Idaho · individual fact

Idaho health

Insurance coverage, personal healthcare spending, longevity, mortality, health risks, and provider shortages.

Uninsured rate · all ages9.2%2024 · #13 of 50 · highest first
Uninsured rate · under age 6511%2024 · #13 of 50 · highest first
Private coverage · under age 6573.7%2024 · #20 of 50 · highest first

Idaho over time

Explore Idaho readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Idaho officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Idaho effect.

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Idaho change.

Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear

Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.

Uninsured rate · all ages Idaho · source units
IdahoPublished U.S. benchmark

Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.

Uninsured rate · all ages2024: 9.2%7.2%10.9%14.6%Idaho, 2014: 13.6%Idaho, 2015: 11%Idaho, 2016: 10.1%Idaho, 2017: 10.1%Idaho, 2018: 11.1%Idaho, 2019: 10.8%Idaho, 2021: 8.8%Idaho, 2022: 8.2%Idaho, 2023: 8.9%Idaho, 2024: 9.2%201420192024
✦ Major events & context · 21National context · Affordable Care Act signed · 2010-03-23ACA signedNational context · Supreme Court makes ACA Medicaid expansion optional for states · 2012-06-28Medicaid expansion rulingNational context · ACA Marketplace coverage and main Medicaid expansion begin · 2014-01-01ACA coverage beginsNational context · Opioid crisis declared a national public-health emergency · 2017-10-26Opioid emergencyNational context · COVID-19 characterized as a pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · Pandemic Medicaid continuous-enrollment condition enacted · 2020-03-18Medicaid coverage protectionNational context · FDA authorizes the first COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use · 2020-12-11First COVID vaccine EUANational context · American Rescue Plan expands Marketplace premium assistance · 2021-03-11Marketplace aid expandedNational context · No Surprises Act billing protections begin · 2022-01-01Surprise-billing protectionsNational context · Supreme Court overturns Roe and Casey in Dobbs · 2022-06-24Dobbs abortion rulingNational context · 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline launches nationwide · 2022-07-16988 crisis line launchesNational context · Inflation Reduction Act signed · 2022-08-16Prescription-drug lawNational context · Medicare Part D insulin cost-sharing cap takes effect · 2023-01-01Part D insulin $35 capNational context · Medicaid coverage terminations can resume · 2023-04-01Medicaid terminations resumeNational context · Federal COVID-19 public-health emergency ends · 2023-05-11COVID health emergency endsNational context · Medicare Part D out-of-pocket cap begins · 2025-01-01Part D $2,000 cap (2025)National context · 2025 reconciliation law changes Medicaid and funds rural care · 2025-07-04Medicaid and rural-care lawNational context · Rural Health Transformation awards announced for all 50 states · 2025-12-29Rural health awardsNational context · Temporary enhanced Marketplace premium tax credits end · 2026-01-01Enhanced ACA credits endNational context · First negotiated Medicare drug prices take effect · 2026-01-01Negotiated drug prices beginNational context · CMS issues Medicaid community-engagement implementation rule · 2026-06-01Medicaid eligibility rule● Idaho Legislature · 4● U.S. Congress · Idaho delegation · 4◆ Governor · 3■ Idaho agencies · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.2010-03-012026-06-30

11 of 11 reviewed Idaho actions match · 11 date markers shown. 21 major events shown separately.

Idaho · 2024: 9.2% · Rank #13 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2%

FactVote uses the Census Bureau's HIC-4_ACS historical table. Rates and 90% confidence margins of error are the published ACS 1-year estimates for the civilian noninstitutionalized population. ACS annual estimates, all ages. Standard ACS 2020 one-year data were not released; the chart leaves a gap. Survey ranks describe point estimates and do not establish significant differences. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.

View observations and export data
Idaho Uninsured rate · all ages · source units
PeriodIdahoRankU.S. benchmark
20249.2%#13 of 508.2%
20238.9%#14 of 50Not available
20228.2%#18 of 50Not available
20218.8%#20 of 50Not available
2020Not availableUnavailableNot available
201910.8%#11 of 50Not available
201811.1%#8 of 50Not available
201710.1%#11 of 50Not available
201610.1%#11 of 50Not available
201511%#12 of 50Not available
201413.6%#11 of 50Not available
How major events are selected

The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.

Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.

Idaho · state comparison

Who has health coverage?

Compare ACS annual estimates for all ages or people under 65. Coverage categories can overlap and do not sum to the insured share.

Idaho · 20249.2%
Idaho rank#13among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark8.2%Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Uninsured rate · all ages

FactVote uses the Census Bureau's HIC-4_ACS historical table. Rates and 90% confidence margins of error are the published ACS 1-year estimates for the civilian noninstitutionalized population.

ACS annual estimates, all ages. Standard ACS 2020 one-year data were not released; the chart leaves a gap. Survey ranks describe point estimates and do not establish significant differences.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Idaho
Uninsured rate · all ages history in Idaho7.4%10.9%14.4%20142024
2024 · Idaho: 9.2% · Rank #13 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2% · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Idaho Uninsured rate · all ages history
PeriodIdahoCompare
201413.6%
201511%
201610.1%
201710.1%
201811.1%
201910.8%
2020Not available
20218.8%
20228.2%
20238.9%
20249.2%

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Idaho stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Idaho has a dark outline.

Lower value · 2.8%Higher value · 16.7%Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Idaho · 9.2%2024 · Rank #13 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Idaho with every state · 50 ranked
Uninsured rate · all ages · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Texas16.7%—
#2Georgia12%—
#3Oklahoma11.5%—
#4Nevada11.4%—
#5Alaska11%—
#6Florida10.9%—
#7Arizona10.3%—
#7Wyoming10.3%—
#9New Mexico10.1%—
#10Mississippi9.7%—
#10Tennessee9.7%—
#12Arkansas9.4%—
#13Idaho · your comparison9.2%—
#14South Carolina9%—
#15Montana8.8%—
#16North Carolina8.6%—
#17Kansas8.5%—
#18Utah8.3%—
#19Alabama8.2%—
#20South Dakota8.1%—
#21Colorado7.9%—
#22Louisiana7.7%—
#22Missouri7.7%—
#22New Jersey7.7%—
#25Indiana7.5%—
#26Nebraska7.1%—
#27Delaware6.9%—
#27Illinois6.9%—
#27Virginia6.9%—
#30Kentucky6.8%—
#31Ohio6.7%—
#32Washington6.5%—
#33Maryland6.3%—
#34North Dakota6.1%—
#35California5.9%—
#36Connecticut5.8%—
#36Pennsylvania5.8%—
#36West Virginia5.8%—
#39Maine5.5%—
#40Iowa5.4%—
#41Wisconsin5.3%—
#42Oregon5.2%—
#43Michigan5.1%—
#43Minnesota5.1%—
#45New York5%—
#46Rhode Island4.6%—
#47New Hampshire4.5%—
#48Vermont4.2%—
#49Hawaii3.5%—
#50Massachusetts2.8%—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

People under 65 without health insurance

11.0%2024 ACS annual estimate

Share of Idaho’s civilian noninstitutionalized residents under age 65 who lacked comprehensive health-insurance coverage at the time of the ACS survey.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Method and limitations

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, sourced from the 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimate.

  • This is a survey estimate for people under 65 and does not describe coverage type or continuity of coverage.
  • Insurance status alone does not measure affordability, access, quality, or health outcomes.
Idaho · state comparison

Where do healthcare dollars go?

State spending is reported for 2020, the latest year available in this CMS state series. Choose a service to compare Idaho with every state.

Idaho · 2020$8,148
Idaho rank#49among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$10,191Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Personal healthcare spending per resident

Personal health care expenditure per resident, assigned to the state where the patient resides.

2020 is the last year in this CMS state series. Personal health care excludes administration, public health, and investment included in national health expenditures. This is spending by all payers, not a household bill.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Idaho
Personal healthcare spending per resident history in Idaho$6.08K$8.4K$10.73K20142020
2020 · Idaho: $8,148 · Rank #49 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $10,191 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Idaho Personal healthcare spending per resident history
PeriodIdahoCompare
2014$6,615
2015$6,843
2016$6,974
2017$7,257
2018$7,444
2019$7,723
2020$8,148

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Idaho stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Idaho has a dark outline.

Lower value · $7.52KHigher value · $14.01KStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Idaho · $8,1482020 · Rank #49 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Idaho with every state · 50 ranked
Personal healthcare spending per resident · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1New York$14,007—
#2Alaska$13,642—
#3Massachusetts$13,319—
#4Delaware$12,899—
#5West Virginia$12,769—
#6Vermont$12,756—
#7South Dakota$12,495—
#8Connecticut$12,489—
#9Maine$12,077—
#10New Jersey$11,868—
#11New Hampshire$11,793—
#12Rhode Island$11,694—
#13Pennsylvania$11,603—
#14North Dakota$11,301—
#15Wyoming$10,989—
#16Minnesota$10,846—
#17Maryland$10,839—
#18Indiana$10,517—
#19Louisiana$10,515—
#20Nebraska$10,514—
#21Ohio$10,478—
#22California$10,299—
#23Hawaii$10,291—
#24Kentucky$10,257—
#25Montana$10,212—
#26Illinois$10,190—
#27Oregon$10,071—
#28Wisconsin$9,982—
#29Missouri$9,921—
#30Michigan$9,897—
#31Florida$9,865—
#32Iowa$9,789—
#33Oklahoma$9,444—
#34Kansas$9,408—
#35Mississippi$9,394—
#36Arkansas$9,338—
#37Tennessee$9,336—
#38Alabama$9,280—
#39Washington$9,265—
#40Virginia$9,195—
#41North Carolina$8,917—
#42New Mexico$8,902—
#43South Carolina$8,766—
#44Georgia$8,758—
#45Arizona$8,756—
#46Colorado$8,583—
#47Texas$8,406—
#48Nevada$8,348—
#49Idaho · your comparison$8,148—
#50Utah$7,522—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Idaho · state comparison

Health outcomes

Use age-adjusted mortality to account for different age distributions; life expectancy summarizes period death rates.

Idaho · 202278.4 years
Idaho rank#12among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark77.5 yearsSame measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Life expectancy at birth

FactVote uses CDC National Center for Health Statistics annual complete life-table estimates for the total Idaho population. Values are rounded to the published tenth of a year.

The latest published comparable state series ends in 2022, even though newer national life-expectancy estimates may be available. Period life expectancy summarizes current mortality rates; it is not a forecast of how long a particular person will live. The 2020 and 2021 estimates reflect the mortality shock during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Idaho
Life expectancy at birth history in Idaho76.9 years78.4 years79.8 years20182022
2022 · Idaho: 78.4 years · Rank #12 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 77.5 years · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Idaho Life expectancy at birth history
PeriodIdahoCompare
201879 years
201979.5 years
202078.4 years
202177.2 years
202278.4 years

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Idaho stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Idaho has a dark outline.

Lower value · 72.2 yearsHigher value · 80 yearsStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Idaho · 78.4 years2022 · Rank #12 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Idaho with every state · 50 ranked
Life expectancy at birth · 2022 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Hawaii80 years—
#2Massachusetts79.8 years—
#3New Jersey79.6 years—
#4New York79.5 years—
#5Connecticut79.4 years—
#6California79.3 years—
#6Minnesota79.3 years—
#8Rhode Island79.2 years—
#9Utah79 years—
#10New Hampshire78.7 years—
#11Colorado78.5 years—
#12Idaho · your comparison78.4 years—
#12Washington78.4 years—
#14Nebraska78.3 years—
#14Vermont78.3 years—
#16Wisconsin78.1 years—
#17Florida77.9 years—
#17Iowa77.9 years—
#17North Dakota77.9 years—
#20Maryland77.8 years—
#21Oregon77.7 years—
#22Illinois77.5 years—
#22Virginia77.5 years—
#24Montana77.3 years—
#24Pennsylvania77.3 years—
#24South Dakota77.3 years—
#27Texas77.1 years—
#28Michigan76.8 years—
#28Wyoming76.8 years—
#30Arizona76.7 years—
#31Maine76.6 years—
#32Delaware76.5 years—
#32Kansas76.5 years—
#34Nevada76.4 years—
#35Georgia75.9 years—
#35North Carolina75.9 years—
#37Alaska75.8 years—
#38Ohio75.6 years—
#39Indiana75.4 years—
#40Missouri75.2 years—
#41South Carolina75.1 years—
#42New Mexico74.5 years—
#43Arkansas73.9 years—
#44Alabama73.8 years—
#44Louisiana73.8 years—
#44Oklahoma73.8 years—
#44Tennessee73.8 years—
#48Kentucky73.6 years—
#49Mississippi72.6 years—
#50West Virginia72.2 years—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Idaho · state comparison

Chronic illness and health risks

Compare age-adjusted adult prevalence using the same survey year and definition.

Idaho · 20238.7%
Idaho rank#39among 48 states with data
U.S. benchmark10.7%Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted

Adult self-reported prevalence, age-adjusted to a common population.

Published CDC 2019–2023 series. Missing or suppressed estimates remain unranked. Confidence intervals describe sampling uncertainty; point ranks are not significance tests.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Idaho
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history in Idaho7.6%9.4%11.2%20192023
2023 · Idaho: 8.7% · Rank #39 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 10.7% · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Idaho Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history
PeriodIdahoCompare
20199.3%
20208%
20218.8%
20228.9%
20238.7%

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Idaho stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Idaho has a dark outline.

Lower value · 7.8%Higher value · 15.1%Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Idaho · 8.7%2023 · Rank #39 of 48, highest first95% confidence interval: 7.9% – 9.6%Selected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Idaho with every state · 48 ranked, 2 unavailable
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted · 2023 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Mississippi15.1%95% CI: 13.7–16.6
#1West Virginia15.1%95% CI: 13.9–16.3
#3Louisiana14.6%95% CI: 13.4–15.8
#4Alabama14%95% CI: 12.7–15.3
#5Arkansas13.1%95% CI: 12–14.3
#6South Carolina12.7%95% CI: 11.9–13.6
#6Tennessee12.7%95% CI: 11.7–13.8
#8Texas12.1%95% CI: 11–13.3
#9Indiana11.7%95% CI: 11.1–12.4
#10Georgia11.5%95% CI: 10.7–12.3
#10Ohio11.5%95% CI: 10.8–12.2
#12Oklahoma11.3%95% CI: 10.5–12.1
#13Delaware11.1%95% CI: 9.8–12.6
#14North Carolina11%95% CI: 9.8–12.3
#15Illinois10.9%95% CI: 9.9–12.1
#15Maryland10.9%95% CI: 10.2–11.7
#15Michigan10.9%95% CI: 10.1–11.8
#18Nevada10.8%95% CI: 8.9–13
#18New Mexico10.8%95% CI: 9.3–12.6
#20Missouri10.7%95% CI: 9.9–11.7
#20South Dakota10.7%95% CI: 8.9–12.8
#22California10.6%95% CI: 9.8–11.4
#23Kansas10.5%95% CI: 9.7–11.3
#24Virginia10.4%95% CI: 9.5–11.4
#25Florida10.1%95% CI: 9.1–11.1
#26Rhode Island10%95% CI: 9.1–11
#27Arizona9.9%95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#27Iowa9.9%95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#29Nebraska9.7%95% CI: 9–10.3
#30Wisconsin9.6%95% CI: 9–10.2
#31Hawaii9.5%95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#31New York9.5%95% CI: 8.9–10.1
#31Oregon9.5%95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#34Wyoming9.4%95% CI: 8.5–10.5
#35Minnesota9.3%95% CI: 8.6–10
#36New Jersey9.1%95% CI: 8.4–9.9
#37Maine9%95% CI: 8.4–9.7
#38North Dakota8.9%95% CI: 8.1–9.7
#39Idaho · your comparison8.7%95% CI: 7.9–9.6
#40Washington8.6%95% CI: 8.2–9
#41Massachusetts8.5%95% CI: 7.8–9.4
#42Connecticut8.4%95% CI: 7.6–9.3
#43Alaska8.2%95% CI: 7.4–9.2
#44Utah8.1%95% CI: 7.5–8.7
#45Colorado8%95% CI: 7.3–8.7
#46Montana7.9%95% CI: 7.2–8.7
#46New Hampshire7.9%95% CI: 7.1–8.8
#48Vermont7.8%95% CI: 7–8.7
—KentuckyNot availableNo comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
—PennsylvaniaNot availableNo comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Idaho · state comparison

Where are healthcare workers in short supply?

Compare coverage of need, practitioners needed, or affected population for each discipline.

Idaho · June 30, 202643.9%
Idaho rank#30among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark47.4%Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Primary care · need met

HRSA-designated shortage areas; measures describe need within those areas, not the entire state population.

National report totals can include territories. Designation rules and populations differ by discipline; do not add disciplines. Absolute population and practitioner ranks also reflect state size.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Idaho stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Idaho has a dark outline.

Lower value · 11.2%Higher value · 83.2%Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Idaho · 43.9%June 30, 2026 · Rank #30 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Idaho with every state · 50 ranked
Primary care · need met · June 30, 2026 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1New Jersey83.2%—
#2Vermont82.6%—
#3South Carolina79.4%—
#4New Hampshire74.8%—
#5Rhode Island74.3%—
#6Louisiana72.1%—
#7Hawaii67.1%—
#8Utah65.4%—
#9Wisconsin65.2%—
#10Alabama63%—
#11Connecticut60.3%—
#12Massachusetts58%—
#13Tennessee58%—
#14Virginia57.2%—
#15Pennsylvania56.7%—
#16Maine56%—
#17Minnesota55.4%—
#18Wyoming54.4%—
#19Indiana54.2%—
#20California53.2%—
#21Arkansas52.6%—
#22Texas49.8%—
#23Ohio49.7%—
#24Nebraska49.1%—
#25Alaska48.9%—
#26North Carolina48.1%—
#27Colorado47.5%—
#28Michigan44.9%—
#29Oregon43.9%—
#30Idaho · your comparison43.9%—
#31Washington42.4%—
#32Illinois41.5%—
#33Nevada41.5%—
#34Arizona41.2%—
#35Kansas41.1%—
#36Iowa40.5%—
#37Florida39.7%—
#38Georgia39.1%—
#39Montana38.5%—
#40West Virginia38.3%—
#41North Dakota36.5%—
#42New York35.3%—
#43South Dakota34.6%—
#44Mississippi34.1%—
#45Maryland31.6%—
#46New Mexico31.4%—
#47Kentucky30.8%—
#48Oklahoma28.6%—
#49Missouri23.7%—
#50Delaware11.2%—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Idaho · state comparison

Employer coverage costs

Premium comparisons use a published historical all-state employer survey. Total premiums combine employer and employee payments.

Idaho · 2020$6,744
Idaho rank#40among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$7,149Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Single coverage premium · all firms

Average total annual employer-plan premium per enrolled employee at private-sector establishments offering coverage.

Historical 2020 published all-state table; not a current quote. Includes both employer and employee contributions, rather than just a worker’s payment. Survey estimates and small firm samples carry uncertainty. Missing estimates remain unavailable.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Idaho stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Idaho has a dark outline.

Lower value · $6.39KHigher value · $8.64KStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Idaho · $6,7442020 · Rank #40 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Idaho with every state · 50 ranked
Single coverage premium · all firms · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Alaska$8,635—
#2New York$8,177—
#3New Hampshire$7,991—
#4Vermont$7,868—
#5Wyoming$7,743—
#6Nebraska$7,611—
#7South Carolina$7,516—
#8Connecticut$7,501—
#9Maine$7,496—
#10Massachusetts$7,452—
#11Washington$7,440—
#12New Mexico$7,424—
#13Illinois$7,376—
#14New Jersey$7,373—
#15Maryland$7,352—
#16Rhode Island$7,326—
#17Indiana$7,319—
#18Delaware$7,280—
#19Wisconsin$7,250—
#20Pennsylvania$7,246—
#21North Dakota$7,216—
#22Colorado$7,206—
#23Missouri$7,179—
#24California$7,173—
#25Florida$7,078—
#26South Dakota$7,070—
#27Oklahoma$7,058—
#28Hawaii$7,040—
#29North Carolina$7,036—
#30Texas$7,017—
#31West Virginia$6,993—
#32Ohio$6,989—
#33Kentucky$6,949—
#34Iowa$6,932—
#35Virginia$6,928—
#36Oregon$6,917—
#37Minnesota$6,910—
#38Georgia$6,876—
#39Montana$6,860—
#40Idaho · your comparison$6,744—
#41Louisiana$6,713—
#42Michigan$6,683—
#43Kansas$6,675—
#44Arizona$6,612—
#45Utah$6,593—
#46Mississippi$6,561—
#47Nevada$6,493—
#48Tennessee$6,485—
#49Arkansas$6,414—
#50Alabama$6,393—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Idaho · state comparison

Mental health and treatment

Adult statewide estimates use the same SAMHSA model and survey period. Treatment use is a share of all adults, not a share of adults with mental illness.

Idaho · 2023–202424.5%
Idaho rank#23among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark23.1%Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Any Mental Illness · adults 18+

Civilian noninstitutionalized adults age 18+, past-year prevalence or treatment use, estimated by small-area survey models.

Mental illness and depression estimates pool 2023–2024; treatment use covers 2024 only. Definitions and model-based uncertainty differ from the national page’s annual 2025 survey estimates. Point-estimate ranks do not establish significant differences. Serious mental illness is a subset of any mental illness, so their percentages must not be added.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Idaho stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Idaho has a dark outline.

Lower value · 18.1%Higher value · 31.6%Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Idaho · 24.5%2023–2024 · Rank #23 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Idaho with every state · 50 ranked
Any Mental Illness · adults 18+ · 2023–2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Oregon31.6%—
#2Vermont29.1%—
#3West Virginia28.1%—
#4Washington27.9%—
#5New Hampshire27.7%—
#6Tennessee27%—
#7Utah26.7%—
#8Maine26.7%—
#9Arkansas26.6%—
#10Colorado26.4%—
#11Rhode Island25.8%—
#12Missouri25.7%—
#13Montana25.6%—
#14Indiana25.3%—
#15Kentucky25.3%—
#16Georgia25.2%—
#17Iowa25%—
#18Massachusetts24.9%—
#19Wyoming24.7%—
#20Nevada24.6%—
#21Arizona24.6%—
#22Wisconsin24.6%—
#23Idaho · your comparison24.5%—
#24Nebraska24.1%—
#25Louisiana24.1%—
#26Alaska24%—
#27Pennsylvania23.9%—
#28New Mexico23.9%—
#28Ohio23.9%—
#30Connecticut23.7%—
#31Kansas23.7%—
#32Michigan23.6%—
#33Virginia23.1%—
#34Alabama23%—
#35North Dakota23%—
#36Maryland22.7%—
#37Oklahoma22.6%—
#38Minnesota22.6%—
#39Illinois22.2%—
#40Delaware22.1%—
#41New York21.9%—
#42South Dakota21.8%—
#43California21.6%—
#44North Carolina21.4%—
#45Florida20.8%—
#46Texas20.7%—
#47Mississippi20.5%—
#48Hawaii19.8%—
#49South Carolina19.8%—
#50New Jersey18.1%—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

What candidates are saying

Explore statements about health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health from FactVote’s Idaho candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.

34 statements from 14 candidates

2026 Idaho Attorney General — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 2 statements

Lori Hickman

2 statements

Democratic · Attorney General · ID

Care & public health

The United States Supreme Court placed the abortion issue squarely in the hands of the states. As your Attorney General, I will uphold my duty to defend the law as it is written, help the Idaho legislature craft the law, respect individual liberties and defend the constitutional right of the people …

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Support Our Justice System

Candidate campaign source

The United States Supreme Court placed the abortion issue squarely in the hands of the states. As your Attorney General, I will uphold my duty to defend the law as it is written, help the Idaho legislature craft the law, respect individual liberties and defend the constitutional right of the people to create the law, including the need for women to access safe and proper health care.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Lori Hickman — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
View 1 more statement from Lori Hickman
Care & public health

Preserve Women's Access to Safe Healthcare

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Lori's Priorities

Candidate campaign source

Preserve Women's Access to Safe Healthcare

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Lori Hickman — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗

2026 Idaho Governor — General Election

3 candidates with matching statements · 5 statements

John R. Stegner

2 statements

Independent · Governor · ID

Care & public health

Idaho families deserve access to quality healthcare. We must address the challenges facing our healthcare system and strengthen access across our state.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Focused on What Matters

Candidate campaign source

Idaho families deserve access to quality healthcare. We must address the challenges facing our healthcare system and strengthen access across our state.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 18, 2026

John R. Stegner campaign source 1 ↗
View 1 more statement from John R. Stegner
Care & public health

Healthcare Access Idaho families deserve access to quality healthcare. We must address the challenges facing our healthcare system and strengthen access across our state.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Focused on What Matters

Candidate campaign source

Healthcare Access Idaho families deserve access to quality healthcare. We must address the challenges facing our healthcare system and strengthen access across our state.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 18, 2026

John R. Stegner campaign source 1 ↗

Pro-Life

2 statements

Constitution · Governor · ID

Care & public health

We are against mandated vaccination in every jurisdiction: government, business, military, education, and family, yes, even family. We believe vaccines and especially mRNA shots to be harmful. I will by emergency, executive order, stop all mandated vaccinations including parents having their minor c…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care and reproductive policy

Candidate campaign source

We are against mandated vaccination in every jurisdiction: government, business, military, education, and family, yes, even family. We believe vaccines and especially mRNA shots to be harmful. I will by emergency, executive order, stop all mandated vaccinations including parents having their minor children vaccinated. You would have to leave Idaho for vaccines. The Idaho government should protect the child who says, "the vaccine will hurt me, I will not take it." If I become Governor, you would have to leave Idaho for vaccines, and for sure, the mRNA shots. The legislature could stop my order. The Covid shots will result in long term damage to many people and some loss of life, in my opinion. When people around the world realize that they have been deceived by politicians, media, pharmaceutical firms, and the medical establishment, then they will start following common sense, and start using natural medicine, instead of phony pharma science. Follow your conscience and not the deceiving experts. Kirsten and I had Covid and it was terrible. Covid is real, and consequently, the one-world order leaders were using it to corral us.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Pro-Life — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
View 1 more statement from Pro-Life
Care & public health

We believe in alternative medicine and we are against all vaccinations. Pro-Life said on the radio, "the only vaccination I will be given, will be on my dead body." No person should be forced to be vaccinated for employment, education, medical treatment, or any conceivable reason. We do not believe …

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care and reproductive policy

Candidate campaign source

We believe in alternative medicine and we are against all vaccinations. Pro-Life said on the radio, "the only vaccination I will be given, will be on my dead body." No person should be forced to be vaccinated for employment, education, medical treatment, or any conceivable reason. We do not believe in childhood vaccination. We believe that vaccines harm immune systems.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Pro-Life — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗

Terri Pickens

1 statement

Democratic · Governor · ID

Care & public health

If people have religious objections to a woman making her own healthcare decisions – from fertility treatment, to contraception, to abortion services – those objections can inform their church tenets, not the laws of the land

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Where Does Terri Stand on the Issues?

Candidate campaign source

If people have religious objections to a woman making her own healthcare decisions – from fertility treatment, to contraception, to abortion services – those objections can inform their church tenets, not the laws of the land

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 18, 2026

Terri Pickens campaign source 2 ↗

2026 Idaho Lieutenant Governor — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 7 statements

Eric Myricks

7 statements

Democratic · Lieutenant Governor · ID

Health coverage

HB 328 puts Idaho families at risk. It adds work requirements that push people off coverage, shifts care to profit-driven companies, and gives state officials the power to cut benefits overnight. Seniors, caregivers, rural families, and low-income workers could lose care not because they don’t need …

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care and reproductive policy

Candidate campaign source

HB 328 puts Idaho families at risk. It adds work requirements that push people off coverage, shifts care to profit-driven companies, and gives state officials the power to cut benefits overnight. Seniors, caregivers, rural families, and low-income workers could lose care not because they don’t need it, but because politicians made it harder to get. This bill threatens rural hospitals, raises ER costs, and forces families into impossible choices. As Lieutenant Governor, I’ll protect Medicaid, keep our hospitals open, and ensure every Idahoan has access to the care they need to live with dignity.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Eric Myricks — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
View 6 more statements from Eric Myricks
Health coverage

Damn right, I’ll fight for your MEDICAID!

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: by Eric Myricks | Jan 5, 2026

Candidate campaign source

Damn right, I’ll fight for your MEDICAID!

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Eric Myricks — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
Health coverage

I am clear-eyed about the limits of the office I seek. The Lieutenant Governor does not write federal healthcare law. But the Lieutenant Governor presides over the Idaho Senate, breaks ties, shapes agendas, and—most importantly—uses the power of the platform to force truth into the open. And when th…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: by Eric Myricks | Dec 30, 2025

Candidate campaign source

I am clear-eyed about the limits of the office I seek. The Lieutenant Governor does not write federal healthcare law. But the Lieutenant Governor presides over the Idaho Senate, breaks ties, shapes agendas, and—most importantly—uses the power of the platform to force truth into the open. And when the truth is uncomfortable, that’s exactly when leadership is required. As Lieutenant Governor, I will fight to protect Medicaid expansion because the consequences of losing it are not abstract—they are immediate, human, and devastating. I will fight because rural Idaho will pay first and pay hardest. I will fight because ideology is cheap, but hospital closures are not. I will fight because voters already decided this issue, and it is not the Legislature’s job to quietly undo the will of the...

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Eric Myricks — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
Care & public health

As Lieutenant Governor, Eric will carry forward the Andrus legacy of practical, principled leadership. He will champion bipartisan cooperation, rural healthcare, education, and economic opportunity for working families. He believes Idaho families deserve more than survival, they deserve a state wher…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: About Eric Myricks

Candidate campaign source

As Lieutenant Governor, Eric will carry forward the Andrus legacy of practical, principled leadership. He will champion bipartisan cooperation, rural healthcare, education, and economic opportunity for working families. He believes Idaho families deserve more than survival, they deserve a state where hard work pays off, where government serves the people, and where fairness replaces favoritism. He stands for the radical middle where most Idahoans live, and seeks to bring back balance to Idaho, through empathy and action. When asked why he’s running, Eric answers simply: “Because Idaho families shouldn’t be working harder for less. Because dignity is power, and it’s time to return both to THE PEOPLE.”

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Eric Myricks — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

Protecting Idaho's Healthcare

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Issues

Candidate campaign source

Protecting Idaho's Healthcare

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Eric Myricks — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Care & public health

Idaho women deserve respect, dignity, and the freedom to make their own health care decisions without government interference. Today, women in our state are being forced to leave Idaho to access reproductive care and that’s not freedom, that’s control.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Women’s Rights and Freedom to Choose

Candidate campaign source

Idaho women deserve respect, dignity, and the freedom to make their own health care decisions without government interference. Today, women in our state are being forced to leave Idaho to access reproductive care and that’s not freedom, that’s control.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Eric Myricks — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Care & public health

Community safety is about trust, not talking points. I stand with law enforcement, firefighters, and first responders, ensuring they have the training, mental health support, and community partnerships to protect and serve effectively. Idaho doesn’t need partisan fear tactics; we need real partnersh…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Public safety and justice

Candidate campaign source

Community safety is about trust, not talking points. I stand with law enforcement, firefighters, and first responders, ensuring they have the training, mental health support, and community partnerships to protect and serve effectively. Idaho doesn’t need partisan fear tactics; we need real partnerships that make every neighborhood safer.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Eric Myricks — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Race groups · Page 1 of 3
How statements are selected

This section matches specific health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health terms in retained, attributed source text from published Idaho candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.

Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.

Idaho incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Idaho legislators and Idaho’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Idaho’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.

4 matching sponsorships or proposals · 3 Idaho incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Rep. Russ Fulcher

U.S. House of Representatives, Idaho District 1 · R–ID

2 proposals
View proposals from Rep. Russ Fulcher
U.S. Congress · Idaho delegation · HR 6299

Removing Insurance Gaps for Health Treatment (RIGHT) Act of 2025

Nov 25, 2025 · In Congress

Rep. Russ Fulcher · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

The proposed RIGHT Act would define short-term limited-duration health insurance as a contract expiring in less than 12 months, with renewals or extensions limited to three years in total. This concerns availability of an insurance category; it does not establish enrollment gains, comprehensive benefits or enactment.

Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

The fact measures residents under 65 without health insurance. Medicaid eligibility and availability of insurance contracts directly concern coverage, without establishing actual enrollment or disenrollment. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

Retained Idaho evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

2.Ensuring the appropriate availability of short-term limited duration insuranceSection 2791(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–91(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:(6)Short-term limited duration insuranceThe term short-term limited duration insurance means health insurance coverage provided under a contract with a health insurance issuer that—(A)has an expiration date specified in the contract that is less than 12 months after the original effective date of the contract; and(B)has a duration of not more than 3 years (taking into account renewals or extensions) after the original effective date of the contract..
Review official supporting evidence ↗
U.S. Congress · Idaho delegation · HR 613

ATF Transparency Act

Jan 22, 2025 · In Congress

Rep. Russ Fulcher · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

The proposed ATF Transparency Act would create administrative appeals for certain denied National Firearms Act transfer applications, provide reimbursement of reasonable and necessary attorney fees after successful appeals, and deem covered transfer or making applications approved if ATF does not decide before 90 calendar days after original filing. The reviewed amendments would apply to applications filed or pending on or after enactment. These are proposed transfer and registration procedures, not current rules or evidence of an effect on firearm deaths.

Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

The firearm mortality series includes deaths across intents, including homicide and suicide. Transfer procedures and concealed-carry instruction concern firearm access or training; they do not establish an effect on deaths. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

Retained Idaho evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

2.Administrative relief for denial of firearm transfer application (a)In generalSection 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: (c)Administrative relief (1)In generalWith respect to any application described in subsection (a) for the transfer and registration of a firearm which is denied by the Secretary based on a determination that transferring the firearm to the transferee would violate subsection (d) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or receipt of the firearm by the transferee would violate subsection (g) or (n) of that section or State, local, or tribal law, the Secretary shall— (A)provide the transferee with the relevant NICS transaction number with respect to such application, (B)permit such transferee to appeal such denial to the Secretary in a manner similar to the process for appeals provided under section 25.10 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, and (C)permit such transferee to provide information to the Secretary to prevent any subsequent erroneous denial or extended delay by NICS pursuant to a program (as established by the Secretary) similar to the Voluntary Appeal File program described in section 25.10(g) of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations. (2)Attorney feesIn the case of any successful appeal by the transferee pursuant to the process described in paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall reimburse the transferee for any reasonable and necessary attorney fees incurred with respect to such appeal. (3)NICSFor purposes of this subsection, the term NICS means the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901).. (b)Effective dateThe amendment made by this section shall apply to applications for the transfer and registration of a firearm which are filed or pending on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 3.Timely processing of applications (a)Transfer of firearmsSection 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 2, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: (d)Processing of applicationsNotwithstanding subsection (a), if an application described in such subsection with respect to the transfer and registration of a firearm has been filed with the Secretary and the Secretary fails to make a determination regarding whether to approve or deny such application prior to the date which is 90 calendar days after the date on which such application was originally filed by the transferor, the transfer and registration of such firearm to the transferee shall be deemed to have been approved by the Secretary for purposes of this section and such transfer may be made. The Secretary shall only deny an application described in subsection (a) on the grounds that the applicable requirements under such subsection have not been satisfied, and may not deny an application solely on the grounds that a determination regarding whether to approve or deny such application could not be completed by the Secretary during the period described in the preceding sentence.. (b)Making of firearmsSection 5822 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following: Notwithstanding the preceding sentences, if a person files an application to make and register a firearm with the Secretary and the Secretary fails to make a determination regarding whether to approve or deny such application prior to the date which is 90 calendar days after the date on which such application was originally filed by such person, such application shall be deemed to have been approved by the Secretary for purposes of this section and such firearm may be made by such person. The Secretary shall only deny an application to make and register a firearm on the grounds that the applicable requirements under this section have not been satisfied, and may not deny an application solely on the grounds that a determination regarding whether to approve or deny such application could not be completed by the Secretary during the period described in the preceding sentence.. (c)Effective dateThe amendments made by this section shall apply to applications which are filed or pending on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. James E. Risch

U.S. Senate, Idaho · R–ID

1 proposal
View proposals from Sen. James E. Risch
U.S. Congress · Idaho delegation · S 707

No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act

Feb 25, 2025 · In Congress

Sen. James E. Risch · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

S. 707 would withhold federal funds intended to benefit unlawfully present noncitizens from jurisdictions meeting its defined immigration-information or detainer noncooperation criteria. A jurisdiction is not classified as a sanctuary solely because of the specified nonsharing or detainer policy for people who come forward as crime victims or witnesses. Funding ineligibility would begin at the earlier of 60 days after enactment or the first day of the next fiscal year. It does not identify all foreign-born residents as unlawfully present, withhold every federal dollar, or establish that the bill became law.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

Foreign-born residents include naturalized citizens, lawful noncitizens and people without lawful status. Immigration enforcement provisions address subsets of this population and do not change birthplace or establish any individual resident’s status. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

Retained Idaho evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

2.Definition of sanctuary jurisdiction(a)In generalExcept as provided in subsection (b), in this Act, the term sanctuary jurisdiction means any State or political subdivision of a State that has in effect a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts any government entity or official from—(1)sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any Federal, State, or local government entity information regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or unlawful) of any individual; or(2)complying with a request lawfully made by the Secretary of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226, 1357) to comply with a detainer for, or notify about the release of, an individual.(b)ExceptionFor purposes of this Act, a State or political subdivision of a State shall not be considered a sanctuary jurisdiction based solely on the State or political subdivision of a State having a policy under which officials of the State or political subdivision of a State will not share information with respect to, or comply with a request made by the Secretary of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226, 1357) to comply with a detainer for, an individual who comes forward as a victim of or a witness to a criminal offense.3.Sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible for certain Federal fundsBeginning on the date that is the earlier of the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act or the first day of the fiscal year that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act, a sanctuary jurisdiction is ineligible to receive any Federal funds that the sanctuary jurisdiction intends to use for the benefit (including the provision of food, shelter, healthcare services, legal services, and transportation) of aliens who are present in the United States without lawful status under the immigration laws (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)).
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. Mike Crapo

U.S. Senate, Idaho · R–ID

1 proposal
View proposals from Sen. Mike Crapo
U.S. Congress · Idaho delegation · S 364

Hearing Protection Act

Feb 3, 2025 · In Congress

Sen. Mike Crapo · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

The proposed Hearing Protection Act would remove silencers from the National Firearms Act definition, change registration and record requirements, preempt specified state silencer taxes and registration requirements, and impose a separate 10% manufacturers’ excise tax. State preemption applies to covered silencers in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce and excepts generally applicable sales or use taxes. The proposal directs destruction of the specified federal silencer registration and identifying application records within 365 days. Its NFA-definition change and excise-tax provisions use calendar quarters beginning more than 90 days after enactment; the excise tax applies to articles sold by manufacturers, producers or importers. Other title 18 provisions remain material. The bill is a proposal about silencer regulation and access, not evidence of enactment or a measured mortality effect.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

The firearm mortality series includes deaths across intents, including homicide and suicide. Transfer procedures and concealed-carry instruction concern firearm access or training; they do not establish an effect on deaths. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

Retained Idaho evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

2.Equal treatment of silencers and firearms (a)In generalSection 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking (7) any silencer and all that follows through ; and (8) and inserting and (7). (b)Effective dateThe amendment made by this section shall apply to calendar quarters beginning more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 3.Treatment of certain silencersSection 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following: (f)Firearm silencersA person acquiring or possessing a firearm silencer in accordance with chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any registration and licensing requirements of the National Firearms Act with respect to such silencer.. 4.Preemption of certain State laws in relation to firearm silencersSection 927 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a law of a State or a political subdivision of a State that imposes a tax, other than a generally applicable sales or use tax, on making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or imposes a marking, recordkeeping, or registration requirement with respect to such a firearm silencer, shall have no force or effect.. 5.Destruction of recordsNot later than 365 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall destroy any registration of a silencer maintained in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record pursuant to section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, any application to transfer filed under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that identifies the transferee of a silencer, and any application to make filed under section 5822 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that identifies the maker of a silencer. 6.Amendments to title 18, United States CodeChapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1)in section 921(a), by striking paragraph (25) and inserting the following: (25)The terms firearm silencer and firearm muffler mean— (A)any device designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended— (i)to silence, muffle, or diminish the auditory report of a portable firearm; and (ii)to be attached to a portable firearm, directly or through a mount, adaptor, or other device that is not a firearm silencer or firearm muffler; or (B)the outer tube or other single part of any device that— (i)provides the primary housing or is the primary structure for internal sound-reduction components designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to silence, muffle, or diminish the auditory report of a portable firearm; and (ii)attaches to a portable firearm, directly or through a mount, adaptor, or other device that is not a firearm silencer or firearm muffler.; (2)in section 922(b)— (A)in paragraph (1), by striking shotgun or rifle the first place it appears and inserting shotgun, rifle, firearm silencer, or firearm muffler; and (B)in paragraph (3), by striking rifle or shotgun and inserting shotgun, rifle, firearm silencer, or firearm muffler; and (3)in section 923(i)— (A)by striking Licensed and inserting the following: (1) In the case of a firearm other than a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, licensed; and (B)by adding at the end the following: (2)In the case of a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall identify by means of a serial number engraved or cast on the outer tube or other single part that provides the primary housing or primary structure of the firearm silencer or firearm muffler, in such manner as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, each firearm silencer or firearm muffler imported or manufactured by such importer or manufacturer, except that, if marking the outer tube or other single part that provides the primary housing or primary structure is impractical, licensed importers or licensed manufacturers shall submit a request for a marking variance to the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall grant such a request except on showing good cause that marking the firearm silencer or firearm muffler as requested would not further the purposes of this chapter.. 7.Imposition of tax on firearm silencers or firearm mufflers (a)In generalSection 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end of the list relating to Articles taxable at 10 percent the following: Firearm silencers or firearm mufflers. (b)Firearm silencers; firearm mufflersSection 4181 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following: For purposes of this part, the terms firearm silencer and firearm muffler mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm.. (c)Conforming amendments (1)Section 4181 of such Code is amended by striking other than pistols and revolvers and inserting other than articles taxable at 10 percent under this section. (2)Section 4182(b) of such Code is amended by striking firearms, pistols, revolvers, shells, and cartridges and inserting articles described in section 4181 and. (3)Section 4182(c)(1) of such Code is amended by striking or firearm and inserting firearm, firearm silencer, or firearm muffler,. (d)Effective dateThe amendments made by this section shall apply to articles sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer in any calendar quarter beginning more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current Idaho officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.

Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Idaho statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.