Home Blog

First Look at New Hospital Price Transparency Provisions: Some Factors Complicate Price Comparisons

healthissuesadmin
-
0
First Look at New Hospital Price Transparency Provisions: Some Factors Complicate Price Comparisons



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

This analysis takes a first look at how hospitals are reporting prices under updated federal hospital price transparency requirements that took effect in January 2026. The hospital price transparency (HPT) rule requires most non-federal hospitals to publish their standard charges for each item and service they provide.

The analysis describes several key issues with how hospitals are reporting rates and other required information, which limits the usefulness of the new data for researcher comparing hospital prices. Notably, the negotiated payment arrangements between hospitals and payers are complicated and can take many forms, making it difficult to accurately compare prices across hospitals.

The brief is 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

A Guide to the Role of Health in the Midterms

healthissuesadmin
-
0
A Guide to the Role of Health in the Midterms



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Elections, obviously, are partly about voter choice and partly about which side’s voters turn out to vote in greater numbers. Without a presidential race to galvanize attention, midterms especially are about turnout. Democrats currently appear to have an advantage on voter enthusiasm, and worries about health care costs—as part of voter concerns about the cost of living—are one big reason why.

But let’s backup.

Issues like health care are only one factor that motivates voting. Quite obviously, partisan affiliation does. And candidate qualities and characteristics do. The general mood of the country and the standing of the president do as well. And all kinds of local factors can play a role in races. Even when issues do matter, often it’s not the candidate’s specific plan or position on an issue that moves voters. Instead, voters take candidate’s positions on issues as cues or signals: Does the candidate care about me? Are they for bigger or smaller government? Will they save or cost me money?   

Even with these caveats, voters’ concerns about health care costs are having a moment, and will continue to do so through 2028, because voters see them as a dimension of their worries about the cost of living, which is their dominant concern right now.

When we ask voters what their top financial worry is in our latest poll, health costs are tied with the cost of gas at the top of the list, and ahead of the cost of food, utilities, rent or mortgage. When you step back a bit from the rankings, you can see that all five of these worries are closely clumped together. That’s because, in the real world for families trying to pay the bills, they hit families together and are connected. There are also other costs families struggle with, such as childcare or education. When one of these costs goes up, it makes other expenses more difficult to afford. People confront a bundle of costs together, which we label “cost of living” or more recently “affordability.” I predict that polls around the election and exit polls will list “health care” as a separate issue and rank it third or fourth. That downplays the importance of voter concern because voters now see health care costs not as a separate issue but as a dimension of their cost-of-living concerns.

There is, however, one important way in which worries about health costs are different: Health care costs are far less predictable than other costs of living. Anyone could have a major accident or be diagnosed with a major illness and face a big medical bill. This, I suspect, is why health costs, surprisingly, rank up there with the cost of gas, which is in the news every day. Health costs are a special kind of financial worry.

Note that the costs voters care about are their own health care bills, not national health spending, or employer premiums, or value, or federal or state health spending. The cost of health care is a multifaceted problem, but the health cost problem vying with gas prices as a force in this election is very specific—it’s about people’s out-of-pocket costs. I suspect that frustration with the health care and insurance systems also figure into voter discontent. In another poll, we found that people say prior authorization was their single biggest burden getting health care other than costs.


Stacked bar chart showing how worried voters are about being able to afford various living necessities. Results shown among total voters.

Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in voter trust to handle the cost of health care, and it has increased in recent months. Republicans are more even with Democrats on addressing fraud in government programs (31% to 29%), but voters don’t see that as lowering their own health care costs, according to our polling.

Democrats have been pressing this advantage in their campaign ads, which have focused on health cuts and on the cost of living, while Republicans have been focusing more on taxes and crime. And, of course, both sides have more than their fair share of attack ads.


Stacked bar chart showing which political party voters trust to do a better job handling various health issues. Results shown among total voters.

It’s a target-rich environment for Democrats on health on the campaign trail; almost anything that addresses public concern about health costs can resonate. Republicans either concede the territory and emphasize other issues they feel play to their advantage or focus on fraud, which has some traction with voters and especially with their base. That’s largely to try to neutralize the Democratic advantage on health at a time when health costs are on voters’ minds, not to “win” the issue.

The Democratic advantage on cost of living and health care costs is one of many reasons why Republican turnout may be tepid. In a poll of rural voters we recently conducted with the Associated Press, we found that 8 in 10 rural Democratic voters said they were “absolutely certain” to vote, compared with 74% percent for Republicans. More than half of rural voters also disapprove of President Trump’s handling of health care. And perhaps even more tellingly, rural Republicans who disapprove of Trump on the economy (27%) are much less likely to say they are certain to vote than those who approve of it (59% to 79%). Democratic enthusiasm exceeding Republican enthusiasm in rural America, a Republican and Trump stronghold, could be a canary in the coal mine for the midterms.

Progressive Democrats advancing Medicare-for-All proposals are also garnering attention, and whether those ideas go anywhere or not, they are moving health care up on the national agenda. Even differences between progressive and moderate Democrats about health elevates health issues overall. In our September poll, we found the highest level of support for Medicare-for-All we have seen—66%—although as always, we also found that opinion is malleable and moves up and down when voters are presented with the familiar arguments made by critics and proponents.

We found something else that may be significant as well: People have long supported health reform in the abstract but have been unwilling to change their own medical and insurance arrangements when health reform proposals were made, a third rail often exploited by opponents. In polling about Medicare-for-All, for example, we typically find that support drops dramatically if people believe it would mean eliminating private insurance. In our latest poll, that changed somewhat. Support also dropped, but a slight majority continued to favor Medicare-for-All even when they heard private insurance might go away. That could be because anti-insurance company fervor has been whipped up recently, or because frustrations with the insurance system have risen, or for a host of reasons. It’s a change to keep an eye on.  

It’s wise to be cautious about the importance of issues in elections and of policy plans advanced by candidates. Partisanship, the appeal of the candidates themselves in each race, the general mood of the electorate, local factors, and other variables will likely matter as much or more in many races. But issues do matter. And voters do want to have some confidence that a candidate, if elected, will do something about their problems. The “issue” that matters most in this election is the cost of living, and the cost of health care is a central element of it for voters.

View all of Drew’s Beyond the Data Columns



Source link

Current and Historical Public Opinion on Medicare-for-All and Other National Health Plan Proposals

healthissuesadmin
-
0
Current and Historical Public Opinion on Medicare-for-All and Other National Health Plan Proposals



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

For many years, KFF has been tracking public opinion on the idea of a national health plan, including questions specifically about “Medicare-for-all” since 2017. This 2026 midterm election cycle, some progressive Democratic candidates have been campaigning on their support for Medicare-for-all, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan. As U.S. adults struggle to afford their health costs, many are looking for changes to the health care system. This data note summarizes current and historical KFF polling on Medicare-for-all and other national health proposals.

Views on Medicare-for-all are related to the broader question of the role of the federal government in providing access to health insurance, which has wide support among the public. Eight in ten (79%) adults say they favor the federal government doing more to help provide health insurance for more Americans, while one in five oppose a larger role for the federal government. Support for a larger federal role is bipartisan, including nearly all Democrats (94%) and eight in ten independents (82%). A smaller majority of Republicans (61%) favor a larger role for government.

This sentiment is not new. In fact, since KFF began polling on this question in 2006, three-quarters of U.S. adults or more have favored the federal government doing more to help provide health insurance to more Americans.

Medicare-for-all has reentered Democratic debates in the 2026 midterm elections, with several progressive candidates making it a central part of their campaigns. A September 2026 KFF Health Tracking Poll finds that two-thirds (66%) of the public say they favor having a national health plan, sometimes called Medicare-for-all, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan. This includes about eight in ten Democrats (84%) and seven in ten independents (72%). Most Republicans, however, oppose the proposal (66%), including about half (48%) who “strongly oppose” it.

From 2017 to 2020, views of Medicare-for-all were relatively stable, with at least half of adults consistently favoring the proposal and between four in ten and just under half opposing it. Opposition rose slightly in 2019, coinciding with debate over Medicare-for-all during the Democratic presidential primary, and when KFF asked the question in October 2020, about half (53%) were in favor and about four in ten (42%) opposed.

The latest KFF poll from September 2026 marks a new high, with two-thirds (66%) of the public favoring the proposal, while the share opposed has fallen to about a third (34%).

Support for Medicare-for-all increased across partisans between 2020 and 2026. Most notably, about seven in ten independents (72%) now favor the proposal, up from fewer than six in ten (57%) six years ago. While most Republicans oppose the plan, one-third (34%) now favor it, up from one in five (21%) in 2020. About eight in ten Democrats (84%) now favor Medicare-for-all, similar to the share who said so in 2020 (78%).

KFF polling has consistently found that public opinion on Medicare-for-all can shift substantially when people hear about potential effects of such a plan that are likely to be raised in a national debate. The share who favors such a plan rises to as much as three-quarters when people hear it would guarantee health insurance as a right for all Americans or eliminate all health insurance premiums and reduce out-of-pocket health care costs. On the other hand, favorability falls to as low as one in four when people hear it could lead to delays in getting medical tests or treatment, to about one-third when they hear it could raise taxes, and to about four in ten when they hear it could threaten the current Medicare program.

The public has mixed expectations about how a Medicare-for-all plan would affect them personally, but these expectations generally lean more negative than positive. About one-third (35%) say their ability to afford the health care they need would get better if the U.S. adopted Medicare-for-all, while 28% say it would get worse and 37% say it would stay about the same. On other aspects of their care, more U.S. adults expect things to get worse or stay about the same. The largest share, about six in ten (61%) adults, expect the amount they pay in taxes to be “worse” under a Medicare-for-all plan, while one in ten say this would be “better” and three in ten (29%) say it would be “about the same.”

Notably, adults who favor Medicare-for-all appear to support such a plan despite having mixed views on how it would impact them personally. While about half (48%) of Medicare-for-all supporters say their ability to afford the health care they need would get better under such a plan, the same share (48%) expects the amount they pay in taxes to get worse. At the same time, at least half of those who support Medicare-for-all say their own access to providers, wait times, and insurance paperwork would remain about the same. Medicare-for-all opponents are more unified, with majorities saying each of these things would get worse under such a system.

Most U.S. adults with private health insurance think they would be able to keep their current coverage under a Medicare-for-all plan. About six in ten (57%) adults with private health insurance, either through an employer or purchased themselves, say it is likely they would be able to keep their current health insurance if the U.S. adopted Medicare-for-all, including seven in ten privately insured adults who favor Medicare-for-all.

This misconception is not new. In a KFF poll from 2019, as Medicare-for-all was debated in the Democratic presidential primary, most adults with private health insurance incorrectly said they would likely be able to keep their own insurance under a national plan. Notably, most Medicare-for-all proposals, including legislation introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2017, would replace most current private health insurance with a single government plan.

A Historical Look at National Health Plan Polling

Prior to the focus on Medicare-for-all in 2017, KFF polls tracked questions about support for a single-payer health plan back to 1998. These polls showed that fewer than half of adults supported a national health plan until 2016, when it became a focus of the Democratic presidential primary with Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign. In KFF polls conducted from 1998 to 2004, about four in ten adults favored a national health plan while a majority opposed it. During the 2008-2009 health reform debate, an average of seven KFF polls shows just under half of adults supported the plan (46%) and about half opposed it (49%). By February 2016, half of adults favored a national health plan while about four in ten (43%) opposed it.

Phrasing the Question

Polling shows that the terminology used affects public opinion on a national health plan. A KFF Health Tracking Poll from April 2019 found that majorities of adults had positive reactions to the terms “universal health coverage” (63%), “Medicare-for-all” (63%), and “national health plan” (59%). Fewer had positive reactions to “single-payer health insurance system” (49%), a term for which about one in five did not offer an opinion. In addition, public opinion was split on “socialized medicine” (46% positive, 44% negative).

Additionally, question wording itself can impact the level of support measured for a national health plan. Polls from 2017 show that the term used, whether financing through taxes is mentioned, and whether respondents are offered the option to say they don’t know enough can all affect measured support. For example, a September 2017 Politico/Harvard poll found that fewer than half (45%) favored replacing the current health insurance system with a “single-payer system,” while two-thirds (66%) favored replacing it with a “taxpayer-funded national plan like Medicare.” Polls that mention financing through taxes have found support ranging from an even split in a 2017 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (47% favor, 46% oppose) to a majority in favor in a CNN poll in 2017 (58%). And when a November 2017 Gallup poll explicitly offered the option to say they didn’t know enough, only about one in five said they favored (17%) or opposed (21%) a Medicare-for-all proposal, with six in ten (61%) saying they did not know enough to say.



Source link

KFF Health Tracking Poll: Health Care Issues in the Lead-Up to the 2026 Midterm Election 

healthissuesadmin
-
0
KFF Health Tracking Poll: Health Care Issues in the Lead-Up to the 2026 Midterm Election 



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Key Takeaways

  • With about a month to go before Election Day, the latest KFF Health Tracking Poll finds a large enthusiasm gap between partisans, with Democratic voters much more likely than Republican voters to say they are “more motivated” to vote this year than usual (63% vs. 38%). As voters make their final assessments before they cast their ballots, the Democratic Party has a clear edge over the Republican Party on who voters trust to handle many top issues in the election, including the cost of health care (42% vs. 22%) and the cost of living (39% vs. 25%). Notably, the size of the gap between the Democratic and Republican parties on health care costs has increased since April of this year, when 37% said they trusted the Democrats and 26% said they trusted the Republicans.
  • Health costs continue to be a top affordability worry for voters, tied with concerns about gas prices as in recent months. Six in ten voters are worried about being able to afford their health care costs, and about half of voters say it is “extremely important” for candidates in the midterm elections to talk about the cost of health care—ranking alongside the cost of living as the top two issues voters want to hear candidates talk about in the closing weeks of the midterm campaigns.
  • There is bipartisan support among the public for major changes to the country’s health care system, but partisans have vastly different views of the type of change needed. Large majorities of adults, including about nine in ten Democrats and three-quarters of Republicans, say the U.S. health care system needs either a complete overhaul or major changes. Reflecting the increased attention to Medicare-for-all in congressional races where some progressive Democrats have campaigned on it, two-thirds (66%) of U.S. adults now support Medicare-for-all, up from 53% when KFF last asked the question in October 2020. Views of a single-payer system remain highly partisan, with majorities of Democrats (84%) and independents (72%) saying they favor it, compared to 66% of Republicans who oppose such a plan.
  • Despite the public’s generally favorable view of Medicare-for-all, support drops when people hear criticisms of such a plan commonly made by opponents about the potential for higher taxes, longer wait times, or threats to the current Medicare program. On the other hand, support for Medicare-for-all increases when people hear claims made by proponents, including that such a system might guarantee health coverage as a right for everyone or eliminate insurance premiums and cost-sharing. Taken together, these findings suggest that while a majority supports Medicare-for-all in the abstract, support is likely to shift over the course of any public debate in which the public hears arguments for and against such a plan. For a summary of historical KFF polling data on opinions of Medicare-for-all, see here.

What Is Motivating Midterm Voters?

With the 2026 midterm campaigns in full swing and early voting about to begin, there is a wide enthusiasm gap between partisan voters, with Democratic voters 25 percentage points more likely than Republican voters to say they are “more motivated” than usual to vote (63% vs. 38%).

Most Republican voters (53%) say they are “about as motivated” as in previous elections, while independent voters are split, with about four in ten saying they are “more motivated” (41%) and a similar share saying they are “about as motivated” (44%) to vote as in past elections. Across partisans, one in six or fewer say they are “less motivated” to vote than usual.

Stacked bar chart showing the share of the public who say they are more motivated to vote than usual, less motivated than usual, or about as motivated as in previous elections. Results shown among total voters and by party identification of voters.

When asked specifically about why they are “more motivated” than usual, there are wide differences by partisanship, although many Democratic and Republican voters say they are motivated to keep the other party out of power. Among those who say they are more motivated, about one in five or more Democratic and independent voters say they want to bring about change (25% and 20%) or to stop the Trump administration (26% and 18%), and another 17% of Democrats say they want to vote out Republicans. Republicans, conversely, most often say they are more motivated to vote to keep Democrats out of power (29%) or because of concerns about socialism or communism (19%). Across partisanship, about one in ten say they are more motivated to vote than usual due to concerns about the cost of living.

Split bar chart showing reasons why voters said they are more motivated to vote in the 2026 midterms elections than in previous elections. Results shown among total voters and by party identification of voters.

With the cost of living weighing heavily on voters, the latest KFF Health Tracking Poll finds that health care costs and gasoline and other transportation costs continue to top the list of voters’ economic worries. Six in ten voters say they are “very” (25%) or “somewhat” worried (35%) about affording health care costs for themselves and their families, including the cost of health insurance and out-of-pocket costs for things like office visits and prescription drugs. Similar shares say the same about affording gasoline and other transportation costs, following a similar pattern KFF polling has tracked this year even as gas prices continue to fluctuate amid the conflict with Iran. Somewhat smaller—but still substantial—shares of voters say they are concerned about affording other household items like food (52%), utilities (51%), or housing costs (41%).

Stacked bar chart showing how worried voters are about being able to afford various living necessities. Results shown among total voters.

The public’s affordability worries are echoed in what issues voters say they want 2026 midterm candidates to prioritize. The cost of living is voters’ top issue they want to hear about from candidates, with six in ten (62%) saying it is “extremely important” for candidates to talk about it. The cost of health care is an important part of voters’ cost of living concerns, with about half of voters (47%) saying it is “extremely important” for candidates to talk about health care costs. About four in ten (44%) say fraud in government programs is “extremely important” for candidates to talk about, while smaller shares of voters say the same about the conflict with Iran (38%), immigration (35%), and abortion policy (21%).

Stacked bar chart showing how important various health issues are for voters for candidates in the 2026 midterm elections to talk about. Results shown among total voters.

The cost of living is the top issue Democratic (73%) and independent (63%) voters want midterm candidates to discuss, while fewer Republican voters (47%) call it “extremely important.” Fraud in government programs is Republican voters’ top issue, with just over half (54%) calling it extremely important, suggesting that Republican leaders’ messaging on this topic is reaching their base. Six in ten Democratic voters (59%) and about half of independent voters (49%) say it’s extremely important for candidates to talk about health care costs, compared to a smaller share (31%) of Republican voters.

Split bar chart showing how important various health issues are for voters for candidates in the 2026 midterm elections to talk about. Results shown among total voters and by party identification of voters.

When asked to say in their own words what they want midterm candidates to talk about when it comes to health care costs, the most common responses were related to a desire to hear about candidates’ plans for how they will lower health care costs for people.

In Their Own Words: Voters Describe What They Want To Hear From Candidates About Health Care Costs

“Making health care more affordable for many people by expanding coverage for a wide range of services.” – 32-year-old Democrat, New Jersey

“Lowering [health care costs] for people who can’t afford to pay expensive costs for health care.” – 40-year-old Republican, Arkansas

“To make sure that people’s needs are met. It’s sad people have to choose between eating and getting their medicine.” – 37-year-old Democrat, Michigan

“How they are going to lower health care costs. Like medicine and doctors’ visits.” – 23-year-old Independent, Georgia

“I want free universal healthcare for everyone in this country.” –65-year-old Democrat, New Mexico

“Health care needs to be free for all citizens.” – 54-year-old Republican, North Carolina

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

Democrats Have the Edge Over Republicans on Key Midterm Issues

As voters make their final assessments before they cast their ballots in the midterm election, the Democratic Party has a clear edge over the Republican Party on who voters trust to handle many top issues in the election, most notably the cost of health care (42% vs. 22%) and the cost of living (39% vs. 25%). The Democrats also have an advantage over the Republicans on abortion policy (42% vs. 27%) and the conflict with Iran (36% vs. 27%). Voters are more evenly divided on which party they trust to handle immigration and fraud in government programs. On each of the issues measured, between two and three in ten voters say they trust “neither” party and about one in ten say they trust “both equally.”

Stacked bar chart showing which political party voters trust to do a better job handling various health issues. Results shown among total voters.

On health care costs, the Democratic Party’s advantage over the Republican Party has increased over the last six months. In April 2026, 37% of voters said they trusted the Democrats and 26% said they trusted the Republicans to do a better job addressing health care costs, a gap of 11 percentage points. In the latest poll, that gap has increased to 20 percentage points, with 42% trusting the Democrats more and 22% trusting the Republicans.

Line chart showing the difference in the share of adults who say they trust the Democrats vs the Republicans to do a better job handling the cost of health care. Results shown among total voters for April 2026 and September 2026.

Among independent voters, the Democratic Party has at least a two-to-one advantage over the Republican Party when it comes to addressing the cost of health care (38% vs. 9%), the cost of living (35% vs. 11%), abortion policy (42% vs. 14%), and the conflict with Iran (34% vs. 13%). However, large shares of independent voters—ranging from about a third on immigration and abortion policy to more than four in ten on the cost of living, the cost of health care, the conflict with Iran, and fraud in government programs—say they trust neither party.

Stacked bar chart showing which political party independent voters trust to do a better job handling various health issues. Results shown among total independent voters.

Two-Thirds Favor Medicare-for-All, but Opinion Shifts When Public Hears Arguments

Amid frustrations about health care costs, there is bipartisan agreement among adults that major changes are needed to the U.S. health care system. About half of adults across partisanship say, “There are some good things about our health care system, but major changes are needed,” and an additional third (36%) feel even more strongly, saying, “There is so much wrong with our health care system that it needs to be completely overhauled.” Few adults (15%) say the system works well enough that only minor or no changes are needed, though Republicans are about twice as likely as Democrats and independents to say only minor changes are needed (21% vs. 10% each).

Split bar chart showing the opinions of adults on the health care system in America today. Results shown among total adults and by party identification.

Many progressive midterm candidates have been campaigning on their support for Medicare-for-all, an idea that can take different forms but usually refers to a system in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan. The latest KFF Health Tracking Poll finds that two-thirds of the public (66%) say they favor Medicare-for-all, the highest share KFF has recorded since it began polling on the idea in 2016, when Senator Bernie Sanders made the idea a core issue of his primary campaign. For a summary of current and historical polling data on Medicare-for-all and other single-payer proposals, see here.

While favorability of Medicare-for-all has risen over time, there are still wide partisan divides. Majorities of Democrats (84%) and independents (72%) favor it, while a majority of Republicans (66%) oppose it, including about half (48%) who say they “strongly oppose.” There are also key differences by age, with three-quarters of younger adults ages 18-29 (75%) favoring Medicare-for-all compared to a slim majority (54%) of adults ages 65 and older, most of whom are currently enrolled in Medicare.

Stacked bar chart showing share of adults who favor or oppose having a national health plan, sometimes called a Medicare-for-all, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan. Results shown among total adults, by party identification, and by age.

As KFF polling has consistently found over the years, support for a single-payer health system is susceptible to change as people hear about potential effects of such a plan commonly cited by proponents and critics. The latest poll finds public opposition to Medicare-for-all increases significantly when people hear that such a plan could mean potential delays in medical tests and treatments (76% oppose), an increase in taxes (64%), or threats to the current Medicare program (61%).

On the other hand, larger majorities say they would favor such a plan if it guaranteed health insurance as a right (76%) or eliminated premiums and cost-sharing (75%), demonstrating the wide appeal of universal coverage and lowering health care costs for individuals. The public is more split, with about half (52%) saying they would favor Medicare-for-all if it eliminated private health insurance companies, while 47% oppose. This marks a departure from when KFF last asked this question in October 2020, when the prospect of eliminating private insurance companies led to lower support for Medicare-for-all (37% favored, 58% opposed). Each of these claims shift opinion regardless of things like partisanship and age.

Split bar chart showing share of adults who favor or oppose a national Medicare-for-all if they heard arguments for and against the plan. Results shown among total adults.



Source link

Poll: Cost of Health Care and Gas Top Voters’ Midterm Concerns; Democrats Hold Significant Advantage on Health Care Costs and Cost of Living 

healthissuesadmin
-
0
Poll: Cost of Health Care and Gas Top Voters’ Midterm Concerns; Democrats Hold Significant Advantage on Health Care Costs and Cost of Living 



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

Just a month away from the midterm elections, affordability worries continue to top the public’s list of midterm election issues, with health care costs and gas costs tying as the top economic concern, KFF’s new Health Tracking Poll finds. Voters overall trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle the cost of health care and the cost of living.

A quarter of voters say they are “very worried” about being able to afford the cost of health care and gas and transportation (25% and 25%,) and an additional third say they are “somewhat worried” about health care and gas costs (35% and 34%). These worries outrank voters’ concerns about the affordability of food, utilities, and housing. The vast majority of voters say the cost of living and health care costs (90% and 82%) are “very” or “extremely” important for candidates to discuss during the last pivotal weeks of the campaigns.

“Of all the cost-of-living worries hitting voters now, a big health care bill is the least predictable, and that’s a big reason why health care costs are right up there with gas prices and the costs of food and housing on voters’ minds,” KFF President and CEO Dr. Drew Altman said.

Democrats hold nearly a two-to-one advantage over Republicans on whom voters trust more on the issue of health care costs (42% vs. 22%) and a significant edge on the cost of living (39% vs. 25%.) Voters also say they trust Democrats more than Republicans to do a better job handling abortion policy (42% vs. 27%) and are more divided about whether they trust Democrats or Republicans more on immigration (34% vs. 38%) and fraud in government programs (29% vs. 31%).

The Democratic edge on health care costs has grown over the past six months. Democrats held an eleven-percentage point advantage over Republicans in April (37% vs. 26%) and a 20-percentage point advantage over Republicans in September (42% vs. 22%.)

Among independent voters, Democrats hold at least a two-to-one trust advantage over Republicans on health care costs (38% vs. 9%), the cost of living (35% vs. 11%) and abortion policy (42% vs. 14%)—though large shares of independents say they trust neither party on most midterm election issues.

Democrats also hold a major advantage on voter enthusiasm and are more likely than Republicans to say they are more motivated to vote this year than in previous elections (63% vs. 38%.) Most Republican voters (53%) say they are “about as motivated” as in previous elections, while independent voters are split, with similar shares saying they are “more motivated” and “about as motivated” (41% and 44%.)

Amid rising health care costs and affordability worries, there is bipartisan agreement among the public that major changes are needed to the U.S. health care system, with about 9 in 10 Democrats (89%) and three-quarters of Republicans (77%) saying the U.S. health care system needs either a complete overhaul or major changes.

In some midterm races, progressive Democratic candidates have responded to the public’s interest in health care reform by campaigning for the creation of a national health plan—attracting criticism from Republican opponents.

Support for the idea of a national health plan (commonly called “Medicare-for-All”) has grown, rising to about two-thirds (66%) of the public—the highest share since KFF began polling on the topic in 2016, when Senator Bernie Sanders campaigned on the issue. Partisans remain divided, with large shares of Democrats (84%) and independents (72%) in favor and two-thirds (66%) of Republicans opposed. KFF has tracked public opinion on national health plan proposals, including Medicare-for-All, since the late 1990s.

As KFF polling has shown consistently over time, public opinion on Medicare-for-All—and on major health policy proposals generally—is highly malleable and likely to shift over the course of any public debate with competing claims from proponents and critics. The latest poll finds the share who favor a Medicare-for-All-style plan falls sharply when the public is told that it could lead to potential delays in medical tests and treatments (24% still favor), tax increases (35%), or threaten the current Medicare program (38%). On the other hand, favorable views rise to about 3 in 4 when people are told that Medicare-for-All would make health insurance “a right” (76%) or that it would eliminate premiums and cost-sharing (75%).

Designed and analyzed by public opinion researchers at KFF, this survey was conducted September 16-21, 2026, online and by telephone among a nationally representative sample of 1,328 U.S. adults, including 1,0133 voters, in English and in Spanish. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for the full sample and plus or minus four percentage points for the sample of voters. For results based on other subgroups, the margin of sampling error may be higher.



Source link

Is This A Healthcare Economy?

healthissuesadmin
-
0
Is This A Healthcare Economy?



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

This analysis examines recent jobs growth in health care and how it compares to the rest of the economy. Health care employment has grown faster than other sectors of the economy, with jobs in physician offices, hospitals, outpatient care centers, home health, and other settings increasing over the past year even as the rest of the job market plateaued. Since September 2025, the healthcare sector has added 372,000 jobs (up 2%), while the overall non-farm economy apart from the healthcare sector gained 124,000 jobs (up 0.1%).

These trends in health care employment may reflect the effects of an aging population and rising rates of chronic illness as well as the sector’s resilience due to the continuing need for health care even as other economic sectors experience downturns, relatively higher wages, and lower susceptibility to outsourcing and automation.

The brief is 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

What Are the Recent Trends in Health Sector Employment

healthissuesadmin
-
0
What Are the Recent Trends in Health Sector Employment



rewrite this content and keep HTML tags

This updated chart collection uses federal labor data to compare jobs and wages in the health care sector with the rest of the economy. Health sector employment has grown steadily while job growth in other non-farm sectors has plateaued. Over the past year, the health sector added 378,500 jobs—a 2% increase—compared with 0.2% growth in non-health, non-farm employment. Health care wage growth has slowed slightly compared to other industries over the past three years.

Health care jobs now account for 11.6% of all non-farm jobs, up from 10.7% a decade ago. Since 1990, health sector employment has grown over three times as much as all other non-health, non-farm employment sectors, increasing most in outpatient settings (up 40% since August 2016.)

The chart collection is 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

How TrumpRx Brand-Name Drug Prices Compare to Other Countries

healthissuesadmin
-
0
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

healthissuesadmin
-
0
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

healthissuesadmin
-
0
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

123...33Page 1 of 33
© Newspaper WordPress Theme by TagDiv