The independent source for health policy research, polling, and news.
521 - 540 of 752 Results
The Trump administration is proposing to let states have more control of their Medicaid programs in exchange for potentially less money from the federal government. Meanwhile, the dangerous respiratory virus spreading from China is starting to affect trade and transportation along with public health. Kimberly Leonard of the Washington Examiner, Erin Mershon of Stat and Joanne Kenen of Politico join KHN’s Julie Rovner to discuss this and more.
As the Democratic primary campaign nears pivotal voting, important aspects of health care policy are being overlooked.
The Supreme Court said it won’t hear an expedited case that threatens to overturn the Affordable Care Act. That means the future of the ACA will continue to be a top political issue through the November election. Meanwhile, a major doctors’ group endorses “Medicare for All.” Sort of. And both sides in the abortion debate mark the 47th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling. Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico and Caitlin Owens of Axios join KHN’s Julie Rovner to discuss this and more. Also, for extra credit, the panelists suggest their favorite health policy stories of the week they think you should read, too.
SmileDirectClub and similar startup companies say they provide these services at what can be thousands of dollars less than office-visit teeth straightening, but proof is lacking and patients can be left with no recourse if problems arise.
The Supreme Court in March will hear a Louisiana case that tests whether the new five-member conservative majority is willing to overturn the 1973 decision that made abortion legal nationwide. Even if the court does not go that far, it could hasten the procedure’s demise by saying abortion providers cannot sue on behalf of their patients.
A group of Democratic state attorneys general are betting the Supreme Court will take up the case and overturn a federal appeals court ruling in time for the 2020 elections. In other high-court news, most Republicans in Congress are asking the justices to use a Louisiana law to overturn the landmark abortion-rights ruling, Roe v. Wade. Joanne Kenen of Politico, Stephanie Armour of The Wall Street Journal and Paige Winfield Cunningham of The Washington Post join KHN’s Julie Rovner to discuss this and more. Rovner also interviews NPR’s Richard Harris, who wrote the latest KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature.
Democrats have asked the Supreme Court to take up an appeals court ruling that could invalidate some or all of the federal health law. It’s not clear the court will take the case, but the efforts will carry consequences for both Democrats and Republicans.
A parental consent requirement for minors who seek abortions is still on the books in left-leaning Massachusetts, as well as about two dozen other states. But a proposed Massachusetts law seeks to repeal that consent requirement and shore up the right to abortion in case the Supreme Court strikes down the federal right to the procedure.
The federal government funneled billions in subsidies to software vendors and some overstated or deceived the government about what their products could do, according to whistleblowers.
The Texas Advance Directives Act gives hospitals the authority to stop life-sustaining support if another hospital won’t accept the patient. The family of Tinslee Lewis, a 10-month-old with serious medical problems, is fighting to keep her in hospital care.
Sutter Health will pay $575 million to settle a high-profile antitrust case filed by California’s attorney general. In addition, it has agreed to end a host of practices that the state alleged unfairly stifled competition.
Newsletter editor Brianna Labuskes wades through hundreds of health care policy stories each week, so you don’t have to.
KHN’s Julie Rovner is on PBS NewsHour and WBUR’s “Here & Now” to talk about the repercussions of a federal appeals court decision striking down the health law’s key requirement for people to get health coverage.
A federal appeals court in New Orleans has agreed with a lower court that a key piece of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. But it is sending the case back to the lower-court judge to decide how much of the rest of the law can stand. Also, Congress is leaving town after finishing work on a major spending bill that includes many changes to health policy. Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Kimberly Leonard of the Washington Examiner and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico join KHN’s Julie Rovner to discuss this and more.
Jane Garcia is CEO of La Clínica de La Raza, which operates more than 30 clinics in the San Francisco Bay Area serving a high percentage of immigrant patients. She has challenged state and federal immigration policies in court, including the Trump administration’s recent attempt to expand the “public charge” rule.
The court, based in New Orleans, agreed with a federal judge in Texas that the individual mandate section of the Affordable Care Act could not stand after Congress eliminated the tax penalty for not having coverage. But the case now heads back to the lower court to see how much of the law can remain.
The Affordable Care Act has been on the books for nearly a decade. Parts of it have become ingrained in our health system ― and in our everyday life. But this could change, depending on a long-awaited 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding the law’s constitutionality.
Newsletter editor Brianna Labuskes wades through hundreds of health care policy stories each week, so you don't have to.
Justices from the right and left ask whether Congress needs to keep its promises.
The case revolves around a health law provision designed to help insurers recover some losses because they had an unusually high number of sick and expensive customers. Insurers complain that when Republican lawmakers discontinued funding the program, it was like “Lucy Van Pelt pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.”
© 2026 KFF