Wisconsin · individual fact

Wisconsin health

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

Uninsured rate · all ages5.3%2024 · #41 of 50 · highest first
Uninsured rate · under age 656.4%2024 · #41 of 50 · highest first
Private coverage · under age 6577.3%2024 · #5 of 50 · highest first

Wisconsin over time

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

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

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

Uninsured rate · all ages2024: 5.3%3.9%6.6%9.2%Wisconsin, 2014: 7.3%Wisconsin, 2015: 5.7%Wisconsin, 2016: 5.3%Wisconsin, 2017: 5.4%Wisconsin, 2018: 5.5%Wisconsin, 2019: 5.7%Wisconsin, 2021: 5.4%Wisconsin, 2022: 5.2%Wisconsin, 2023: 4.9%Wisconsin, 2024: 5.3%201420192024
✦ Major events & context · 21National context · Affordable Care Act signed · 2010-03-23ACA signedNational context · Supreme Court makes ACA Medicaid expansion optional for states · 2012-06-28Medicaid expansion rulingNational context · ACA Marketplace coverage and main Medicaid expansion begin · 2014-01-01ACA coverage beginsNational context · Opioid crisis declared a national public-health emergency · 2017-10-26Opioid emergencyNational context · COVID-19 characterized as a pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · Pandemic Medicaid continuous-enrollment condition enacted · 2020-03-18Medicaid coverage protectionNational context · FDA authorizes the first COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use · 2020-12-11First COVID vaccine EUANational context · American Rescue Plan expands Marketplace premium assistance · 2021-03-11Marketplace aid expandedNational context · No Surprises Act billing protections begin · 2022-01-01Surprise-billing protectionsNational context · Supreme Court overturns Roe and Casey in Dobbs · 2022-06-24Dobbs abortion rulingNational context · 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline launches nationwide · 2022-07-16988 crisis line launchesNational context · Inflation Reduction Act signed · 2022-08-16Prescription-drug lawNational context · Medicare Part D insulin cost-sharing cap takes effect · 2023-01-01Part D insulin $35 capNational context · Medicaid coverage terminations can resume · 2023-04-01Medicaid terminations resumeNational context · Federal COVID-19 public-health emergency ends · 2023-05-11COVID health emergency endsNational context · Medicare Part D out-of-pocket cap begins · 2025-01-01Part D $2,000 cap (2025)National context · 2025 reconciliation law changes Medicaid and funds rural care · 2025-07-04Medicaid and rural-care lawNational context · Rural Health Transformation awards announced for all 50 states · 2025-12-29Rural health awardsNational context · Temporary enhanced Marketplace premium tax credits end · 2026-01-01Enhanced ACA credits endNational context · First negotiated Medicare drug prices take effect · 2026-01-01Negotiated drug prices beginNational context · CMS issues Medicaid community-engagement implementation rule · 2026-06-01Medicaid eligibility rule● Wisconsin Legislature · 20232124432222533494● U.S. Congress · Wisconsin delegation · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.◆ Governor · 203342■ Wisconsin agencies · 242010-03-012026-08-31

246 of 246 reviewed Wisconsin actions match · 61 date markers shown. 21 major events shown separately.

Wisconsin · 2024: 5.3% · Rank #41 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2%

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

View observations and export data
Wisconsin Uninsured rate · all ages · source units
PeriodWisconsinRankU.S. benchmark
20245.3%#41 of 508.2%
20234.9%#41 of 50Not available
20225.2%#40 of 50Not available
20215.4%#40 of 50Not available
2020Not availableUnavailableNot available
20195.7%#43 of 50Not available
20185.5%#40 of 50Not available
20175.4%#41 of 50Not available
20165.3%#41 of 50Not available
20155.7%#44 of 50Not available
20147.3%#44 of 50Not available
How major events are selected

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

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

Wisconsin · 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.

Wisconsin · 20245.3%
Wisconsin rank#41among 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.

Wisconsin
Uninsured rate · all ages history in Wisconsin4.4%6.5%8.7%20142024
2024 · Wisconsin: 5.3% · Rank #41 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2% · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Wisconsin Uninsured rate · all ages history
PeriodWisconsinCompare
20147.3%
20155.7%
20165.3%
20175.4%
20185.5%
20195.7%
2020Not available
20215.4%
20225.2%
20234.9%
20245.3%

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. Wisconsin 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. Wisconsin 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.

Wisconsin · 5.3%2024 · Rank #41 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 Wisconsin with every state · 50 ranked
Uninsured rate · all ages · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Texas16.7%—
#2Georgia12%—
#3Oklahoma11.5%—
#4Nevada11.4%—
#5Alaska11%—
#6Florida10.9%—
#7Arizona10.3%—
#7Wyoming10.3%—
#9New Mexico10.1%—
#10Mississippi9.7%—
#10Tennessee9.7%—
#12Arkansas9.4%—
#13Idaho9.2%—
#14South Carolina9%—
#15Montana8.8%—
#16North Carolina8.6%—
#17Kansas8.5%—
#18Utah8.3%—
#19Alabama8.2%—
#20South Dakota8.1%—
#21Colorado7.9%—
#22Louisiana7.7%—
#22Missouri7.7%—
#22New Jersey7.7%—
#25Indiana7.5%—
#26Nebraska7.1%—
#27Delaware6.9%—
#27Illinois6.9%—
#27Virginia6.9%—
#30Kentucky6.8%—
#31Ohio6.7%—
#32Washington6.5%—
#33Maryland6.3%—
#34North Dakota6.1%—
#35California5.9%—
#36Connecticut5.8%—
#36Pennsylvania5.8%—
#36West Virginia5.8%—
#39Maine5.5%—
#40Iowa5.4%—
#41Wisconsin · your comparison5.3%—
#42Oregon5.2%—
#43Michigan5.1%—
#43Minnesota5.1%—
#45New York5%—
#46Rhode Island4.6%—
#47New Hampshire4.5%—
#48Vermont4.2%—
#49Hawaii3.5%—
#50Massachusetts2.8%—

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

People under 65 without health insurance

6.4%2024 ACS annual estimate

Share of Wisconsin’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.
Wisconsin · state comparison

Where do healthcare dollars go?

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

Wisconsin · 2020$9,982
Wisconsin rank#28among 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.

Wisconsin
Personal healthcare spending per resident history in Wisconsin$7.6K$9.06K$10.53K20142020
2020 · Wisconsin: $9,982 · Rank #28 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $10,191 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Wisconsin Personal healthcare spending per resident history
PeriodWisconsinCompare
2014$8,371
2015$8,654
2016$8,809
2017$9,019
2018$9,244
2019$9,652
2020$9,982

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. Wisconsin 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. Wisconsin 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.

Wisconsin · $9,9822020 · Rank #28 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 Wisconsin with every state · 50 ranked
Personal healthcare spending per resident · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1New York$14,007—
#2Alaska$13,642—
#3Massachusetts$13,319—
#4Delaware$12,899—
#5West Virginia$12,769—
#6Vermont$12,756—
#7South Dakota$12,495—
#8Connecticut$12,489—
#9Maine$12,077—
#10New Jersey$11,868—
#11New Hampshire$11,793—
#12Rhode Island$11,694—
#13Pennsylvania$11,603—
#14North Dakota$11,301—
#15Wyoming$10,989—
#16Minnesota$10,846—
#17Maryland$10,839—
#18Indiana$10,517—
#19Louisiana$10,515—
#20Nebraska$10,514—
#21Ohio$10,478—
#22California$10,299—
#23Hawaii$10,291—
#24Kentucky$10,257—
#25Montana$10,212—
#26Illinois$10,190—
#27Oregon$10,071—
#28Wisconsin · your comparison$9,982—
#29Missouri$9,921—
#30Michigan$9,897—
#31Florida$9,865—
#32Iowa$9,789—
#33Oklahoma$9,444—
#34Kansas$9,408—
#35Mississippi$9,394—
#36Arkansas$9,338—
#37Tennessee$9,336—
#38Alabama$9,280—
#39Washington$9,265—
#40Virginia$9,195—
#41North Carolina$8,917—
#42New Mexico$8,902—
#43South Carolina$8,766—
#44Georgia$8,758—
#45Arizona$8,756—
#46Colorado$8,583—
#47Texas$8,406—
#48Nevada$8,348—
#49Idaho$8,148—
#50Utah$7,522—

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

Wisconsin · state comparison

Health outcomes

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

Wisconsin · 202278.1 years
Wisconsin rank#16among 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 Wisconsin 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.

Wisconsin
Life expectancy at birth history in Wisconsin77.2 years78.4 years79.6 years20182022
2022 · Wisconsin: 78.1 years · Rank #16 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 77.5 years · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Wisconsin Life expectancy at birth history
PeriodWisconsinCompare
201879.3 years
201979.3 years
202077.7 years
202177.8 years
202278.1 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. Wisconsin 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. Wisconsin 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.

Wisconsin · 78.1 years2022 · Rank #16 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 Wisconsin with every state · 50 ranked
Life expectancy at birth · 2022 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Hawaii80 years—
#2Massachusetts79.8 years—
#3New Jersey79.6 years—
#4New York79.5 years—
#5Connecticut79.4 years—
#6California79.3 years—
#6Minnesota79.3 years—
#8Rhode Island79.2 years—
#9Utah79 years—
#10New Hampshire78.7 years—
#11Colorado78.5 years—
#12Idaho78.4 years—
#12Washington78.4 years—
#14Nebraska78.3 years—
#14Vermont78.3 years—
#16Wisconsin · your comparison78.1 years—
#17Florida77.9 years—
#17Iowa77.9 years—
#17North Dakota77.9 years—
#20Maryland77.8 years—
#21Oregon77.7 years—
#22Illinois77.5 years—
#22Virginia77.5 years—
#24Montana77.3 years—
#24Pennsylvania77.3 years—
#24South Dakota77.3 years—
#27Texas77.1 years—
#28Michigan76.8 years—
#28Wyoming76.8 years—
#30Arizona76.7 years—
#31Maine76.6 years—
#32Delaware76.5 years—
#32Kansas76.5 years—
#34Nevada76.4 years—
#35Georgia75.9 years—
#35North Carolina75.9 years—
#37Alaska75.8 years—
#38Ohio75.6 years—
#39Indiana75.4 years—
#40Missouri75.2 years—
#41South Carolina75.1 years—
#42New Mexico74.5 years—
#43Arkansas73.9 years—
#44Alabama73.8 years—
#44Louisiana73.8 years—
#44Oklahoma73.8 years—
#44Tennessee73.8 years—
#48Kentucky73.6 years—
#49Mississippi72.6 years—
#50West Virginia72.2 years—

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

Wisconsin · state comparison

Chronic illness and health risks

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

Wisconsin · 20239.6%
Wisconsin rank#30among 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.

Wisconsin
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history in Wisconsin7%9.2%11.3%20192023
2023 · Wisconsin: 9.6% · Rank #30 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 10.7% · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Wisconsin Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history
PeriodWisconsinCompare
20197.5%
20207.7%
20218%
20228.9%
20239.6%

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. Wisconsin 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. Wisconsin 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.

Wisconsin · 9.6%2023 · Rank #30 of 48, highest first95% confidence interval: 9% – 10.2%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 Wisconsin with every state · 48 ranked, 2 unavailable
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted · 2023 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Mississippi15.1%95% CI: 13.7–16.6
#1West Virginia15.1%95% CI: 13.9–16.3
#3Louisiana14.6%95% CI: 13.4–15.8
#4Alabama14%95% CI: 12.7–15.3
#5Arkansas13.1%95% CI: 12–14.3
#6South Carolina12.7%95% CI: 11.9–13.6
#6Tennessee12.7%95% CI: 11.7–13.8
#8Texas12.1%95% CI: 11–13.3
#9Indiana11.7%95% CI: 11.1–12.4
#10Georgia11.5%95% CI: 10.7–12.3
#10Ohio11.5%95% CI: 10.8–12.2
#12Oklahoma11.3%95% CI: 10.5–12.1
#13Delaware11.1%95% CI: 9.8–12.6
#14North Carolina11%95% CI: 9.8–12.3
#15Illinois10.9%95% CI: 9.9–12.1
#15Maryland10.9%95% CI: 10.2–11.7
#15Michigan10.9%95% CI: 10.1–11.8
#18Nevada10.8%95% CI: 8.9–13
#18New Mexico10.8%95% CI: 9.3–12.6
#20Missouri10.7%95% CI: 9.9–11.7
#20South Dakota10.7%95% CI: 8.9–12.8
#22California10.6%95% CI: 9.8–11.4
#23Kansas10.5%95% CI: 9.7–11.3
#24Virginia10.4%95% CI: 9.5–11.4
#25Florida10.1%95% CI: 9.1–11.1
#26Rhode Island10%95% CI: 9.1–11
#27Arizona9.9%95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#27Iowa9.9%95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#29Nebraska9.7%95% CI: 9–10.3
#30Wisconsin · your comparison9.6%95% CI: 9–10.2
#31Hawaii9.5%95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#31New York9.5%95% CI: 8.9–10.1
#31Oregon9.5%95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#34Wyoming9.4%95% CI: 8.5–10.5
#35Minnesota9.3%95% CI: 8.6–10
#36New Jersey9.1%95% CI: 8.4–9.9
#37Maine9%95% CI: 8.4–9.7
#38North Dakota8.9%95% CI: 8.1–9.7
#39Idaho8.7%95% CI: 7.9–9.6
#40Washington8.6%95% CI: 8.2–9
#41Massachusetts8.5%95% CI: 7.8–9.4
#42Connecticut8.4%95% CI: 7.6–9.3
#43Alaska8.2%95% CI: 7.4–9.2
#44Utah8.1%95% CI: 7.5–8.7
#45Colorado8%95% CI: 7.3–8.7
#46Montana7.9%95% CI: 7.2–8.7
#46New Hampshire7.9%95% CI: 7.1–8.8
#48Vermont7.8%95% CI: 7–8.7
—KentuckyNot availableNo comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
—PennsylvaniaNot availableNo comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.

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

Wisconsin · state comparison

Where are healthcare workers in short supply?

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

Wisconsin · June 30, 202665.2%
Wisconsin rank#9among 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. Wisconsin 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. Wisconsin 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.

Wisconsin · 65.2%June 30, 2026 · Rank #9 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 Wisconsin with every state · 50 ranked
Primary care · need met · June 30, 2026 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1New Jersey83.2%—
#2Vermont82.6%—
#3South Carolina79.4%—
#4New Hampshire74.8%—
#5Rhode Island74.3%—
#6Louisiana72.1%—
#7Hawaii67.1%—
#8Utah65.4%—
#9Wisconsin · your comparison65.2%—
#10Alabama63%—
#11Connecticut60.3%—
#12Massachusetts58%—
#13Tennessee58%—
#14Virginia57.2%—
#15Pennsylvania56.7%—
#16Maine56%—
#17Minnesota55.4%—
#18Wyoming54.4%—
#19Indiana54.2%—
#20California53.2%—
#21Arkansas52.6%—
#22Texas49.8%—
#23Ohio49.7%—
#24Nebraska49.1%—
#25Alaska48.9%—
#26North Carolina48.1%—
#27Colorado47.5%—
#28Michigan44.9%—
#29Oregon43.9%—
#30Idaho43.9%—
#31Washington42.4%—
#32Illinois41.5%—
#33Nevada41.5%—
#34Arizona41.2%—
#35Kansas41.1%—
#36Iowa40.5%—
#37Florida39.7%—
#38Georgia39.1%—
#39Montana38.5%—
#40West Virginia38.3%—
#41North Dakota36.5%—
#42New York35.3%—
#43South Dakota34.6%—
#44Mississippi34.1%—
#45Maryland31.6%—
#46New Mexico31.4%—
#47Kentucky30.8%—
#48Oklahoma28.6%—
#49Missouri23.7%—
#50Delaware11.2%—

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

Wisconsin · state comparison

Employer coverage costs

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

Wisconsin · 2020$7,250
Wisconsin rank#19among 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. Wisconsin 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. Wisconsin 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.

Wisconsin · $7,2502020 · Rank #19 of 50, highest firstSelected state

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

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

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

Wisconsin · state comparison

Mental health and treatment

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

Wisconsin · 2023–202424.6%
Wisconsin rank#22among 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. Wisconsin 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. Wisconsin 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.

Wisconsin · 24.6%2023–2024 · Rank #22 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 Wisconsin with every state · 50 ranked
Any Mental Illness · adults 18+ · 2023–2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Oregon31.6%—
#2Vermont29.1%—
#3West Virginia28.1%—
#4Washington27.9%—
#5New Hampshire27.7%—
#6Tennessee27%—
#7Utah26.7%—
#8Maine26.7%—
#9Arkansas26.6%—
#10Colorado26.4%—
#11Rhode Island25.8%—
#12Missouri25.7%—
#13Montana25.6%—
#14Indiana25.3%—
#15Kentucky25.3%—
#16Georgia25.2%—
#17Iowa25%—
#18Massachusetts24.9%—
#19Wyoming24.7%—
#20Nevada24.6%—
#21Arizona24.6%—
#22Wisconsin · your comparison24.6%—
#23Idaho24.5%—
#24Nebraska24.1%—
#25Louisiana24.1%—
#26Alaska24%—
#27Pennsylvania23.9%—
#28New Mexico23.9%—
#28Ohio23.9%—
#30Connecticut23.7%—
#31Kansas23.7%—
#32Michigan23.6%—
#33Virginia23.1%—
#34Alabama23%—
#35North Dakota23%—
#36Maryland22.7%—
#37Oklahoma22.6%—
#38Minnesota22.6%—
#39Illinois22.2%—
#40Delaware22.1%—
#41New York21.9%—
#42South Dakota21.8%—
#43California21.6%—
#44North Carolina21.4%—
#45Florida20.8%—
#46Texas20.7%—
#47Mississippi20.5%—
#48Hawaii19.8%—
#49South Carolina19.8%—
#50New Jersey18.1%—

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

What candidates are saying

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

57 statements from 15 candidates

2026 Wisconsin Governor — General Election

2 candidates with matching statements · 5 statements

David Crowley

4 statements

Democratic · Governor · WI

Care & public health

Government should help create jobs—not just be a check cutter. Under Crowley’s leadership, public dollars will multiply opportunity. Investments in housing, health care, and climate resilience pay dividends across Wisconsin, with accountability and outcomes that families can feel. That means homes p…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Housing affordability

Candidate campaign source

Government should help create jobs—not just be a check cutter. Under Crowley’s leadership, public dollars will multiply opportunity. Investments in housing, health care, and climate resilience pay dividends across Wisconsin, with accountability and outcomes that families can feel. That means homes people can afford, care that’s easy to access, and family supporting jobs.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

David Crowley — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 3 more statements from David Crowley
Care & public health

Crowley will finally close Wisconsin’s broadband gap, repair roads, and expand transit where it’s needed — so that every community can connect to jobs, school, health care, and each other. That means investing in regional transit that links rural towns to economic centers, restoring service cuts tha…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Transportation and infrastructure

Candidate campaign source

Crowley will finally close Wisconsin’s broadband gap, repair roads, and expand transit where it’s needed — so that every community can connect to jobs, school, health care, and each other. That means investing in regional transit that links rural towns to economic centers, restoring service cuts that have left communities stranded, and building a modern transportation system that works for seniors, workers, and families alike. As County Executive, Crowley has already expanded bus routes, championed new transit corridors, and fought for federal infrastructure dollars to keep Wisconsin moving. As Governor, he’ll take that fight statewide — because no one should lose out on opportunity because of where they live or how they get around.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

David Crowley — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

As Governor, Crowley will modernize and expand apprenticeship programs—connecting young people and career-changers to opportunities in the trades, health care, green energy, and beyond. These aren’t just training programs; they’re pipelines to economic stability and lifelong opportunity.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Education, child care, and workforce training

Candidate campaign source

As Governor, Crowley will modernize and expand apprenticeship programs—connecting young people and career-changers to opportunities in the trades, health care, green energy, and beyond. These aren’t just training programs; they’re pipelines to economic stability and lifelong opportunity.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

David Crowley — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

Crowley will expand mobile outreach, addiction treatment access, and EMS innovations across the state—because everyone deserves care that shows up when and where it’s needed. His plan puts people first, removing barriers and delivering results.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Crowley will expand mobile outreach, addiction treatment access, and EMS innovations across the state—because everyone deserves care that shows up when and where it’s needed. His plan puts people first, removing barriers and delivering results.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

David Crowley — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

2026 Wisconsin U.S. House — District 1 — General Election

2 candidates with matching statements · 15 statements

Bryan Steil

5 statements

Republican · U.S. House District 1 · WI

Health coverage

Steil strongly supports Social Security and Medicare. He is committed to protecting these vital programs for older Americans and those who rely on them.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Social Security, Medicare, and retirement

Candidate campaign source

Steil strongly supports Social Security and Medicare. He is committed to protecting these vital programs for older Americans and those who rely on them.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Bryan Steil — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
View 4 more statements from Bryan Steil
Health coverage

In Congress, Steil is focused on bringing down costs for Wisconsin workers and families, securing the border to stop the human trafficking crisis and deadly flow of fentanyl, and protecting Social Security and Medicare.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Immigration and border policy

Candidate campaign source

In Congress, Steil is focused on bringing down costs for Wisconsin workers and families, securing the border to stop the human trafficking crisis and deadly flow of fentanyl, and protecting Social Security and Medicare.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Bryan Steil — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Health coverage

Steil has always worked to protect our seniors and the programs they rely on. Steil is committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare. He supports policies to ensure these programs are solvent for generations to come. He’s also working to lower prescription drug prices which have become unaffo…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Social Security, Medicare, and retirement

Candidate campaign source

Steil has always worked to protect our seniors and the programs they rely on. Steil is committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare. He supports policies to ensure these programs are solvent for generations to come. He’s also working to lower prescription drug prices which have become unaffordable for many seniors.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Bryan Steil — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Care & public health

Steil has fought for Wisconsin farmers and agriculture to help keep Wisconsin a leader in the agriculture industry. He strongly supports our active military and veterans, and works to ensure they receive healthcare and other benefits they have earned, while improving access to mental health resource…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: National security, foreign policy, and veterans

Candidate campaign source

Steil has fought for Wisconsin farmers and agriculture to help keep Wisconsin a leader in the agriculture industry. He strongly supports our active military and veterans, and works to ensure they receive healthcare and other benefits they have earned, while improving access to mental health resources.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Bryan Steil — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

Our veterans have put everything on the line in service to our country. In Congress, Steil is working to ensure every active duty service member, their families, and our veterans are being supported. Whether it’s access to mental health services or the veterans benefits so many have earned, Steil is…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Gun policy and firearms

Candidate campaign source

Our veterans have put everything on the line in service to our country. In Congress, Steil is working to ensure every active duty service member, their families, and our veterans are being supported. Whether it’s access to mental health services or the veterans benefits so many have earned, Steil is committed to supporting our military and their families. Steil proudly supports the Second Amendment.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Bryan Steil — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗

Mitchell Berman

10 statements

Democratic · U.S. House District 1 · WI

Health coverage

For decades, working people paid into Medicare and Social Security with every paycheck. After a lifetime of hard work, seniors deserve to retire with dignity. I'll block cuts to Social Security, defend workers’ pensions, and lift the cap so high earners pay in on all of their income.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Social Security, Medicare, and retirement

Candidate campaign source

For decades, working people paid into Medicare and Social Security with every paycheck. After a lifetime of hard work, seniors deserve to retire with dignity. I'll block cuts to Social Security, defend workers’ pensions, and lift the cap so high earners pay in on all of their income.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Mitchell Berman — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 9 more statements from Mitchell Berman
Health coverage

As an ER nurse, I know that healthcare decisions belong to patients and the people who care for them. We need to protect reproductive freedom and a woman's right to reproductive health care.Politicians should not be getting in between a woman and her doctor. We also need to keep labor and delivery u…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Reproductive rights and health care

Candidate campaign source

As an ER nurse, I know that healthcare decisions belong to patients and the people who care for them. We need to protect reproductive freedom and a woman's right to reproductive health care.Politicians should not be getting in between a woman and her doctor. We also need to keep labor and delivery units open by funding rural maternity care and fixing the Medicaid reimbursement rates that push hospitals to close their OB wards.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Mitchell Berman — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Health coverage

Restore the Affordable Care Act subsidies and reverse the Medicaid cuts in the “Big Beautiful Bill” before more rural hospitals close and millions of Americans lose their health coverage

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Restore the Affordable Care Act subsidies and reverse the Medicaid cuts in the “Big Beautiful Bill” before more rural hospitals close and millions of Americans lose their health coverage

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Mitchell Berman — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Health coverage

Lower prescription drug costs by taking on the middlemen who drive drug prices up and raising the number of drugs Medicare can negotiate each year

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Lower prescription drug costs by taking on the middlemen who drive drug prices up and raising the number of drugs Medicare can negotiate each year

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Mitchell Berman — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

Protect the healthcare Wisconsinites depend on

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Protect the healthcare Wisconsinites depend on

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Mitchell Berman — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
Care & public health

I spent over a decade caring for veterans at the VA. I'll fight to make sure our veterans get the health care, benefits, and respect they were promised. I've seen what happens when the VA is deprived of staff, and I'll push back on efforts to privatize the care our veterans earned. That means real i…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: National security, foreign policy, and veterans

Candidate campaign source

I spent over a decade caring for veterans at the VA. I'll fight to make sure our veterans get the health care, benefits, and respect they were promised. I've seen what happens when the VA is deprived of staff, and I'll push back on efforts to privatize the care our veterans earned. That means real investment in VA staffing, shorter waits, and enough mental health and specialty providers so that a veteran who needs help can get an appointment when they need it. I’ll fight to pass the Richard Star Act, without strings attached, so veterans forced into early retirement by combat injuries get the full retirement pay and disability they earned.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Mitchell Berman — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

Fund addiction treatment and recovery, expand access to mental health care, and require insurance companies to treat mental health and addiction like any other medical condition.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

Fund addiction treatment and recovery, expand access to mental health care, and require insurance companies to treat mental health and addiction like any other medical condition.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Mitchell Berman — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

Protect nurses and health care workers from violence on the job, ensure funding for nursing education to train and keep nurses in our local communities and put bedside nurses, not hospital executives, in charge of setting staffing standards on their own units.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Education, child care, and workforce training

Candidate campaign source

Protect nurses and health care workers from violence on the job, ensure funding for nursing education to train and keep nurses in our local communities and put bedside nurses, not hospital executives, in charge of setting staffing standards on their own units.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Mitchell Berman — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Healthcare costs

No family should have to empty their savings just to afford healthcare. I’ll cap out-of-pocket prescription drug costs, make $35 insulin available to everyone, and help seniors stay in their homes with the care they need

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Health care

Candidate campaign source

No family should have to empty their savings just to afford healthcare. I’ll cap out-of-pocket prescription drug costs, make $35 insulin available to everyone, and help seniors stay in their homes with the care they need

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Mitchell Berman — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Care & public health

Understanding that farming isn’t just a job but a way of life, I’ll stand up for family farms by protecting crop insurance and programs that provide support for dairy farmers in bad years. Ensure the USDA helps small producers and not just large corporations, and keep farmland in the hands of people…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Transportation and infrastructure

Candidate campaign source

Understanding that farming isn’t just a job but a way of life, I’ll stand up for family farms by protecting crop insurance and programs that provide support for dairy farmers in bad years. Ensure the USDA helps small producers and not just large corporations, and keep farmland in the hands of people who actually farm it. Protect SNAP and the local food programs that feed rural families and support the farmers who grow that food. Expand rural broadband; keep rural hospitals and maternity wards open and staffed with the doctors, nurses, and EMS crews our rural communities depend on.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Mitchell Berman — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

2026 Wisconsin U.S. House — District 2 — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Mark Pocan

1 statement

Democratic · U.S. House District 2 · WI

Health coverage

Wisconsin’s families deserve an economy that puts workers’ interests first, and Mark supports strengthening the social safety net programs that so many American families count on. These include unemployment compensation, higher education assistance, strong worker rights and pension protections, heal…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Economy, jobs, taxes, and affordability

Candidate campaign source

Wisconsin’s families deserve an economy that puts workers’ interests first, and Mark supports strengthening the social safety net programs that so many American families count on. These include unemployment compensation, higher education assistance, strong worker rights and pension protections, health care for the most vulnerable in our society, and Medicare and Social Security-to provide dignity and certainty to senior citizens. Mark believes we must embrace the challenge of ensuring that illness, job loss, old age or disability does not mean a life sentence of poverty.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Mark Pocan — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Race groups · Page 1 of 3
How statements are selected

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

Wisconsin incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

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

202 matching sponsorships or proposals · 55 Wisconsin incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez

Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin · D–WI

1 proposal
View proposals from Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez
Wisconsin Legislature · AB 1014

court orders that prohibit a person from possessing a firearm under federal law.

Mar 15, 2022 · Did not pass

Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Sponsored AB1014: court orders that prohibit a person from possessing a firearm under federal law. Introduced proposal analysis: Domestic violence protection orders Under federal law, a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm if the person is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the partner's child and that contains a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the safety of the partner or child or an explicit term that prohibits the person from using, attempting to use, or threatening to use physical force against the partner or child. Under this bill, if a person is released on bail or bond and…

2022-03-15: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The proposal did not become law.

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

Domestic violence protection orders Under federal law, a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm if the person is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the partner's child and that contains a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the safety of the partner or child or an explicit term that prohibits the person from using, attempting to use, or threatening to use physical force against the partner or child. Under this bill, if a person is released on bail or bond and the court issues such an order, the clerk of court must send a copy of the order to the appropriate sheriff within one business day of the person's release. The sheriff must then enter the court order into the information system so that law enforcement has access to the order similar to how law enforcement has access to other orders for domestic violence, harassment, or child abuse that prohibit a person from possessing a firearm.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Alex Joers

Wisconsin State Assembly, District 81 · D–WI

4 proposals
View proposals from Rep. Alex Joers
Wisconsin Legislature · AB 321

prohibition against undetectable firearms, possessing a frame or receiver of a firearm without a serial number, and providing a penalty.

Mar 23, 2026 · Did not pass

Rep. Alex Joers · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Sponsored AB321: prohibition against undetectable firearms, possessing a frame or receiver of a firearm without a serial number, and providing a penalty. Introduced proposal analysis: This bill prohibits the manufacture, transportation, sale, possession, and carrying of firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or airport x-ray machines or scanners. Federal law currently has a comparable prohibition; under this bill, the person would violate state law as well. A person who violates the state prohibition is guilty of a Class G felony. This bill also prohibits the sale, posting, provision, or possession of plans for manufacturing an undetectable firearm. A person who violates this…

2026-03-23: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The proposal did not become law.

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

This bill prohibits the manufacture, transportation, sale, possession, and carrying of firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or airport x-ray machines or scanners. Federal law currently has a comparable prohibition; under this bill, the person would violate state law as well. A person who violates the state prohibition is guilty of a Class G felony. This bill also prohibits the sale, posting, provision, or possession of plans for manufacturing an undetectable firearm. A person who violates this prohibition is guilty of a Class H felony. Finally, the bill prohibits the possession of a frame or a receiver of a firearm that is not marked with a serial number. A person who violates this prohibition is guilty of a Class I felony. Because this bill creates a new crime or revises a penalty for an existing crime, the Joint Review Committee on Criminal Penalties may be requested to prepare a report.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Wisconsin Legislature · AB 531

grants for safe firearm disposal incentive programs and making an appropriation. (FE)

Mar 23, 2026 · Did not pass

Rep. Alex Joers · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Sponsored AB531: grants for safe firearm disposal incentive programs and making an appropriation. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: This bill creates a program, administered by the Department of Justice, to award grants to counties or law enforcement agencies that implement a safe firearm disposal incentive program that meets certain criteria. The bill provides $200,000 for grants in each fiscal year and authorizes a position for the purpose of administering the grant program. This describes the proposal at introduction; the recorded disposition below is separate.

2026-03-23: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The proposal did not become law.

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

This bill creates a program, administered by the Department of Justice, to award grants to counties or law enforcement agencies that implement a safe firearm disposal incentive program that meets certain criteria. The bill provides $200,000 for grants in each fiscal year and authorizes a position for the purpose of administering the grant program.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Wisconsin Legislature · AB 673

grants for firearm buyback programs and making an appropriation. (FE)

Apr 15, 2024 · Did not pass

Rep. Alex Joers · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Sponsored AB673: grants for firearm buyback programs and making an appropriation. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: This bill sets up a program administered by the Department of Justice to provide grants to counties or law enforcement agencies that implement a firearm buyback program that meets certain criteria. This describes the proposal at introduction; the recorded disposition below is separate.

2024-04-15: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The proposal did not become law.

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

This bill sets up a program administered by the Department of Justice to provide grants to counties or law enforcement agencies that implement a firearm buyback program that meets certain criteria.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Wisconsin Legislature · AB 677

prohibition against undetectable firearms, possessing a frame or receiver of a firearm without a serial number, and providing a penalty.

Apr 15, 2024 · Did not pass

Rep. Alex Joers · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Sponsored AB677: prohibition against undetectable firearms, possessing a frame or receiver of a firearm without a serial number, and providing a penalty. Introduced proposal analysis: This bill prohibits the manufacture, transportation, sale, possession, and carrying of firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or airport x-ray machines or scanners. Federal law currently has a comparable prohibition; under this bill, the person would violate state law as well. A person who violates the state prohibition is guilty of a Class G felony. This bill also prohibits the sale, posting, provision, or possession of plans for manufacturing an undetectable firearm. A person who violates the…

2024-04-15: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The proposal did not become law.

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

This bill prohibits the manufacture, transportation, sale, possession, and carrying of firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or airport x-ray machines or scanners. Federal law currently has a comparable prohibition; under this bill, the person would violate state law as well. A person who violates the state prohibition is guilty of a Class G felony. This bill also prohibits the sale, posting, provision, or possession of plans for manufacturing an undetectable firearm. A person who violates the prohibition is guilty of a Class H felony. Finally, the bill prohibits the possession of a frame or a receiver of a firearm that is not marked with a serial number. A person who violates the prohibition is guilty of a Class I felony. Because this bill creates a new crime or revises a penalty for an existing crime, the Joint Review Committee on Criminal Penalties may be requested to prepare a report.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Amanda Nedweski

Wisconsin State Assembly, District 32 · R–WI

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Amanda Nedweski
Wisconsin Legislature · AB 975

abortion if the probable postfertilization age of an unborn child is 14 or more weeks and requiring a referendum. (FE)

Apr 15, 2024 · Did not pass

Rep. Amanda Nedweski · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Sponsored AB975: abortion if the probable postfertilization age of an unborn child is 14 or more weeks and requiring a referendum. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: Current law regulates the performance of abortions in a number of ways, including prohibiting the performance or inducement of an abortion, or an attempt to perform or induce an abortion, if the postfertilization age of the unborn child is 20 or more weeks, except in the case of a medical emergency. Current law defines the postfertilization age of the unborn child to mean the number of weeks that have elapsed from the probable time of fertilization of a woman's ovum. This bill retains that definition and amends the 20-week…

2024-04-15: Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The proposal did not become law.

Why this record is included

The fact counts reported abortions performed in Wisconsin for Wisconsin residents. It excludes abortions obtained by residents outside Wisconsin. Abortion access, restrictions, and reporting concern this measure; contraception and general maternal care alone do not establish a connection. Wisconsin services were unavailable for much of 2023, so that year is not directly comparable with earlier years. These are dated actions. On July 2, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Kaul v. Urmanski that section 940.04(1) does not prohibit abortion; descriptions of earlier litigation are historical. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Reported abortions among Wisconsin residents. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Current law regulates the performance of abortions in a number of ways, including prohibiting the performance or inducement of an abortion, or an attempt to perform or induce an abortion, if the postfertilization age of the unborn child is 20 or more weeks, except in the case of a medical emergency. Current law defines the postfertilization age of the unborn child to mean the number of weeks that have elapsed from the probable time of fertilization of a woman's ovum. This bill retains that definition and amends the 20-week prohibition to prohibit any person from performing, inducing, or attempting to perform or induce an abortion if the probable postfertilization age of the unborn child is 14 or more weeks, except in the case of a medical emergency. Under the bill, as under current law, a medical emergency means a condition, in a physician's reasonable medical judgment, that so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or for which a 24-hour delay in performance or inducement of an abortion will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of one or more of the woman's major bodily functions. This bill requires a referendum before giving effect to the prohibition created in the bill. Under the bill, at the April 2024 election, the electors would vote on the question whether the statutory provisions treated in the bill shall take effect “thus prohibiting under Wisconsin Statutes an abortion if the probable postfertilization age of the unborn child is 14 or more weeks, except in the case of a medical emergency?”. If a majority of votes cast in the election approves the question, the prohibition takes effect on the day after the election results are certified. If the
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Angela Stroud

Wisconsin State Assembly, District 73 · D–WI

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Angela Stroud
Wisconsin Legislature · AB 484

training requirements for a license to carry a concealed weapon.

Mar 23, 2026 · Did not pass

Rep. Angela Stroud · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Sponsored AB484: training requirements for a license to carry a concealed weapon. Introduced proposal analysis: Under current law, the Department of Justice issues licenses to carry concealed weapons to qualified applicants who submit required materials, including proof that the applicant completed a firearms safety course or program. Under current law, DOJ may not require that the course or program require the applicant to fire live ammunition, and a person who has a license may renew the license without completing another firearms safety course or program. Under this bill, a course or program must require the applicant to fire live ammunition and provide information on gun safety and…

2026-03-23: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The proposal did not become law.

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

Under current law, the Department of Justice issues licenses to carry concealed weapons to qualified applicants who submit required materials, including proof that the applicant completed a firearms safety course or program. Under current law, DOJ may not require that the course or program require the applicant to fire live ammunition, and a person who has a license may renew the license without completing another firearms safety course or program. Under this bill, a course or program must require the applicant to fire live ammunition and provide information on gun safety and storage, including safe storage while traveling and safe storage in a vehicle; preventing accidental shootings; and suicide prevention. In addition, a course or program must provide training on de-escalation techniques and strategies. The bill also requires a licensee to complete a continuing firearms safety course or program to renew a license and requires that safety course or program to contain the same content requirements that the bill requires for the initial training. Finally, the bill eliminates the completion of a hunter education program as proof of the training requirement under current law.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Ann Roe

Wisconsin State Assembly, District 44 · D–WI

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Ann Roe
Wisconsin Legislature · AB 607

housing and homelessness; emergency rental assistance program; indigent civil legal services; workforce development; community action agencies; poverty reports; mental health; economic security; reimbursement for nonemergency medical transportation services; urban mass transit aid; lead exposure and abatement services; lead service line replacement; providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures; granting rule-making authority; and making an appropriation. (FE)

Mar 23, 2026 · Did not pass

Rep. Ann Roe · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Sponsored AB607: housing and homelessness; emergency rental assistance program; indigent civil legal services; workforce development; community action agencies; poverty reports; mental health; economic security; reimbursement for nonemergency medical transportation services; urban mass transit aid; lead exposure and abatement services; lead service line replacement; providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures; granting rule-making authority; and making an appropriation. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: Housing, homelessness, and indigence Grants to facilitate the independent living of homeless persons Under current law, the Department of Administration provides housing grants to…

2026-03-23: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The proposal did not become law.

Why this record is included

Gross rent includes contract rent and tenant-paid utilities. Rental protections, assistance, and housing supply concern components of rental-market conditions; they do not set Wisconsin’s median rent. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Housing, homelessness, and indigence Grants to facilitate the independent living of homeless persons Under current law, the Department of Administration provides housing grants to counties, municipalities, community action agencies, and private organizations for the purpose of providing housing and associated supportive services to homeless individuals and families in order to facilitate the movement of homeless persons to independent living. This bill provides an additional $5,000,000 in the 2025-27 fiscal biennium to fund that grant program. Emergency rental assistance grants The bill creates an emergency rental assistance program under which DOA awards grants to provide tenant-based rental assistance to individuals and families who have suffered an economic hardship and whose annual household income does not exceed 80 percent of the median household income for the county in which the individual or family resides. The bill appropriates $10,000,000 for the program in the 2025-27 fiscal biennium. Grants to defray housing costs The bill increases funding for DOA to award grants to persons or families of low or moderate income to defray housing costs. The bill provides an additional $220,000 in each fiscal year of the 2025-27 fiscal biennium for that purpose. Duties of the Interagency Council on Homelessness The bill requires the Interagency Council on Homelessness to do all of the following every two years: 1. Identify ways in which DOA and other state agencies specified in the bill and the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority can increase access to services for homeless individuals and families, including homeless children and youths as defined under federal law. 2. Advise each of the state agencies specified in the bill and WHEDA to revise any policy or
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Barbara Dittrich

Wisconsin State Assembly, District 99 · R–WI

4 proposals
View proposals from Rep. Barbara Dittrich
Wisconsin Legislature · AB 493

certification of abortion providers under the Medical Assistance program.

Mar 15, 2022 · Did not pass

Rep. Barbara Dittrich · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Sponsored AB493: certification of abortion providers under the Medical Assistance program. Introduced proposal analysis: bill prohibits the Department of Health Services from certifying, and requires DHS to decertify by July 1, 2022, a provider under the Medical Assistance program that is a private entity that provides abortion services or is an affiliate of a person that provides abortion services. The prohibition does not apply to any hospital that terminates pregnancies under any of the following circumstances: the termination is directly and medically necessary to save the life of the woman; the pregnancy is the result of sexual assault or incest, which has been reported to law…

2022-03-15: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The proposal did not become law.

Why this record is included

The fact counts reported abortions performed in Wisconsin for Wisconsin residents. It excludes abortions obtained by residents outside Wisconsin. Abortion access, restrictions, and reporting concern this measure; contraception and general maternal care alone do not establish a connection. Wisconsin services were unavailable for much of 2023, so that year is not directly comparable with earlier years. These are dated actions. On July 2, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Kaul v. Urmanski that section 940.04(1) does not prohibit abortion; descriptions of earlier litigation are historical. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Reported abortions among Wisconsin residents. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

bill prohibits the Department of Health Services from certifying, and requires DHS to decertify by July 1, 2022, a provider under the Medical Assistance program that is a private entity that provides abortion services or is an affiliate of a person that provides abortion services. The prohibition does not apply to any hospital that terminates pregnancies under any of the following circumstances: the termination is directly and medically necessary to save the life of the woman; the pregnancy is the result of sexual assault or incest, which has been reported to law enforcement; or the termination is, due to a medical condition existing prior to the abortion, directly and medically necessary to prevent grave, long-lasting physical health damage to the woman. If DHS determines that it needs to request a waiver of federal law or a state plan amendment or obtain other federal approval to implement this prohibition on certification and requirement to decertify, the bill requires DHS to submit the request or seek federal approval. Generally, under current law, DHS establishes criteria for certifying providers to provide services under the Medical Assistance program and certifies those providers. The Medical Assistance program is a joint federal and state program administered by DHS that provides health services to individuals who have limited financial resources.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Wisconsin Legislature · AB 595

sex-selective, disability-selective, and other selective abortions and providing a penalty.

Mar 15, 2022 · Did not pass

Rep. Barbara Dittrich · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Sponsored AB595: sex-selective, disability-selective, and other selective abortions and providing a penalty. Introduced proposal analysis: This bill prohibits a person from performing or inducing or attempting to perform or induce an abortion on a woman if the person knows the woman is seeking an abortion solely because of the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the unborn child or solely because the unborn child has been diagnosed with or has a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome or another congenital disability. A congenital disability is defined in the bill as any congenital disease, defect, or disorder, except a life-limiting fetal anomaly, which is a profound and…

2022-03-15: Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The proposal did not become law.

Why this record is included

The fact counts reported abortions performed in Wisconsin for Wisconsin residents. It excludes abortions obtained by residents outside Wisconsin. Abortion access, restrictions, and reporting concern this measure; contraception and general maternal care alone do not establish a connection. Wisconsin services were unavailable for much of 2023, so that year is not directly comparable with earlier years. These are dated actions. On July 2, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Kaul v. Urmanski that section 940.04(1) does not prohibit abortion; descriptions of earlier litigation are historical. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Reported abortions among Wisconsin residents. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

This bill prohibits a person from performing or inducing or attempting to perform or induce an abortion on a woman if the person knows the woman is seeking an abortion solely because of the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the unborn child or solely because the unborn child has been diagnosed with or has a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome or another congenital disability. A congenital disability is defined in the bill as any congenital disease, defect, or disorder, except a life-limiting fetal anomaly, which is a profound and irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly that is incompatible with sustaining life after birth and does not include any condition that can be treated. The bill allows a claim for damages for a violation of this bill to be brought by a woman on whom an abortion is performed, induced, or attempted; the father of the aborted unborn child or unborn child that is attempted to be aborted, unless the pregnancy is the result of a sexual assault or incest; and, if the woman is a minor at the time or dies as a result of the abortion or attempted abortion, a parent or guardian of the woman on whom an abortion was performed, induced, or attempted. A district attorney or the attorney general may bring an action to enjoin a person who performs, induces, or attempts an abortion in violation of the prohibitions in the bill, and the bill specifies penalties for each violation of an injunction. An allegation that a physician violates the prohibitions in the bill is an allegation of unprofessional conduct that must be investigated by the Medical Examining Board. Under current law, a woman upon whom an abortion is to be performed or induced must give voluntary and informed written consent to an abortion. Except in a medical emergency, a woma
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Wisconsin Legislature · AB 182

sex-selective, disability-selective, and other selective abortions and providing a penalty.

Jun 21, 2019 · Vetoed

Rep. Barbara Dittrich · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Sponsored AB182: sex-selective, disability-selective, and other selective abortions and providing a penalty. Introduced proposal analysis: This bill prohibits a person from performing or inducing or attempting to perform or induce an abortion on a woman if the person knows the woman is seeking an abortion solely because of the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the unborn child or solely because the unborn child has been diagnosed with or has a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome or another congenital disability. A congenital disability is defined in the bill as any congenital disease, defect, or disorder, except a life-limiting fetal anomaly, which is a profound and…

2019-06-21: Report vetoed by the Governor on 6-21-2019. This is the legislative disposition, not a finding about current enforceability.

Why this record is included

The fact counts reported abortions performed in Wisconsin for Wisconsin residents. It excludes abortions obtained by residents outside Wisconsin. Abortion access, restrictions, and reporting concern this measure; contraception and general maternal care alone do not establish a connection. Wisconsin services were unavailable for much of 2023, so that year is not directly comparable with earlier years. These are dated actions. On July 2, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Kaul v. Urmanski that section 940.04(1) does not prohibit abortion; descriptions of earlier litigation are historical. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Reported abortions among Wisconsin residents. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

This bill prohibits a person from performing or inducing or attempting to perform or induce an abortion on a woman if the person knows the woman is seeking an abortion solely because of the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the unborn child or solely because the unborn child has been diagnosed with or has a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome or another congenital disability. A congenital disability is defined in the bill as any congenital disease, defect, or disorder, except a life-limiting fetal anomaly, which is a profound and irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly that is incompatible with sustaining life after birth and does not include any condition that can be treated. The bill allows a claim for damages for a violation of this bill to be brought by a woman on whom an abortion is performed, induced, or attempted; the father of the aborted unborn child or unborn child that is attempted to be aborted, unless the pregnancy is the result of a sexual assault or incest; and, if the woman is a minor at the time or dies as a result of the abortion or attempted abortion, a parent or guardian of the woman on whom an abortion was performed, induced, or attempted. A district attorney or the attorney general may bring an action to enjoin a person who performs, induces, or attempts an abortion in violation of the prohibitions in the bill, and the bill specifies penalties for each violation of an injunction. An allegation that a physician violates the prohibitions in the bill is an allegation of unprofessional conduct that must be investigated by the Medical Examining Board. Under current law, a woman upon whom an abortion is to be performed or induced must give voluntary and informed written consent to an abortion. Except in a medical emergency, a woma
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Wisconsin Legislature · AB 183

certification of abortion providers under the Medical Assistance program.

Jun 21, 2019 · Vetoed

Rep. Barbara Dittrich · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

Sponsored AB183: certification of abortion providers under the Medical Assistance program. Introduced proposal analysis: bill prohibits the Department of Health Services from certifying, and requires DHS to decertify by July 1, 2020, a provider under the Medical Assistance program that is a private entity that provides abortion services or is an affiliate of a person that provides abortion services. The prohibition does not apply to any hospital that terminates pregnancies under any of the following circumstances: the termination is directly and medically necessary to save the life of the woman; the pregnancy is the result of sexual assault or incest, which has been reported to law…

2019-06-21: Report vetoed by the Governor on 6-21-2019. This is the legislative disposition, not a finding about current enforceability.

Why this record is included

The fact counts reported abortions performed in Wisconsin for Wisconsin residents. It excludes abortions obtained by residents outside Wisconsin. Abortion access, restrictions, and reporting concern this measure; contraception and general maternal care alone do not establish a connection. Wisconsin services were unavailable for much of 2023, so that year is not directly comparable with earlier years. These are dated actions. On July 2, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Kaul v. Urmanski that section 940.04(1) does not prohibit abortion; descriptions of earlier litigation are historical. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the fact’s measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained Wisconsin evidence context: Reported abortions among Wisconsin residents. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

bill prohibits the Department of Health Services from certifying, and requires DHS to decertify by July 1, 2020, a provider under the Medical Assistance program that is a private entity that provides abortion services or is an affiliate of a person that provides abortion services. The prohibition does not apply to any hospital that terminates pregnancies under any of the following circumstances: the termination is directly and medically necessary to save the life of the woman; the pregnancy is the result of sexual assault or incest, which has been reported to law enforcement; or the termination is, due to a medical condition existing prior to the abortion, directly and medically necessary to prevent grave, long-lasting physical health damage to the woman. If DHS determines that it needs to request a waiver of federal law or a state plan amendment or obtain other federal approval to implement this prohibition on certification and requirement to decertify, the bill requires DHS to submit the request or seek federal approval. Generally, under current law, DHS establishes criteria for certifying providers to provide services under the Medical Assistance program and certifies those providers. The Medical Assistance program is a joint federal and state program administered by DHS that provides health services to individuals who have limited financial resources.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current Wisconsin 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 Wisconsin statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.