Insurance coverage, personal healthcare spending, longevity, mortality, health risks, and provider shortages.
Uninsured rate · all ages7.5%2024 · #25 of 50 · highest first
Uninsured rate · under age 658.9%2024 · #25 of 50 · highest first
Private coverage · under age 6570.6%2024 · #30 of 50 · highest first
Indiana over time
Explore Indiana readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Indiana officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Indiana effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Indiana 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 Indiana · source units
IndianaPublished 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.
51 of 51 reviewed Indiana actions match · 36 date markers shown. 25 major events shown separately.
Indiana · 2024: 7.5% · Rank #25 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.
Indiana · 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.
Indiana · 20247.5%
Indiana rank#25among 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.
Indiana
2024 · Indiana: 7.5% · Rank #25 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Indiana Uninsured rate · all ages history
Period
Indiana
Compare
2014
11.9%
2015
9.6%
2016
8.1%
2017
8.2%
2018
8.3%
2019
8.7%
2020
Not available
2021
7.5%
2022
7%
2023
6.9%
2024
7.5%
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. Indiana 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. Indiana 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.
Indiana · 7.5%2024 · Rank #25 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 Indiana 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
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 · your comparison
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 Indiana’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 Indiana with every state.
Indiana · 2020$10,517
Indiana rank#18among 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.
Indiana
2020 · Indiana: $10,517 · Rank #18 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $10,191 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Indiana Personal healthcare spending per resident history
Period
Indiana
Compare
2014
$7,998
2015
$8,368
2016
$8,776
2017
$9,015
2018
$9,297
2019
$9,927
2020
$10,517
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. Indiana 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. Indiana 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.
Indiana · $10,5172020 · Rank #18 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 Indiana 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 · your comparison
$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
$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.
Indiana · 202275.4 years
Indiana rank#39among 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 Indiana 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.
Indiana
2022 · Indiana: 75.4 years · Rank #39 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 77.5 years · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Indiana Life expectancy at birth history
Period
Indiana
Compare
2018
76.8 years
2019
77 years
2020
75 years
2021
74.6 years
2022
75.4 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. Indiana 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. Indiana 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.
Indiana · 75.4 years2022 · Rank #39 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 Indiana 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
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 · your comparison
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.
Indiana · 202311.7%
Indiana rank#9among 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.
Indiana
2023 · Indiana: 11.7% · Rank #9 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 10.7% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Indiana Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history
Period
Indiana
Compare
2019
11.3%
2020
10.7%
2021
11%
2022
11.3%
2023
11.7%
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. Indiana 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. Indiana 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.
Indiana · 11.7%2023 · Rank #9 of 48, highest first95% confidence interval: 11.1% – 12.4%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 Indiana 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 · your comparison
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
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.
Indiana · June 30, 202654.2%
Indiana rank#19among 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. Indiana 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. Indiana 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.
Indiana · 54.2%June 30, 2026 · Rank #19 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 Indiana 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 · your comparison
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
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.
Indiana · 2020$7,319
Indiana rank#17among 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. Indiana 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. Indiana 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.
Indiana · $7,3192020 · Rank #17 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 Indiana 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 · your comparison
$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
$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.
Indiana · 2023–202425.3%
Indiana rank#14among 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. Indiana 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. Indiana 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.
Indiana · 25.3%2023–2024 · Rank #14 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 Indiana 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 · your comparison
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
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.
Governor Braun and NRC Chairman Ho K. Nieh signed an agreement transferring specified radioactive-material licensing and regulatory responsibilities to Indiana. NRC’s final notice identifies byproduct materials, source materials and special nuclear materials in quantities insufficient to form a critical mass; the state program covers medical, academic and industrial uses. The signing date is corroborated by Indiana IDHS, NRC’s dated announcement and the final Federal Register notice. NRC states September 30 effectiveness; IDHS states October 1, so the effective dates remain in conflict. The publicly retained proposed agreement has blank execution fields and is not an executed instrument. This signing does not establish a new reactor license, electricity generation, lower utility rates or a measured change in health outcomes.
Signed September 24. NRC states September 30 effectiveness; Indiana IDHS states October 1. Executed agreement and reconciliation remain to be reviewed.
Why this record is included
Governor Braun and NRC Chairman Ho K. Nieh signed an agreement transferring specified radioactive-material licensing and regulatory responsibilities to Indiana. NRC’s final notice identifies byproduct materials, source materials and special nuclear materials in quantities insufficient to form a critical mass; the state program covers medical, academic and industrial uses. The signing date is corroborated by Indiana IDHS, NRC’s dated announcement and the final Federal Register notice. NRC states September 30 effectiveness; IDHS states October 1, so the effective dates remain in conflict. The publicly retained proposed agreement has blank execution fields and is not an executed instrument. This signing does not establish a new reactor license, electricity generation, lower utility rates or a measured change in health outcomes. The chart does not isolate a measured effect of the agreement.
Retained Indiana evidence context: Health · reviewed policy context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Gov. Mike Braun and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Ho K. Nieh signed a formal agreement Thursday, Sept. 24
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jul 16, 2026 · H.R.9719 · Federal Lands Lawful Carry Act · IntroducedU.S. Congress · Indiana delegation · H.R.9719
Federal Lands Lawful Carry Act
Jul 16, 2026 · Introduced
Rep. Rudy Yakym · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The proposal would permit otherwise lawful firearm possession in visitor areas of specified federal facilities when consistent with state law. Its scope includes specified public-land agencies and facilities, rather than every federal building.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Why this record is included
The proposal would permit otherwise lawful firearm possession in visitor areas of specified federal facilities when consistent with state law. Its scope includes specified public-land agencies and facilities, rather than every federal building. The official record directly regulates firearms or addresses shootings, firearm safety, trafficking, or gun-violence prevention. It does not establish an effect on Indiana's firearm mortality rate.
Retained Indiana evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The proposal would permit otherwise lawful firearm possession in visitor areas of specified federal facilities when consistent with state law. Its scope includes specified public-land agencies and facilities, rather than every federal building.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 12, 2026 · HB 1052 · Various administrative law matters. · Enacted · Public Law 153Indiana Legislature · HB 1052
Various administrative law matters.
Mar 12, 2026 · Enacted · Public Law 153
Rep. Ethan Manning · Sponsored / Sen. Ron Alting · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The firearm provision exempts antique firearms from specified handgun sale, rental, trade and transfer requirements. It concerns a limited category of firearm transactions within a broader administrative bill.
The Indiana legislative record shows the measure was enacted on March 12, 2026 as Public Law 153.
Why this record is included
The firearm provision exempts antique firearms from specified handgun sale, rental, trade and transfer requirements. It concerns a limited category of firearm transactions within a broader administrative bill. The official record directly regulates firearms or addresses shootings, firearm safety, trafficking, or gun-violence prevention. It does not establish an effect on Indiana's firearm mortality rate.
Retained Indiana evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The firearm provision exempts antique firearms from specified handgun sale, rental, trade and transfer requirements. It concerns a limited category of firearm transactions within a broader administrative bill.
Rep. Chris Jeter · Sponsored / Sen. Rodney Pol · Sponsored / Sen. Mike Bohacek · Sponsored / Sen. Aaron Freeman · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The law adds LaPorte and Porter counties to the Indiana crime guns task force area beginning July 1, 2027. The relationship concerns the geographic expansion of the task force; the bill also changes quorum rules.
The Indiana legislative record shows the measure was enacted on March 4, 2026 as Public Law 70.
Why this record is included
The law adds LaPorte and Porter counties to the Indiana crime guns task force area beginning July 1, 2027. The relationship concerns the geographic expansion of the task force; the bill also changes quorum rules. The official record directly regulates firearms or addresses shootings, firearm safety, trafficking, or gun-violence prevention. It does not establish an effect on Indiana's firearm mortality rate.
Retained Indiana evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The law adds LaPorte and Porter counties to the Indiana crime guns task force area beginning July 1, 2027. The relationship concerns the geographic expansion of the task force; the bill also changes quorum rules.
Rep. Robert Behning · Sponsored / Sen. Linda Rogers · Sponsored / Sen. Tyler Johnson · Sponsored / Sen. Jeff Raatz · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Section 85 removes the express provision allowing school-board members and the board’s attorney to join a school corporation’s employee health plan. This is a limited change to access to that plan, not evidence that every affected person becomes uninsured.
The Indiana legislative record shows the measure was enacted on March 4, 2026 as Public Law 74.
Why this record is included
Section 85 removes the express provision allowing school-board members and the board’s attorney to join a school corporation’s employee health plan. This is a limited change to access to that plan, not evidence that every affected person becomes uninsured. The fact measures whether residents under 65 have coverage, rather than the number of services covered or used.
Retained Indiana evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 85 removes the express provision allowing school-board members and the board’s attorney to join a school corporation’s employee health plan. This is a limited change to access to that plan, not evidence that every affected person becomes uninsured.
Rep. Brad Barrett · Sponsored / Sen. Ed Charbonneau · Sponsored / Sen. Ryan Mishler · Sponsored / Sen. Chris Garten · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The law changes Medicaid eligibility, application timing, immigration-status rules, work requirements and renewal frequency, including semiannual Healthy Indiana Plan renewal. Its SNAP and service-cost provisions are separate.
The Indiana legislative record shows the measure was enacted on March 4, 2026 as Public Law 63.
Why this record is included
The law changes Medicaid eligibility, application timing, immigration-status rules, work requirements and renewal frequency, including semiannual Healthy Indiana Plan renewal. Its SNAP and service-cost provisions are separate. The fact measures whether residents under 65 have coverage, rather than the number of services covered or used.
Retained Indiana evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance · Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The law changes Medicaid eligibility, application timing, immigration-status rules, work requirements and renewal frequency, including semiannual Healthy Indiana Plan renewal. Its SNAP and service-cost provisions are separate.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified Indiana 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 Oct 5, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health from FactVote’s Indiana 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.
51 statements from 11 candidates
2026 Indiana U.S. House — District 1 — General Election
1 candidate with matching statements · 5 statements
Frank is in Congress to lower the price of healthcare and to make prescription drug prices more affordable, so families can obtain the lifesaving medicine they need. That’s why Frank fought to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which allows Medicare to directly negotiate prescription drug prices, lim…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Frank is in Congress to lower the price of healthcare and to make prescription drug prices more affordable, so families can obtain the lifesaving medicine they need. That’s why Frank fought to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which allows Medicare to directly negotiate prescription drug prices, limits out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 per month, and for the first time ever, caps Medicare Part D out-of-pocket drug costs at $2,000 — a proud achievement of Frank’s.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
Since he was the North Township Trustee, Frank has been working to improve access to quality, affordable healthcare for communities throughout our region. This includes helping seniors afford prescription drugs, providing veterans with critical mental health services, and supporting women seeking re…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Reproductive rights and health care
Candidate campaign source
Since he was the North Township Trustee, Frank has been working to improve access to quality, affordable healthcare for communities throughout our region. This includes helping seniors afford prescription drugs, providing veterans with critical mental health services, and supporting women seeking reproductive care.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
Freedom is on the ballot this year. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Indiana was the first state in the country to institute a statewide abortion ban. Women’s access to reproductive healthcare is under attack. With federal legislation proposed to ban abortion nationwide, it’s more imp…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Reproductive rights and health care
Candidate campaign source
Freedom is on the ballot this year. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Indiana was the first state in the country to institute a statewide abortion ban. Women’s access to reproductive healthcare is under attack. With federal legislation proposed to ban abortion nationwide, it’s more important than ever that we send Frank back to Congress to fight for our freedoms. Frank supports the codification of Roe v. Wade and will continue to fight to ensure that every woman can make their own decisions about their own bodies, their own futures, and their own economic opportunities.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
Frank will stand with women. He will make sure Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and that women can safely access the reproductive healthcare they need.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Reproductive rights and health care
Candidate campaign source
Frank will stand with women. He will make sure Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and that women can safely access the reproductive healthcare they need.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
Americans pay more for healthcare than anywhere else in the world, yet our system prioritizes profits over people and leaves working families behind, struggling to afford basic care while insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations extract wealth and diminish access to care in our local comm…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Policy Platform
Candidate campaign source
Americans pay more for healthcare than anywhere else in the world, yet our system prioritizes profits over people and leaves working families behind, struggling to afford basic care while insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations extract wealth and diminish access to care in our local communities.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 18, 2026
National Defense and Veterans Care –• Strong National Defense for our protection and emergencies• Support "Defend the Guard" legislation• Border policy and protections improvements• Eliminate Red Flag and domestic spying laws• Reduce and end foreign conflict and costly overseas contingency operation…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Immigration and border policy
Candidate campaign source
National Defense and Veterans Care –• Strong National Defense for our protection and emergencies• Support "Defend the Guard" legislation• Border policy and protections improvements• Eliminate Red Flag and domestic spying laws• Reduce and end foreign conflict and costly overseas contingency operations and contracts• Expand community healthcare programs for veterans, and better integrate records, billing, and coding for community healthcare access
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026
Medical Freedom –• Define and resolve personal sovereignty, or self-ownership• Regain individual medical and personal decisions• Demand independent review of the vaccine approval and access to all research data• Remove legal protections for vaccines • Further protect privacy of patients• End federal…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Medical Freedom –• Define and resolve personal sovereignty, or self-ownership• Regain individual medical and personal decisions• Demand independent review of the vaccine approval and access to all research data• Remove legal protections for vaccines • Further protect privacy of patients• End federal cannabis prohibition and expunge all federal cannabis records
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026
Medical Freedom – • Define and resolve personal sovereignty, or self-ownership • Regain individual medical and personal decisions • Demand independent review of the vaccine approval and access to all research data • Remove legal protections for vaccines • Further protect privacy of patients • End fe…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Issues
Candidate campaign source
Medical Freedom – • Define and resolve personal sovereignty, or self-ownership • Regain individual medical and personal decisions • Demand independent review of the vaccine approval and access to all research data • Remove legal protections for vaccines • Further protect privacy of patients • End federal cannabis prohibition and expunge all federal cannabis records
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026
This section matches specific health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health terms in retained, attributed source text from published Indiana 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.
Indiana incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Indiana legislators and Indiana’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Indiana’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
102 matching sponsorships or proposals · 56 Indiana incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Rep. Alex Burton
Indiana House of Representatives, District 77 · D–IN
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Alex BurtonIndiana Legislature · HB 1100
The proposal would let adoptive parents opt a child out of Medicaid when private dependent coverage is available, subject to a check against a coverage lapse. This concerns continuity for already-insured children, not a general expansion to uninsured residents.
The official Indiana General Assembly record lists this final action on January 12, 2026: Representative Dant Chesser added as coauthor. The measure became inactive when the 2026 session ended.
Why this record is included
The proposal would let adoptive parents opt a child out of Medicaid when private dependent coverage is available, subject to a check against a coverage lapse. This concerns continuity for already-insured children, not a general expansion to uninsured residents. The fact measures whether residents under 65 have coverage, rather than the number of services covered or used.
Retained Indiana evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The proposal would let adoptive parents opt a child out of Medicaid when private dependent coverage is available, subject to a check against a coverage lapse. This concerns continuity for already-insured children, not a general expansion to uninsured residents.
U.S. representative for Indiana, District 7 · D–IN
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. André CarsonU.S. Congress · Indiana delegation · H.R.4487
Gun Safety Incentive Act
Jul 17, 2025 · Introduced
Rep. André Carson · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The proposal would require safe-storage notices and devices with specified firearm sales, fund distribution of storage devices and create a tax credit for retail sales of qualifying devices.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
Why this record is included
The proposal would require safe-storage notices and devices with specified firearm sales, fund distribution of storage devices and create a tax credit for retail sales of qualifying devices. The official record directly regulates firearms or addresses shootings, firearm safety, trafficking, or gun-violence prevention. It does not establish an effect on Indiana's firearm mortality rate.
Retained Indiana evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The proposal would require safe-storage notices and devices with specified firearm sales, fund distribution of storage devices and create a tax credit for retail sales of qualifying devices.
Indiana House of Representatives, District 52 · R–IN
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Ben SmaltzIndiana Legislature · HB 1296
Firearms matters.
Mar 21, 2022 · Enacted · Public Law 175
Rep. Ben Smaltz · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Repeals the law that requires a person to obtain a license to carry a handgun in Indiana. Specifies that certain persons who are not otherwise prohibited from carrying or possessing a handgun are not required to obtain or possess a license or permit from the state to carry a handgun in Indiana. Prohibits certain individuals from knowingly or intentionally carrying a handgun. Creates the crime of "unlawful carrying of a handgun" and specifies the penalties for committing this crime. Allows particular individuals who do not meet the requirements to receive a handgun license and are not otherwise prohibited to carry a handgun in limited places. Allows a resident of Indiana to obtain in certain…
The Indiana legislative record shows the measure was enacted on March 21, 2022 as Public Law 175.
Why this record is included
The official record directly regulates firearms or addresses shootings, firearm safety, trafficking, or gun-violence prevention. It does not establish an effect on Indiana's firearm mortality rate.
Retained Indiana evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Repeals the law that requires a person to obtain a license to carry a handgun in Indiana. Specifies that certain persons who are not otherwise prohibited from carrying or possessing a handgun are not required to obtain or possess a license or permit from the state to carry a handgun in Indiana. Prohibits certain individuals from knowingly or intentionally carrying a handgun. Creates the crime of "unlawful carrying of a handgun" and specifies the penalties for committing this crime. Allows particular individuals who do not meet the requirements to receive a handgun license and are not otherwise prohibited to carry a handgun in limited places…
Rep. Brad Barrett · Sponsored / Sen. Ed Charbonneau · Sponsored / Sen. Ryan Mishler · Sponsored / Sen. Chris Garten · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The law changes Medicaid eligibility, application timing, immigration-status rules, work requirements and renewal frequency, including semiannual Healthy Indiana Plan renewal. Its SNAP and service-cost provisions are separate.
The Indiana legislative record shows the measure was enacted on March 4, 2026 as Public Law 63.
Why this record is included
The law changes Medicaid eligibility, application timing, immigration-status rules, work requirements and renewal frequency, including semiannual Healthy Indiana Plan renewal. Its SNAP and service-cost provisions are separate. The fact measures whether residents under 65 have coverage, rather than the number of services covered or used.
Retained Indiana evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance · Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The law changes Medicaid eligibility, application timing, immigration-status rules, work requirements and renewal frequency, including semiannual Healthy Indiana Plan renewal. Its SNAP and service-cost provisions are separate.
Rep. Brad Barrett · Sponsored / Rep. Robb Greene · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tony Isa · Co-sponsored / Rep. Maureen Bauer · Co-sponsored / Sen. Ed Charbonneau · Sponsored / Sen. Liz Brown · Sponsored / Sen. Lonnie Randolph · Sponsored
Reviewed provider-payment provisions
The enrolled HB 1474 digest describes FSSA responsibility for PathWays provider rates and rules for qualifying nursing-facility contracts, monthly denial reports, minimum payments and interest on specified delayed claims. The governor signed the law May 1, 2025. This later legislation did not launch PathWays, which began July 1, 2024. Signing does not establish that claims were paid or health outcomes improved.
Signed May 1, 2025. Selected provider-payment duties are described in the official enrolled digest; provision-specific effective dates and later administration require separate review.
Why this record is included
The enrolled HB 1474 digest describes FSSA responsibility for PathWays provider rates and rules for qualifying nursing-facility contracts, monthly denial reports, minimum payments and interest on specified delayed claims. The governor signed the law May 1, 2025. This later legislation did not launch PathWays, which began July 1, 2024. Signing does not establish that claims were paid or health outcomes improved.
Retained Indiana evidence context: Health · reviewed policy context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Requires the office of the secretary of family and social services (office of the secretary) to determine the base reimbursement rate structure, methodology, and reimbursement rates for provider payment by managed care organizations under the program.
Rep. Brad Barrett · Sponsored / Sen. Ed Charbonneau · Sponsored / Sen. Ryan Mishler · Sponsored / Sen. Chris Garten · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The law requires eligibility checks and redeterminations and establishes standards and corrective actions for hospital presumptive-eligibility determinations. These provisions concern entry into and continuation of Medicaid coverage.
The Indiana legislative record shows the measure was enacted on May 1, 2025 as Public Law 126.
Why this record is included
The law requires eligibility checks and redeterminations and establishes standards and corrective actions for hospital presumptive-eligibility determinations. These provisions concern entry into and continuation of Medicaid coverage. The fact measures whether residents under 65 have coverage, rather than the number of services covered or used.
Retained Indiana evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The law requires eligibility checks and redeterminations and establishes standards and corrective actions for hospital presumptive-eligibility determinations. These provisions concern entry into and continuation of Medicaid coverage.
Rep. Brad Barrett · Sponsored / Sen. Ed Charbonneau · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The law permits enrollment fees, premiums or similar charges as conditions of eligibility for the Healthy Indiana Plan and CHIP. Its other changes to service copayments and agency administration are separate.
The Indiana legislative record shows the measure was enacted on May 4, 2023 as Public Law 241.
Why this record is included
The law permits enrollment fees, premiums or similar charges as conditions of eligibility for the Healthy Indiana Plan and CHIP. Its other changes to service copayments and agency administration are separate. The fact measures whether residents under 65 have coverage, rather than the number of services covered or used.
Retained Indiana evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The law permits enrollment fees, premiums or similar charges as conditions of eligibility for the Healthy Indiana Plan and CHIP. Its other changes to service copayments and agency administration are separate.
Indiana House of Representatives, District 88 · R–IN
2 proposalsView proposals from Rep. Chris JeterIndiana Legislature · SB 148
Indiana crime guns task force.
Mar 4, 2026 · Enacted · Public Law 70
Rep. Chris Jeter · Sponsored / Sen. Rodney Pol · Sponsored / Sen. Mike Bohacek · Sponsored / Sen. Aaron Freeman · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The law adds LaPorte and Porter counties to the Indiana crime guns task force area beginning July 1, 2027. The relationship concerns the geographic expansion of the task force; the bill also changes quorum rules.
The Indiana legislative record shows the measure was enacted on March 4, 2026 as Public Law 70.
Why this record is included
The law adds LaPorte and Porter counties to the Indiana crime guns task force area beginning July 1, 2027. The relationship concerns the geographic expansion of the task force; the bill also changes quorum rules. The official record directly regulates firearms or addresses shootings, firearm safety, trafficking, or gun-violence prevention. It does not establish an effect on Indiana's firearm mortality rate.
Retained Indiana evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The law adds LaPorte and Porter counties to the Indiana crime guns task force area beginning July 1, 2027. The relationship concerns the geographic expansion of the task force; the bill also changes quorum rules.
Rep. J.D. Prescott · Sponsored / Rep. Joanna King · Sponsored / Rep. Garrett Bascom · Sponsored / Rep. Chris Jeter · Sponsored / Sen. Brian Buchanan · Co-sponsored / Sen. Linda Rogers · Co-sponsored / Sen. Blake Doriot · Co-sponsored / Sen. Tyler Johnson · Sponsored / Sen. Liz Brown · Sponsored / Sen. Stacey Donato · Co-sponsored / Sen. Travis Holdman · Co-sponsored / Sen. Mike Gaskill · Co-sponsored / Sen. Scott Alexander · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jeff Raatz · Co-sponsored / Sen. Michael Young · Co-sponsored / Sen. Randy Maxwell · Co-sponsored / Sen. Gary Byrne · Co-sponsored / Sen. James Tomes · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The proposal would change abortion-related definitions and reporting, require certain reports to reach the inspector general, and create civil liability concerning abortion-inducing drugs.
The official Indiana General Assembly record lists this final action on January 29, 2026: First reading: referred to Committee on Public Health. The measure became inactive when the 2026 session ended.
Why this record is included
The proposal would change abortion-related definitions and reporting, require certain reports to reach the inspector general, and create civil liability concerning abortion-inducing drugs. The fact counts abortions performed in Indiana and reported to the state, rather than all pregnancy outcomes or abortions obtained out of state.
Retained Indiana evidence context: Terminated pregnancies reported. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The proposal would change abortion-related definitions and reporting, require certain reports to reach the inspector general, and create civil liability concerning abortion-inducing drugs.
Rep. Earl Harris · Sponsored / Sen. Dan Dernulc · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
The law permits Lake County to join the Indiana crime guns task force, expanding the area served by its firearm-tracing and violent-crime work. It also changes board voting rules.
The Indiana legislative record shows the measure was enacted on April 1, 2025 as Public Law 16.
Why this record is included
The law permits Lake County to join the Indiana crime guns task force, expanding the area served by its firearm-tracing and violent-crime work. It also changes board voting rules. The official record directly regulates firearms or addresses shootings, firearm safety, trafficking, or gun-violence prevention. It does not establish an effect on Indiana's firearm mortality rate.
Retained Indiana evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The law permits Lake County to join the Indiana crime guns task force, expanding the area served by its firearm-tracing and violent-crime work. It also changes board voting rules.
Only current Indiana 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 Indiana statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 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.
Indiana 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 Indiana, 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.