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.
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.
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
2024 · Idaho: 9.2% · Rank #13 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Idaho Uninsured rate · all ages history
Period
Idaho
Compare
2014
13.6%
2015
11%
2016
10.1%
2017
10.1%
2018
11.1%
2019
10.8%
2020
Not available
2021
8.8%
2022
8.2%
2023
8.9%
2024
9.2%
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
16.7%
—
#2
Georgia
12%
—
#3
Oklahoma
11.5%
—
#4
Nevada
11.4%
—
#5
Alaska
11%
—
#6
Florida
10.9%
—
#7
Arizona
10.3%
—
#7
Wyoming
10.3%
—
#9
New Mexico
10.1%
—
#10
Mississippi
9.7%
—
#10
Tennessee
9.7%
—
#12
Arkansas
9.4%
—
#13
Idaho · your comparison
9.2%
—
#14
South Carolina
9%
—
#15
Montana
8.8%
—
#16
North Carolina
8.6%
—
#17
Kansas
8.5%
—
#18
Utah
8.3%
—
#19
Alabama
8.2%
—
#20
South Dakota
8.1%
—
#21
Colorado
7.9%
—
#22
Louisiana
7.7%
—
#22
Missouri
7.7%
—
#22
New Jersey
7.7%
—
#25
Indiana
7.5%
—
#26
Nebraska
7.1%
—
#27
Delaware
6.9%
—
#27
Illinois
6.9%
—
#27
Virginia
6.9%
—
#30
Kentucky
6.8%
—
#31
Ohio
6.7%
—
#32
Washington
6.5%
—
#33
Maryland
6.3%
—
#34
North Dakota
6.1%
—
#35
California
5.9%
—
#36
Connecticut
5.8%
—
#36
Pennsylvania
5.8%
—
#36
West Virginia
5.8%
—
#39
Maine
5.5%
—
#40
Iowa
5.4%
—
#41
Wisconsin
5.3%
—
#42
Oregon
5.2%
—
#43
Michigan
5.1%
—
#43
Minnesota
5.1%
—
#45
New York
5%
—
#46
Rhode Island
4.6%
—
#47
New Hampshire
4.5%
—
#48
Vermont
4.2%
—
#49
Hawaii
3.5%
—
#50
Massachusetts
2.8%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
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.
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
2020 · Idaho: $8,148 · Rank #49 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $10,191 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Idaho Personal healthcare spending per resident history
Period
Idaho
Compare
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New York
$14,007
—
#2
Alaska
$13,642
—
#3
Massachusetts
$13,319
—
#4
Delaware
$12,899
—
#5
West Virginia
$12,769
—
#6
Vermont
$12,756
—
#7
South Dakota
$12,495
—
#8
Connecticut
$12,489
—
#9
Maine
$12,077
—
#10
New Jersey
$11,868
—
#11
New Hampshire
$11,793
—
#12
Rhode Island
$11,694
—
#13
Pennsylvania
$11,603
—
#14
North Dakota
$11,301
—
#15
Wyoming
$10,989
—
#16
Minnesota
$10,846
—
#17
Maryland
$10,839
—
#18
Indiana
$10,517
—
#19
Louisiana
$10,515
—
#20
Nebraska
$10,514
—
#21
Ohio
$10,478
—
#22
California
$10,299
—
#23
Hawaii
$10,291
—
#24
Kentucky
$10,257
—
#25
Montana
$10,212
—
#26
Illinois
$10,190
—
#27
Oregon
$10,071
—
#28
Wisconsin
$9,982
—
#29
Missouri
$9,921
—
#30
Michigan
$9,897
—
#31
Florida
$9,865
—
#32
Iowa
$9,789
—
#33
Oklahoma
$9,444
—
#34
Kansas
$9,408
—
#35
Mississippi
$9,394
—
#36
Arkansas
$9,338
—
#37
Tennessee
$9,336
—
#38
Alabama
$9,280
—
#39
Washington
$9,265
—
#40
Virginia
$9,195
—
#41
North Carolina
$8,917
—
#42
New Mexico
$8,902
—
#43
South Carolina
$8,766
—
#44
Georgia
$8,758
—
#45
Arizona
$8,756
—
#46
Colorado
$8,583
—
#47
Texas
$8,406
—
#48
Nevada
$8,348
—
#49
Idaho · your comparison
$8,148
—
#50
Utah
$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.
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
2022 · Idaho: 78.4 years · Rank #12 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 77.5 years · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Idaho Life expectancy at birth history
Period
Idaho
Compare
2018
79 years
2019
79.5 years
2020
78.4 years
2021
77.2 years
2022
78.4 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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Hawaii
80 years
—
#2
Massachusetts
79.8 years
—
#3
New Jersey
79.6 years
—
#4
New York
79.5 years
—
#5
Connecticut
79.4 years
—
#6
California
79.3 years
—
#6
Minnesota
79.3 years
—
#8
Rhode Island
79.2 years
—
#9
Utah
79 years
—
#10
New Hampshire
78.7 years
—
#11
Colorado
78.5 years
—
#12
Idaho · your comparison
78.4 years
—
#12
Washington
78.4 years
—
#14
Nebraska
78.3 years
—
#14
Vermont
78.3 years
—
#16
Wisconsin
78.1 years
—
#17
Florida
77.9 years
—
#17
Iowa
77.9 years
—
#17
North Dakota
77.9 years
—
#20
Maryland
77.8 years
—
#21
Oregon
77.7 years
—
#22
Illinois
77.5 years
—
#22
Virginia
77.5 years
—
#24
Montana
77.3 years
—
#24
Pennsylvania
77.3 years
—
#24
South Dakota
77.3 years
—
#27
Texas
77.1 years
—
#28
Michigan
76.8 years
—
#28
Wyoming
76.8 years
—
#30
Arizona
76.7 years
—
#31
Maine
76.6 years
—
#32
Delaware
76.5 years
—
#32
Kansas
76.5 years
—
#34
Nevada
76.4 years
—
#35
Georgia
75.9 years
—
#35
North Carolina
75.9 years
—
#37
Alaska
75.8 years
—
#38
Ohio
75.6 years
—
#39
Indiana
75.4 years
—
#40
Missouri
75.2 years
—
#41
South Carolina
75.1 years
—
#42
New Mexico
74.5 years
—
#43
Arkansas
73.9 years
—
#44
Alabama
73.8 years
—
#44
Louisiana
73.8 years
—
#44
Oklahoma
73.8 years
—
#44
Tennessee
73.8 years
—
#48
Kentucky
73.6 years
—
#49
Mississippi
72.6 years
—
#50
West Virginia
72.2 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.
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
2023 · Idaho: 8.7% · Rank #39 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 10.7% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Idaho Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history
Period
Idaho
Compare
2019
9.3%
2020
8%
2021
8.8%
2022
8.9%
2023
8.7%
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Mississippi
15.1%
95% CI: 13.7–16.6
#1
West Virginia
15.1%
95% CI: 13.9–16.3
#3
Louisiana
14.6%
95% CI: 13.4–15.8
#4
Alabama
14%
95% CI: 12.7–15.3
#5
Arkansas
13.1%
95% CI: 12–14.3
#6
South Carolina
12.7%
95% CI: 11.9–13.6
#6
Tennessee
12.7%
95% CI: 11.7–13.8
#8
Texas
12.1%
95% CI: 11–13.3
#9
Indiana
11.7%
95% CI: 11.1–12.4
#10
Georgia
11.5%
95% CI: 10.7–12.3
#10
Ohio
11.5%
95% CI: 10.8–12.2
#12
Oklahoma
11.3%
95% CI: 10.5–12.1
#13
Delaware
11.1%
95% CI: 9.8–12.6
#14
North Carolina
11%
95% CI: 9.8–12.3
#15
Illinois
10.9%
95% CI: 9.9–12.1
#15
Maryland
10.9%
95% CI: 10.2–11.7
#15
Michigan
10.9%
95% CI: 10.1–11.8
#18
Nevada
10.8%
95% CI: 8.9–13
#18
New Mexico
10.8%
95% CI: 9.3–12.6
#20
Missouri
10.7%
95% CI: 9.9–11.7
#20
South Dakota
10.7%
95% CI: 8.9–12.8
#22
California
10.6%
95% CI: 9.8–11.4
#23
Kansas
10.5%
95% CI: 9.7–11.3
#24
Virginia
10.4%
95% CI: 9.5–11.4
#25
Florida
10.1%
95% CI: 9.1–11.1
#26
Rhode Island
10%
95% CI: 9.1–11
#27
Arizona
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#27
Iowa
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#29
Nebraska
9.7%
95% CI: 9–10.3
#30
Wisconsin
9.6%
95% CI: 9–10.2
#31
Hawaii
9.5%
95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#31
New York
9.5%
95% CI: 8.9–10.1
#31
Oregon
9.5%
95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#34
Wyoming
9.4%
95% CI: 8.5–10.5
#35
Minnesota
9.3%
95% CI: 8.6–10
#36
New Jersey
9.1%
95% CI: 8.4–9.9
#37
Maine
9%
95% CI: 8.4–9.7
#38
North Dakota
8.9%
95% CI: 8.1–9.7
#39
Idaho · your comparison
8.7%
95% CI: 7.9–9.6
#40
Washington
8.6%
95% CI: 8.2–9
#41
Massachusetts
8.5%
95% CI: 7.8–9.4
#42
Connecticut
8.4%
95% CI: 7.6–9.3
#43
Alaska
8.2%
95% CI: 7.4–9.2
#44
Utah
8.1%
95% CI: 7.5–8.7
#45
Colorado
8%
95% CI: 7.3–8.7
#46
Montana
7.9%
95% CI: 7.2–8.7
#46
New Hampshire
7.9%
95% CI: 7.1–8.8
#48
Vermont
7.8%
95% CI: 7–8.7
—
Kentucky
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
—
Pennsylvania
Not available
No 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.
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New Jersey
83.2%
—
#2
Vermont
82.6%
—
#3
South Carolina
79.4%
—
#4
New Hampshire
74.8%
—
#5
Rhode Island
74.3%
—
#6
Louisiana
72.1%
—
#7
Hawaii
67.1%
—
#8
Utah
65.4%
—
#9
Wisconsin
65.2%
—
#10
Alabama
63%
—
#11
Connecticut
60.3%
—
#12
Massachusetts
58%
—
#13
Tennessee
58%
—
#14
Virginia
57.2%
—
#15
Pennsylvania
56.7%
—
#16
Maine
56%
—
#17
Minnesota
55.4%
—
#18
Wyoming
54.4%
—
#19
Indiana
54.2%
—
#20
California
53.2%
—
#21
Arkansas
52.6%
—
#22
Texas
49.8%
—
#23
Ohio
49.7%
—
#24
Nebraska
49.1%
—
#25
Alaska
48.9%
—
#26
North Carolina
48.1%
—
#27
Colorado
47.5%
—
#28
Michigan
44.9%
—
#29
Oregon
43.9%
—
#30
Idaho · your comparison
43.9%
—
#31
Washington
42.4%
—
#32
Illinois
41.5%
—
#33
Nevada
41.5%
—
#34
Arizona
41.2%
—
#35
Kansas
41.1%
—
#36
Iowa
40.5%
—
#37
Florida
39.7%
—
#38
Georgia
39.1%
—
#39
Montana
38.5%
—
#40
West Virginia
38.3%
—
#41
North Dakota
36.5%
—
#42
New York
35.3%
—
#43
South Dakota
34.6%
—
#44
Mississippi
34.1%
—
#45
Maryland
31.6%
—
#46
New Mexico
31.4%
—
#47
Kentucky
30.8%
—
#48
Oklahoma
28.6%
—
#49
Missouri
23.7%
—
#50
Delaware
11.2%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Alaska
$8,635
—
#2
New York
$8,177
—
#3
New Hampshire
$7,991
—
#4
Vermont
$7,868
—
#5
Wyoming
$7,743
—
#6
Nebraska
$7,611
—
#7
South Carolina
$7,516
—
#8
Connecticut
$7,501
—
#9
Maine
$7,496
—
#10
Massachusetts
$7,452
—
#11
Washington
$7,440
—
#12
New Mexico
$7,424
—
#13
Illinois
$7,376
—
#14
New Jersey
$7,373
—
#15
Maryland
$7,352
—
#16
Rhode Island
$7,326
—
#17
Indiana
$7,319
—
#18
Delaware
$7,280
—
#19
Wisconsin
$7,250
—
#20
Pennsylvania
$7,246
—
#21
North Dakota
$7,216
—
#22
Colorado
$7,206
—
#23
Missouri
$7,179
—
#24
California
$7,173
—
#25
Florida
$7,078
—
#26
South Dakota
$7,070
—
#27
Oklahoma
$7,058
—
#28
Hawaii
$7,040
—
#29
North Carolina
$7,036
—
#30
Texas
$7,017
—
#31
West Virginia
$6,993
—
#32
Ohio
$6,989
—
#33
Kentucky
$6,949
—
#34
Iowa
$6,932
—
#35
Virginia
$6,928
—
#36
Oregon
$6,917
—
#37
Minnesota
$6,910
—
#38
Georgia
$6,876
—
#39
Montana
$6,860
—
#40
Idaho · your comparison
$6,744
—
#41
Louisiana
$6,713
—
#42
Michigan
$6,683
—
#43
Kansas
$6,675
—
#44
Arizona
$6,612
—
#45
Utah
$6,593
—
#46
Mississippi
$6,561
—
#47
Nevada
$6,493
—
#48
Tennessee
$6,485
—
#49
Arkansas
$6,414
—
#50
Alabama
$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.
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Oregon
31.6%
—
#2
Vermont
29.1%
—
#3
West Virginia
28.1%
—
#4
Washington
27.9%
—
#5
New Hampshire
27.7%
—
#6
Tennessee
27%
—
#7
Utah
26.7%
—
#8
Maine
26.7%
—
#9
Arkansas
26.6%
—
#10
Colorado
26.4%
—
#11
Rhode Island
25.8%
—
#12
Missouri
25.7%
—
#13
Montana
25.6%
—
#14
Indiana
25.3%
—
#15
Kentucky
25.3%
—
#16
Georgia
25.2%
—
#17
Iowa
25%
—
#18
Massachusetts
24.9%
—
#19
Wyoming
24.7%
—
#20
Nevada
24.6%
—
#21
Arizona
24.6%
—
#22
Wisconsin
24.6%
—
#23
Idaho · your comparison
24.5%
—
#24
Nebraska
24.1%
—
#25
Louisiana
24.1%
—
#26
Alaska
24%
—
#27
Pennsylvania
23.9%
—
#28
New Mexico
23.9%
—
#28
Ohio
23.9%
—
#30
Connecticut
23.7%
—
#31
Kansas
23.7%
—
#32
Michigan
23.6%
—
#33
Virginia
23.1%
—
#34
Alabama
23%
—
#35
North Dakota
23%
—
#36
Maryland
22.7%
—
#37
Oklahoma
22.6%
—
#38
Minnesota
22.6%
—
#39
Illinois
22.2%
—
#40
Delaware
22.1%
—
#41
New York
21.9%
—
#42
South Dakota
21.8%
—
#43
California
21.6%
—
#44
North Carolina
21.4%
—
#45
Florida
20.8%
—
#46
Texas
20.7%
—
#47
Mississippi
20.5%
—
#48
Hawaii
19.8%
—
#49
South Carolina
19.8%
—
#50
New Jersey
18.1%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
MEDICAID – Amends existing law to revise provisions regarding Medicaid eligibility expansion.
Apr 10, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Brad Little · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Brad Little signed HB 913. HB 913 adds community-engagement conditions to Medicaid expansion eligibility. It directs implementation of the requirements established under 42 U.S.C. 1396a(xx) no later than December 31, 2026. After implementation, applicants must demonstrate compliance for the three consecutive months immediately preceding the application month, and enrolled people unable to demonstrate compliance must be disenrolled under the reviewed provision. The referenced federal framework governs those requirements; this review does not establish implementation, individual eligibility decisions or actual coverage losses.
Signed by Governor on 2026-04-10, Chapter 334 of the 2026 regular session. Signing, effectiveness, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
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.
56-267. MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY EXPANSION. (1) Except as provided by subsection (6) of this section, the state shall amend its state plan to expand medicaid eligibility to include those persons under sixty-five (65) years of age whose modified adjusted gross income is one hundred thirty-three percent (133%) of the federal poverty level or below and who are not otherwise eligible for any other coverage under the state plan, in accordance with sections 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) and 1902(e)(14) of the social security act. (2) No later than ninety (90) days after approval of this act, the department shall submit any necessary state plan amendments to the United States department of health and human services, centers for medicare and medicaid services to implement the provisions of this section. The department is required and authorized to take all actions necessary to implement the provisions of this section as soon as practicable. (3) Eligibility for medicaid as described in this section shall not be delayed if the centers for medicare and medicaid services fail to approve any waivers of the state plan for which the department applies, nor shall such eligibility be delayed while the department is considering or negotiating any waivers to the state plan. The department shall not implement any waiver that would result in a reduction in federal financial participation for persons identified in subsection (1) of this section below the ninety percent (90%) commitment described in section 1905(y) of the social security act. (4) If section 1905(y) of the social security act is held unlawful or unconstitutional by the United States supreme court, then the legislature shall declare this section to be null, void, and of no force and effect. (5) If federal financial participation for persons identified in subsection (1) of this section is reduced below the ninety percent (90%) commitment described in section 1905(y) of the social security act, then the senate and house of representatives health and welfare committees shall, as soon as practicable, review the effects of such reduction and make a recommendation to the legislature as to whether medicaid eligibility expansion should remain in effect. The review and recommendation described in this subsection shall be conducted by the date of adjournment of the regular legislative session following the date of reduction in federal financial participation. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, if the reduction in federal financial participation occurs outside of a state legislative session, the department shall take any action necessary to offset the increase in state funding, including but not limited to reductions in provider payment rates or elimination of optional benefits. Such actions shall be taken until such time as the state legislature may convene and determine a proper course of action. (6) No later than December 31, 2026, the department shall implement the community engagement requirements established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1396a(xx). After the community engagement requirements have been implemented: (a) No person shall be enrolled in medicaid pursuant to this section unless such person demonstrates compliance with the community engagement requirements for the three (3) consecutive months immediately preceding the month during which the person applies; and (b) The department shall disenroll from medicaid any person who is currently enrolled pursuant to this section who is unable to demonstrate compliance with the community engagement requirements.
HB 913 adds community-engagement conditions to Medicaid expansion eligibility. It directs implementation of the requirements established under 42 U.S.C. 1396a(xx) no later than December 31, 2026. After implementation, applicants must demonstrate compliance for the three consecutive months immediately preceding the application month, and enrolled people unable to demonstrate compliance must be disenrolled under the reviewed provision. The referenced federal framework governs those requirements; this review does not establish implementation, individual eligibility decisions or actual coverage losses.
Signed by Governor on 2026-04-10, Chapter 334 of the 2026 regular session. Signing, effectiveness, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
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.
56-267. MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY EXPANSION. (1) Except as provided by subsection (6) of this section, the state shall amend its state plan to expand medicaid eligibility to include those persons under sixty-five (65) years of age whose modified adjusted gross income is one hundred thirty-three percent (133%) of the federal poverty level or below and who are not otherwise eligible for any other coverage under the state plan, in accordance with sections 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) and 1902(e)(14) of the social security act. (2) No later than ninety (90) days after approval of this act, the department shall submit any necessary state plan amendments to the United States department of health and human services, centers for medicare and medicaid services to implement the provisions of this section. The department is required and authorized to take all actions necessary to implement the provisions of this section as soon as practicable. (3) Eligibility for medicaid as described in this section shall not be delayed if the centers for medicare and medicaid services fail to approve any waivers of the state plan for which the department applies, nor shall such eligibility be delayed while the department is considering or negotiating any waivers to the state plan. The department shall not implement any waiver that would result in a reduction in federal financial participation for persons identified in subsection (1) of this section below the ninety percent (90%) commitment described in section 1905(y) of the social security act. (4) If section 1905(y) of the social security act is held unlawful or unconstitutional by the United States supreme court, then the legislature shall declare this section to be null, void, and of no force and effect. (5) If federal financial participation for persons identified in subsection (1) of this section is reduced below the ninety percent (90%) commitment described in section 1905(y) of the social security act, then the senate and house of representatives health and welfare committees shall, as soon as practicable, review the effects of such reduction and make a recommendation to the legislature as to whether medicaid eligibility expansion should remain in effect. The review and recommendation described in this subsection shall be conducted by the date of adjournment of the regular legislative session following the date of reduction in federal financial participation. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, if the reduction in federal financial participation occurs outside of a state legislative session, the department shall take any action necessary to offset the increase in state funding, including but not limited to reductions in provider payment rates or elimination of optional benefits. Such actions shall be taken until such time as the state legislature may convene and determine a proper course of action. (6) No later than December 31, 2026, the department shall implement the community engagement requirements established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1396a(xx). After the community engagement requirements have been implemented: (a) No person shall be enrolled in medicaid pursuant to this section unless such person demonstrates compliance with the community engagement requirements for the three (3) consecutive months immediately preceding the month during which the person applies; and (b) The department shall disenroll from medicaid any person who is currently enrolled pursuant to this section who is unable to demonstrate compliance with the community engagement requirements.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 31, 2026 · SB 1354 · ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS – Amends and adds to existing law to revise provisions regarding prohibitions against restrictive covenants banning accessory dwelling units and to establish provisions regarding accessory dwelling units in the Local Land Use Planning Act. · SignedGovernor · SB 1354
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS – Amends and adds to existing law to revise provisions regarding prohibitions against restrictive covenants banning accessory dwelling units and to establish provisions regarding accessory dwelling units in the Local Land Use Planning Act.
Mar 31, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Brad Little · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Brad Little signed SB 1354. The amended SB 1354 limits city bans on accessory dwelling units and requires specified land-use changes by February 1, 2027. The defined units have their own cooking, sleeping and sanitation facilities on the same lot as a single-family primary dwelling; internal, attached and detached units qualify, while motorhomes, campers, recreational vehicles and similar dwellings on wheels do not. Section 2 applies only to cities with more than 10,000 residents, includes historic-area exceptions, bars owner-occupancy requirements, and provides administrative approval for qualifying projects. Existing public-health, safety, infrastructure and environmental protections remain. The rental-supply component is relevant to housing costs; the law does not require a particular rent or establish that additional rental units were built.
Signed by Governor on 2026-03-31, Chapter 265 of the 2026 regular session. Signing, effectiveness, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
Median gross rent includes contract rent and estimated tenant-paid utility and fuel costs. Accessory dwellings can form part of the rental supply; allowing them does not establish that units were built or the statewide median changed. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Idaho evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
SECTION 2. That Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and designated as Section 67-6541, Idaho Code, and to read as follows: 67-6541. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. (1) No city shall enact or enforce any ordinance, rule, regulation, or policy that bans accessory dwelling units in any residential zoning area within its jurisdiction. An accessory dwelling unit shall be classified as a residential land use for zoning purposes subject to all applicable zoning requirements. "Accessory dwelling unit" means a self-contained living unit that includes its own cooking, sleeping, and sanitation facilities and that is located on the same lot as a single-family primary dwelling. An accessory dwelling unit may be internal, attached, or detached but does not include a motorhome, camper, recreational vehicle, tiny home on wheels, or other such similar dwellings on wheels. (2) By February 1, 2027, by resolution or ordinance adopted, amended, or repealed in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided under section 67-6509, Idaho Code, each city governing board shall amend its comprehensive plan and land use regulations for all land zoned for singlefamily residential uses, except for lands falling within an area defined as a historic district under section 67-4607, Idaho Code, or designated as a historic property pursuant to section 67-4614, Idaho Code, to: (a) Allow for either one (1) internal accessory dwelling unit within the single-family dwelling or one (1) detached accessory dwelling unit per lot in the rear yard or subject to setbacks required of the primary dwelling; (b) Prohibit requiring any off-street parking or guest parking for any accessory dwelling unit unless the principal dwelling unit does not have off-street parking or the street is not paved and designed or constructed for on-street parking or unless the principal dwelling unit is within one-fourth (1/4) mile of transit, an employment area, or commercial services; (c) Prohibit imposing impact fees or utility connection fees on accessory dwelling units that are greater than those imposed on other single-family dwellings; (d) Prohibit limiting the size of an accessory dwelling unit to less than one thousand (1000) square feet or seventy-five percent (75%) of the size of the primary dwelling; (e) Prohibit an owner-occupancy requirement for the primary dwelling or for the accessory dwelling unit; (f) Prohibit imposing a limit on building height that is less than the height of an existing single-family primary dwelling on a lot; and (g) Prohibit restrictions for accessory dwelling units that are more restrictive than restrictions for single-family dwellings within the same zoning district with regard to setbacks, lot size, or coverage or building frontage. (3) Accessory dwelling unit projects that meet the jurisdiction's established land use requirements shall be approved administratively and as a matter of right, without the need for discretionary approval. (4) Any approval standards, special conditions, and procedures for approval adopted by a local government shall be clear and objective and shall not have the effect, either singularly or cumulatively, of discouraging the development of accessory dwelling units through unreasonable cost or delay. (5) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a city from enacting a regulation, standard, or condition that is less restrictive than the requirements of this section. (6) The provisions of this section shall apply only to cities with a population greater than ten thousand (10,000). (7) The provisions of this section shall not supersede state or local laws that protect public health, safety, and welfare, including: (a) Building codes, fire safety standards, and flood plain regulations; (b) Laws regarding water, sewer, storm drainage, road access, and utility services necessary to support the required density; (c) Laws regarding environmental hazards, aquifer recharge zones, steep slopes, and critical habitat protections; and (d) Laws and regulations regarding setback requirements for rights-ofway and easements.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 31, 2026 · SB 1354 · ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS – Amends and adds to existing law to revise provisions regarding prohibitions against restrictive covenants banning accessory dwelling units and to establish provisions regarding accessory dwelling units in the Local Land Use Planning Act. · Enacted · Chapter 265Idaho Legislature · SB 1354
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS – Amends and adds to existing law to revise provisions regarding prohibitions against restrictive covenants banning accessory dwelling units and to establish provisions regarding accessory dwelling units in the Local Land Use Planning Act.
Mar 31, 2026 · Enacted · Chapter 265
Ben Toews · Floor sponsor / Erin M. Bingham · Floor sponsor
FactVote reviewed summary
The amended SB 1354 limits city bans on accessory dwelling units and requires specified land-use changes by February 1, 2027. The defined units have their own cooking, sleeping and sanitation facilities on the same lot as a single-family primary dwelling; internal, attached and detached units qualify, while motorhomes, campers, recreational vehicles and similar dwellings on wheels do not. Section 2 applies only to cities with more than 10,000 residents, includes historic-area exceptions, bars owner-occupancy requirements, and provides administrative approval for qualifying projects. Existing public-health, safety, infrastructure and environmental protections remain. The rental-supply component is relevant to housing costs; the law does not require a particular rent or establish that additional rental units were built.
Signed by Governor on 2026-03-31, Chapter 265 of the 2026 regular session. Signing, effectiveness, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
Median gross rent includes contract rent and estimated tenant-paid utility and fuel costs. Accessory dwellings can form part of the rental supply; allowing them does not establish that units were built or the statewide median changed. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Idaho evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
SECTION 2. That Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION, to be known and designated as Section 67-6541, Idaho Code, and to read as follows: 67-6541. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. (1) No city shall enact or enforce any ordinance, rule, regulation, or policy that bans accessory dwelling units in any residential zoning area within its jurisdiction. An accessory dwelling unit shall be classified as a residential land use for zoning purposes subject to all applicable zoning requirements. "Accessory dwelling unit" means a self-contained living unit that includes its own cooking, sleeping, and sanitation facilities and that is located on the same lot as a single-family primary dwelling. An accessory dwelling unit may be internal, attached, or detached but does not include a motorhome, camper, recreational vehicle, tiny home on wheels, or other such similar dwellings on wheels. (2) By February 1, 2027, by resolution or ordinance adopted, amended, or repealed in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided under section 67-6509, Idaho Code, each city governing board shall amend its comprehensive plan and land use regulations for all land zoned for singlefamily residential uses, except for lands falling within an area defined as a historic district under section 67-4607, Idaho Code, or designated as a historic property pursuant to section 67-4614, Idaho Code, to: (a) Allow for either one (1) internal accessory dwelling unit within the single-family dwelling or one (1) detached accessory dwelling unit per lot in the rear yard or subject to setbacks required of the primary dwelling; (b) Prohibit requiring any off-street parking or guest parking for any accessory dwelling unit unless the principal dwelling unit does not have off-street parking or the street is not paved and designed or constructed for on-street parking or unless the principal dwelling unit is within one-fourth (1/4) mile of transit, an employment area, or commercial services; (c) Prohibit imposing impact fees or utility connection fees on accessory dwelling units that are greater than those imposed on other single-family dwellings; (d) Prohibit limiting the size of an accessory dwelling unit to less than one thousand (1000) square feet or seventy-five percent (75%) of the size of the primary dwelling; (e) Prohibit an owner-occupancy requirement for the primary dwelling or for the accessory dwelling unit; (f) Prohibit imposing a limit on building height that is less than the height of an existing single-family primary dwelling on a lot; and (g) Prohibit restrictions for accessory dwelling units that are more restrictive than restrictions for single-family dwellings within the same zoning district with regard to setbacks, lot size, or coverage or building frontage. (3) Accessory dwelling unit projects that meet the jurisdiction's established land use requirements shall be approved administratively and as a matter of right, without the need for discretionary approval. (4) Any approval standards, special conditions, and procedures for approval adopted by a local government shall be clear and objective and shall not have the effect, either singularly or cumulatively, of discouraging the development of accessory dwelling units through unreasonable cost or delay. (5) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a city from enacting a regulation, standard, or condition that is less restrictive than the requirements of this section. (6) The provisions of this section shall apply only to cities with a population greater than ten thousand (10,000). (7) The provisions of this section shall not supersede state or local laws that protect public health, safety, and welfare, including: (a) Building codes, fire safety standards, and flood plain regulations; (b) Laws regarding water, sewer, storm drainage, road access, and utility services necessary to support the required density; (c) Laws regarding environmental hazards, aquifer recharge zones, steep slopes, and critical habitat protections; and (d) Laws and regulations regarding setback requirements for rights-ofway and easements.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 26, 2026 · HB 573 · ENHANCED LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS – Amends existing law to provide that certain persons may provide instruction on Idaho law regarding firearms and the use of deadly force. · SignedGovernor · HB 573
ENHANCED LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS – Amends existing law to provide that certain persons may provide instruction on Idaho law regarding firearms and the use of deadly force.
Mar 26, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Brad Little · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Brad Little signed HB 573. HB 573 adds an NRA-certified or equivalent instructor with at least eight years of experience teaching an approved enhanced concealed-carry course to the people who may teach its Idaho-law and deadly-force portion. The reviewed course requirements still include at least eight hours, face-to-face teaching, handgun safety, self-defense and live-fire training of at least 98 rounds. This is an instructor-qualification change, not evidence of fewer firearm deaths.
Signed by Governor on 2026-03-26, Chapter 159 of the 2026 regular session. Signing, effectiveness, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
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.
The sheriff must accept as a qualifying handgun course a personal protection course offered by the national rifle association or an equivalent, provided that all personal protection or equivalent courses must meet the following requirements: (i) The course instructor is certified by the national rifle association, or by another nationally recognized organization that customarily certifies firearms instructors, as an instructor in personal protection with handguns, or the course instructor is certified by the Idaho peace officers standards and training council as a firearms instructor; (ii) The course is at least eight (8) hours in duration; (iii) The course is taught face to face and not by electronic or other means; and (iv) The course includes instruction in: 1. Idaho law relating to firearms and the use of deadly force, provided that such instruction is delivered by any of the following whose name and credential must appear on the certificate: (A) An active, senior or emeritus member of the Idaho state bar; (B) A law enforcement officer, active or retired, who currently possesses or possessed at the time of his retirement an intermediate or higher Idaho peace officers standards and training certificate; or (C) An instructor certified by the national rifle association, or equivalent, who has instructed an approved course for enhanced concealed carry for at least eight (8) years; 2. The basic concepts of the safe and responsible use of handguns; 3. Self-defense principles; and 4. Live fire training, including the firing of at least ninety-eight (98) rounds by the student. An instructor must provide a copy of the syllabus and a written description of the course of fire used in a qualifying handgun course that includes the name of the individual instructing the legal portion of the course to the sheriff upon request.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 26, 2026 · HB 573 · ENHANCED LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS – Amends existing law to provide that certain persons may provide instruction on Idaho law regarding firearms and the use of deadly force. · Enacted · Chapter 159Idaho Legislature · HB 573
ENHANCED LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS – Amends existing law to provide that certain persons may provide instruction on Idaho law regarding firearms and the use of deadly force.
Mar 26, 2026 · Enacted · Chapter 159
Charlie Shepherd · Floor sponsor / Kelly Arthur Anthon · Floor sponsor
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 573 adds an NRA-certified or equivalent instructor with at least eight years of experience teaching an approved enhanced concealed-carry course to the people who may teach its Idaho-law and deadly-force portion. The reviewed course requirements still include at least eight hours, face-to-face teaching, handgun safety, self-defense and live-fire training of at least 98 rounds. This is an instructor-qualification change, not evidence of fewer firearm deaths.
Signed by Governor on 2026-03-26, Chapter 159 of the 2026 regular session. Signing, effectiveness, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
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.
The sheriff must accept as a qualifying handgun course a personal protection course offered by the national rifle association or an equivalent, provided that all personal protection or equivalent courses must meet the following requirements: (i) The course instructor is certified by the national rifle association, or by another nationally recognized organization that customarily certifies firearms instructors, as an instructor in personal protection with handguns, or the course instructor is certified by the Idaho peace officers standards and training council as a firearms instructor; (ii) The course is at least eight (8) hours in duration; (iii) The course is taught face to face and not by electronic or other means; and (iv) The course includes instruction in: 1. Idaho law relating to firearms and the use of deadly force, provided that such instruction is delivered by any of the following whose name and credential must appear on the certificate: (A) An active, senior or emeritus member of the Idaho state bar; (B) A law enforcement officer, active or retired, who currently possesses or possessed at the time of his retirement an intermediate or higher Idaho peace officers standards and training certificate; or (C) An instructor certified by the national rifle association, or equivalent, who has instructed an approved course for enhanced concealed carry for at least eight (8) years; 2. The basic concepts of the safe and responsible use of handguns; 3. Self-defense principles; and 4. Live fire training, including the firing of at least ninety-eight (98) rounds by the student. An instructor must provide a copy of the syllabus and a written description of the course of fire used in a qualifying handgun course that includes the name of the individual instructing the legal portion of the course to the sheriff upon request.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified Idaho officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 proposalsView proposals from Rep. Russ FulcherU.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..
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.
1 proposalView proposals from Sen. James E. RischU.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)).
1 proposalView proposals from Sen. Mike CrapoU.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.
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.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
Idaho snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to Idaho, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.