Iowa · individual fact

Iowa health

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

Uninsured rate · all ages5.4%2024 · #40 of 50 · highest first
Uninsured rate · under age 656.6%2024 · #40 of 50 · highest first
Private coverage · under age 6574.7%2024 · #14 of 50 · highest first

Iowa over time

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

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Iowa 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 Iowa · source units
IowaPublished U.S. benchmark

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

Uninsured rate · all ages2024: 5.4%3.3%6.3%9.2%Iowa, 2014: 6.2%Iowa, 2015: 5%Iowa, 2016: 4.3%Iowa, 2017: 4.7%Iowa, 2018: 4.7%Iowa, 2019: 5%Iowa, 2021: 4.8%Iowa, 2022: 4.5%Iowa, 2023: 5%Iowa, 2024: 5.4%201420192024
✦ Major events & context · 33National context · Affordable Care Act signed · 2010-03-23ACA signedNational context · Supreme Court makes ACA Medicaid expansion optional for states · 2012-06-28Medicaid expansion rulingNational context · ACA Marketplace coverage and main Medicaid expansion begin · 2014-01-01ACA coverage beginsNational context · Opioid crisis declared a national public-health emergency · 2017-10-26Opioid emergencyIowa · Iowa establishes children’s mental health planning · 2018-04-23Iowa children’s mental healthIowa · Iowa establishes a flood recovery advisory board · 2019-04-15Iowa flood recovery boardNational context · COVID-19 characterized as a pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · Pandemic Medicaid continuous-enrollment condition enacted · 2020-03-18Medicaid coverage protectionIowa · Iowa establishes a pandemic recovery advisory board · 2020-06-18Iowa pandemic recovery boardIowa · Derecho damages Iowa homes, crops and power infrastructure · 2020-08-10Iowa derechoNational context · FDA authorizes the first COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use · 2020-12-11First COVID vaccine EUAIowa · Iowa establishes a child care and workforce task force · 2021-03-10Iowa child care task forceNational context · American Rescue Plan expands Marketplace premium assistance · 2021-03-11Marketplace aid expandedNational context · No Surprises Act billing protections begin · 2022-01-01Surprise-billing protectionsNational context · Supreme Court overturns Roe and Casey in Dobbs · 2022-06-24Dobbs abortion rulingNational context · 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline launches nationwide · 2022-07-16988 crisis line launchesNational context · Inflation Reduction Act signed · 2022-08-16Prescription-drug lawNational context · Medicare Part D insulin cost-sharing cap takes effect · 2023-01-01Part D insulin $35 capNational context · Medicaid coverage terminations can resume · 2023-04-01Medicaid terminations resumeNational context · Federal COVID-19 public-health emergency ends · 2023-05-11COVID health emergency endsIowa · Iowa amends work-based learning governance and rescinds older orders · 2024-06-06Iowa executive-order amendmentsIowa · Heavy rainfall begins Iowa flash and river flooding · 2024-06-20Northwest Iowa floodsNational context · Medicare Part D out-of-pocket cap begins · 2025-01-01Part D $2,000 cap (2025)National context · 2025 reconciliation law changes Medicaid and funds rural care · 2025-07-04Medicaid and rural-care lawNational context · Rural Health Transformation awards announced for all 50 states · 2025-12-29Rural health awardsNational context · Temporary enhanced Marketplace premium tax credits end · 2026-01-01Enhanced ACA credits endNational context · First negotiated Medicare drug prices take effect · 2026-01-01Negotiated drug prices beginIowa · Iowa orders security assessments and restricted procurement review · 2026-02-10Iowa security and procurementNational context · CMS issues Medicaid community-engagement implementation rule · 2026-06-01Medicaid eligibility ruleIowa · Iowa approves an omnibus law with six item vetoes · 2026-06-02Iowa omnibus approvalIowa · Iowa establishes an Office of Outdoor Recreation · 2026-06-08Iowa outdoor recreation officeIowa · Iowa omnibus school, sanitation and workforce provisions take effect · 2026-07-01Iowa July provisionsIowa · Iowa establishes a Medicaid fraud advisory task force · 2026-07-01Iowa Medicaid fraud task force● Iowa Legislature · 42● U.S. Congress · Iowa delegation · 822◆ Governor · 122■ Iowa agencies · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.2010-03-012026-07-31

24 of 24 reviewed Iowa actions match · 20 date markers shown. 33 major events shown separately.

Iowa · 2024: 5.4% · Rank #40 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2%

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

View observations and export data
Iowa Uninsured rate · all ages · source units
PeriodIowaRankU.S. benchmark
20245.4%#40 of 508.2%
20235%#40 of 50Not available
20224.5%#44 of 50Not available
20214.8%#45 of 50Not available
2020Not availableUnavailableNot available
20195%#45 of 50Not available
20184.7%#45 of 50Not available
20174.7%#45 of 50Not available
20164.3%#45 of 50Not available
20155%#46 of 50Not available
20146.2%#46 of 50Not available
How major events are selected

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

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

Iowa · 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.

Iowa · 20245.4%
Iowa rank#40among 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.

Iowa
Uninsured rate · all ages history in Iowa3.7%6.2%8.8%20142024
2024 · Iowa: 5.4% · Rank #40 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2% · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Iowa Uninsured rate · all ages history
PeriodIowaCompare
20146.2%
20155%
20164.3%
20174.7%
20184.7%
20195%
2020Not available
20214.8%
20224.5%
20235%
20245.4%

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. Iowa 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. Iowa 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.

Iowa · 5.4%2024 · 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 Iowa with every state · 50 ranked
Uninsured rate · all ages · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Texas16.7%—
#2Georgia12%—
#3Oklahoma11.5%—
#4Nevada11.4%—
#5Alaska11%—
#6Florida10.9%—
#7Arizona10.3%—
#7Wyoming10.3%—
#9New Mexico10.1%—
#10Mississippi9.7%—
#10Tennessee9.7%—
#12Arkansas9.4%—
#13Idaho9.2%—
#14South Carolina9%—
#15Montana8.8%—
#16North Carolina8.6%—
#17Kansas8.5%—
#18Utah8.3%—
#19Alabama8.2%—
#20South Dakota8.1%—
#21Colorado7.9%—
#22Louisiana7.7%—
#22Missouri7.7%—
#22New Jersey7.7%—
#25Indiana7.5%—
#26Nebraska7.1%—
#27Delaware6.9%—
#27Illinois6.9%—
#27Virginia6.9%—
#30Kentucky6.8%—
#31Ohio6.7%—
#32Washington6.5%—
#33Maryland6.3%—
#34North Dakota6.1%—
#35California5.9%—
#36Connecticut5.8%—
#36Pennsylvania5.8%—
#36West Virginia5.8%—
#39Maine5.5%—
#40Iowa · your comparison5.4%—
#41Wisconsin5.3%—
#42Oregon5.2%—
#43Michigan5.1%—
#43Minnesota5.1%—
#45New York5%—
#46Rhode Island4.6%—
#47New Hampshire4.5%—
#48Vermont4.2%—
#49Hawaii3.5%—
#50Massachusetts2.8%—

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

People under 65 without health insurance

6.6%2024 ACS annual estimate

Share of Iowa’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 estimate derived from the American Community Survey.

  • This excludes people age 65 and older and is a annual survey estimate rather than a current enrollment count.
  • Insurance status does not measure affordability, provider availability, coverage adequacy, or quality of care.
Iowa · state comparison

Where do healthcare dollars go?

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

Iowa · 2020$9,789
Iowa rank#32among 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.

Iowa
Personal healthcare spending per resident history in Iowa$7.6K$9.06K$10.53K20142020
2020 · Iowa: $9,789 · Rank #32 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $10,191 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Iowa Personal healthcare spending per resident history
PeriodIowaCompare
2014$7,967
2015$8,358
2016$8,464
2017$8,525
2018$8,812
2019$9,193
2020$9,789

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. Iowa 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. Iowa 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.

Iowa · $9,7892020 · Rank #32 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 Iowa with every state · 50 ranked
Personal healthcare spending per resident · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1New York$14,007—
#2Alaska$13,642—
#3Massachusetts$13,319—
#4Delaware$12,899—
#5West Virginia$12,769—
#6Vermont$12,756—
#7South Dakota$12,495—
#8Connecticut$12,489—
#9Maine$12,077—
#10New Jersey$11,868—
#11New Hampshire$11,793—
#12Rhode Island$11,694—
#13Pennsylvania$11,603—
#14North Dakota$11,301—
#15Wyoming$10,989—
#16Minnesota$10,846—
#17Maryland$10,839—
#18Indiana$10,517—
#19Louisiana$10,515—
#20Nebraska$10,514—
#21Ohio$10,478—
#22California$10,299—
#23Hawaii$10,291—
#24Kentucky$10,257—
#25Montana$10,212—
#26Illinois$10,190—
#27Oregon$10,071—
#28Wisconsin$9,982—
#29Missouri$9,921—
#30Michigan$9,897—
#31Florida$9,865—
#32Iowa · your comparison$9,789—
#33Oklahoma$9,444—
#34Kansas$9,408—
#35Mississippi$9,394—
#36Arkansas$9,338—
#37Tennessee$9,336—
#38Alabama$9,280—
#39Washington$9,265—
#40Virginia$9,195—
#41North Carolina$8,917—
#42New Mexico$8,902—
#43South Carolina$8,766—
#44Georgia$8,758—
#45Arizona$8,756—
#46Colorado$8,583—
#47Texas$8,406—
#48Nevada$8,348—
#49Idaho$8,148—
#50Utah$7,522—

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

Iowa · state comparison

Health outcomes

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

Iowa · 202277.9 years
Iowa rank#17among 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 Iowa 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.

Iowa
Life expectancy at birth history in Iowa77.2 years78.4 years79.5 years20182022
2022 · Iowa: 77.9 years · Rank #17 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 77.5 years · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Iowa Life expectancy at birth history
PeriodIowaCompare
201879.2 years
201979 years
202077.5 years
202177.7 years
202277.9 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. Iowa 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. Iowa 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.

Iowa · 77.9 years2022 · 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 Iowa with every state · 50 ranked
Life expectancy at birth · 2022 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Hawaii80 years—
#2Massachusetts79.8 years—
#3New Jersey79.6 years—
#4New York79.5 years—
#5Connecticut79.4 years—
#6California79.3 years—
#6Minnesota79.3 years—
#8Rhode Island79.2 years—
#9Utah79 years—
#10New Hampshire78.7 years—
#11Colorado78.5 years—
#12Idaho78.4 years—
#12Washington78.4 years—
#14Nebraska78.3 years—
#14Vermont78.3 years—
#16Wisconsin78.1 years—
#17Florida77.9 years—
#17Iowa · your comparison77.9 years—
#17North Dakota77.9 years—
#20Maryland77.8 years—
#21Oregon77.7 years—
#22Illinois77.5 years—
#22Virginia77.5 years—
#24Montana77.3 years—
#24Pennsylvania77.3 years—
#24South Dakota77.3 years—
#27Texas77.1 years—
#28Michigan76.8 years—
#28Wyoming76.8 years—
#30Arizona76.7 years—
#31Maine76.6 years—
#32Delaware76.5 years—
#32Kansas76.5 years—
#34Nevada76.4 years—
#35Georgia75.9 years—
#35North Carolina75.9 years—
#37Alaska75.8 years—
#38Ohio75.6 years—
#39Indiana75.4 years—
#40Missouri75.2 years—
#41South Carolina75.1 years—
#42New Mexico74.5 years—
#43Arkansas73.9 years—
#44Alabama73.8 years—
#44Louisiana73.8 years—
#44Oklahoma73.8 years—
#44Tennessee73.8 years—
#48Kentucky73.6 years—
#49Mississippi72.6 years—
#50West Virginia72.2 years—

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

Iowa · state comparison

Chronic illness and health risks

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

Iowa · 20239.9%
Iowa rank#27among 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.

Iowa
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history in Iowa8.4%9.8%11.1%20192023
2023 · Iowa: 9.9% · Rank #27 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 10.7% · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Iowa Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history
PeriodIowaCompare
20199.1%
20209.1%
20218.7%
202210.3%
20239.9%

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. Iowa 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. Iowa 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.

Iowa · 9.9%2023 · Rank #27 of 48, highest first95% confidence interval: 9.2% – 10.7%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 Iowa with every state · 48 ranked, 2 unavailable
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted · 2023 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Mississippi15.1%95% CI: 13.7–16.6
#1West Virginia15.1%95% CI: 13.9–16.3
#3Louisiana14.6%95% CI: 13.4–15.8
#4Alabama14%95% CI: 12.7–15.3
#5Arkansas13.1%95% CI: 12–14.3
#6South Carolina12.7%95% CI: 11.9–13.6
#6Tennessee12.7%95% CI: 11.7–13.8
#8Texas12.1%95% CI: 11–13.3
#9Indiana11.7%95% CI: 11.1–12.4
#10Georgia11.5%95% CI: 10.7–12.3
#10Ohio11.5%95% CI: 10.8–12.2
#12Oklahoma11.3%95% CI: 10.5–12.1
#13Delaware11.1%95% CI: 9.8–12.6
#14North Carolina11%95% CI: 9.8–12.3
#15Illinois10.9%95% CI: 9.9–12.1
#15Maryland10.9%95% CI: 10.2–11.7
#15Michigan10.9%95% CI: 10.1–11.8
#18Nevada10.8%95% CI: 8.9–13
#18New Mexico10.8%95% CI: 9.3–12.6
#20Missouri10.7%95% CI: 9.9–11.7
#20South Dakota10.7%95% CI: 8.9–12.8
#22California10.6%95% CI: 9.8–11.4
#23Kansas10.5%95% CI: 9.7–11.3
#24Virginia10.4%95% CI: 9.5–11.4
#25Florida10.1%95% CI: 9.1–11.1
#26Rhode Island10%95% CI: 9.1–11
#27Arizona9.9%95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#27Iowa · your comparison9.9%95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#29Nebraska9.7%95% CI: 9–10.3
#30Wisconsin9.6%95% CI: 9–10.2
#31Hawaii9.5%95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#31New York9.5%95% CI: 8.9–10.1
#31Oregon9.5%95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#34Wyoming9.4%95% CI: 8.5–10.5
#35Minnesota9.3%95% CI: 8.6–10
#36New Jersey9.1%95% CI: 8.4–9.9
#37Maine9%95% CI: 8.4–9.7
#38North Dakota8.9%95% CI: 8.1–9.7
#39Idaho8.7%95% CI: 7.9–9.6
#40Washington8.6%95% CI: 8.2–9
#41Massachusetts8.5%95% CI: 7.8–9.4
#42Connecticut8.4%95% CI: 7.6–9.3
#43Alaska8.2%95% CI: 7.4–9.2
#44Utah8.1%95% CI: 7.5–8.7
#45Colorado8%95% CI: 7.3–8.7
#46Montana7.9%95% CI: 7.2–8.7
#46New Hampshire7.9%95% CI: 7.1–8.8
#48Vermont7.8%95% CI: 7–8.7
—KentuckyNot availableNo comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
—PennsylvaniaNot availableNo comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.

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

Iowa · state comparison

Where are healthcare workers in short supply?

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

Iowa · June 30, 202640.5%
Iowa rank#36among 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. Iowa 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. Iowa 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.

Iowa · 40.5%June 30, 2026 · Rank #36 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 Iowa with every state · 50 ranked
Primary care · need met · June 30, 2026 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1New Jersey83.2%—
#2Vermont82.6%—
#3South Carolina79.4%—
#4New Hampshire74.8%—
#5Rhode Island74.3%—
#6Louisiana72.1%—
#7Hawaii67.1%—
#8Utah65.4%—
#9Wisconsin65.2%—
#10Alabama63%—
#11Connecticut60.3%—
#12Massachusetts58%—
#13Tennessee58%—
#14Virginia57.2%—
#15Pennsylvania56.7%—
#16Maine56%—
#17Minnesota55.4%—
#18Wyoming54.4%—
#19Indiana54.2%—
#20California53.2%—
#21Arkansas52.6%—
#22Texas49.8%—
#23Ohio49.7%—
#24Nebraska49.1%—
#25Alaska48.9%—
#26North Carolina48.1%—
#27Colorado47.5%—
#28Michigan44.9%—
#29Oregon43.9%—
#30Idaho43.9%—
#31Washington42.4%—
#32Illinois41.5%—
#33Nevada41.5%—
#34Arizona41.2%—
#35Kansas41.1%—
#36Iowa · your comparison40.5%—
#37Florida39.7%—
#38Georgia39.1%—
#39Montana38.5%—
#40West Virginia38.3%—
#41North Dakota36.5%—
#42New York35.3%—
#43South Dakota34.6%—
#44Mississippi34.1%—
#45Maryland31.6%—
#46New Mexico31.4%—
#47Kentucky30.8%—
#48Oklahoma28.6%—
#49Missouri23.7%—
#50Delaware11.2%—

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

Iowa · state comparison

Employer coverage costs

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

Iowa · 2020$6,932
Iowa rank#34among 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. Iowa 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. Iowa 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.

Iowa · $6,9322020 · Rank #34 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 Iowa with every state · 50 ranked
Single coverage premium · all firms · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Alaska$8,635—
#2New York$8,177—
#3New Hampshire$7,991—
#4Vermont$7,868—
#5Wyoming$7,743—
#6Nebraska$7,611—
#7South Carolina$7,516—
#8Connecticut$7,501—
#9Maine$7,496—
#10Massachusetts$7,452—
#11Washington$7,440—
#12New Mexico$7,424—
#13Illinois$7,376—
#14New Jersey$7,373—
#15Maryland$7,352—
#16Rhode Island$7,326—
#17Indiana$7,319—
#18Delaware$7,280—
#19Wisconsin$7,250—
#20Pennsylvania$7,246—
#21North Dakota$7,216—
#22Colorado$7,206—
#23Missouri$7,179—
#24California$7,173—
#25Florida$7,078—
#26South Dakota$7,070—
#27Oklahoma$7,058—
#28Hawaii$7,040—
#29North Carolina$7,036—
#30Texas$7,017—
#31West Virginia$6,993—
#32Ohio$6,989—
#33Kentucky$6,949—
#34Iowa · your comparison$6,932—
#35Virginia$6,928—
#36Oregon$6,917—
#37Minnesota$6,910—
#38Georgia$6,876—
#39Montana$6,860—
#40Idaho$6,744—
#41Louisiana$6,713—
#42Michigan$6,683—
#43Kansas$6,675—
#44Arizona$6,612—
#45Utah$6,593—
#46Mississippi$6,561—
#47Nevada$6,493—
#48Tennessee$6,485—
#49Arkansas$6,414—
#50Alabama$6,393—

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

Iowa · state comparison

Mental health and treatment

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

Iowa · 2023–202425%
Iowa rank#17among 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. Iowa 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. Iowa 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.

Iowa · 25%2023–2024 · 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 Iowa with every state · 50 ranked
Any Mental Illness · adults 18+ · 2023–2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Oregon31.6%—
#2Vermont29.1%—
#3West Virginia28.1%—
#4Washington27.9%—
#5New Hampshire27.7%—
#6Tennessee27%—
#7Utah26.7%—
#8Maine26.7%—
#9Arkansas26.6%—
#10Colorado26.4%—
#11Rhode Island25.8%—
#12Missouri25.7%—
#13Montana25.6%—
#14Indiana25.3%—
#15Kentucky25.3%—
#16Georgia25.2%—
#17Iowa · your comparison25%—
#18Massachusetts24.9%—
#19Wyoming24.7%—
#20Nevada24.6%—
#21Arizona24.6%—
#22Wisconsin24.6%—
#23Idaho24.5%—
#24Nebraska24.1%—
#25Louisiana24.1%—
#26Alaska24%—
#27Pennsylvania23.9%—
#28New Mexico23.9%—
#28Ohio23.9%—
#30Connecticut23.7%—
#31Kansas23.7%—
#32Michigan23.6%—
#33Virginia23.1%—
#34Alabama23%—
#35North Dakota23%—
#36Maryland22.7%—
#37Oklahoma22.6%—
#38Minnesota22.6%—
#39Illinois22.2%—
#40Delaware22.1%—
#41New York21.9%—
#42South Dakota21.8%—
#43California21.6%—
#44North Carolina21.4%—
#45Florida20.8%—
#46Texas20.7%—
#47Mississippi20.5%—
#48Hawaii19.8%—
#49South Carolina19.8%—
#50New Jersey18.1%—

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

What candidates are saying

Explore statements about health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health from FactVote’s Iowa 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.

83 statements from 13 candidates

2026 Iowa Attorney General — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Nate Willems

1 statement

Democratic · Attorney General · IA

Care & public health

Iowa seniors need an attorney general who will fight for them. That means stopping scams before they start, enforcing safety standards in nursing homes, and working with prosecutors to prevent fraud.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Public safety and justice

Candidate campaign source

Iowa seniors need an attorney general who will fight for them. That means stopping scams before they start, enforcing safety standards in nursing homes, and working with prosecutors to prevent fraud.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Nate Willems — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗

2026 Iowa Auditor of State — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Taylor Wettach

1 statement

Democratic · Auditor of State · IA

Care & public health

Today, too many Iowans stretched thin by health care, housing, utilities, food, and child care costs – and the last thing they should have to worry about is whether their tax dollars are being wasted, misused, or diverted. Instead of making life better for Iowans, some politicians are rigging the sy…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Why I'm Running

Candidate campaign source

Today, too many Iowans stretched thin by health care, housing, utilities, food, and child care costs – and the last thing they should have to worry about is whether their tax dollars are being wasted, misused, or diverted. Instead of making life better for Iowans, some politicians are rigging the system to face fewer questions, less oversight, and getting rid of accountability to the people they are meant to serve.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Taylor Wettach — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗

2026 Iowa Governor and Lieutenant Governor — General Election

2 candidates with matching statements · 23 statements

Dave Muhlbauer

17 statements

Democratic · Lieutenant Governor · IA

Health coverage

Protect rural health care: Similar to our schools, Iowa’s rural hospitals serve as economic engines and major employers for our rural communities. But too many communities across our state are being left behind, forcing people to drive miles for basic health care or even to give birth. Policies at b…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sand–Muhlbauer Shared Ticket Platform

Candidate campaign source

Protect rural health care: Similar to our schools, Iowa’s rural hospitals serve as economic engines and major employers for our rural communities. But too many communities across our state are being left behind, forcing people to drive miles for basic health care or even to give birth. Policies at both the federal level – including the One Big Beautiful Bill, which kicked 110,000 Iowans off Medicaid and threatens rural hospitals – and at the state level are putting care out of reach and leaving communities without options. We need to do everything we can to support and protect our hospitals across the state from closing their doors. That starts with reversing the privatization of Medicaid – which I will begin on day one of my administration.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer campaign source 10 ↗
View 16 more statements from Dave Muhlbauer
Health coverage

End the privatization of Medicaid: Privatizing Medicaid has been one of the most disastrous decisions in Iowa over the last decade. It prioritized profits over the health of our communities; reduced access to care for tens of thousands of Iowans; and has been an administrative nightmare for patients…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sand–Muhlbauer Shared Ticket Platform

Candidate campaign source

End the privatization of Medicaid: Privatizing Medicaid has been one of the most disastrous decisions in Iowa over the last decade. It prioritized profits over the health of our communities; reduced access to care for tens of thousands of Iowans; and has been an administrative nightmare for patients and providers. As governor, I’ll get started ending the privatization of Medicaid on day one of my administration.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer campaign source 11 ↗
Health coverage

Reverse the privatization of Medicaid: Privatizing Medicaid has been one of the most disastrous decisions in Iowa over the last decade. It prioritized profits over the health of Iowa families, reduced access to care for tens of thousands of Iowans, and has been an administrative nightmare. And illeg…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sand–Muhlbauer Shared Ticket Platform

Candidate campaign source

Reverse the privatization of Medicaid: Privatizing Medicaid has been one of the most disastrous decisions in Iowa over the last decade. It prioritized profits over the health of Iowa families, reduced access to care for tens of thousands of Iowans, and has been an administrative nightmare. And illegal denial of coverage claims has increased 900% since the program was removed from public accountability. As governor, I’ll get started reversing the privatization of Medicaid on day one of my administration.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer campaign source 7 ↗
Healthcare costs

Lower the cost of prescription drugs : Establish a Prescription Drugs Review Board to help Iowa negotiate lower prescription drug costs for life-saving medicine like insulin, and hold drug companies accountable to lower costs by cracking down on price gouging and following the recommendations of our…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sand–Muhlbauer Shared Ticket Platform

Candidate campaign source

Lower the cost of prescription drugs : Establish a Prescription Drugs Review Board to help Iowa negotiate lower prescription drug costs for life-saving medicine like insulin, and hold drug companies accountable to lower costs by cracking down on price gouging and following the recommendations of our PBM audit. We should explore the feasibility of importing generic prescription drugs from Canada to lower costs for Iowans.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer campaign source 11 ↗
Healthcare costs

Lower the cost of prescription drugs: Establish a Prescription Drugs Review Board to help Iowa negotiate lower prescription drug costs for life-saving medicine like insulin, and hold drug companies accountable to lower costs by cracking down on price gouging and following the recommendations of our …

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: The Truer Better Agenda: Making Life More Affordable for Iowa Families

Candidate campaign source

Lower the cost of prescription drugs: Establish a Prescription Drugs Review Board to help Iowa negotiate lower prescription drug costs for life-saving medicine like insulin, and hold drug companies accountable to lower costs by cracking down on price gouging and following the recommendations of our PBM audit. We should explore the feasibility of importing generic prescription drugs from Canada to lower costs for Iowans.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer campaign source 11 ↗
Care & public health

Ban Social Media Accounts for Kids: Full stop. Thanks in part to the courage of Iowan Frances Haugen , we know the depth of the damage, and study after study shows how these platforms hurt our kids’ mental health – anxiety, depression, and physical health implications including sleep loss. It’s also…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sand–Muhlbauer Shared Ticket Platform

Candidate campaign source

Ban Social Media Accounts for Kids: Full stop. Thanks in part to the courage of Iowan Frances Haugen , we know the depth of the damage, and study after study shows how these platforms hurt our kids’ mental health – anxiety, depression, and physical health implications including sleep loss. It’s also difficult to stop our kids from accessing content they shouldn’t be seeing when they’re online. I support banning social media use for children under 16, and requiring parental consent for 16 and 17 year olds. One method we could push for is App Store Accountability, a law passed in Utah in 2025. This law calls for: Age Verification and Parental Consent: Puts the onus on the App Store and individual app creators to verify age of the app purchaser and require parental consent for those under the age of 18. Parent Account Affiliation & Verifiable Parental Consent : If someone under the age of 18 tries to make an app purchase, this requires the child’s account to be affiliated with that of the parent’s. Notifications for Significant Changes to Apps: Require the App Store to update the user on any significant changes to the app that would impact what a child would view, see, or do on that app. Additional Developer Requirements: Increase requirements for developers to verify age of users and ensure parental consent. Data Safeguards: Ensure the protection of data for users and share only pertinent age information with app developers.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer — campaign source ↗
Healthcare costs

Protecting Iowans from medical debt: Iowa has the fastest-growing rate of medical debt in the country, and is home to the number one growth rate for cancer. Those two things added up equal mountains of debt and medical bills for Iowans. Medical debt is one of the cheapest debts. As governor, I would…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sand–Muhlbauer Shared Ticket Platform

Candidate campaign source

Protecting Iowans from medical debt: Iowa has the fastest-growing rate of medical debt in the country, and is home to the number one growth rate for cancer. Those two things added up equal mountains of debt and medical bills for Iowans. Medical debt is one of the cheapest debts. As governor, I would work with private-public partnerships, including with organizations such as Undue Medical Debt, to protect tens of thousands of Iowans from medical debt without costing taxpayers a penny. I would also support policies to remove medical debt from hurting Iowans’ credit scores to ensure this debt doesn’t hurt their ability to rent apartments or buy a car, or increase their insurance premiums.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer campaign source 11 ↗
Care & public health

Ban Social Media Accounts for Kids: Full stop. Thanks in part to the courage of Iowan Frances Haugen , we know the depth of the damage, and study after study shows how these platforms hurt our kids’ mental health – anxiety, depression, and physical health implications including sleep loss. It’s also…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sand–Muhlbauer Shared Ticket Platform

Candidate campaign source

Ban Social Media Accounts for Kids: Full stop. Thanks in part to the courage of Iowan Frances Haugen , we know the depth of the damage, and study after study shows how these platforms hurt our kids’ mental health – anxiety, depression, and physical health implications including sleep loss. It’s also difficult to stop our kids from accessing content they shouldn’t be seeing when they’re online. I support banning social media use for children under 16, and requiring parental consent for 16 and 17 year olds. One method we could push for is App Store Accountability, a law passed in Utah in 2025. This law calls for:

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer — campaign source ↗
Care & public health

Expand tele-health services: Iowans in our rural communities often live several miles away from the nearest hospital or clinic, putting care out of reach. We should increase access to tele-health services by expanding insurance coverage for health care offered via telehealth at the same rate as in-p…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sand–Muhlbauer Shared Ticket Platform

Candidate campaign source

Expand tele-health services: Iowans in our rural communities often live several miles away from the nearest hospital or clinic, putting care out of reach. We should increase access to tele-health services by expanding insurance coverage for health care offered via telehealth at the same rate as in-person care for all care, and require audio services be covered as well. We also need to improve high-speed internet access – not through the decades-old failures to lay more fiber, but with assistance in paying for satellite internet.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer campaign source 7 ↗
Care & public health

Muhlbauer, running mate of Democratic gubernatorial nominee Rob Sand, convened a roundtable with Linn County elected officials. The discussion centered on the effects of state policies on local governments, particularly property tax changes, behavioral health reforms and what participants described …

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Dave Muhlbauer — Local Government

Candidate campaign source

Muhlbauer, running mate of Democratic gubernatorial nominee Rob Sand, convened a roundtable with Linn County elected officials. The discussion centered on the effects of state policies on local governments, particularly property tax changes, behavioral health reforms and what participants described as a growing pattern of state preemption of local decision-making.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer — campaign source ↗
Healthcare costs

Expand Iowa’s “Surprise Bill” Law : No Iowan should go bankrupt due to surprise medical bills. I support expanding Iowa’s “Surprise Bill” law to cover all medical appointments and procedures from unexpected medical bills.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sand–Muhlbauer Shared Ticket Platform

Candidate campaign source

Expand Iowa’s “Surprise Bill” Law : No Iowan should go bankrupt due to surprise medical bills. I support expanding Iowa’s “Surprise Bill” law to cover all medical appointments and procedures from unexpected medical bills.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer campaign source 11 ↗
Care & public health

Requiring mandatory prison sentences for taxpayer abusers and thieves: This is a no-brainer. I’ve introduced this policy every year as State Auditor since I took office, yet government insiders have refused to take action on this common-sense proposal. Makes you wonder why. Thieves who steal Iowans’…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sand–Muhlbauer Shared Ticket Platform

Candidate campaign source

Requiring mandatory prison sentences for taxpayer abusers and thieves: This is a no-brainer. I’ve introduced this policy every year as State Auditor since I took office, yet government insiders have refused to take action on this common-sense proposal. Makes you wonder why. Thieves who steal Iowans’ hard-earned tax dollars should get more than a slap on the wrist, which is far too often what happens. The punishment must be severe enough to deter people from committing these crimes in the first place. I support mandatory prison time for anyone found guilty of stealing over $10,000 in taxpayer dollars, banning anyone convicted of fraud from doing business with the state, and stripping them of taxpayer-funded benefits like retirement and health care.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer campaign source 5 ↗
Care & public health

Reject culture wars, improve maternal health, and protect Iowa jobs: Communities across Iowa are being left without access to essential care, including labor and delivery units, putting the lives of expecting mothers and their unborn children at risk and forcing health care workers out of our state.…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sand–Muhlbauer Shared Ticket Platform

Candidate campaign source

Reject culture wars, improve maternal health, and protect Iowa jobs: Communities across Iowa are being left without access to essential care, including labor and delivery units, putting the lives of expecting mothers and their unborn children at risk and forcing health care workers out of our state. As government insiders and my opponents promise further culture wars and restrictions on fundamental freedoms, I would veto any culture war bills that cross my desk that further attacks on providers, make Iowa a less welcoming place to live, and threaten access to surrogacy, contraception, and IVF.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer campaign source 7 ↗
Care & public health

Besides raging cancer rates, Iowans’ health outcomes overall have been on the decline over the last decade of one-party rule. Health care in Iowa has become harder to reach, more expensive, and less reliable. We’ve seen a steady loss of health care workers – many leaving for other states with better…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sand–Muhlbauer Shared Ticket Platform

Candidate campaign source

Besides raging cancer rates, Iowans’ health outcomes overall have been on the decline over the last decade of one-party rule. Health care in Iowa has become harder to reach, more expensive, and less reliable. We’ve seen a steady loss of health care workers – many leaving for other states with better pay and where they can better provide care for their patients. We’re already seeing the consequences: rural hospitals stretched thin, maternity care units shutting their doors, and mental health services nearly non-existent. It’s unacceptable and not sustainable.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer campaign source 7 ↗
Healthcare costs

Lowering Health Care Costs:

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sand–Muhlbauer Shared Ticket Platform

Candidate campaign source

Lowering Health Care Costs:

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer campaign source 11 ↗
Care & public health

However, according to the Iowa Cancer Registry, we screen for cancer at about the same rate as the rest of the country, so we know we’re not just looking for cancer more than the average state – we really do have more of it. And according to the American Association for Cancer Research, “roughly 40 …

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sand–Muhlbauer Shared Ticket Platform

Candidate campaign source

However, according to the Iowa Cancer Registry, we screen for cancer at about the same rate as the rest of the country, so we know we’re not just looking for cancer more than the average state – we really do have more of it. And according to the American Association for Cancer Research, “roughly 40 percent of cancers in the US are attributable to modifiable risk factors” – things we can control to decrease our cancer risks – smoking, drinking, weight gain and diet, UV exposure, and more.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer campaign source 7 ↗
Care & public health

Ban Social Media Accounts for Kids: Full stop. Thanks in part to the courage of Iowan Frances Haugen , we know the depth of the damage, and study after study shows how these platforms hurt our kids’ mental health – anxiety, depression, and physical health implications including sleep loss. It’s also…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sand–Muhlbauer Shared Ticket Platform

Candidate campaign source

Ban Social Media Accounts for Kids: Full stop. Thanks in part to the courage of Iowan Frances Haugen , we know the depth of the damage, and study after study shows how these platforms hurt our kids’ mental health – anxiety, depression, and physical health implications including sleep loss. It’s also difficult to stop our kids from accessing content they shouldn’t be seeing when they’re online. I support banning social media use for children under 16, and requiring parental consent for 16 and 17 year olds. One method we could push for is App Store Accountability, a law passed in Utah in 2025. This law calls for: Age Verification and Parental Consent: Puts the onus on the App Store and individual app creators to verify age of the app purchaser and require parental consent for those under the age of 18.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

Dave Muhlbauer — campaign source ↗

Rob Sand

6 statements

Democratic · Governor · IA

Health coverage

Protect rural health care: Similar to our schools, Iowa’s rural hospitals serve as economic engines and major employers for our rural communities. But too many communities across our state are being left behind, forcing people to drive miles for basic health care or even to give birth. Policies at b…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Protect rural health care: Similar to our schools, Iowa’s rural hospitals serve as economic engines and major employers for our rural communities. But too many communities across our state are being left behind, forcing people to drive miles for basic health care or even to give birth. Policies at both the federal level – including the One Big Beautiful Bill, which kicked 110,000 Iowans off Medicaid and threatens rural hospitals – and at the state level are putting care out of reach and leaving communities without options. We need to do everything we can to support and protect our hospitals across the state from closing their doors. That starts with reversing the privatization of Medicaid – which I will begin on day one of my administration.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Rob Sand — candidate-owned primary source 9 ↗
View 5 more statements from Rob Sand
Health coverage

As State Auditor, Rob has uncovered a record amount of waste, fraud, and abuse. The insiders in Des Moines responded to Rob’s success by stripping the Auditor’s ability to find misspent tax dollars. As Governor, Rob will work to restore the taxpayer’s watchdog and to prevent your hard-earned money f…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Government ethics, accountability, and elections

Candidate campaign source

As State Auditor, Rob has uncovered a record amount of waste, fraud, and abuse. The insiders in Des Moines responded to Rob’s success by stripping the Auditor’s ability to find misspent tax dollars. As Governor, Rob will work to restore the taxpayer’s watchdog and to prevent your hard-earned money from being wasted. Rob’s office has also uncovered a shockingly high amount of illegal denials of care under Iowa’s Medicaid privatization executive order – which result in higher out-of-pocket healthcare costs for you and your family. As Governor, Rob will reverse the privatization of Medicaid the same way it was passed – by an executive order.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Rob Sand — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Health coverage

Reverse the privatization of Medicaid: Privatizing Medicaid has been one of the most disastrous decisions in Iowa over the last decade. It prioritized profits over the health of Iowa families, reduced access to care for tens of thousands of Iowans, and has been an administrative nightmare. And illeg…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Reverse the privatization of Medicaid: Privatizing Medicaid has been one of the most disastrous decisions in Iowa over the last decade. It prioritized profits over the health of Iowa families, reduced access to care for tens of thousands of Iowans, and has been an administrative nightmare. And illegal denial of coverage claims has increased 900% since the program was removed from public accountability. As governor, I’ll get started reversing the privatization of Medicaid on day one of my administration.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Rob Sand — candidate-owned primary source 6 ↗
Care & public health

Requiring mandatory prison sentences for taxpayer abusers and thieves: This is a no-brainer. I’ve introduced this policy every year as State Auditor since I took office, yet government insiders have refused to take action on this common-sense proposal. Makes you wonder why. Thieves who steal Iowans’…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Public safety and justice

Candidate campaign source

Requiring mandatory prison sentences for taxpayer abusers and thieves: This is a no-brainer. I’ve introduced this policy every year as State Auditor since I took office, yet government insiders have refused to take action on this common-sense proposal. Makes you wonder why. Thieves who steal Iowans’ hard-earned tax dollars should get more than a slap on the wrist, which is far too often what happens. The punishment must be severe enough to deter people from committing these crimes in the first place. I support mandatory prison time for anyone found guilty of stealing over $10,000 in taxpayer dollars, banning anyone convicted of fraud from doing business with the state, and stripping them of taxpayer-funded benefits like retirement and health care.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Rob Sand — candidate-owned primary source 4 ↗
Care & public health

Expand tele-health services: Iowans in our rural communities often live several miles away from the nearest hospital or clinic, putting care out of reach. We should increase access to tele-health services by expanding insurance coverage for health care offered via telehealth at the same rate as in-p…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Expand tele-health services: Iowans in our rural communities often live several miles away from the nearest hospital or clinic, putting care out of reach. We should increase access to tele-health services by expanding insurance coverage for health care offered via telehealth at the same rate as in-person care for all care, and require audio services be covered as well. We also need to improve high-speed internet access – not through the decades-old failures to lay more fiber, but with assistance in paying for satellite internet.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Rob Sand — candidate-owned primary source 6 ↗
Care & public health

Reject culture wars, improve maternal health, and protect Iowa jobs: Communities across Iowa are being left without access to essential care, including labor and delivery units, putting the lives of expecting mothers and their unborn children at risk and forcing health care workers out of our state.…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Reproductive rights and health care

Candidate campaign source

Reject culture wars, improve maternal health, and protect Iowa jobs: Communities across Iowa are being left without access to essential care, including labor and delivery units, putting the lives of expecting mothers and their unborn children at risk and forcing health care workers out of our state. As government insiders and my opponents promise further culture wars and restrictions on fundamental freedoms, I would veto any culture war bills that cross my desk that further attacks on providers, make Iowa a less welcoming place to live, and threaten access to surrogacy, contraception, and IVF.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Rob Sand — candidate-owned primary source 6 ↗
Race groups · Page 1 of 3
How statements are selected

This section matches specific health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health terms in retained, attributed source text from published Iowa 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.

Iowa incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

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

8 matching sponsorships or proposals · 5 Iowa incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks

U.S. House of Representatives, Iowa District 1 · R–IA

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks
U.S. Congress · Iowa delegation · HR 6703

Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act

Dec 18, 2025 · In Congress

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

The reviewed introduced association-plan provision of HR 6703 would permit employer associations across industries to offer group health coverage if they meet specified conditions. The association must have existed for at least two years for purposes beyond providing insurance, offer coverage to at least 51 employees and all member-employer employees and dependents, and remain controlled by employer members. Health-status discrimination and pre-existing-condition protections apply. This describes the introduced text, not every later amendment or an observed premium or uninsured-rate change.

Received in the Senate. 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. Insurance eligibility, enrollment, coverage continuity and premium assistance concern the covered population. Provider payments and covered services alone do not establish a coverage change, and Medicare-only changes mostly concern a different age population. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

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

(a)Association health plansA group or association of employers may maintain a group health plan, regardless of whether the employers composing such group or association are in the same industry, trade, or profession, if such group or association satisfies the following requirements: (1)Group or association requirementsThe group or association of employers— (A)shall— (i)have been formed and maintained in good faith for purposes other than providing health insurance coverage through a group health plan; (ii)establish a governing board or another indicator of formality as described in paragraph (2); and (iii)have existed for at least 2 years prior to offering a group health plan to the employees of such group or association; and (iv)make health insurance coverage under the group health plan offered by such group or association available— (I)to at least 51 employees; and (II)to all employees of the employer members, and any dependents of such employees; (B)may only provide health insurance coverage through the group health plan of the group or association— (i)to an employee of an employer member of the group or association or a dependent of such an employee; or (ii)as necessary to comply with part 6; (C)may include a health insurance issuer as an employer member, except that the group or association may not— (i)be a health insurance issuer; or (ii)be controlled or owned by a health insurance issuer (or a subsidiary or affiliate of a health insurance issuer). (D)may not condition the membership of an employer in the group or association on any health status-related factor (as described in section 702(a)(1)) relating to any employee or dependent of any employee of any employer member. (2)Organizational requirements (A)Governing board or formal organization of the group or association (i)In generalThe group or association shall have— (I)a formal organizational structure with a governing board and by-laws; or (II)another structure or indicator of formality. (ii)RequirementBoth structures described in subclauses (I) and (II) of clause (i) shall comply with the requirements described in subparagraph (B). (B)Formal organization structure of group or association (i)In generalThe functions and activities of the group or association shall be controlled by the employer members in substance and in fact. (ii)ControlThe control described in clause (i) shall be satisfied so long as at least 75 percent of the positions on the board or other formal organizational structure are held by employer members. (iii)ElectionsEach position of the governing board or other formal organizational structure shall be subject to scheduled elections, as determined by the group or association, and each employer-member shall be able to cast only one vote in each such election. (C)Group health plan requirements (i)ControlThe group health plan shall be controlled in substance and in fact by employer members participating in the group health plan. (ii)Eligibility verificationA plan fiduciary shall verify, on a regular basis and pursuant to reasonable monitoring procedures as established by the plan fiduciary, whether an individual is a self-employed individual if such individual (or a beneficiary thereof) participates in the group health plan on the basis that such individual is a self-employed individual. (iii)Ineligible self-employed individuals (I)In generalSubject to subclause (II) and except as required under part 6, in the case that the plan fiduciary determines that an individual who participates in the group health plan no longer meets the requirements under a self-employed individual during a plan year, the group health plan shall not make health insurance coverage available to such individual for any plan year following the plan year in which such determination was made. (II)Remedial actionIf, after the plan fiduciary determines that an individual described in clause (i) is not a self-employed individual, the individual furnishes to the plan fiduciary evidence proving that such individual is a self-employed individual, such individual shall be eligible to participate in the group health plan. (3)Discrimination and pre-existing condition protectionsA group health plan established and maintained by the group or association of employers under this section may not— (A)establish any rule for eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any individual (including an employee of an employer member or a self-employed individual, or a dependent of such employee or self-employed individual) to enroll for benefits under the terms of the plan that discriminates based on any health status-related factor that relates to such individual (consistent with the rules under section 702(a)(1)); (B)require an individual (including an employee of an employer member or a self-employed individual, or a dependent of such employee or self-employed individual), as a condition of enrollment or continued enrollment under the plan, to pay a premium or contribution that is greater than the premium or contribution for a similarly situated individual enrolled in the plan based on any health status-related factor that relates to such individual (consistent with the rules under section 702(b)(1)); and (C)deny coverage under such plan on the basis of a pre-existing condition (consistent with the rules under section 2704 of the Public Health Service Act).
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Randy Feenstra

U.S. House of Representatives, Iowa District 4 · R–IA

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Randy Feenstra
U.S. Congress · Iowa delegation · HR 2930

PROTECT the Second Amendment Act

Apr 17, 2025 · In Congress

Rep. Randy Feenstra · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HR 2930 would prohibit covered federally assisted rental housing from banning or adding conditions to residents’ lawful firearm possession in their dwelling and specified transit through common areas. This is a firearm-access rule for a defined housing population, not a rent-setting measure.

Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide, and other intents. The provision concerns firearm access, safety, or prevention of firearm injury and may address only part of the death count. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

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

2.Firearms in covered federally assisted rental housing(a)In generalNo resident of covered federally assisted rental housing may be prohibited from, nor subject to additional restrictions or conditions when, lawfully possessing a firearm within—(1)the residential dwelling unit occupied by the resident; or(2)any common area of the covered federally assisted rental housing in which the resident resides if the resident is carrying or transporting the firearm through such area during the course of journeying to the residential dwelling unit of the resident or exiting the covered federally assisted rental housing.(b)Covered federally assisted rental housingThe term covered federally assisted rental housing means a residential dwelling unit that is made available for rental and for which assistance is provided, or that is part of a housing project for which assistance is provided, under any program administered by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or the Secretary of Agriculture including—(1)the public housing program under the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.);(2)the program for rental assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f);(3)the HOME Investment Partnerships program under title II of the Cranton-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12721 et seq.);(4)the Housing Trust Fund program under section 1338 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568);(5)the program for supportive housing for persons with disabilities under section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013);(6)the AIDS Housing Opportunities program under subtitle D of title VIII of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12901 et seq.);(7)the program for Native American housing under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.);(8)the program for housing assistance for Native Hawaiians under title VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4221 et seq.); and(9)the programs for assistance for rural rental housing under title V of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.).
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Zachary Nunn

U.S. House of Representatives, Iowa District 3 · R–IA

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Zachary Nunn
U.S. Congress · Iowa delegation · HR 1339

Safeguarding Social Security and Medicare Act

Feb 13, 2025 · In Congress

Rep. Zachary Nunn · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HR 1339 would require a GAO study of inflation and living-cost effects on Social Security and Medicare and recommendations on providing full benefits. The Social Security portion explicitly addresses OASDI. It orders a study rather than changing eligibility, benefit amounts or the number of beneficiaries.

Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 fact counts Social Security retirement, survivors, and disability beneficiaries in current-payment status. Benefit administration concerns a component of that population; SSI, Medicare, and state pensions are separate programs. The proposal requires a study and recommendations concerning OASDI and Medicare. Only its OASDI portion relates to this beneficiary count; it does not change payments, eligibility or the number of beneficiaries. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.

Retained Iowa evidence context: Iowa residents receiving Social Security benefits. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

3.Study on social security and medicareNot later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall conduct a study and submit a report to Congress on the following: (1)The effect of inflation and cost of living increases on Medicare and the Old-Age Survivor and Disability Insurance program under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). (2)Recommendations on any legislative actions necessary to improve the ability to provide full benefits under such programs.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. Chuck Grassley

U.S. Senate, Iowa · R–IA

3 proposals
View proposals from Sen. Chuck Grassley
U.S. Congress · Iowa delegation · S 1652

Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act of 2025

May 7, 2025 · In Congress

Sen. Chuck Grassley · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

The reviewed portions of S 1652 would reauthorize NICS improvement grants at $20 million annually for fiscal 2026–2030, add grant accountability requirements and direct federal agencies to share relevant prohibited-person records with NICS. This addresses firearm background-check administration, not all provisions of the bill or a demonstrated mortality effect.

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

Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide, and other intents. The provision concerns firearm access, safety, or prevention of firearm injury and may address only part of the death count. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

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

3.Reauthorization and improvements to NICS(a)In generalSection 103 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (34 U.S.C. 40913) is amended—(1)by redesignating subsections (e), (f), and (g) as subsections (f), (g), and (h), respectively;(2)by amending subsection (f), as so redesignated, to read as follows:(f)Authorization of appropriationsThere are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030.; and(3)by inserting after subsection (d) the following:(e)AccountabilityAll grants awarded by the Attorney General under this section shall be subject to the following accountability provisions:(1)DefinitionIn this subsection, the term unresolved audit finding means a finding in the final audit report of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice that the audited grantee has utilized grant funds for an unauthorized expenditure or otherwise unallowable cost that is not closed or resolved within 12 months from the date when the final audit report is issued.(2)Audits(A)In generalBeginning in the first fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act of 2025, and in each fiscal year thereafter, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall conduct audits of recipients of grants under this section to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funds by grantees. (B)Selection of grantees for auditThe Inspector General shall determine the appropriate number of grantees to be audited each year.(3)PriorityIn awarding grants under this section, the Attorney General shall give priority to eligible applicants that did not have an unresolved audit finding during the 3 fiscal years before submitting an application for a grant under this section..(b)Modification of eligibility requirementsThe NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (34 U.S.C. 40902 et seq.) is amended—(1)in section 102(b)(1) (34 U.S.C. 40912(b)(1))—(A)in subparagraph (A), by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting subparagraph (B);(B)by striking subparagraph (B); and(C)by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B);(2)in section 103 (34 U.S.C. 40913)—(A)in subsection (a)(1), by striking and subject to section 102(b)(1)(B); and(B)in subsection (e)(2)(B)(ii)(II), by striking section 102(b)(1)(C) and inserting section 102(b)(1)(B); and(3)in section 104(d) (34 U.S.C. 40914(d)), by striking section 102(b)(1)(C) and inserting section 102(b)(1)(B).4.Availability of records to NICS(a)GuidanceNot later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall issue guidance regarding—(1)the identification and sharing of relevant Federal records; and(2)submission of the relevant Federal records to NICS.(b)Prioritization of recordsEach agency that possesses relevant Federal records shall prioritize providing the relevant information contained in the relevant Federal records to NICS on a regular and ongoing basis in accordance with the guidance issued by the Attorney General under subsection (a).(c)ReportsNot later than 60 days after the Attorney General issues guidance under subsection (a), the head of each agency shall submit a report to the Attorney General that—(1)advises whether the agency possesses relevant Federal records; and(2)describes the implementation plan of the agency for making the relevant information contained in relevant Federal records available to NICS in a manner consistent with applicable law.(d)Determination of relevanceThe Attorney General shall resolve any dispute regarding whether—(1)agency records are relevant Federal records; and(2)the relevant Federal records of an agency should be made available to NICS.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
U.S. Congress · Iowa delegation · S 1666

Improving Social Security’s Service to Victims of Identity Theft Act

May 7, 2025 · In Congress

Sen. Chuck Grassley · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

S 1666 would provide a coordinated Social Security Administration contact team for people whose account numbers were misused or whose cards were lost in transmission. Its scope includes misuse affecting title II benefits and records, as well as other programs. This is an administrative connection to OASDI beneficiaries, not a proposed benefit increase. The coordinated-contact requirement would take effect 180 days after enactment.

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 fact counts Social Security retirement, survivors, and disability beneficiaries in current-payment status. Benefit administration concerns a component of that population; SSI, Medicare, and state pensions are separate programs. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

Retained Iowa evidence context: Iowa residents receiving Social Security benefits. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

714.Single point of contact for identity theft victims(a)In generalThe Commissioner of Social Security shall establish and implement procedures to ensure that any individual whose social security account number has been misused (such as to fraudulently obtain benefits under title II, VIII, or XVI of this Act, or in a manner that affects an individual’s records at the Social Security Administration, or in a manner that prompts the individual to request a new social security account number) or whose social security card has been lost in the course of transmission to the individual has a single point of contact at the Social Security Administration throughout the resolution of the individual’s case. The single point of contact shall track the individual’s case to completion and coordinate with other units to resolve issues as quickly as possible.(b)Single point of contact(1)In generalFor purposes of subsection (a), the single point of contact shall consist of a team or subset of specially trained employees who—(A)have the ability to coordinate with other units to resolve the issues involved in the individual's case, and(B)shall be accountable for the case until its resolution.(2)Team or subsetThe employees included within the team or subset described in paragraph (1) may change as required to meet the needs of the Social Security Administration, provided that procedures have been established to—(A)ensure continuity of records and case history, and(B)notify the individual when appropriate..(b)Effective dateThe amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
U.S. Congress · Iowa delegation · S 560

EAGLES Act of 2025

Feb 13, 2025 · In Congress

Sen. Chuck Grassley · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

S 560 would expand the Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center functions for research, training, consultation and information sharing to prevent targeted violence, including a school-violence program. Targeted assaults overlap a subset of violent offenses; the relationship does not equate every threat with a reported violent crime. The proposed section ends September 30, 2030, and its funds may not be used for firearms-use training.

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

The fact measures reported violent offenses per 100,000 people, with incomplete and varying agency coverage. FBI violent crime includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Prevention, reporting or a specified offense concerns one component; this is distinct from homicide mortality, nonviolent offenses and all unreported crime. The center’s functions concern prevention of targeted violence, including school violence. Only overlapping violent offenses relate to the FBI crime measure; research, training and threats are not themselves counted crimes. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.

Retained Iowa evidence context: Reported violent-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

3056B.Functions of the National Threat Assessment Center of the United States Secret Service(a)In generalThere is established a National Threat Assessment Center (in this section referred to as the Center), to be operated by the United States Secret Service, at the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security.(b)FunctionsThe functions of the Center shall include the following:(1)Training and education in the area of best practices on threat assessment and the prevention of targeted violence.(2)Consultation on complex threat assessment cases and programs.(3)Research on threat assessment and the prevention of targeted violence, consistent with evidence-based standards and existing laws and regulations.(4)Facilitation of information sharing on threat assessment and the prevention of targeted violence among agencies and organizations with protective or public safety responsibilities, as well as other public or private entities.(5)Development of evidence-based programs to promote the standardization of Federal, State, and local threat assessments and best practices for the prevention of targeted violence.(c)Safe school initiativeIn carrying out the functions described in subsection (b), the Center shall establish a national program on targeted school violence prevention, focusing on the following activities:(1)ResearchThe Center shall—(A)conduct research into targeted school violence and evidence-based practices in targeted school violence prevention, including school threat assessment; and(B)publish the findings of the Center on the public website of the United States Secret Service and on the School Safety Clearinghouse website, known as www.SchoolSafety.gov.(2)Training(A)In generalThe Center shall develop and offer training courses on targeted school violence prevention to agencies with protective or public safety responsibilities and other public or private entities, including local educational agencies.(B)PlanNot later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Center shall establish a plan to offer its training and other educational resources to public or private entities within each State.(3)Coordination with other Federal agenciesThe Center shall develop research and training programs under this section in coordination with the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services.(4)Consultation with entities outside the Federal GovernmentThe Center is authorized to consult with State and local educational, law enforcement, and mental health officials and private entities in the development of research and training programs under this section.(5)Interactive websiteThe Center may create an interactive website to disseminate information and data on evidence-based practices in targeted school violence prevention.(d)Hiring of additional personnelThe Director of the United States Secret Service may hire additional personnel to comply with the requirements of this section, which, if the Director exercises such authority, shall include—(1)at least 1 employee with expertise in child psychological development; and(2)at least 1 employee with expertise in school threat assessment. (e)Report to CongressNot later than two years after the date of enactment of this section, the Director of the United States Secret Service shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Education and Workforce, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report on actions taken by the United States Secret Service to implement provisions of this section, which shall include information relating to the following:(1)The number of employees hired (on a full-time equivalent basis).(2)The number of individuals in each State trained in threat assessment.(3)The number of school districts in each State trained in school threat assessment or targeted school violence prevention.(4)Information on Federal, State, and local agencies trained or otherwise assisted by the Center.(5)A formal evaluation indicating whether the training and other assistance provided by the Center is effective.(6)A formal evaluation indicating whether the training and other assistance provided by the Center was implemented by the school.(7)A summary of the Center’s research activities and findings.(8)A strategic plan for disseminating the Center’s educational and training resources to each State.(f)Authorization of appropriationsThere is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2030.(g)No funds To provide firearms trainingAmounts made available to carry out this section may not be used to train any person in the use of a firearm.(h)No effect on other lawsNothing in this section may be construed to preclude or contradict any other provision of law authorizing training in the use of firearms.(i)TerminationThis section shall terminate on September 30, 2030.(j)DefinitionsIn this section:(1)Evidence-basedThe term evidence-based means—(A)strong evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study;(B)moderate evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or(C)promising evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias.(2)Local educational agencyThe term local educational agency has the meaning given such term under section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).(3)StateThe term State means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands..
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. Joni Ernst

U.S. Senate, Iowa · R–IA

2 proposals
View proposals from Sen. Joni Ernst
U.S. Congress · Iowa delegation · S 1922

FIREARM Act

Jun 2, 2025 · In Congress

Sen. Joni Ernst · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

S 1922 would restrict firearm-license revocation or renewal denial based on self-reported violations and require notice plus 30 business days to correct covered violations before enforcement. Prohibited transfers and specified uncorrectable violations remain excepted, including the stated acute-risk exception. These procedural protections concern dealer regulation, without establishing a change in firearm deaths.

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

Firearm mortality includes suicide, homicide, and other intents. The provision concerns firearm access, safety, or prevention of firearm injury and may address only part of the death count. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

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

(b) Self-Reported violations; opportunity To correct violations Section 923(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1) by inserting (1) after (e); and (2) by adding at the end the following: (2) (A) The Attorney General may not bring an enforcement action to revoke, or deny a renewal of, a license for a violation of any provision of this chapter or any implementing regulation thereof on the basis of a self-reported violation, except in the case of a violation— (i) that is not correctable after the violation occurred; or (ii) in which a firearm was transferred to a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to any provision of this chapter or any implementing regulation thereof. (B) In the case of a self-reported violation, the Attorney General shall— (i) assist the licensee to correct the self-reported violation; and (ii) provide the licensee with instructions and compliance training designed to assist the licensee in avoiding repetition of the self-reported violation in the future. (3) (A) Before initiating an enforcement action under this subsection, the Attorney General shall provide the licensee with actual notice of the violation giving rise to the enforcement action, which shall include, at a minimum— (i) a detailed explanation of the substance of the violation; (ii) all evidence or documentation in the possession of the Attorney General regarding the enforcement action; and (iii) a statement that the Attorney General will not initiate the enforcement action if the licensee corrects the violation by the date that is 30 business days after the date on which the licensee first receives actual notice of the violation. (B) The Attorney General may bring an enforcement action under this subsection against a licensee described in subparagraph (A) if— (i) 30 business days have elapsed since the date on which the licensee received the notice of the violation required under that subparagraph; and (ii) the licensee has not corrected the violation. (C) If a self-reported violation is of a nature such that it cannot be corrected within the grace period and with the assistance provided pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3), the Attorney General may deny a licensee the opportunity to correct. (4) The Attorney General may not bring an enforcement action on the basis of any violation of any provision of this chapter or any implementing regulation thereof that has been corrected pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) unless the violation involves a prohibited transfer of a firearm or another uncorrectable violation that creates a direct and acute risk of death or serious bodily injury as a result of the uncorrectable violation. .
Review official supporting evidence ↗
U.S. Congress · Iowa delegation · S 178

Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2025

Jan 22, 2025 · In Congress

Sen. Joni Ernst · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

S 178 would require a standardized CDC abortion-reporting worksheet that includes maternal county and state of residence, along with an annual reporting system. This measurement connection is relevant to a resident-based statistic but does not turn Iowa’s existing table into an occurrence count.

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 fact counts reported induced pregnancy terminations among Iowa residents in 2024, not procedures performed in Iowa. Access and reporting concern this resident population; actions governing care within Iowa reach only part of the residence-based measure. The proposed surveillance worksheet and annual reporting would collect maternal state and county of residence. That reporting component relates to Iowa’s resident-based measure without changing the existing statistic into an occurrence count. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.

Retained Iowa evidence context: Iowa residents with reported induced pregnancy terminations. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

4.Collection of abortion data by CDCPart B of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 243 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 317V the following:317W.Abortion data(a)In generalThe Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall—(1)maintain a surveillance system to collect aggregate data in a standardized format on abortions in the United States;(2)as part of such system, create a standard worksheet to collect data from States on abortions in the respective States, which—(A)shall, at a minimum, include questions on the variables listed in subsection (b), to be treated as mandatory questions for purposes of section 1903(cc) of the Social Security Act; and(B)may include such additional questions on abortion as the Secretary determines to be appropriate, to be treated as voluntary questions;(3)as part of such system, allow for cross-tabulation of the variables listed in subsection (b), including cross-tabulation of maternal age by gestational age; race and ethnicity by gestational age; type of abortion procedure by gestational age; race and ethnicity by maternal age; and race and ethnicity by marital status; and(4)periodically update the questions in the worksheet under paragraph (2), including the classification of such questions as mandatory or voluntary.(b)VariablesThe variables listed in this subsection are the following:(1)Maternal age in years.(2)Gestational age in completed weeks at the time of abortion.(3)Maternal race.(4)Maternal ethnicity.(5)Maternal race by ethnicity.(6)The abortion method type.(7)Maternal marital status.(8)Previous pregnancies of the mother, including the number of previous live births, the number of previous induced abortions, and the number of previous spontaneous abortions.(9)Maternal residence (limited to county and State).(10)Whether the child survived the abortion.(c)Technical assistanceThe Secretary shall provide technical assistance to States to facilitate and improve the reporting of data to the system under subsection (a).(d)Annual reportingThe Secretary shall—(1)issue an annual report on abortion, which shall include the data collected pursuant to this section; and(2)publish such report not later than December 30 of the third calendar year following the calendar year covered by the report..
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current Iowa 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 Iowa statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.