Insurance coverage, personal healthcare spending, longevity, mortality, health risks, and provider shortages.
Uninsured rate · all ages6.3%2024 · #33 of 50 · highest first
Uninsured rate · under age 657.4%2024 · #33 of 50 · highest first
Private coverage · under age 6574.4%2024 · #15 of 50 · highest first
Maryland over time
Explore Maryland readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Maryland officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Maryland effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Maryland 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 Maryland · source units
MarylandPublished 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.
352 of 352 reviewed Maryland actions match · 215 date markers shown. 22 major events shown separately.
Maryland · 2024: 6.3% · Rank #33 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2%
FactVote uses the Census Bureau's HIC-4_ACS historical table. Rates and 90% confidence margins of error are the published ACS 1-year estimates for the civilian noninstitutionalized population. ACS annual estimates, all ages. Standard ACS 2020 one-year data were not released; the chart leaves a gap. Survey ranks describe point estimates and do not establish significant differences. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
Maryland · 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.
Maryland · 20246.3%
Maryland rank#33among 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.
Maryland
2024 · Maryland: 6.3% · Rank #33 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Maryland Uninsured rate · all ages history
Period
Maryland
Compare
2014
7.9%
2015
6.6%
2016
6.1%
2017
6.1%
2018
6%
2019
6%
2020
Not available
2021
6.1%
2022
6.1%
2023
6.3%
2024
6.3%
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. Maryland 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. Maryland 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.
Maryland · 6.3%2024 · Rank #33 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 Maryland with every state · 50 ranked
Uninsured rate · all ages · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
16.7%
—
#2
Georgia
12%
—
#3
Oklahoma
11.5%
—
#4
Nevada
11.4%
—
#5
Alaska
11%
—
#6
Florida
10.9%
—
#7
Arizona
10.3%
—
#7
Wyoming
10.3%
—
#9
New Mexico
10.1%
—
#10
Mississippi
9.7%
—
#10
Tennessee
9.7%
—
#12
Arkansas
9.4%
—
#13
Idaho
9.2%
—
#14
South Carolina
9%
—
#15
Montana
8.8%
—
#16
North Carolina
8.6%
—
#17
Kansas
8.5%
—
#18
Utah
8.3%
—
#19
Alabama
8.2%
—
#20
South Dakota
8.1%
—
#21
Colorado
7.9%
—
#22
Louisiana
7.7%
—
#22
Missouri
7.7%
—
#22
New Jersey
7.7%
—
#25
Indiana
7.5%
—
#26
Nebraska
7.1%
—
#27
Delaware
6.9%
—
#27
Illinois
6.9%
—
#27
Virginia
6.9%
—
#30
Kentucky
6.8%
—
#31
Ohio
6.7%
—
#32
Washington
6.5%
—
#33
Maryland · your comparison
6.3%
—
#34
North Dakota
6.1%
—
#35
California
5.9%
—
#36
Connecticut
5.8%
—
#36
Pennsylvania
5.8%
—
#36
West Virginia
5.8%
—
#39
Maine
5.5%
—
#40
Iowa
5.4%
—
#41
Wisconsin
5.3%
—
#42
Oregon
5.2%
—
#43
Michigan
5.1%
—
#43
Minnesota
5.1%
—
#45
New York
5%
—
#46
Rhode Island
4.6%
—
#47
New Hampshire
4.5%
—
#48
Vermont
4.2%
—
#49
Hawaii
3.5%
—
#50
Massachusetts
2.8%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Share of Maryland’s civilian noninstitutionalized residents under age 65 who lacked comprehensive health-insurance coverage at the time of the ACS survey.
This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.
Method and limitations
U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, sourced from the 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimate.
This is a survey estimate for people under 65 and does not describe coverage type or continuity of coverage.
Insurance status alone does not measure affordability, access, quality, or health outcomes.
State spending is reported for 2020, the latest year available in this CMS state series. Choose a service to compare Maryland with every state.
Maryland · 2020$10,839
Maryland rank#17among 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.
Maryland
2020 · Maryland: $10,839 · Rank #17 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $10,191 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Maryland Personal healthcare spending per resident history
Period
Maryland
Compare
2014
$8,574
2015
$9,001
2016
$9,321
2017
$9,592
2018
$9,934
2019
$10,248
2020
$10,839
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. Maryland 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. Maryland 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.
Maryland · $10,8392020 · 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 Maryland with every state · 50 ranked
Personal healthcare spending per resident · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New York
$14,007
—
#2
Alaska
$13,642
—
#3
Massachusetts
$13,319
—
#4
Delaware
$12,899
—
#5
West Virginia
$12,769
—
#6
Vermont
$12,756
—
#7
South Dakota
$12,495
—
#8
Connecticut
$12,489
—
#9
Maine
$12,077
—
#10
New Jersey
$11,868
—
#11
New Hampshire
$11,793
—
#12
Rhode Island
$11,694
—
#13
Pennsylvania
$11,603
—
#14
North Dakota
$11,301
—
#15
Wyoming
$10,989
—
#16
Minnesota
$10,846
—
#17
Maryland · your comparison
$10,839
—
#18
Indiana
$10,517
—
#19
Louisiana
$10,515
—
#20
Nebraska
$10,514
—
#21
Ohio
$10,478
—
#22
California
$10,299
—
#23
Hawaii
$10,291
—
#24
Kentucky
$10,257
—
#25
Montana
$10,212
—
#26
Illinois
$10,190
—
#27
Oregon
$10,071
—
#28
Wisconsin
$9,982
—
#29
Missouri
$9,921
—
#30
Michigan
$9,897
—
#31
Florida
$9,865
—
#32
Iowa
$9,789
—
#33
Oklahoma
$9,444
—
#34
Kansas
$9,408
—
#35
Mississippi
$9,394
—
#36
Arkansas
$9,338
—
#37
Tennessee
$9,336
—
#38
Alabama
$9,280
—
#39
Washington
$9,265
—
#40
Virginia
$9,195
—
#41
North Carolina
$8,917
—
#42
New Mexico
$8,902
—
#43
South Carolina
$8,766
—
#44
Georgia
$8,758
—
#45
Arizona
$8,756
—
#46
Colorado
$8,583
—
#47
Texas
$8,406
—
#48
Nevada
$8,348
—
#49
Idaho
$8,148
—
#50
Utah
$7,522
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Use age-adjusted mortality to account for different age distributions; life expectancy summarizes period death rates.
Maryland · 202277.8 years
Maryland rank#20among 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 Maryland 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.
Maryland
2022 · Maryland: 77.8 years · Rank #20 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 77.5 years · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Maryland Life expectancy at birth history
Period
Maryland
Compare
2018
78.5 years
2019
78.5 years
2020
76.8 years
2021
77.2 years
2022
77.8 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. Maryland 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. Maryland 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.
Maryland · 77.8 years2022 · Rank #20 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 Maryland with every state · 50 ranked
Life expectancy at birth · 2022 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Hawaii
80 years
—
#2
Massachusetts
79.8 years
—
#3
New Jersey
79.6 years
—
#4
New York
79.5 years
—
#5
Connecticut
79.4 years
—
#6
California
79.3 years
—
#6
Minnesota
79.3 years
—
#8
Rhode Island
79.2 years
—
#9
Utah
79 years
—
#10
New Hampshire
78.7 years
—
#11
Colorado
78.5 years
—
#12
Idaho
78.4 years
—
#12
Washington
78.4 years
—
#14
Nebraska
78.3 years
—
#14
Vermont
78.3 years
—
#16
Wisconsin
78.1 years
—
#17
Florida
77.9 years
—
#17
Iowa
77.9 years
—
#17
North Dakota
77.9 years
—
#20
Maryland · your comparison
77.8 years
—
#21
Oregon
77.7 years
—
#22
Illinois
77.5 years
—
#22
Virginia
77.5 years
—
#24
Montana
77.3 years
—
#24
Pennsylvania
77.3 years
—
#24
South Dakota
77.3 years
—
#27
Texas
77.1 years
—
#28
Michigan
76.8 years
—
#28
Wyoming
76.8 years
—
#30
Arizona
76.7 years
—
#31
Maine
76.6 years
—
#32
Delaware
76.5 years
—
#32
Kansas
76.5 years
—
#34
Nevada
76.4 years
—
#35
Georgia
75.9 years
—
#35
North Carolina
75.9 years
—
#37
Alaska
75.8 years
—
#38
Ohio
75.6 years
—
#39
Indiana
75.4 years
—
#40
Missouri
75.2 years
—
#41
South Carolina
75.1 years
—
#42
New Mexico
74.5 years
—
#43
Arkansas
73.9 years
—
#44
Alabama
73.8 years
—
#44
Louisiana
73.8 years
—
#44
Oklahoma
73.8 years
—
#44
Tennessee
73.8 years
—
#48
Kentucky
73.6 years
—
#49
Mississippi
72.6 years
—
#50
West Virginia
72.2 years
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Compare age-adjusted adult prevalence using the same survey year and definition.
Maryland · 202310.9%
Maryland rank#15among 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.
Maryland
2023 · Maryland: 10.9% · Rank #15 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 10.7% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Maryland Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history
Period
Maryland
Compare
2019
9.9%
2020
9.2%
2021
9.8%
2022
10.6%
2023
10.9%
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. Maryland 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. Maryland 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.
Maryland · 10.9%2023 · Rank #15 of 48, highest first95% confidence interval: 10.2% – 11.7%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 Maryland with every state · 48 ranked, 2 unavailable
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted · 2023 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Mississippi
15.1%
95% CI: 13.7–16.6
#1
West Virginia
15.1%
95% CI: 13.9–16.3
#3
Louisiana
14.6%
95% CI: 13.4–15.8
#4
Alabama
14%
95% CI: 12.7–15.3
#5
Arkansas
13.1%
95% CI: 12–14.3
#6
South Carolina
12.7%
95% CI: 11.9–13.6
#6
Tennessee
12.7%
95% CI: 11.7–13.8
#8
Texas
12.1%
95% CI: 11–13.3
#9
Indiana
11.7%
95% CI: 11.1–12.4
#10
Georgia
11.5%
95% CI: 10.7–12.3
#10
Ohio
11.5%
95% CI: 10.8–12.2
#12
Oklahoma
11.3%
95% CI: 10.5–12.1
#13
Delaware
11.1%
95% CI: 9.8–12.6
#14
North Carolina
11%
95% CI: 9.8–12.3
#15
Illinois
10.9%
95% CI: 9.9–12.1
#15
Maryland · your comparison
10.9%
95% CI: 10.2–11.7
#15
Michigan
10.9%
95% CI: 10.1–11.8
#18
Nevada
10.8%
95% CI: 8.9–13
#18
New Mexico
10.8%
95% CI: 9.3–12.6
#20
Missouri
10.7%
95% CI: 9.9–11.7
#20
South Dakota
10.7%
95% CI: 8.9–12.8
#22
California
10.6%
95% CI: 9.8–11.4
#23
Kansas
10.5%
95% CI: 9.7–11.3
#24
Virginia
10.4%
95% CI: 9.5–11.4
#25
Florida
10.1%
95% CI: 9.1–11.1
#26
Rhode Island
10%
95% CI: 9.1–11
#27
Arizona
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#27
Iowa
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#29
Nebraska
9.7%
95% CI: 9–10.3
#30
Wisconsin
9.6%
95% CI: 9–10.2
#31
Hawaii
9.5%
95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#31
New York
9.5%
95% CI: 8.9–10.1
#31
Oregon
9.5%
95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#34
Wyoming
9.4%
95% CI: 8.5–10.5
#35
Minnesota
9.3%
95% CI: 8.6–10
#36
New Jersey
9.1%
95% CI: 8.4–9.9
#37
Maine
9%
95% CI: 8.4–9.7
#38
North Dakota
8.9%
95% CI: 8.1–9.7
#39
Idaho
8.7%
95% CI: 7.9–9.6
#40
Washington
8.6%
95% CI: 8.2–9
#41
Massachusetts
8.5%
95% CI: 7.8–9.4
#42
Connecticut
8.4%
95% CI: 7.6–9.3
#43
Alaska
8.2%
95% CI: 7.4–9.2
#44
Utah
8.1%
95% CI: 7.5–8.7
#45
Colorado
8%
95% CI: 7.3–8.7
#46
Montana
7.9%
95% CI: 7.2–8.7
#46
New Hampshire
7.9%
95% CI: 7.1–8.8
#48
Vermont
7.8%
95% CI: 7–8.7
—
Kentucky
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
—
Pennsylvania
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Compare coverage of need, practitioners needed, or affected population for each discipline.
Maryland · June 30, 202631.6%
Maryland rank#45among 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. Maryland 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. Maryland 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.
Maryland · 31.6%June 30, 2026 · Rank #45 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 Maryland with every state · 50 ranked
Primary care · need met · June 30, 2026 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New Jersey
83.2%
—
#2
Vermont
82.6%
—
#3
South Carolina
79.4%
—
#4
New Hampshire
74.8%
—
#5
Rhode Island
74.3%
—
#6
Louisiana
72.1%
—
#7
Hawaii
67.1%
—
#8
Utah
65.4%
—
#9
Wisconsin
65.2%
—
#10
Alabama
63%
—
#11
Connecticut
60.3%
—
#12
Massachusetts
58%
—
#13
Tennessee
58%
—
#14
Virginia
57.2%
—
#15
Pennsylvania
56.7%
—
#16
Maine
56%
—
#17
Minnesota
55.4%
—
#18
Wyoming
54.4%
—
#19
Indiana
54.2%
—
#20
California
53.2%
—
#21
Arkansas
52.6%
—
#22
Texas
49.8%
—
#23
Ohio
49.7%
—
#24
Nebraska
49.1%
—
#25
Alaska
48.9%
—
#26
North Carolina
48.1%
—
#27
Colorado
47.5%
—
#28
Michigan
44.9%
—
#29
Oregon
43.9%
—
#30
Idaho
43.9%
—
#31
Washington
42.4%
—
#32
Illinois
41.5%
—
#33
Nevada
41.5%
—
#34
Arizona
41.2%
—
#35
Kansas
41.1%
—
#36
Iowa
40.5%
—
#37
Florida
39.7%
—
#38
Georgia
39.1%
—
#39
Montana
38.5%
—
#40
West Virginia
38.3%
—
#41
North Dakota
36.5%
—
#42
New York
35.3%
—
#43
South Dakota
34.6%
—
#44
Mississippi
34.1%
—
#45
Maryland · your comparison
31.6%
—
#46
New Mexico
31.4%
—
#47
Kentucky
30.8%
—
#48
Oklahoma
28.6%
—
#49
Missouri
23.7%
—
#50
Delaware
11.2%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Premium comparisons use a published historical all-state employer survey. Total premiums combine employer and employee payments.
Maryland · 2020$7,352
Maryland rank#15among 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. Maryland 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. Maryland 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.
Maryland · $7,3522020 · Rank #15 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 Maryland with every state · 50 ranked
Single coverage premium · all firms · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Alaska
$8,635
—
#2
New York
$8,177
—
#3
New Hampshire
$7,991
—
#4
Vermont
$7,868
—
#5
Wyoming
$7,743
—
#6
Nebraska
$7,611
—
#7
South Carolina
$7,516
—
#8
Connecticut
$7,501
—
#9
Maine
$7,496
—
#10
Massachusetts
$7,452
—
#11
Washington
$7,440
—
#12
New Mexico
$7,424
—
#13
Illinois
$7,376
—
#14
New Jersey
$7,373
—
#15
Maryland · your comparison
$7,352
—
#16
Rhode Island
$7,326
—
#17
Indiana
$7,319
—
#18
Delaware
$7,280
—
#19
Wisconsin
$7,250
—
#20
Pennsylvania
$7,246
—
#21
North Dakota
$7,216
—
#22
Colorado
$7,206
—
#23
Missouri
$7,179
—
#24
California
$7,173
—
#25
Florida
$7,078
—
#26
South Dakota
$7,070
—
#27
Oklahoma
$7,058
—
#28
Hawaii
$7,040
—
#29
North Carolina
$7,036
—
#30
Texas
$7,017
—
#31
West Virginia
$6,993
—
#32
Ohio
$6,989
—
#33
Kentucky
$6,949
—
#34
Iowa
$6,932
—
#35
Virginia
$6,928
—
#36
Oregon
$6,917
—
#37
Minnesota
$6,910
—
#38
Georgia
$6,876
—
#39
Montana
$6,860
—
#40
Idaho
$6,744
—
#41
Louisiana
$6,713
—
#42
Michigan
$6,683
—
#43
Kansas
$6,675
—
#44
Arizona
$6,612
—
#45
Utah
$6,593
—
#46
Mississippi
$6,561
—
#47
Nevada
$6,493
—
#48
Tennessee
$6,485
—
#49
Arkansas
$6,414
—
#50
Alabama
$6,393
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Adult statewide estimates use the same SAMHSA model and survey period. Treatment use is a share of all adults, not a share of adults with mental illness.
Maryland · 2023–202422.7%
Maryland rank#36among 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. Maryland 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. Maryland 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.
Maryland · 22.7%2023–2024 · 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 Maryland with every state · 50 ranked
Any Mental Illness · adults 18+ · 2023–2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Oregon
31.6%
—
#2
Vermont
29.1%
—
#3
West Virginia
28.1%
—
#4
Washington
27.9%
—
#5
New Hampshire
27.7%
—
#6
Tennessee
27%
—
#7
Utah
26.7%
—
#8
Maine
26.7%
—
#9
Arkansas
26.6%
—
#10
Colorado
26.4%
—
#11
Rhode Island
25.8%
—
#12
Missouri
25.7%
—
#13
Montana
25.6%
—
#14
Indiana
25.3%
—
#15
Kentucky
25.3%
—
#16
Georgia
25.2%
—
#17
Iowa
25%
—
#18
Massachusetts
24.9%
—
#19
Wyoming
24.7%
—
#20
Nevada
24.6%
—
#21
Arizona
24.6%
—
#22
Wisconsin
24.6%
—
#23
Idaho
24.5%
—
#24
Nebraska
24.1%
—
#25
Louisiana
24.1%
—
#26
Alaska
24%
—
#27
Pennsylvania
23.9%
—
#28
New Mexico
23.9%
—
#28
Ohio
23.9%
—
#30
Connecticut
23.7%
—
#31
Kansas
23.7%
—
#32
Michigan
23.6%
—
#33
Virginia
23.1%
—
#34
Alabama
23%
—
#35
North Dakota
23%
—
#36
Maryland · your comparison
22.7%
—
#37
Oklahoma
22.6%
—
#38
Minnesota
22.6%
—
#39
Illinois
22.2%
—
#40
Delaware
22.1%
—
#41
New York
21.9%
—
#42
South Dakota
21.8%
—
#43
California
21.6%
—
#44
North Carolina
21.4%
—
#45
Florida
20.8%
—
#46
Texas
20.7%
—
#47
Mississippi
20.5%
—
#48
Hawaii
19.8%
—
#49
South Carolina
19.8%
—
#50
New Jersey
18.1%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
352 of 352 reviewed Maryland actions · newest first
Aug 24, 2026 · OAG 2026-08-24 · Joined comments opposing proposed changes to NRC environmental reviews and public participation for nuclear projects. · Reported actionMaryland agencies · OAG 2026-08-24
Joined comments opposing proposed changes to NRC environmental reviews and public participation for nuclear projects.
Aug 24, 2026 · Reported action
Attorney General Anthony G. Brown · Submitted comments
FactVote reviewed summary
Joined comments opposing proposed changes to NRC environmental reviews and public participation for nuclear projects. The action concerns the project approval process.
Reported in an official release on 2026-08-24. Submitted comments. This is the reporting date; a filing or order may precede it. Litigation, comments, and guidance do not themselves enact legislation or establish final liability.
Why this record is included
Nuclear share is nuclear generation divided by all in-state generation. Nuclear development or other in-state generation resources concern this mix; procurement targets and authorizations are distinct from an operating plant or measured output. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Nuclear share of in-state electricity generation. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contacts[email protected]410-576-7009BALTIMORE, MD – Attorney General Anthony G. Brown today joined a coalition of 14 attorneys general and Harris County, Texas, in a comment letter opposing a proposal by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that would unlawfully ignore foreseeable environmental impacts from nuclear power projects and severely limit public participation. The NRC has proposed changes to how it conducts National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews of projects, changes that the coalition say would come at the expense of environmental and economic information, public participation, and transparency. The NRC has conceded in its Regulatory Analysis for the Proposed Rule that the changes will likely reduce public confidence in the safety and security of nuclear power. The NRC’s mission emphasizes its obligation to protect “public health and safety” while regulating nuclear energy technologies for the “benefit of society and the environment.” And yet, the commission’s proposed rule limits the environmental impacts the NRC would consider, including environmental justice issues and climate change, removes public participation opportunities at key stages of the environmental review process, and restricts analysis of alternatives to a proposed action.In its letter, the coalition argues that the proposed rule would be arbitrary and capricious and violate the clear requirements of NEPA Additionally, the proposal would cut out meaningful opportunities for the public to participate in the environmental review process, which is one of the “twin aims” of NEPA. The NRC’s proposed rule would require solicitation of public comment only on the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and would not require that the NRC respond to public comments. That heightens the possibility of overlooking or disregarding potentially significant environmental harms.“By curtailing opportunities for public involvement, the Proposed Rule if enacted strikes at the heart of NEPA’s purpose and environmental review requirements,” the coalition wrote in the letter.The coalition is asking that the NRC withdraw the pro
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jun 29, 2026 · OAG 2026-06-29 · Joined a lawsuit challenging the federal interpretation of exemptions for medically frail people under Medicaid work requirements. · Reported actionMaryland agencies · OAG 2026-06-29
Joined a lawsuit challenging the federal interpretation of exemptions for medically frail people under Medicaid work requirements.
Jun 29, 2026 · Reported action
Attorney General Anthony G. Brown · Filed lawsuit
FactVote reviewed summary
Joined a lawsuit challenging the federal interpretation of exemptions for medically frail people under Medicaid work requirements. The dispute concerns eligibility and continuity of insurance coverage.
Reported in an official release on 2026-06-29. Filed lawsuit. This is the reporting date; a filing or order may precede it. Litigation, comments, and guidance do not themselves enact legislation or establish final liability.
Why this record is included
The fact measures whether residents under 65 have insurance. Eligibility, enrollment, and premium assistance concern that status; covered-service or provider-payment changes alone do not establish a change in insured status. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contacts[email protected]410-576-7009BALTIMORE, MD – Attorney General Anthony G. Brown today joined a coalition of 24 attorneys general and two governors in filing a lawsuit over the Trump administration’s unlawful implementation of new Medicaid work requirements included in the One Big Bill Act. Specifically, the lawsuit challenges provisions of an interim final rule published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on June 3, 2026. Medicaid is the nation’s safety net healthcare program for low-income Americans and is jointly funded by states and the federal government, with the federal government providing at least 50% of the cost of services.Congress created exemptions from Medicaid’s work requirements to ensure that people with serious illnesses and disabilities do not lose coverage or face interruptions in care. Despite months of working with states on implementation, CMS surprised states with the interim final rule, “Community Engagement Requirement for Certain Individuals,” which adopted a new interpretation of key terms like “medically frail” and makes it harder for medically vulnerable individuals to be excused from the work requirements. While the work requirement provision applies beginning January 1, 2027, states must notify Medicaid recipients about these changes by August 31, 2026, and need significant lead time to prepare those communications. They cannot wait for CMS to address the deficiencies through the ongoing rulemaking process. As a result, the attorneys general are seeking to block implementation of the interim final rule’s unlawful provisions and to have them ultimately struck down. States had already made substantial investments in reliance on the plain language of the One Big Bill Act and CMS’s prior guidance and now face the risk of harsh financial penalties for noncompliance with the interim final rule.“Medicaid recipients include Marylanders managing chronic illnesses, fighting cancer, and struggling to afford the medications that keep them alive,” said Attorney General Brown. “The Trump Administration's new rule unlawfully n
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jun 17, 2026 · OAG 2026-06-17 · Joined comments opposing the proposed fast-track licensing framework for nuclear microreactors and requesting additional safety review or withdrawal. · Reported actionMaryland agencies · OAG 2026-06-17
Joined comments opposing the proposed fast-track licensing framework for nuclear microreactors and requesting additional safety review or withdrawal.
Jun 17, 2026 · Reported action
Attorney General Anthony G. Brown · Submitted comments
FactVote reviewed summary
Joined comments opposing the proposed fast-track licensing framework for nuclear microreactors and requesting additional safety review or withdrawal.
Reported in an official release on 2026-06-17. Submitted comments. This is the reporting date; a filing or order may precede it. Litigation, comments, and guidance do not themselves enact legislation or establish final liability.
Why this record is included
Nuclear share is nuclear generation divided by all in-state generation. Nuclear development or other in-state generation resources concern this mix; procurement targets and authorizations are distinct from an operating plant or measured output. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Nuclear share of in-state electricity generation. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contacts[email protected]410-576-7009BALTIMORE, MD – Attorney General Anthony G. Brown joined a multistate coalition in submitting a letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) opposing a new set of regulations set forth by the Trump administration that would provide a fast track for licensing and deploying unproven nuclear microreactor technology. The coalition argues that while these microreactors might provide fossil-fuel free sources of energy in the future, they are largely untested and experimental, and the NRC has a responsibility to ensure public and environmental safety before they are allowed to be deployed. The coalition is calling on the NRC to take critical steps to work with states and stakeholders to develop a microreactor licensing framework that promotes innovation and energy security while honoring the Commission’s statutory obligation to protect the public, or else withdraw the rule. In the over 70-page comment letter, the coalition highlights that the proposed regulations unlawfully elevate licensing speed and mass deployment using generically approved designs, putting industry cost-savings above public safety and environmental protection. The proposed procedures are a sharp deviation from the NRC’s traditional practice of individually evaluating each license applicant. The comments note that the procedures conflict with NRC’s obligation to protect public health and safety – its primary duty under the Atomic Energy Act. This is a significant concern given the untested nature of microreactors, the wide array of technologies that fall within this category, and the variety of novel nuclear fuel and waste streams that will be used and generated in their deployment. Among other serious issues detailed in the letter, the proposed regulations: Eliminate standardized emergency planning zones; Allow reactor manufacturers to deviate from approved designs, while shifting the burden from the manufacturer (to prove the deviation is safe) to objectors (to prove it is unsafe); Allow applicants to choose their own methodology for determining site boundaries and safety classifications, such that identical r
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑May 26, 2026 · SB 334 · Criminal Law - Firearm Crimes - Machine Gun Convertible Pistols · EnactedMaryland Legislature · SB 334
Criminal Law - Firearm Crimes - Machine Gun Convertible Pistols
May 26, 2026 · Enacted
Sen. Sara Love · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
SB 334 prohibits specified manufacture, sale, purchase, receipt and transfer of machine-gun-convertible pistols beginning January 1, 2027, subject to exceptions, and requires State Police regulations and a prohibited-pistol list.
2026-05-26: Approved by the Governor - Chapter 771. Enactment is distinct from each provision's effective date.
Why this record is included
The law regulates access to a category of firearms capable of contributing to fatal injury. Its restrictions begin in 2027, after both the 2024 mortality observation and this review; it cannot explain the displayed deaths.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Prohibiting, on or after January 1, 2027, a person from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, purchasing, receiving, or transferring a certain machine gun convertible pistol, subject to certain exceptions; requiring the Department of State Police to adopt regulations to implement the requirements of the Act, including publishing a list of prohibited machine gun convertible pistols; etc.
SB 334 prohibits specified manufacture, sale, purchase, receipt and transfer of machine-gun-convertible pistols beginning January 1, 2027, subject to exceptions, and requires State Police regulations and a prohibited-pistol list.
2026-05-26: Approved by the Governor - Chapter 771. Enactment is distinct from each provision's effective date.
Why this record is included
The law regulates access to a category of firearms capable of contributing to fatal injury. Its restrictions begin in 2027, after both the 2024 mortality observation and this review; it cannot explain the displayed deaths.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Prohibiting, on or after January 1, 2027, a person from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, purchasing, receiving, or transferring a certain machine gun convertible pistol, subject to certain exceptions; requiring the Department of State Police to adopt regulations to implement the requirements of the Act, including publishing a list of prohibited machine gun convertible pistols; etc.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑May 26, 2026 · HB 746 · HB 746 — Collaborative-care coverage and Medicaid cost sharing · Signed by governorGovernor · HB 746
HB 746 — Collaborative-care coverage and Medicaid cost sharing
May 26, 2026 · Signed by governor
Wes Moore · Signed
Reviewed topic context
HB 746 prohibited Medicaid cost sharing for primary-care services under the Collaborative Care Model and required coverage of model services under specified state-regulated insurance contracts. It also required a study of eliminating private-insurance cost sharing. The enacted chapter removed the proposed private-insurance copayment, coinsurance and deductible ban. The coverage requirement and study do not establish that privately insured patients owe no cost sharing.
Signed on 2026-05-26. Approved May 26, 2026. General provisions specify July 1, 2026; the insurance provisions specify January 1, 2027 and apply to contracts issued, delivered or renewed from that date. The study report is due December 1, 2026. The enacted chapter removed the proposed private-insurance copayment, coinsurance and deductible ban. The coverage requirement and study do not establish that privately insured patients owe no cost sharing.
Why this record is included
HB 746 prohibited Medicaid cost sharing for primary-care services under the Collaborative Care Model and required coverage of model services under specified state-regulated insurance contracts. It also required a study of eliminating private-insurance cost sharing. The enacted chapter removed the proposed private-insurance copayment, coinsurance and deductible ban. The coverage requirement and study do not establish that privately insured patients owe no cost sharing. This topic relationship does not establish an effect on a state statistic.
Retained Maryland evidence context: health · reviewed policy-topic context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
AN ENTITY SUBJECT TO THIS SECTION SHALL PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR SERVICES PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COLLABORATIVE CARE MODEL.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified Maryland officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health from FactVote’s Maryland 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.
21 statements from 8 candidates
2026 Maryland Governor / Lt. Governor — General Election
2 candidates with matching statements · 2 statements
At the same time, we will be putting forward bold policy proposals that get at the heart of the issues facing Maryland: the need for a solidarity economy, the climate and environmental crises, high-quality public education, healthcare and housing as human rights, reliable public transit, divestment …
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
At the same time, we will be putting forward bold policy proposals that get at the heart of the issues facing Maryland: the need for a solidarity economy, the climate and environmental crises, high-quality public education, healthcare and housing as human rights, reliable public transit, divestment from war and genocide, and more.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Repeal cruel cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, long-term care programs, SNAP, and community grants that hit MD-1 hard. Protect and improve the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which helps Maryland families access healthcare. Allow public option plans in the ACA marketplace to drive competition.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Repeal cruel cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, long-term care programs, SNAP, and community grants that hit MD-1 hard. Protect and improve the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which helps Maryland families access healthcare. Allow public option plans in the ACA marketplace to drive competition.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Increase the number of commonly used drugs under the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and speed up the program’s timeline to drive costs down for those medications.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Increase the number of commonly used drugs under the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and speed up the program’s timeline to drive costs down for those medications.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Rep. Andy Harris is perpetuating a scam on the American people by cutting taxes for billionaires while doing nothing for working families in Maryland. Everyday costs, for housing, groceries, utilities, health care, and transportation are out of control. He’s supported the tariffs and cuts to critica…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Rep. Andy Harris is perpetuating a scam on the American people by cutting taxes for billionaires while doing nothing for working families in Maryland. Everyday costs, for housing, groceries, utilities, health care, and transportation are out of control. He’s supported the tariffs and cuts to critical services that result in thousands in additional annual costs for American families. For young people in Maryland, owning a home has become out of reach. It’s impossible to save for emergencies, let alone for vacations. We will re-write rules, and pursue sensible economic policies that make the economy work for Maryland families and working class people, instead of for billionaires.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Improve health care access and affordability in MD-1. Reverse changes to professional classifications that target prospective nurses and force them to utilize shady private student lenders. Incentivize health care providers to work and live in MD-1 through tax credits and student debt relief. Fund o…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Improve health care access and affordability in MD-1. Reverse changes to professional classifications that target prospective nurses and force them to utilize shady private student lenders. Incentivize health care providers to work and live in MD-1 through tax credits and student debt relief. Fund our rural hospitals and community clinics.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Improve and protect access to affordable healthcare and support vital public health research that’s been recklessly cut by the Trump Administration and DOGE.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Improve and protect access to affordable healthcare and support vital public health research that’s been recklessly cut by the Trump Administration and DOGE.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Expand existing federal rural mortgage programs (USDA Direct, FHA, and VA loans) and affordable mortgage programs for veterans, educators, healthcare workers and first responders.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Housing affordability
Candidate campaign source
Expand existing federal rural mortgage programs (USDA Direct, FHA, and VA loans) and affordable mortgage programs for veterans, educators, healthcare workers and first responders.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
There’s a lot Congress can do to lower prescription drug costs, especially within Medicare. Johnny O supports more aggressive price negotiations, capping out-of-pocket costs and improving price transparency so patients face fewer surprise bills.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
There’s a lot Congress can do to lower prescription drug costs, especially within Medicare. Johnny O supports more aggressive price negotiations, capping out-of-pocket costs and improving price transparency so patients face fewer surprise bills.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Johnny O knows that a strong middle class is America’s economic engine — and he’s fighting every day to make sure hardworking families have the tools they need to get ahead, not just get by. He’s pushing for higher wages, affordable healthcare, and strong, fully funded public schools that prepare ev…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Johnny O knows that a strong middle class is America’s economic engine — and he’s fighting every day to make sure hardworking families have the tools they need to get ahead, not just get by. He’s pushing for higher wages, affordable healthcare, and strong, fully funded public schools that prepare every child for success.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Johnny O gets it: if you can’t afford your rent or mortgage, groceries or healthcare, little else matters. He’s laser-focused on lowering costs for struggling families and calling out House leadership for its refusal to take up meaningful legislation to do so.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Johnny O gets it: if you can’t afford your rent or mortgage, groceries or healthcare, little else matters. He’s laser-focused on lowering costs for struggling families and calling out House leadership for its refusal to take up meaningful legislation to do so.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
This section matches specific health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health terms in retained, attributed source text from published Maryland 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.
Maryland incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Maryland legislators and Maryland’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Maryland’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
263 matching sponsorships or proposals · 87 Maryland incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Prenatal and Infant Care Coordination - Grant Funding and Task Force
May 25, 2019 · Enacted without signature
Comptroller Brooke Lierman · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Requiring the Governor to include $100,000 in the annual budget beginning in fiscal year 2021 for the Maryland Prenatal and Infant Care Coordination Services Grant Program Fund; establishing the Task Force on Maryland Maternal and Child Health; requiring the Task Force to study and make recommendations, including programs that the Maryland Medical Assistance Program should implement; requiring the Task Force to report its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly on or before November 1, 2019; etc.
2019-05-25: Enacted under Article II, Section 17(c) of the Maryland Constitution - Chapter 661. This records the legislative disposition; later implementation or court decisions may differ.
Why this record is included
Maryland counts deaths during pregnancy or within one year afterward from all causes, not only deaths caused by pregnancy. The provision concerns maternal care, safety, or mortality measurement within that population. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Pregnancy-associated deaths reviewed. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Requiring the Governor to include $100,000 in the annual budget beginning in fiscal year 2021 for the Maryland Prenatal and Infant Care Coordination Services Grant Program Fund; establishing the Task Force on Maryland Maternal and Child Health; requiring the Task Force to study and make recommendations, including programs that the Maryland Medical Assistance Program should implement; requiring the Task Force to report its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly on or before November 1, 2019; etc.
1 proposalView proposals from Del. Andre V. Johnson, Jr.Maryland Legislature · HB 1287
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - BURDEN Analysis (CHERISH Our Communities Act)
Mar 13, 2026 · Did not pass
Del. Andre V. Johnson, Jr. · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Requiring that an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for certain generating stations located within a certain at-risk area to include with the application a baseline understanding of risk, disparities, and environmental needs (BURDEN) report describing and including information on certain environmental and public health burdens; altering the contents of a certain notice that must be provided on receipt of an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity; etc.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2026RS session. Final recorded action: 2026-03-13, Hearing 3/13 at 1:30 p.m..
Why this record is included
Nuclear share is nuclear generation divided by all in-state generation. Nuclear development or other in-state generation resources concern this mix; procurement targets and authorizations are distinct from an operating plant or measured output. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Nuclear share of in-state electricity generation. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Requiring that an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for certain generating stations located within a certain at-risk area to include with the application a baseline understanding of risk, disparities, and environmental needs (BURDEN) report describing and including information on certain environmental and public health burdens; altering the contents of a certain notice that must be provided on receipt of an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity; etc.
7 proposalsView proposals from Del. Bernice Mireku-NorthMaryland Legislature · HB 197
Comprehensive Community Safety Funding Act
Feb 10, 2026 · Did not pass
Del. Bernice Mireku-North · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Imposing an excise tax on certain gross receipts of certain firearms dealers derived from the sales of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition in the State and sales of firearms to residents of the State; requiring the Comptroller to distribute a portion of the tax revenues to the Maryland Violence Intervention Program, the Center for Firearm Violence Prevention, the Coordinated Community Supports Partnership, the Survivors of Homicide Victims Program, the Trauma Physician Services Fund, and the Cowley Shock Trauma Center; etc.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2026RS session. Final recorded action: 2026-02-10, Hearing 3/05 at 1:00 p.m..
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 relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Imposing an excise tax on certain gross receipts of certain firearms dealers derived from the sales of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition in the State and sales of firearms to residents of the State; requiring the Comptroller to distribute a portion of the tax revenues to the Maryland Violence Intervention Program, the Center for Firearm Violence Prevention, the Coordinated Community Supports Partnership, the Survivors of Homicide Victims Program, the Trauma Physician Services Fund, and the Cowley Shock Trauma Center; etc.
Task Force to Study Forced Infant Separation From Incarcerated Individuals
Jan 30, 2026 · Did not pass
Del. Bernice Mireku-North · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Establishing the Task Force to Study Forced Infant Separation From Incarcerated Individuals to study and make recommendations regarding methods to reduce forced infant separation in the State and facilitate bonds between postpartum incarcerated individuals and their children; and requiring the Task Force to report its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly on or before December 1, 2027.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2026RS session. Final recorded action: 2026-01-30, Hearing 3/03 at 1:00 p.m. (Judiciary).
Why this record is included
Maryland counts deaths during pregnancy or within one year afterward from all causes, not only deaths caused by pregnancy. The provision concerns maternal care, safety, or mortality measurement within that population. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Pregnancy-associated deaths reviewed. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Establishing the Task Force to Study Forced Infant Separation From Incarcerated Individuals to study and make recommendations regarding methods to reduce forced infant separation in the State and facilitate bonds between postpartum incarcerated individuals and their children; and requiring the Task Force to report its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly on or before December 1, 2027.
Task Force to Study Forced Infant Separation From Incarcerated Individuals
Feb 17, 2025 · Did not pass
Del. Bernice Mireku-North · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Establishing the Task Force to Study Forced Infant Separation From Incarcerated Individuals to study and make recommendations regarding methods to reduce forced infant separation in the State and facilitate bonds between postpartum incarcerated individuals and their children; and requiring the Task Force to report its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly on or before December 1, 2025.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2025RS session. Final recorded action: 2025-02-17, Hearing 2/18 at 11:00 a.m..
Why this record is included
Maryland counts deaths during pregnancy or within one year afterward from all causes, not only deaths caused by pregnancy. The provision concerns maternal care, safety, or mortality measurement within that population. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Pregnancy-associated deaths reviewed. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Establishing the Task Force to Study Forced Infant Separation From Incarcerated Individuals to study and make recommendations regarding methods to reduce forced infant separation in the State and facilitate bonds between postpartum incarcerated individuals and their children; and requiring the Task Force to report its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly on or before December 1, 2025.
Would impose an 11% excise tax on specified firearm dealers’ firearm-sale receipts and distribute revenue to designated funds, including the Violence Intervention and Prevention Fund.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2025RS session. Final recorded action: 2025-01-31, Hearing 2/13 at 1:00 p.m..
Why this record is included
The relationship concerns proposed violence-prevention funding. The tax proposal did not become law and does not establish fewer firearm deaths. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
HB 387 Department of Legislative Services Maryland General Assembly 2025 Session FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE First Reader House Bill 387 (Delegate Mireku - North, et al. ) Ways and Means Comprehensive Community Safety Funding Act This bill establishes an 11% firearm excise tax on the gross receipts of a federally licensed firearms dealer derived from (1) the retail sale of firearms in the State and (2) the retail sale of firearms to State residents from a federally licensed firearms dealer that is located outside the State. The bill requires specified distributions of the revenue from the excise tax. The bill also provides for the filing of specified tax returns and for the administration of the tax by the Comptroller. The bill takes effect July 1, 2027. Fiscal Summary State Effect: Special fund revenues increase by $15.0 million in FY 2028 and by $16.2 million in FY 2030. Special fund expenditures for administrative costs increase by $2.2 million in FY 2028 and by $0.6 million in FY 2030. Future year expenditures reflect annualization and inflation. ($ in millions) FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 SF Revenue $0 $0 $15.0 $15.6 $16.2 SF Expenditure $0 $0 $2.2 $0.6 $0.6 Net Effect $0.0 $0.0 $12.8 $14.9 $15.5 Note: () = decrease; GF = general funds; FF = federal funds; SF = special funds; - = indeterminate increase; (-) = indeterminate decrease Local Effect: None. Small Business Effect: Potential meaningful. Small businesses that sell firearms will be subject to the new excise tax. However, some portion of the cost of the new tax may be passed on to the consumers through increased prices.
HB 387/ Page 2 Analysis Bill Summary: The bill establishes an 11% firearm excise tax on the gross receipts of the sale of firearms in the State by a federally licensed firearms dealer located both within the State and outside the State. The bill specifies the distribution of revenue from the excise tax, administration of the excise tax by the Comptroller, filing of excise tax returns by licensed dealers, and the paying of excise taxes by licensed dealers. The excise tax does not apply to the sale of a firearm to (1) a law enforcement agency; (2) the armed forces of the United States; (3) the National Guard; (4) a law enforcement officer; (5) a retired law enforcement officer; or (6) an individual for the exclusive purpose of competition shooting or match shooting. The excise tax applies to (1) a retail sale made on or after July 1, 2027, by a federally licensed firearms dealer that is a large retailer and (2) a retail sale made by any other federally licensed firearms dealer on or after July 1, 2028. For a federally licensed firearms dealer that is located outside the State, the excise tax only applies if the federally licensed firearms dealer, during the previous calendar year or the current calendar year (1) derives gross revenue from the sale of firearms to residents of the State that exceeds $100,000 or (2) sells firearms to residents of the State for delivery into the State in 200 or more separate transactions. Distribution of the Firearm Excise Tax Revenue Revenue from the firearm excise tax must be distributed equally to the following: the Coordinated Community Supports Partnership Fund; the Maryland Trauma Physician Services Fund; the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland Medical System; the Maryland Violence Intervention and Prevention Program Fund; the Survivors of Homicide Victims Grant Program within the G overnor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy; and the Center for Firearm Violence Prevention and Intervention within the Maryland Department of Health. The bill specifies that it is the intent of the General Assembly that the excise tax revenue supplement, and not supplant, any other funding for these funds required by law.
HB 387/ Page 3 Firearm Excise Tax Returns A federally licensed firearms dealer must complete, under oath, and file an excise tax return with the Comptroller (1) on or before the 25th day of the month that follows the month in which the person sells any firearms within the boundaries of the State or to residents of the State and (2) if specified by the Comptroller, by regulation, on other dates for each month in which the licensee does not sell any firearms in the State or to residents of the State. A person required to file an excise tax return must file with the return an attachment that states any information required by the Comptroller to determine the gross receipts derived from the sales of firearms in the State or to residents of the State. A person required to file an excise tax return must maintain records of the firearms sold in the State or to residents of the State and the basis for the calculation of the excise tax owed. Payment of Firearm Excise Taxes Each person required to file an excise tax return must pay the firearm excise tax in the manner required by the Comptroller, with the return that covers the period in which the person sold firearms in the State or to residents of the State. If a corporation, other than a nonstock, nonprofit corporation, is required to pay the excise tax, personal liability for the tax and interest and penalties on the tax extends to any officer of the corporation who exercises direct control over its fiscal management. If a limited liability company, or limited liability partnership, including a limited partnership registered as a limited liability limited partnership, is required to pay the excise tax, personal liability for the tax and interest and penalties on the tax extends to any person who exercises direct control over the fiscal management of the limited liability company or limited liability partnership. The Comptroller may require a person subject to the firearms excise tax to post security for the excise tax in the amount that the Comptroller determines. A person who willfully fails to file a required firearm excise tax return is guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction, is subject to a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to five years or both. Definitions A federally licensed firearms dealer is a person licensed by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to deal in firearms. Gross receipts are defined as the total amount of the sale or lease or rental price of the retail sale by a person, valued in money, whether received in money or otherwise, without any deduction for (1) the cost of the property sold; (2) the cost of the materials used, labor or
Correctional Services - Pregnancy and Postpartum Support (Prevention of Forced Infant Separation Act)
Feb 10, 2024 · Did not pass
Del. Bernice Mireku-North · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Requiring the Division of Correction to allow a certain pregnant woman and a certain woman who recently gave birth to transfer to the prerelease unit for women for 1 year following the birth; establishing the Healthy Start Bonding Program to facilitate strong bonds between incarcerated women and their children; and requiring the Division to allow liberal visitation between certain individuals and certain children under certain circumstances.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2024RS session. Final recorded action: 2024-02-10, Hearing 2/27 at 1:00 p.m..
Why this record is included
Maryland counts deaths during pregnancy or within one year afterward from all causes, not only deaths caused by pregnancy. The provision concerns maternal care, safety, or mortality measurement within that population. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Pregnancy-associated deaths reviewed. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Requiring the Division of Correction to allow a certain pregnant woman and a certain woman who recently gave birth to transfer to the prerelease unit for women for 1 year following the birth; establishing the Healthy Start Bonding Program to facilitate strong bonds between incarcerated women and their children; and requiring the Division to allow liberal visitation between certain individuals and certain children under certain circumstances.
Would impose an 11% excise tax on specified firearm, accessory and ammunition sales and distribute revenue to designated funds, including the Violence Intervention and Prevention Fund.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2024RS session. Final recorded action: 2024-02-02, Hearing 2/22 at 1:00 p.m..
Why this record is included
The relationship concerns proposed violence-prevention funding. The tax proposal did not become law and does not establish fewer firearm deaths. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
HB 935 Department of Legislative Services Maryland General Assembly 2024 Session FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE First Reader House Bill 935 (Delegate Mireku - North, et al. ) Ways and Means Comprehensive Community Safety Funding Act This bill establishes an 11% firearm, firearm accessory, and ammunition (FFAA) excise tax on the gross receipts of a federally licensed firearms dealer derived from the sales of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition in the State. The bill requires specified distributions of the revenue from the excise tax. The bill provides for the filing of specified tax returns and for the administration of the tax by the Comptroller. The bill takes effect July 1, 2025. Fiscal Summary State Effect: Special fund revenues increase by approximately $22.4 million in FY 2026 and by $25.0 million in FY 2029. Special fund expenditures for administrative costs increase by $3.7 million in FY 2026 and by $716,500 in FY 2029. Future year expenditures reflect annualization and inflation. ($ in millions) FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 SF Revenue $0 $22.4 $23.2 $24.1 $25.0 SF Expenditure $0 $3.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 Net Effect $0.0 $18.7 $22.6 $23.4 $24.3 Note:() = decrease; GF = general funds; FF = federal funds; SF = special funds; - = indeterminate increase; (-) = indeterminate decrease Local Effect: None. Small Business Effect: Potential meaningful. Small businesses that sell firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition will be subject to the new excise tax. However, some portion of the cost of the new tax may be passed on to the consumers through increased prices.
HB 935/ Page 2 Analysis Bill Summary: The bill establishes an 11% FFAA excise tax on the gross receipts of the sale of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition in the State by a federally licensed firearms dealer. The bill specifies the distribution of revenue from the excise tax, administration of the excise tax by the Comptroller, filing of excise tax returns by licensed dealers, and the paying of excise taxes by licensed dealers. Distribution of the Firearm, Firearm Accessory, and Ammunition Excise Tax Revenue Revenue from the FFAA excise tax must be distributed as follows: 44% to the Maryland Trauma Physician Services Fund; 29% to the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland Medical System; 23% to the Violence Intervention and Prevention Program Fund; 2% to the Survivors of Homicide Victims Grant Program within the G overnor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy; and 2% to the Center for Firearm Violence Prevention and Intervention within the Maryland Department of Health. The bill specifies that it is the intent of the General Assembly that the excise tax revenue supplement, and not supplant, any other funding for these funds required by law. Firearm, Firearm Accessory, and Ammunition Excise Tax Returns A federally licensed firearms dealer must complete, under oath, and file an FFAA excise tax return with the Comptroller: (1) on or before the 25th day of the month that follows the month in which the person sells any firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition within the boundaries of the State; and (2) if specified by the Comptroller, by regulation, on other dates for each month in which the licensee does not sell any firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition in the State. A person required to file an excise tax return must file with the return an attachment that states any information required by the Comptroller to determine the gross receipts derived from the sales of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition in the State. A person required to file an excise tax return must maintain records of the firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition sold in the State and the basis for the calculation of the FFAA excise tax owed.
HB 935/ Page 3 Payment of Firearm, Firearm Accessory, and Ammunition Excise Taxes Each person required to file an excise tax return must pay the FFAA excise tax in the manner required by the Comptroller, with the return that covers the period in which the person sold firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition in the State. If a corporation, other than a nonstock, nonprofit corporation, is required to pay the FFAA excise tax, personal liability for the tax and interest and penalties on the tax extends to any officer of the corporation who exercises direct control over its fiscal management. If a limited liability company, or limited liability partnership, including a limited partnership registered as a limited liability limited partnership, is required to pay the FFAA excise tax, personal liability for the tax and interest and penalties on the tax extends to any person who exercises direct control over the fiscal management of the limited liability company or limited liability partnership. The Comptroller may require a person subject to the FFAA excise tax to post security for the excise tax in the amount that the Comptroller determines. A person who willfully fails to file a required FFAA excise tax return is guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction, is subject to a fine up to $5,000 or imprisonment up of to five years or both. Definitions A federally licensed firearms dealer is a person licensed by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to deal in firearms. A firearm accessory is: (1) a magazine or magazine loader; (2) a firearm scope or optic; (3) a stock; (4) a grip; (5) a handguard; or (6) body armor. Gross receipts are defined as the total amount of the sale or lease or rental price of the retail sale by a person, valued in money, whether received in money or otherwise, without any deduction for: (1) the cost of the property sold; (2) the cost of the materials used, labor or service cost, interest paid, losses, or any other expense; or (3) the cost of transportation of the property. Gross receipts do not include: (1) cash discounts allowed and taken on sales; (2) the sale price of property returned by customers when that amount is refunded in cash or credit unless the customer, in order to obtain the refund, is required to purchase other property at a price greater than the amount charged for the property that is returned; (3) the price received for labor or services used in installing or applying the property sold; and (4) the amount of any tax imposed by the United States, the State, a county, or a municipality on or with respect to retail sales whether imposed on the person or the consumer.
Correctional Services - Pregnancy and Postpartum Support (Prevention of Forced Infant Separation Act)
Feb 1, 2023 · Did not pass
Del. Bernice Mireku-North · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Requiring the Division of Correction to allow a certain pregnant woman and a certain woman who recently gave birth to transfer to the prerelease unit for women for a certain time period; establishing the Healthy Start Bonding Program to facilitate strong bonds between incarcerated women and their children; and requiring the Division to allow liberal visitation between certain individuals and certain children under certain circumstances.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2023RS session. Final recorded action: 2023-02-01, Hearing 2/21 at 1:00 p.m..
Why this record is included
Maryland counts deaths during pregnancy or within one year afterward from all causes, not only deaths caused by pregnancy. The provision concerns maternal care, safety, or mortality measurement within that population. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Pregnancy-associated deaths reviewed. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Requiring the Division of Correction to allow a certain pregnant woman and a certain woman who recently gave birth to transfer to the prerelease unit for women for a certain time period; establishing the Healthy Start Bonding Program to facilitate strong bonds between incarcerated women and their children; and requiring the Division to allow liberal visitation between certain individuals and certain children under certain circumstances.
9 proposalsView proposals from Del. Bonnie CullisonMaryland Legislature · HB 1112
Health Insurance Coverage Protection Commission - Study on Individual and Group Health Insurance Market Stability
Mar 20, 2026 · Did not pass
Del. Bonnie Cullison · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Altering the duties of the Health Insurance Coverage Protection Commission to require the Commission to study and make recommendations regarding individual and group health insurance market stability.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2026RS session. Final recorded action: 2026-03-20, Hearing 3/25 at 1:00 p.m..
Why this record is included
The fact measures whether residents under 65 have insurance. Eligibility, enrollment, and premium assistance concern that status; covered-service or provider-payment changes alone do not establish a change in insured status. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Altering the duties of the Health Insurance Coverage Protection Commission to require the Commission to study and make recommendations regarding individual and group health insurance market stability.
Health Occupations - Licensed Direct-Entry Midwives - Revisions
May 20, 2025 · Enacted
Del. Bonnie Cullison · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Altering the scope of practice of licensed direct-entry midwives; providing that the practice of direct-entry midwifery is independent and not does not require oversight by another health care practitioner; repealing the requirement that licensed direct-entry midwives report certain information to the Direct-Entry Midwifery Advisory Committee; altering the disciplinary actions that may be taken against a licensed direct-entry midwife or an applicant for a license; etc.
2025-05-20: Approved by the Governor - Chapter 645. This records the legislative disposition; later implementation or court decisions may differ.
Why this record is included
Maryland counts deaths during pregnancy or within one year afterward from all causes, not only deaths caused by pregnancy. The provision concerns maternal care, safety, or mortality measurement within that population. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Pregnancy-associated deaths reviewed. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Altering the scope of practice of licensed direct-entry midwives; providing that the practice of direct-entry midwifery is independent and not does not require oversight by another health care practitioner; repealing the requirement that licensed direct-entry midwives report certain information to the Direct-Entry Midwifery Advisory Committee; altering the disciplinary actions that may be taken against a licensed direct-entry midwife or an applicant for a license; etc.
Home- and Community-Based Services Waiver - Eligibility
Feb 14, 2024 · Did not pass
Del. Bonnie Cullison · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Altering the financial eligibility criteria for the home- and community-based services waiver submitted by the Maryland Department of Health to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to include categorically needy individuals with an income disregard up to 300% of the Supplemental Security Income monthly benefit amount and a certain community spouse resource allowance; requiring the Department to adopt regulations to establish a timeline within which the Department is required to approve or deny the application of an applicant; etc.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2024RS session. Final recorded action: 2024-02-14, Hearing 3/01 at 2:00 p.m..
Why this record is included
The fact measures whether residents under 65 have insurance. Eligibility, enrollment, and premium assistance concern that status; covered-service or provider-payment changes alone do not establish a change in insured status. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Altering the financial eligibility criteria for the home- and community-based services waiver submitted by the Maryland Department of Health to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to include categorically needy individuals with an income disregard up to 300% of the Supplemental Security Income monthly benefit amount and a certain community spouse resource allowance; requiring the Department to adopt regulations to establish a timeline within which the Department is required to approve or deny the application of an applicant; etc.
Health Occupations – Licensed Direct–Entry Midwives – Previous Cesarean Section
Feb 5, 2024 · Did not pass
Del. Bonnie Cullison · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Allowing a licensed direct-entry midwife to assume or take responsibility for a client who had a previous cesarean section and regulating the circumstances under which the responsibility may be assumed or taken; altering the required contents of a certain informed consent agreement; and requiring the State Board of Nursing, in consultation with certain stakeholders, to develop a transport protocol for clients who had a previous cesarean section.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2024RS session. Final recorded action: 2024-02-05, Withdrawn by Sponsor.
Why this record is included
Maryland counts deaths during pregnancy or within one year afterward from all causes, not only deaths caused by pregnancy. The provision concerns maternal care, safety, or mortality measurement within that population. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Pregnancy-associated deaths reviewed. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Allowing a licensed direct-entry midwife to assume or take responsibility for a client who had a previous cesarean section and regulating the circumstances under which the responsibility may be assumed or taken; altering the required contents of a certain informed consent agreement; and requiring the State Board of Nursing, in consultation with certain stakeholders, to develop a transport protocol for clients who had a previous cesarean section.
Maryland Health Benefit Exchange and Maryland Department of Health - Health Care and Dental Care Coverage for Undocumented Immigrants - Report
Apr 10, 2023 · Did not pass
Del. Bonnie Cullison · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Requiring the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange and the Maryland Department of Health to develop a report comparing options for offering affordable health care and dental care coverage to State residents who are ineligible for the Maryland Medical Assistance Program, the Maryland Children's Health Program, qualified health plans, or stand-alone dental plans due to the individuals' immigration status; and requiring the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange to report its findings and recommendations by October 31, 2023.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2023RS session. Final recorded action: 2023-04-10, Referred Rules.
Why this record is included
The fact measures whether residents under 65 have insurance. Eligibility, enrollment, and premium assistance concern that status; covered-service or provider-payment changes alone do not establish a change in insured status. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance · Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Requiring the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange and the Maryland Department of Health to develop a report comparing options for offering affordable health care and dental care coverage to State residents who are ineligible for the Maryland Medical Assistance Program, the Maryland Children's Health Program, qualified health plans, or stand-alone dental plans due to the individuals' immigration status; and requiring the Maryland Health Benefit Exchange to report its findings and recommendations by October 31, 2023.
Health Occupations - Licensed Direct-Entry Midwives - Previous Cesarean Section
Mar 3, 2023 · Did not pass
Del. Bonnie Cullison · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Allowing a licensed direct-entry midwife to assume or take responsibility for a client who had a previous cesarean section and regulating the circumstances under which the responsibility may be assumed or taken; altering the required contents of a certain informed consent agreement; and requiring the State Board of Nursing, in consultation with certain stakeholders, to develop a transport protocol for clients who had a previous cesarean section.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2023RS session. Final recorded action: 2023-03-03, Referred Finance.
Why this record is included
Maryland counts deaths during pregnancy or within one year afterward from all causes, not only deaths caused by pregnancy. The provision concerns maternal care, safety, or mortality measurement within that population. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Pregnancy-associated deaths reviewed. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Allowing a licensed direct-entry midwife to assume or take responsibility for a client who had a previous cesarean section and regulating the circumstances under which the responsibility may be assumed or taken; altering the required contents of a certain informed consent agreement; and requiring the State Board of Nursing, in consultation with certain stakeholders, to develop a transport protocol for clients who had a previous cesarean section.
Health Occupations - Licensed Direct-Entry Midwives - Previous Cesarean Section
Jan 25, 2022 · Did not pass
Del. Bonnie Cullison · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Allowing a licensed direct-entry midwife to assume or take responsibility for a patient who had a previous cesarean section and regulating the circumstances under which the responsibility may be assumed or taken.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2022RS session. Final recorded action: 2022-01-25, Hearing 2/01 at 1:30 p.m..
Why this record is included
Maryland counts deaths during pregnancy or within one year afterward from all causes, not only deaths caused by pregnancy. The provision concerns maternal care, safety, or mortality measurement within that population. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Pregnancy-associated deaths reviewed. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Allowing a licensed direct-entry midwife to assume or take responsibility for a patient who had a previous cesarean section and regulating the circumstances under which the responsibility may be assumed or taken.
Health Occupations – Licensed Direct–Entry Midwives – Previous Cesarean Section
Feb 12, 2021 · Did not pass
Del. Bonnie Cullison · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Altering the circumstances under which a licensed direct-entry midwife is prohibited from taking certain responsibility for a patient who had a previous cesarean section; and requiring a licensed direct-entry midwife to consult with a health care practitioner and document the consultation if a patient had a previous cesarean section that resulted in a confirmed low transverse incision and was performed at least 18 months before the expected date of birth for the current pregnancy.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2021RS session. Final recorded action: 2021-02-12, Hearing 3/11 at 1:30 p.m..
Why this record is included
Maryland counts deaths during pregnancy or within one year afterward from all causes, not only deaths caused by pregnancy. The provision concerns maternal care, safety, or mortality measurement within that population. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Pregnancy-associated deaths reviewed. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Altering the circumstances under which a licensed direct-entry midwife is prohibited from taking certain responsibility for a patient who had a previous cesarean section; and requiring a licensed direct-entry midwife to consult with a health care practitioner and document the consultation if a patient had a previous cesarean section that resulted in a confirmed low transverse incision and was performed at least 18 months before the expected date of birth for the current pregnancy.
Home- and Community-Based Waiver Services - Alterations and Task Force
Feb 10, 2020 · Did not pass
Del. Bonnie Cullison · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Altering the required contents of a certain waiver submitted by the Maryland Department of Health to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; requiring the Department to send monthly letters to individuals who are eligible or likely to be eligible for waiver participation; requiring that certain letters be sent in a sufficient quantity to allow at least 7,500 individuals to participate in the waiver; requiring the Department to ensure that certain individuals receive certain services within a certain period of time; etc.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2020RS session. Final recorded action: 2020-02-10, Hearing 3/05 at 1:00 p.m..
Why this record is included
The fact measures whether residents under 65 have insurance. Eligibility, enrollment, and premium assistance concern that status; covered-service or provider-payment changes alone do not establish a change in insured status. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Altering the required contents of a certain waiver submitted by the Maryland Department of Health to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; requiring the Department to send monthly letters to individuals who are eligible or likely to be eligible for waiver participation; requiring that certain letters be sent in a sufficient quantity to allow at least 7,500 individuals to participate in the waiver; requiring the Department to ensure that certain individuals receive certain services within a certain period of time; etc.
Altering a certain provision relating to the storage of firearms and ammunition in a location that can be accessed by an unsupervised minor; and requiring the Deputy Secretary for Public Health Services to develop a youth suicide prevention and firearm safe storage guide, with recommendations from a stakeholder committee.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2022RS session. Final recorded action: 2022-02-03, Hearing 2/23 at 1:00 p.m..
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 relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Altering a certain provision relating to the storage of firearms and ammunition in a location that can be accessed by an unsupervised minor; and requiring the Deputy Secretary for Public Health Services to develop a youth suicide prevention and firearm safe storage guide, with recommendations from a stakeholder committee.
Public Safety - Access to Firearms - Storage Requirements (Jaelynn's Law)
Feb 5, 2021 · Did not pass
Del. Dana Stein · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Altering a certain prohibition to prohibit a person from storing or leaving a firearm in a location where a minor could gain access to the firearm; altering a certain exception to the prohibition; establishing certain exceptions to the prohibition; prohibiting a person from storing or leaving a firearm in a location where an unsupervised minor could gain access to the firearm, an unsupervised minor does gain access to the firearm, and the firearm causes harm to the minor or another person; establishing certain penalties; etc.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2021RS session. Final recorded action: 2021-02-05, Hearing 3/01 at 1:30 p.m..
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 relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Altering a certain prohibition to prohibit a person from storing or leaving a firearm in a location where a minor could gain access to the firearm; altering a certain exception to the prohibition; establishing certain exceptions to the prohibition; prohibiting a person from storing or leaving a firearm in a location where an unsupervised minor could gain access to the firearm, an unsupervised minor does gain access to the firearm, and the firearm causes harm to the minor or another person; establishing certain penalties; etc.
Public Safety - Access to Firearms - Storage Requirements
Feb 3, 2020 · Did not pass
Del. Dana Stein · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Altering a certain prohibition to prohibit a person from storing or leaving a loaded or unloaded firearm in a location where a minor could gain access to the firearm; repealing a certain exception to the prohibition; prohibiting a person from storing or leaving a loaded or unloaded firearm in a location where an unsupervised minor could gain access to the firearm and an unsupervised minor does gain access to the firearm; etc.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2020RS session. Final recorded action: 2020-02-03, Hearing 2/19 at 1:00 p.m..
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 relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Altering a certain prohibition to prohibit a person from storing or leaving a loaded or unloaded firearm in a location where a minor could gain access to the firearm; repealing a certain exception to the prohibition; prohibiting a person from storing or leaving a loaded or unloaded firearm in a location where an unsupervised minor could gain access to the firearm and an unsupervised minor does gain access to the firearm; etc.
Public Safety - Access to Firearms - Storage Requirements
Feb 1, 2019 · Did not pass
Del. Dana Stein · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Prohibiting a person from storing or leaving a loaded or unloaded firearm in a location where a child could gain access to the firearm unless the firearm is locked by a certain safety lock or is secured in a container that is capable of preventing an unintended person from gaining access to the contents; altering the definition of "child" to be an individual under the age of 18 years instead of 16 years; and providing a penalty for a violation of the Act of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2019RS session. Final recorded action: 2019-02-01, Hearing 2/25 at 10:00 a.m..
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 relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Prohibiting a person from storing or leaving a loaded or unloaded firearm in a location where a child could gain access to the firearm unless the firearm is locked by a certain safety lock or is secured in a container that is capable of preventing an unintended person from gaining access to the contents; altering the definition of "child" to be an individual under the age of 18 years instead of 16 years; and providing a penalty for a violation of the Act of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both.
2 proposalsView proposals from Del. David MoonMaryland Legislature · HB 794
Regulated Firearms - Maryland Voluntary Do Not Sell Firearm Process
Feb 21, 2024 · Did not pass
Del. David Moon · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Requiring the Maryland Department of Health to create and maintain a Maryland Voluntary Do Not Sell Firearm Registry in which a person may voluntarily enroll for the purpose of being prohibited from obtaining a regulated firearm by December 31, 2024; prohibiting a dealer or other person from selling, renting, loaning, or transferring a regulated firearm to a purchaser, lessee, borrower, or transferee who the dealer or other person knows or has reason to believe is registered on the registry; etc.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2024RS session. Final recorded action: 2024-02-21, Hearing 2/21 at 1:30 p.m..
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 relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Requiring the Maryland Department of Health to create and maintain a Maryland Voluntary Do Not Sell Firearm Registry in which a person may voluntarily enroll for the purpose of being prohibited from obtaining a regulated firearm by December 31, 2024; prohibiting a dealer or other person from selling, renting, loaning, or transferring a regulated firearm to a purchaser, lessee, borrower, or transferee who the dealer or other person knows or has reason to believe is registered on the registry; etc.
Firearms - Maryland Voluntary Do Not Sell Firearm Registry - Establishment
Mar 15, 2023 · Did not pass
Del. David Moon · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Requiring the Maryland Department of Health to create and maintain a Maryland Voluntary Do Not Sell Firearm Registry in which a person may voluntarily enroll for the purpose of being prohibited from obtaining a firearm; prohibiting a dealer or other person from selling, renting, loaning, or transferring a firearm to a purchaser, lessee, borrower, or transferee who the dealer or other person knows or has reason to believe is registered on the registry; etc.
The measure did not pass in its completed 2023RS session. Final recorded action: 2023-03-15, Referred Judicial Proceedings.
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 relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained Maryland evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Requiring the Maryland Department of Health to create and maintain a Maryland Voluntary Do Not Sell Firearm Registry in which a person may voluntarily enroll for the purpose of being prohibited from obtaining a firearm; prohibiting a dealer or other person from selling, renting, loaning, or transferring a firearm to a purchaser, lessee, borrower, or transferee who the dealer or other person knows or has reason to believe is registered on the registry; etc.
Only current Maryland 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 Maryland statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
Maryland snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to Maryland, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.