected? More than 19 million people had Marketplace coverage as of early 2026, and the proposed rate increases also apply to off-exchange plans (where there are no subsidies available to offset the rate increases).
  • What can you do? Pay close attention to the renewal notices you get from your insurer and the Marketplace as we get closer to open enrollment. The notices will tell you your plan’s premium, and if applicable, your after-subsidy premium. Then you can comparison shop during open enrollment to see if a different plan might be a better value.

Out-of-pocket limits are increasing

For 2027 coverage, the maximum allowable out-of-pocket cap is $12,000 – up from $10,600 in 2026.

The Department of Health and Human Services set the $12,000 maximum in January 2026 using a formula set by the ACA. (In the spring of 2026, HHS finalized a rule that would have allowed some Bronze plans to have out-of-pocket limits as high as $15,600. But that was stayed by a court in July, so the highest out-of-pocket limit you’ll see for a single person in 2027 is $12,000.)

  • Who’s affected? The limit on out-of-pocket costs applies to all non-grandfathered (and non-grandmothered) individual and group health plans. Combined, these plans cover more than half of the population. Many plans have out-of-pocket caps that are well below the federal limits, but any individual or group plan can increase its out-of-pocket limit for 2027 as long as it doesn’t go over the federal limits.
  • What can you do? Pay close attention to any communications you get from your health plan, to see if there will be any changes in your deductible and total out-of-pocket exposure for the coming year.

Fewer immigrants will qualify for Marketplace subsidies

Starting with plan year 2027, the only immigrants who qualify for Marketplace subsidies will be:

  • Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR)
  • Cuban-Haitian Entrants (CHE)
  • Compact of Free Association (COFA) migrants.

All other immigrants will no longer qualify for Marketplace subsidies.

  • Who’s affected? Any non-citizens who aren’t in one of the three categories listed above. Immigrants who will no longer qualify for Marketplace subsidies include asylees, refugees, people with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and people with various types of temporary visas, such as work visas, student visas, U-visas (for victims of certain crimes) and T-visas (for victims of trafficking). An estimated one million people are expected to become uninsured by 2035 as a result of this change.
  • What can you do? If you’re not a U.S. citizen and you currently have subsidized Marketplace coverage, be sure you understand whether your immigration status makes you eligible for ongoing subsidies in 2027. If not, you’ll want to understand how much full-price coverage will cost, and consider whether any of the lower-priced Marketplace plans in your area (a Bronze plan, for example) might be a better fit for your budget.

Oregon will utilize a state-run Marketplace platform

Starting this fall, Oregon residents will use the state-run Explore Health platform to obtain their coverage for 2027, instead of HealthCare.gov. Oregon is the latest state to switch from HealthCare.gov to a state-run Marketplace enrollment platform.

  • Who’s affected? Nearly 106,000 Oregon residents had Marketplace coverage as of early 2026, All of them will transition to Explore Health for 2027 if they wish to keep Marketplace coverage.
  • What can you do? If you’re in Oregon and have Marketplace coverage in 2026, pay close attention to any communications you get from HealthCare.gov and Explore Health (the Oregon Health Insurance Marketplace). Your account should be automatically migrated to the new platform, and you should receive details in early October about how to activate your new account. Window shopping will begin on the new platform on October 15, and open enrollment will begin November 1.

Virginia and Rhode Island introduce state-funded subsidies

For the 2027 plan year, Virginia is joining the list of states that offer state-funded health insurance subsidies in addition to the ACA’s federal subsidies. The Virginia Premium Savings program will be available starting November 1, 2026, when consumers are enrolling in coverage for 2027.

  • Who’s affected? People in Virginia who buy their own health insurance and have household incomes between 138% and 250% of the federal poverty level. For 2027 coverage, that amounts to:
    • Above $22,025 but not more than $39,900 for an individual.
    • Above $45,540 but not more than $82,500 for a family of four.
  • What can you do? If you’re in Virginia and your income makes you eligible for the new Virginia Premium Savings program, the subsidy will be automatically applied to any metal-level plan you select in the Virginia Marketplace. You won’t get the subsidy if you buy coverage outside the Marketplace, or if you buy a Catastrophic plan in the Marketplace.

Rhode Island’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget includes $19 million in state funding to replace some of the federal subsidy enhancements that expired at the end of 2025. But as of late August 2026, Rhode Island’s exchange has not yet clarified how eligibility for the state-funded subsidies will be determined.

HSA contribution limits will increase

As is the case each year, the IRS has indexed health savings account (HSA) contribution limits. If you have HSA-eligible health coverage in 2027, here’s how much you can contribute to an HSA:

  • Up to $4,500 if your HDHP covers just yourself.
  • Up to $9,000 if your HDHP also covers at least one additional family member.

In 2026, the contribution limits were $4,400 and $8,750, respectively.

Note: HSA contributions will lower your household income under the ACA’s rules for how modified adjusted gross income is calculated. This could make you eligible for a larger premium subsidy, or make you eligible for a subsidy when you would otherwise be over the “subsidy cliff.” It’s important to check with a tax advisor for any tax-related questions you might have.

  • Who’s affected? Anyone with an HSA-eligible high-deductible health plan (HDHP) who wants to contribute to an HSA in 2027. As was the case in 2026, all Marketplace Bronze and Catastrophic plans will continue to be HSA-eligible in 2027.
  • What can you do? If you’ll have an HSA-eligible HDHP in 2027, consider whether you’d like to make HSA contributions. You can make the contributions at any point during the year, or even up until the tax filing deadline in April 2028. The money you put into the HSA is pre-tax, and there’s no use-it-or-lose-it rule for HSAs. So if you don’t need to withdraw HSA funds to pay for medical expenses, they will remain in the account (along with any interest, dividends, or investment growth) and you can use the funds to pay medical bills in the future.

Learn more about how HSAs work.

Catastrophic plan eligibility will be further limited

Catastrophic plans are once again available only to people aged 30 or older who obtain a hardship or affordability exemption certificate (and who are in an area where Catastrophic plans are sold).

In September 2025, a Trump administration rule expanded access to Catastrophic plans, making them automatically available in most states to enrollees who didn’t qualify for Marketplace subsidies. That rule was expanded in 2026 to apply nationwide.

But in July 2026, a judge stayed the new rule. That means eligibility for Catastrophic plans is once again limited to the pre-September 2025 rules: a person who is 30 or older must obtain a hardship or affordability exemption certificate to purchase a Catastrophic plan.

Learn more about Catastrophic health plans.



Source link

Who Do We Trust to Decide What Health Care Gets Covered, and at What Price? 



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

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.



Source link

Protected: Is Prior Authorization a Blessing or a Curse?



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags There is no excerpt because this is a protected post.



Source link