Home Blog

KFF Health Tracking Poll: MAHA and the Midterms

healthissuesadmin
-
0
KFF Health Tracking Poll: MAHA and the Midterms



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Key Takeaways

  • About four in ten (41%) U.S. adults say they support the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement – a group largely made up of Republicans and supporters of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement. Yet, many of the concerns elevated by the MAHA movement about food safety and corporate influence resonate with a larger share of the public beyond those who identify as supporters. Majorities of the public say there is not enough regulation of chemical additives in food (75%) or of pesticides used in agriculture (64%) in the U.S., and most adults express distrust in agricultural, food, and pharmaceutical companies to act in the public’s best interest. At the same time, confidence in the government agencies that are tasked with regulating these industries is low across partisans; about a third of the public express confidence in the FDA (36%) and the EPA (36%) to act independently without outside interference.
  • Even as MAHA issues resonate, the cost of health care is a more prominent focus for voters than issues like food and vaccine policy. Most voters say health costs will have a “major impact” on their decision to vote (55%) and who they vote for (61%) in November, compared to about four in ten who say the same of vaccine or food policy. Even among voters who support the MAHA movement, health care costs are the dominant priority by a wide margin when compared with other areas of health. When asked to select the most important health priority for the federal government, four in ten MAHA voters (42%) choose lowering health costs, twice the share who choose restricting chemical additives in the food supply (21%) and far outranking other MAHA priorities like reevaluating vaccine safety (10%), limiting corporate influence in U.S. food policy (8%), or restricting pesticide use in agriculture (8%).
  • Voters overall give the Trump administration low approval ratings on two key health areas elevated by the MAHA movement; about four in ten approve of the administration’s handling of vaccine policy (38%), and fewer than half approve of the administration’s handling of food policy (46%). The Democratic Party holds the advantage over the Republican Party in who voters trust to handle vaccine policy (41% vs. 25%) and to ensure federal health agencies act independently without corporate influence (33% vs. 24%). Voters are more evenly divided on whether they trust Democrats (31%) or Republicans (27%) to handle the safety of food additives and pesticides, or neither party (31%).

Who Are MAHA Supporters?

Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) is the political and public health movement promoted by the Trump administration and led by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The movement has elevated issues such as vaccine safety, the role of corporate interests in federal health agencies, and the presence of chemical additives and pesticides in the food supply. KFF’s latest Health Tracking Poll shows about four in ten adults say they are supporters of the MAHA movement, but some of the concerns elevated by the MAHA movement resonate well beyond its core supporters.

Overall, about four in ten (41%) adults – and a similar share of voters (43%) – say they are supporters of the MAHA movement, with support closely tied to partisanship and support of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement. Two-thirds of MAHA supporters identify as Republican or Republican-leaning independents, including about half (52%) who are supporters of the MAGA movement. Far fewer MAHA supporters are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents (21%) or independents who do not lean toward either political party (10%). Among registered voters who support MAHA, the partisan composition is similar.

Among MAHA-supporting voters, just over half say they “strongly” support the movement (55%) and 45% say they “somewhat” support it, translating to about one in four voters overall as strong MAHA supporters (24%) and one in five who “somewhat” support it (19%).

Stacked bar chart showing the party identification breakdown of those who support the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. Results shown among total adults and among voters.

When asked specifically why they support the MAHA movement, supporters give a range of answers, with the two most common relating to generally wanting people to be healthier (19%) and removing or regulating harmful substances in food (15%). Some MAHA supporters mention improving nutritional habits for Americans (7%) or lowering obesity rates (7%). Five percent of MAHA supporters cite health care access and affordability as their reasons for supporting the movement, despite the MAHA movement’s lack of focus on these issues. Just 4% of MAHA supporters cite vaccines and medical choice as their reason for supporting the movement. Few MAHA supporters specifically express support for President Trump or HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (2%) as their reasoning for supporting the movement.

In Their Own Words: What is the Main Reason You Support the MAHA Movement?

“It is morally correct. We don’t want to poison our kids with vaccines they don’t need. We don’t want to eat food that leads to morbidity to make companies’ profit margins higher,” 43-year-old Republican man, Pennsylvania

“America uses far too much harmful ingredients that most other countries ban,” 28-year-old independent man, Indiana

“To get people healthier so taxpayers don’t have to pay for their health care,” 58-year-old Republican woman, Kentucky

“We should be promoting healthier lifestyles in the country,” 29-year-old Republican woman, Iowa

“The MAHA movement gives patients more freedom to choose the doctors they actually want to see…While I support it for now, I’ll be waiting to see how these policies are actually implemented,” 39-year-old independent man, Washington

“It’s about making the next generation healthy,” 27-year-old independent woman, Arizona

“I followed Kennedy before he was in office and I’m hoping that he will continue with what he stood for before,” 51-year-old independent woman, Tennessee

“Health care should be a right,” 65-year-old Democratic man, New York

Where MAHA Concerns Resonate With the Public: Food Safety, Pesticides, and Industry Influence

Among the public, there is broad, bipartisan agreement that there is not enough government regulation of chemical additives in food and pesticides in agriculture in the U.S. Three-quarters of adults say there is not enough government regulation of chemical food additives, and about two-thirds (64%) say the same about pesticides used in agriculture. Majorities across partisan lines and among both MAHA supporters and those who do not support the movement agree, suggesting this is an area where MAHA’s concerns align with broader public sentiment.

Stacked bar chart showing the shares of the public who say there is not enough, about the right amount, or too much regulation of chemical additives in food and pesticides used in agriculture in the U.S. Results shown among total, by party identification, and by support for the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement.

Some food industry groups and public health experts have argued that restrictions on approved food ingredients could limit access to affordable groceries for families in the U.S. When those who originally said there is “not enough regulation” of chemical additives in food or pesticides used in agriculture are presented with the caveat that increased regulation could lead to higher food prices for consumers, most still support increased regulation. But the possibility of increased costs does move some people. The share saying there is not enough regulation of food additives drops by 13 percentage points after hearing that increased regulation could increase costs (from 75% to 62%), with a similar drop in the share who maintain that there is not enough regulation of pesticides (from 64% to 52%).

Split bar chart showing share of public who say there is not enough government regulation of chemical additives in food and pesticides used in agriculture. Follow up question shows share of adults who say there is still not enough regulation even after hearing increased regulation could lead to higher food prices. Results shown among total.

The public perception that there is not enough regulation may be rooted in broader skepticism toward the industries themselves. Most U.S. adults do not trust pharmaceutical companies, food and beverage companies, or agricultural companies to act in the public’s best interest. One in four or fewer adults say they trust food and beverage companies (25%) or pharmaceutical companies (21%) “a great deal” or “a fair amount” to act in the public’s best interest, while a somewhat larger share (40%) trust agricultural companies on this measure. Very small shares – fewer than 5% – trust each of these groups “a great deal” to act in the public’s best interest.

By contrast, seven in ten adults say they trust doctors and health care providers at least “a fair amount” to act in the public’s best interest.

Stacked bar chart showing the level of trust the public has in doctors/health care providers, agriculture, food/beverage, and pharmaceutical companies to act in the public's best interest. Results shown among total.

Across partisanship, and among those who do and do not support the MAHA movement, fewer than half trust agricultural companies, food and beverage companies, or pharmaceutical companies to act in the public’s best interest. However, most Democrats (80%), independents (69%), and Republicans (67%) have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in doctors and health care providers to act in the public’s best interest.

Split bar chart showing share of adults who say they have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in doctors/health care providers, agriculture, food/beverage, and pharmaceutical companies to act in the public's best interest. Results shown among total, by party identification, and by support for the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement.

Confidence in the government agencies with major responsibilities for food safety and public health is low across partisans. Four in ten or fewer adults say they have “a lot” or “some” confidence in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (40%), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (36%), or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (36%) to act independently without interference from outside interests. Democrats are slightly more likely than Republicans or independents to express confidence in the CDC (47% vs. 37% and 38%, respectively), but partisan differences largely disappear when it comes to confidence in the FDA and EPA.

U.S. adults who support the MAHA movement and those who do not are similarly skeptical. Four in ten MAHA supporters say they are confident in each of these agencies to act independently, leaving six in ten MAHA supporters who have “a little” or “no confidence at all.”

Split bar chart showing share of public who say they have a lot or some confidence in the CDC, FDA, or EPA to act independently without interference from outside interests. Results shown among total, by party identification, and by support for the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement.

MAHA and Other Health Care Issues in the Election

Despite the resonance of these issues elevated by the MAHA movement, health care costs overshadow these concerns for voters heading into the 2026 midterm elections. Previously released findings from the April 2026 KFF Health Tracking Poll show health care costs remain a primary economic concern for the public. Reflecting that, costs are voters’ top health concern heading into the 2026 midterm elections, outweighing policy areas elevated by the MAHA movement, such as vaccines or food safety.

More than half of voters say health care costs will have a “major impact” on their decision to vote (55%) or which party’s candidate they will support (61%). When it comes to vaccine policy and food policy, about four in ten voters say these issues will have a “major impact” on their decision to vote or which party’s candidate they will support, at least 15 percentage points lower than the share who say the same about health care costs.

Stacked bar chart showing the shares of registered voters who say specific issues will have a major impact, minor impact, or no impact at all on their decision to vote or which party's candidate they would support in the 2026 midterm elections.

While the issue of health costs is more salient for Democratic voters than for Republicans, larger shares across partisans say health costs will have a major impact on their voting decisions than say the same about vaccine policy or food safety. For example, about half of independent voters (52%) say health care costs will have a major impact on their decision to turn out in November, compared to about four in ten who say the same about vaccine policy (39%) and food safety (38%). Patterns are similar for Republican voters (48%, 30%, and 34%, respectively) and Democratic voters (64%, 52%, and 40%, respectively).

Among voters who say they support the MAHA movement – a majority (56%) of whom identify as MAGA Republicans – at least half say the cost of health care will have a major impact on their decision to vote (51%) or which party’s candidate they support (56%). Despite the MAHA movement elevating issues such as vaccine and food safety, fewer MAHA voters – about four in ten – say vaccine policy or issues of food safety will majorly impact their voting decisions.

Stacked bar chart showing the shares of registered voters who say specific issues will have a major impact on their decision to vote or which party's candidate they would support in the 2026 midterm elections. Results shown by party identification and among voters who support the Make America Health Again (MAHA) movement.

MAHA-supporting voters express broad enthusiasm for federal action across the movement’s core agenda, but once again, health care costs remain the dominant priority. Nearly three-quarters of MAHA voters (73%) say lowering the cost of health care, including prescription drugs, should be a top priority for the federal government. This is followed by restricting the use of certain chemical additives in the food supply (68%) and limiting corporate influence on U.S. food policy (56%). Half of MAHA voters say reevaluating the safety of vaccines currently approved for use or restricting the use of pesticides in agriculture should be top priorities. Across all five items, one in ten or fewer MAHA voters say any of these efforts are “not too important” or “should not be done.”

Stacked bar chart showing priority levels of different health and food policy issues. Results shown among total registered voters who support the Make America Healthy Agan (MAHA) movement.

When asked to choose the single most important health priority to them, about four in ten MAHA-supporting voters (42%) choose lowering the cost of health care, including prescription drugs—twice the share who say the same of restricting chemical additives in the food supply (21%). Fewer cite reevaluating vaccine safety (10%), limiting corporate influence in U.S. food policy (8%), or restricting pesticide use in agriculture (8%) as their single top priority.

The cost of health care tops the list of health care priorities for MAHA voters regardless of partisanship. Among voters who support the MAHA movement, six in ten Democrats (57%) and four in ten independents (43%) and Republicans (40%) say lowering the cost of health care is the most important priority. For each of these groups, health care costs rank at least 14 percentage points ahead of restricting the use of chemical additives in food, and even further ahead of issues like reevaluating vaccine safety and restricting pesticide use.

Split bar chart showing the most important priority to registered voters who support the Make America Healthy Again movement when it comes to what the government could do in health and health care. Results reported among total MAHA voters and by party identification of MAHA voters.

Trump Administration Approval and Party Preference on MAHA Health Issues

Voters give the Trump administration low approval ratings on two key policy areas elevated by the MAHA movement. Just under half (46%) of voters approve of the administration’s handling of food policy, and a larger share (54%) disapprove. Just a few months after the changes made to the childhood vaccine schedule by HHS, about four in ten voters approve of the administration’s handling of U.S. vaccine policy (38%) and six in ten (61%) disapprove, including about half (47%) who “strongly disapprove.”

As the head of the MAHA Commission and Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the spokesperson for many of the administration’s federal health policies. About four in ten voters say they approve of the way Secretary Kennedy is handling his job (39%) and six in ten disapprove, including nearly half (46%) who “strongly disapprove.”

Stacked bar chart showing scale of approval of the way the Trump administration is handling areas of health and health policy and the way RFK is handling his job as HHS secretary. Results shown among total registered voters.

Unsurprisingly, voters are split along partisan lines, with the Trump administration receiving high approval ratings from Republicans on food and vaccine policy as well as Secretary Kennedy’s handling of his job at HHS, and most Democrats disapproving.

Split bar chart showing share of adults who say they approve of the way the Trump administration is handling areas of health and health policy and the way RFK is handling his job as HHS secretary. Results shown by party identification among registered voters.

Despite Secretary Kennedy’s leadership at HHS and recent changes focused on MAHA priorities, approval of the administration’s handling of issues like vaccine policy is far from unanimous among the movement’s supporters. About seven in ten MAHA voters approve of the administration’s handling of food policy (72%) and vaccine policy (67%), and Secretary Kennedy’s handling of his job as Health Secretary (69%). On each of these areas, just a third “strongly” approve of the administration and a similar share disapprove: tepid ratings for a group that aligns with Kennedy’s signature movement.

Stacked bar chart showing scale of approval of the way the Trump administration is handling areas of health and health policy and the way RFK is handling his job as HHS secretary. Results shown among total registered voters who support the Make America Healthy Again movement.

With about six months until the 2026 midterm elections, the Democratic Party has a strong edge over the Republican Party when it comes to who voters trust to address vaccine policy, and a narrower edge on ensuring federal agencies act independently. Voters are split over who they trust to do a better job ensuring food additives are safe. Democrats have a double-digit advantage over Republicans when it comes to who voters trust to handle vaccine policy (41% vs. 25%). While the Democratic Party has a smaller advantage among voters on which party they trust to ensure that federal health agencies act independently without corporate influence (33% vs. 24%), nearly four in ten (37%) say they trust “neither party.”

Similar shares of voters say they trust the Democratic Party (31%), the Republican Party (27%), or “neither party” (31%) more when it comes to doing a better job ensuring food additives and pesticides in the U.S. are safe.

Stacked bar chart showing which political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, the public trusts to do a better job in areas of health and health policy. Results shown among total registered voters.



Source link

MAHA Health Concerns Resonate Broadly but Lag Behind Health Care Costs Even for MAHA Voters

healthissuesadmin
-
0
MAHA Health Concerns Resonate Broadly but Lag Behind Health Care Costs Even for MAHA Voters



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Chemical food additive and pesticide concerns associated with the Make America Health Again (MAHA) movement are shared broadly across the public. But when it comes to voters, health care costs are a higher priority and bigger motivator, even among MAHA supporters, a new KFF Health Tracking Poll finds.

When asked to identify their most important health priority for government to address, far more MAHA-supporting voters identify lowering the cost of health care (42%) than other issues more closely associated with the movement, such as restricting the use of chemical additives in the food supply (21%), reevaluating the safety of vaccines (10%), limiting corporate influence on food policy (8%), or restricting the use of pesticides in agriculture (8%).

At least half of MAHA voters also say that the cost of health care will have a “major impact” on their decision to vote (51%) and which party’s candidate they will support (56%) in the upcoming midterms. That’s more than say the same about vaccine policy (36% say it will impact their decision to vote, 40% say it will impact which candidate they will support) or food safety (43% say it will impact their decision to vote, 45% say it will impact which candidate they will support), two issues closely aligned with MAHA, a movement promoted by the Trump administration and by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Overall, about four in ten (41%) adults—and a similar share of voters (43%)—say they are supporters of the MAHA movement, with support closely tied to partisanship and support of President Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement.

Among voters who support MAHA, about half (52%) identify as Republicans, 29% identify as independents, and about one in seven (15%) identify as Democrats. A majority (56%) of MAHA voters identify as Republican or Republican-leaning and support the MAGA movement. The pattern of prioritizing health costs ahead of other MAHA issues is consistent across these partisan subgroups.

Other MAHA Health Concerns Are Shared by the Broader Public
Majorities of the public say there is not enough regulation of chemical additives in food (75%) or of pesticides used in agriculture (64%)—including majorities across partisans, among MAHA supporters, and those who do not support the movement.

Most of the public—across partisans and MAHA supporters—also share a distrust of federal health agencies and food and drug industries:

  • Four in ten or fewer adults say they have at least some confidence in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC: 40%), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA: 36%), or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA: 36%) to act independently without interference from outside interests. Democrats are more likely than Republican or independent adults to trust the CDC, but partisan differences largely disappear for the FDA and EPA.
  • Less than half of U.S. adults trust agricultural companies (40%), food and beverage companies (25%), or pharmaceutical companies (21%) to act in the public’s best interest. Low levels of trust in these industries are also present across partisans.  

About 1 in 3 MAHA Voters Strongly Approve of HHS Secretary Kennedy’s Job Performance  
MAHA voters approve more than other voters of how the Trump administration is handling food policy, including chemical additives and pesticides (72% vs. 27%), and vaccine policy (67% vs. 17%), as well as how HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is handling his job (69% vs. 17%). However, less than one-third of MAHA voters “strongly approve” of the Trump administration on food policy (32%) and vaccine policy (29%) and of the HHS Secretary’s handling of his job (32%)—while similar shares of MAHA voters disapprove in all three areas. This is a fairly tepid rating for a group that aligns with Kennedy’s signature movement.

Overall, voters are evenly divided on whether they trust Democrats (31%) or Republicans (27%) to handle the safety of food additives and pesticides, and a similar share (31%) gives neither party the advantage on this issue. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party holds the advantage over the Republican Party in who voters trust to handle vaccine policy (41% vs. 25%) and ensure that federal health agencies act independently without corporate influence (33% vs. 24%).

Designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at KFF, this survey was conducted April 14-19, 2026, online and by telephone among a nationally representative sample of 1,343 U.S. adults in English and in Spanish. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for the full sample. For results based on other subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher.



Source link

Reaching Voters on Health | KFF

healthissuesadmin
-
0
Reaching Voters on Health | KFF



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

As we inch closer to the midterms, our latest tracking poll shows that health care costs have some staying power as a voting issue, hanging in as a top voter concern, tied with gas prices as the number one economic worry, even as gas prices have soared with the Iran war and are in the news every day. That says a lot about the salience of health care costs as an issue right now. I had expected gas prices to take the top spot decisively, at least temporarily.

But candidates have to capitalize on voters’ worries to make them matter in elections. Another question in our poll provides clues about how best to do that, and it’s not what I expected it to be (more on that below).

The first and most basic thing is simply for candidates to talk about health care costs a lot. In case you take this for granted, I recently watched a televised debate between California’s candidates for governor. It featured three advocates for single-payer health care—always a controversial debate topic—including a former Secretary of Health and Human Services. Surprisingly, health and health care costs, the voter’s top economic concern according to polls, weren’t mentioned once by the moderators or the candidates themselves. 

But health care will get airtime in the midterm campaigns. This is another area where our survey findings weren’t what I expected: My assumption was that the single most important thing for candidates to do was to show voters that they care about, and can relate to, the struggles they have paying for health care. Candidates do this a lot, talking about their family experiences with illness and health care costs and telling stories about people they met on the campaign trail. No doubt that registers, but according to our poll, it may not be the most important thing to do.

Voters said what matters most to them is to see candidates show some “fight” by taking on the big health care interests they have come to see as villains. Thirty-six percent said “what matters most to them” about candidates is their willingness “to take on drug and insurance companies.” (The poll doesn’t tell us how much the voters value rhetoric versus substantive proposals that would have consequences.)

After that, voters also wanted to have some confidence that candidates would deliver something. Thirty-three percent want to know that they “have a plan to address health care costs.” That doesn’t tell us a lot about whether the plan has to be sweeping or small and tangible, or what voters mean by “having a plan.”

Then, coming in third, 21% said they want to see that candidates “care about the problems people are having with their health care costs.” Democrats are a little bit more into candidates showing empathy, at 25% v. 17% for Republicans.

And then 10% said none of these, presumably looking for something else.

I wouldn’t make too much of the distinctions between these perceived candidate virtues. After all, showing “fight” and taking on big interests are also forms of showing you care. And voters always say they want to see a “plan,” then most tune out the details, as if having a plan is more important than the plan itself. Poll respondents may also think that having a plan is something they should say to pollsters. The news media also pushes candidates for plans they then dissect, while candidates try to keep their intentions general. And stakeholder groups push for plans to advance their goals. However, as any political adviser knows, candidates are best off with general plans that signal direction and values and are plausible, but don’t have enough detail to attack. It’s not clear that voters crave detailed plans, but they do want a sense that candidates will “do something,” and maybe also that the “something” won’t hurt them or upset their own current health care arrangements (long a red line for health reform).

What jumped out from the poll is the value voters place on villainizing health care’s big interests now. It’s like serving up a big fat slow curveball for every candidate to hit. And the polling makes sense at this moment. Once the territory of the left, even President Trump has been taking on drug and insurance companies, ending this as a no-fly zone for Republicans. (Hospitals, where much of health spending is, so far have remained relatively safe).

Of course, candidates also know that health care’s big interests won’t just sit there and take it; they will respond with political contributions to their opponents if they believe a candidate, if elected, might do something that damages their interests, or that their rhetoric and agenda-setting power might add momentum to actions they want to block. The polling may foreshadow growing candidate courage to take on health care’s big interests that we’ll see unfold in this election cycle, but not necessarily a change in how the system works.

View all of Drew’s Beyond the Data Columns



Source link

KFF Health Tracking Poll: Health Care Costs and the Midterms

healthissuesadmin
-
0
KFF Health Tracking Poll: Health Care Costs and the Midterms



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Key Takeaways

  • Health costs continue to top the public’s list of affordability worries, even as concerns about gas prices have risen in recent weeks. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of adults are worried about being able to afford health care costs, on par with the share who now worry about gas and transportation costs (64%) and outranking other economic concerns. In January 2026, prior to the start of the U.S. conflict with Iran, gasoline and transportation costs ranked at the bottom of household financial worries. Now, gas prices share the top spot with health care costs as the biggest financial worry adults face for themselves and their families.
  • Lowering out-of-pocket costs ranks as the most important change insured adults say they would like to see from their health insurance. When given a list of possible changes that could be made to their health insurance, half (46%) of insured adults choose lowering their out-of-pocket costs as most important, more than twice the share who cite eliminating prior authorization (22%). Fewer say other possible changes such as getting more value for what they spend (13%) and having more choice in providers (12%) would be most important to them.
  • Health costs also loom large in the upcoming midterm elections. About nine in ten voters say the issue will influence their decision to vote and who to vote for in the 2026 midterm elections, with majorities saying it will have a “major impact” on both areas (55% and 61%). While majorities of voters across partisans say health care costs will impact their vote in November, the issue is more salient among Democratic and independent voters. About seven in ten Democratic voters (72%) and nearly two-thirds of independent voters (63%) say health care costs will impact which party’s candidate they would support in the election, compared to about half of Republican voters (47%) who say the same.
  • While both political parties have made recent announcements about their own plans to bring down health costs, the latest polling shows the Democrats currently have the edge among voters. Voters give the Trump administration low approval ratings on its handling of the cost of health care and are more likely to trust the Democratic Party (37%) over the Republican Party (26%) on addressing this issue. Fewer than half of voters approve of the administration’s handling of cost of health care (33%) and the cost of prescription drugs (41%).
  • The Republican Party holds an advantage on addressing fraud and waste in government health care programs, which has been a key messaging strategy during the second Trump administration. One-third of voters say they trust Republicans on this issue compared to a quarter who say they trust Democrats. Notably, on most issues asked about, sizable shares of voters say they trust neither party.

Health Care Costs Are a Top Concern for the Public and Voters

Health care costs remain a primary economic concern for the public and voters’ top health concern heading into the 2026 midterm elections. The latest KFF Health Tracking Poll finds health care costs remain at the top of the list of what the public worries about being able to afford for themselves and their family, now tied with gasoline and transportation costs amid rising fuel prices. Nearly two-thirds of the public (64%) say they are at least somewhat worried about affording health care costs including the cost of health insurance and out-of-pocket costs such as for office visits and prescription drugs. This includes three in ten adults overall (30%) and voters (30%) who say they are “very worried” about paying for health care. A similar share of adults is “very worried” about affording gas and transportation costs (29%), up from about one in six (17%) in January. This comes as the national average for gasoline has risen to over $4 per gallon, up roughly 38% since the conflict with Iran began. About one in five adults say they are “very worried” about affording food and groceries (23%), rent or mortgage (21%) or monthly utilities (21%).

Stacked bar chart showing the public's levels of worry when it comes to affording living necessities. Shown among total adults.

Even among adults with health insurance coverage, lowering health care costs is a top concern. When asked about possible changes that could be made to their health insurance, about half of insured adults say “paying less out-of-pocket for health care” (46%) is most important, more than twice the share who choose “eliminating prior authorization” (22%), an area that previous KFF polls have identified as the most significant pain point for health care consumers aside from costs. Fewer insured adults say getting more value out of their care (13%) or having more choice of which health care providers they can see (12%) are the most important changes they’d like to see.

Bar chart showing the most important priority of insured adults when it comes to possible changes that could be made to their health insurance.

Voters’ Approval of the Trump Administration and Party Preference on Health Care Issues

With about six months to go before the midterm elections, most voters disapprove of how the Trump administration is handling issues related to health care costs. One-third of voters (33%) approve of the administration’s handling of the cost of health care while two-thirds (67%) say they disapprove – including 45% who say they “strongly disapprove.” Several months after the unveiling of TrumpRx, about four in ten voters (41%) approve of the administration’s handling of prescription drug costs. Following a recent announcement by the Trump administration of increased efforts to crack down on health care fraud, about four in ten voters (42%) say they approve of the way the administration is handling fraud and waste in government health programs, while a majority (58%) say they disapprove.

Stacked bar chart showing scale of approval of the way the Trump administration is handling areas of health and health policy. Results shown among total registered voters.

Unsurprisingly, voters are split along partisan lines with the Trump administration receiving high approval ratings from Republicans overall, and most Democrats disapproving of the administration. Among independent voters, about a third say they approve of the Trump administration’s handling of fraud and waste in government health programs (33%) and its handling of the cost of prescription drugs (32%). Fewer independents (25%) say they approve of the administration’s handling of the cost of health care.

Notably, while two-thirds of Republican voters approve of the administration’s handling of health care costs (67%), there is some nuance within the Republican coalition. Among the two-thirds of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters who identify as MAGA supporters, about eight in ten (79%) approve of the administration’s handling of health care costs. However, Republican voters who do not support the MAGA movement are less approving of the administration with just over one-third (36%) of non-MAGA Republicans approving of the administration’s actions on health costs while 64% disapprove. Additionally, non-MAGA Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are much less likely than their MAGA counterparts to say they approve of the Trump administration’s handling of the cost of prescription drugs (53% vs. 90%) and their handling of fraud and waste in government health programs (58% vs. 93%).

Split bar chart showing share of adults who say they approve of the way the Trump administration is handling areas of health and health policy. Results shown by party identification and by voters who support the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement.

As voters evaluate congressional candidates ahead of the midterm elections, the Democratic Party has an edge over the Republican Party when it comes to addressing the cost of health care, while the Republican Party has the edge on addressing fraud and waste in government health care programs. Democrats have a double-digit advantage over Republicans when it comes to who voters trust to address the cost of health care (37% vs. 26%) and continue to hold a narrow edge among voters when it comes to addressing the cost of prescription drugs (33% vs. 26%).

Voters are more likely to trust the Republican Party (34%) than the Democratic Party (26%) when it comes to addressing fraud and waste in government health care programs, an area the Trump administration has focused heavily on recently. About one-third (33%) say they trust neither party to handle this issue.

Stacked bar chart showing which political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, the public trusts to do a better job in areas of health and health policy. Results shown among total registered voters.

Among independent voters, the Democratic Party has a double-digit advantage over the Republican Party when it comes to addressing the cost of health care (29% vs. 16%), while the Republican Party holds the advantage when it comes to addressing fraud and waste in government health care programs (25% vs. 13%). Yet notably, at least half of independent voters say they trust neither party to address each of these issues.

Stacked bar chart showing which political party, the Democrats or the Republicans, the public trusts to do a better job in areas of health and health policy. Results shown among total independent registered voters.

In addition to ranking as a top economic concern for the public, majorities of voters say health care costs will have a “major impact” on their decision to vote (55%) and which party’s candidate they would support (61%) in the upcoming midterms. The issue of health costs is more salient for Democratic voters compared to Republicans. More than six in ten Democratic voters say the cost of health care will have a major impact on their decision to vote (64%) and which party’s candidate they support (72%). About half of Republican voters say the issue of health costs will majorly impact whether they vote (48%) and what candidate they will support (47%). About half of independent voters say the cost of health care will majorly impact their decision to vote (52%) and six in ten say this issue will majorly impact the party’s candidate they support (63%).

Stacked bar chart showing the shares of adults who say the cost of health care will have a major impact, minor impact, or no impact at all on their decision to vote or which party's candidate they would support in the 2026 midterm elections. Shown among total voters and by party identification.



Source link

Poll: The Cost of Health Care Remains at the Top of the Public’s List of Economic Concerns, Even as Concerns About Gas Prices Climb

healthissuesadmin
-
0
Poll: The Cost of Health Care Remains at the Top of the Public’s List of Economic Concerns, Even as Concerns About Gas Prices Climb



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Health care costs continue to top the public’s list of economic anxieties, even as fuel prices and economic uncertainty rose following the start of the Iran war, a new KFF Health Tracking poll finds. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of U.S. adults are worried about being able to afford health care costs, including three in ten who say they are “very worried.” The same share (64%) are worried about gasoline or other transportation costs, up from about half (52%) in January.

Underscoring these concerns, nearly half of insured adults (46%) say that lowering out-of-pocket costs is their most-wanted change to their health insurance. Additionally, majorities of voters say health care costs will have a “major impact” on their decision to vote (55%) and which party’s candidate they support (61%).

While the poll finds that voters trust Democrats more than Republicans to address both health care costs (37% vs. 26%) and prescription drug costs (33% vs. 26%), voters are more likely to trust Republicans on the issue of fraud and waste in government health care programs (34% vs. 26%)—an issue on which the Trump administration has been particularly engaged.



Source link

CMS Extends Medicare’s Short-Term Bridge Program for GLP-1 Obesity Drug Coverage

healthissuesadmin
-
0
CMS Extends Medicare’s Short-Term Bridge Program for GLP-1 Obesity Drug Coverage



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced that its temporary program to cover GLP-1 drugs for obesity in Medicare, called the BALANCE model, will not launch as scheduled on January 1, 2027. Instead, CMS is extending the duration of a separate short-term program, called the Medicare GLP-1 Bridge, which was originally scheduled to run from July-December 2026 but will now run through the end of 2027. Under the Bridge program, eligible beneficiaries can get Medicare coverage of GLP-1s for obesity for a $50 copay.

Extending the short-term GLP-1 Bridge program is good news for eligible Medicare beneficiaries because it provides the certainty of obesity drug coverage at a $50 copay for a longer duration, but federal spending will also rise by some unknown amount since CMS hasn’t disclosed the projected cost. The cost to Medicare of covering obesity drugs under Part D has been estimated at between $25 billion and $35 billion over 10 years, which could have been a driving factor in the reluctance or unwillingness of major Part D plan sponsors to participate in the BALANCE model as it was originally designed.

While CMS sought robust participation of Part D plan sponsors in the BALANCE model, which was voluntary for plans, interest appears to have fallen short of the targeted level. Although GLP-1 drug manufacturers agreed to a $245 net price, a substantial discount off prevailing list prices, savings to plans from a lower price may have been insufficient to offset higher costs associated with an uptake in GLP-1 use for obesity treatment. Plans would also have been at some financial risk if their actual costs for covering GLP-1s were higher than they expected. Higher costs for Part D plans under the BALANCE model would have translated to higher federal spending and increased Part D premiums for enrollees, always a tough sell but especially so when the cost of health care, including prescription drugs, ranks as a top concern for many Americans.

Implementation of the BALANCE model in Medicare faces an uncertain future. CMS could opt to revise the financial incentives to make participation more appealing to Part D plan sponsors, such as by negotiating an even lower net price with manufacturers or taking other steps to shift financial risk associated with GLP-1 coverage away from plans. While CMS’s approach to Medicare obesity drug coverage after the short-term Bridge program ends is unknown, a financially sustainable solution for how to cover GLP-1 drugs for obesity remains elusive.



Source link

A One-Pager on What’s Wrong with U.S. Health Care

healthissuesadmin
-
0
A One-Pager on What’s Wrong with U.S. Health Care



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

The other day, I was asked for a one-pager on what’s wrong with the U.S. health system. “Just one page.” To my amazement, with our thousands of fact sheets and policy briefs and even our Health Policy 101, we didn’t have anything short or current, nor could I find one elsewhere to send along. The closest we came was this 2022 policy brief. So, while this isn’t my usual column about current issues, and it’s only about problems, not the reasons for them or solutions, it might be useful to some of you.

First, our health system is not affordable, either for people or for the country. About a quarter of the public struggle with their medical bills and the numbers rise sharply for people with chronic illnesses or major diseases who need a lot of care. About 100 million deal with medical debt. We spend almost twice per capita what other wealthy nations spend, putting pressure on other national priorities and for employers on wages.

Despite progress, we still have 27 million people who are uninsured, and according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office, cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill will bring that total to about 40 million if the cuts aren’t reversed.

The system is beyond complex and challenging to navigate. The poster child of this is prior authorization review, which almost everyone hates. People tell us on surveys that it’s their single greatest problem getting care.

As is well known, although we spend much more than other wealthy nations, our health outcomes lag behind theirs in most cases. There are a lot of different ingredients in that stew, but our well-heeled health system has not lifted our health outcomes.

Trust in health professionals remains strong, but trust in critical agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration is at a low point. The agencies take it on the chin for different reasons from both Democrats and Republicans. If we have another COVID-like crisis, we’ll pay a big price for that; national emergencies, like wars, cannot be handled state by state.

If I were to nominate one more item for the list, it would be the “crisis” in primary care. In many parts of the country, it’s just not easily available, and in some, like the Silicon Valley where I live, much of it has been skimmed off to expensive concierge practices with long waiting lists.

Finally, the politics of health care are as broken as the system (and are a reason it is broken). For decades, Democrats and Republicans have not been able to agree on any major solutions to our health care problems and disagree sharply on the role of the federal government in health, forcing us to gravitate to smaller incremental changes where there might be some agreement. They also blow their importance out of proportion. I won’t name names in this short piece.

The result: we have neither a competitive health care system nor a regulated one—we have a fragmented, micromanaged health system that fails to control costs and makes both patients and health professionals more miserable than they should be.

Of course, if you have a problem requiring a world-renowned specialist or the very latest drug and can get to and afford her, him, or it, it can be the greatest health system in the world.

View all of Drew’s Beyond the Data Columns



Source link

Are Health Insurance Companies the Reason for Our Health System’s Ills? 

healthissuesadmin
-
0
Are Health Insurance Companies the Reason for Our Health System’s Ills? 



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

In this JAMA Health Forum column, KFF’s Larry Levitt examines the criticism that health insurance companies are facing from political leaders, and explores the industry’s role in both causing and addressing some of the health systems’ biggest problems, including rising costs and prior authorization review.



Source link

Consumer search trends signal growing cost pressure in health insurance

healthissuesadmin
-
0
Consumer search trends signal growing cost pressure in health insurance



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

As net health insurance premiums in the Marketplace have jumped by an average of nearly 60% nationally due to the expiration of federal subsidy enhancements, many consumers have been reassessing what coverage they can afford – or whether they can afford coverage at all.

One of the clearest signals of that growing anxiety isn’t coming just from enrollment data or policy analysis. It’s showing up in what people are searching for online, particularly when it comes to the cost of health insurance.

A healthinsurance.org analysis of more than five years of Google Trends data shows a sharp spike in affordability-related searches in 2025, followed by continued growth in early 2026. Searches related to the cost of health insurance, lower-cost coverage options, subsidies, and even the consequences of going without insurance surged as consumers grapple with rising costs.

Taken together, these trends suggest a meaningful shift in how consumers are approaching health coverage in today’s higher-cost environment.

Key findings at a glance

Google Trends data reflects relative search interest over time, offering a real-time view into what consumers are actively Googling. Between 2024 and 2025, search interest for:

  • “cost of health insurance” increased about 54%
  • “bronze health plan” increased about 75%
  • “catastrophic health insurance” increased about 71%
  • “cheap health insurance” and “low cost health insurance” surged 48% to multi-year highs
  • “Do you get penalized for not having health insurance?” increased 65%.

These queries did not fade when open enrollment ended in January 2026. Between January and March, when many consumers faced their first premium payments of the year, search interest accelerated. Compared to previous winters, for example, search interest in “cheap health insurance” sharply increased over 160%.

See the findings below.

Why consumers’ interest in health insurance costs surged

During the open enrollment period for 2026 Marketplace health coverage, some clear trends emerged in conjunction with the expiration of federal premium subsidy enhancements: Fewer people enrolled, and more people selected Bronze plans, which have lower premiums but higher out-of-pocket costs. And even with those changes, average net (after-subsidy) premiums grew by 58%, going from $113/month in 2025 to $178/month in 2026.

So it’s not surprising that there has also been a significant increase in online search interest around health insurance costs and lower-premium coverage options in 2025 and 2026.

The cost of health insurance is causing consumer anxiety

In early 2026, search interest in “cost of health insurance” was more than double what it had been at the same time in 2025, and search interest in “health care subsidy” had nearly tripled. This isn’t surprising given the expiration of federal premium subsidy enhancements at the end of 2025, and the anxiety this may have caused for consumers.

If all Marketplace enrollees had renewed their 2025 plans for 2026, average net premiums were projected to increase by 114%. This caused significant sticker shock when people got their renewal notices last fall. Instead of renewing, many consumers opted to downgrade to a plan with a lower premium or drop their coverage altogether, resulting in net premiums “only” increasing by 58%.

The unfortunate reality is that most 2026 Marketplace enrollees were faced with higher premiums, higher out-of-pocket costs, or both. As a result, a recent KFF survey found that more than half of returning Marketplace enrollees are reducing their spending on food or basic household items so that they can afford their health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs.

Marketplace coverage ‘downgrades’ were widespread as consumers searched for ‘cheap health insurance’

Unsurprisingly, there has also been a spike in search interest related to Bronze and Catastrophic health plans, as well as “cheap” and “low-cost” health insurance. This is all indicative of the pressure that consumers are feeling when it comes to the monthly premiums they’re paying, and their efforts to find lower-cost coverage options.

Unfortunately, lower-cost options generally mean higher out-of-pocket costs. And that’s a best-case scenario that assumes a person continues to have ACA-compliant coverage. A person who switches from a Silver Marketplace plan to a Bronze or Catastrophic Marketplace plan will have higher out-of-pocket costs, but they’ll still have the ACA’s consumer protections, including coverage for pre-existing conditions and essential health benefits.

But we know that 1.2 million fewer people enrolled in Marketplace plans for 2026. Some of those people might have moved to other ACA-compliant coverage, such as an employer’s health plan. But some are likely uninsured altogether in 2026, while others might have opted for non-ACA-compliant insurance or even “coverage” that isn’t actually insurance, such as health care sharing ministry plans or Farm Bureau plans.

Bronze plans became much more popular with Marketplace enrollees in 2026, growing from about 30% of enrollments in 2025 to about 40% of enrollments in 2026.

At the same time, Silver plan selections dropped significantly, going from 56% of enrollments in 2025 to 43% in 2026.

And while Gold plan selections increased slightly, from 13% of enrollments in 2025 to 17% in 2026, it’s worth noting that in many cases this was still a coverage downgrade, if the person previously had a Silver plan with strong cost-sharing reductions.

This is because for those with income that doesn’t exceed 200% of the federal poverty level, a Silver plan provides much more robust benefits than a Gold plan. But in many states, Gold plans have lower premiums than Silver plans.

This helps to explain why some enrollees switched from Silver plans to Gold plans (or Bronze plans) in an effort to reduce premiums, despite giving up cost-sharing reductions to do so: Across all Marketplace enrollees, 51% were receiving CSR benefits in 2025, and that dropped to 37% in 2026. CSR benefits are only available on Silver plans, so consumers who are CSR-eligible are forfeiting that benefit if they select a non-Silver plan.

Searches for ‘catastrophic health insurance’

Despite the fact that the Trump administration took steps to expand access to Catastrophic plans in the fall of 2025, Catastrophic plans accounted for just 0.3% of all Marketplace plan selections in 2026, up only slightly from about 0.2% in 2025. Catastrophic plans aren’t available at all in 14 states, are only offered by some (but not all) Marketplace insurers in most other states, and can never be purchased with premium tax credits. So while they’re fully ACA-compliant, they still make up just a tiny sliver of Marketplace enrollment.

But it’s also worth pointing out that while “Catastrophic health insurance” has a specific definition under the ACA, consumers were using this term to describe cheap “bare bones” coverage long before the ACA. Search interest in “catastrophic health insurance” grew considerably in 2025 and 2026, and although some people using this search phrase might be looking for ACA-compliant coverage, others might be looking for lower-cost plans that aren’t ACA-compliant.

Increasing interest in high-deductible health plans

Search interest related to high-deductible health plans has been steadily climbing in recent years, reaching new highs in 2025 and early 2026. As is the case with “catastrophic health insurance,” the term “high-deductible health plan” (HDHP) has a specific definition. These plans are regulated by the IRS, and enrollees are allowed to make pre-tax contributions to a health savings account. But consumers who are doing online searches may or may not know that, and might simply be looking for lower-cost coverage.

In 2026, for the first time, all Bronze and Catastrophic Marketplace plans are considered HDHPs, meaning enrollees in these plans can make HSA contributions. For enrollees who are willing and able to do so, this could have significant tax advantages, and could explain why some people opted to switch to these plans, despite the higher out-of-pocket costs.

But having access to an HSA doesn’t necessarily mean that a person will utilize that option. Opening an HSA and making contributions to it are optional. And while the majority of people enrolled in employer-sponsored HDHPs receive HSA contributions from their employer, most people with HDHPs purchased in the individual market have to make their own HSA contributions.

How much will Marketplace enrollment drop in 2026?

Although Marketplace plan selections during open enrollment dropped by about 1.2 million people in 2026 compared with the year before, that doesn’t account for people who might not have paid their initial premiums to effectuate their coverage. Nor does it account for people whose coverage was terminated at the end of a grace period due to non-payment of premiums.

A Wakely analysis that covered about 80% of the individual market found that 86% of the people who selected a plan during the open enrollment period for 2026 (including those whose coverage was auto-renewed) paid their January premium. The other 14% includes some people whose coverage didn’t get effectuated, and others who were in a grace period and may or may not have paid their past-due premiums by the end of that grace period.

But overall, the Wakely analysis projects that “average enrollment in the individual market could shrink 17% to 26% in 2026 compared to 2025 average enrollment.”

A KFF analysis of returning Marketplace enrollees found that nearly one in five reported being unsure they’ll be able to continue to pay their monthly premiums throughout 2026. So it’s not surprising that online search interest in whether there’s a penalty for going without health insurance increased so much in 2025 and early 2026. Some people have already given up their coverage (plan selections during open enrollment dropped by about 1.2 million people compared with 2025), and others are unsure whether they’ll be able to maintain their coverage throughout 2026.

Although the Wakely analysis gives some good clues about early effectuated enrollment, it will likely be at least mid-2026 before we have official nationwide numbers from CMS in terms of how many people had effectuated Marketplace coverage as of February 2026. The effectuated enrollment number is always lower than the number of plan selections made during open enrollment.

But the first effectuated enrollment report won’t reflect the number of policies that lapsed at the end of March when their three-month grace period ended. Nor will it reflect people who were able to make their initial premium payments but weren’t able to continue to make those payments later in the year.

So as insurers start to prepare rates and plans for next year, it remains to be seen how many people will have individual-market coverage as we head into 2027.

A spike in searches about going without coverage

Consumer search interest in whether there’s a penalty for not having health insurance grew significantly in 2025 and the early part of 2026. This corresponds with a drop in Marketplace enrollment: 24.3 million people selected Marketplace plans for 2025, and that dropped to 23.1 million for 2026. So it makes sense that more people might want to learn more about the ramifications of going without health insurance.

Note: There hasn’t been a federal penalty for being uninsured since 2018, but DC and four states do impose a penalty.

What to do if you’re struggling with health insurance costs

If health insurance feels unaffordable in 2026, you’re certainly not alone. Read more about what to do if you’re feeling premium sticker shock, and what you can do if you can’t afford health insurance and aren’t eligible for Medicaid.

Consumer search trends signal growing cost pressure in health insurance

Consumer Search Trends Signal Growing Cost Pressure in Health Insurance in 2025



Source link

How Employers Support Lower-Waged Workers’ Access to Health Insurance Options

healthissuesadmin
-
0
How Employers Support Lower-Waged Workers’ Access to Health Insurance Options



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Health insurance makes up 8% of total employee compensation on average, and while most employees take up health insurance when it is offered, lower-wage workers are far less likely to be able to access coverage, according to an analysis on the costs, availability, and take-up of health benefits for workers with lower wages. The analysis uses survey data and information from focus groups discussions with more than 100 U.S. employers with over a quarter of a million employees.

About three in four employees are offered health insurance on average, and nearly two-thirds of those offered insurance enroll in the benefit. Workers in occupations with lower wages, such as service occupations, are much less likely to have access to health benefits at their jobs (94% of workers in higher-wage jobs vs. 44% in lower-wage jobs) and, even when they do, they are much less likely to enroll (72% vs. 49%).

The analysis of part of 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

123...27Page 1 of 27
© Newspaper WordPress Theme by TagDiv