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.
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
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
2024 · Wisconsin: 5.3% · Rank #41 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Wisconsin Uninsured rate · all ages history
Period
Wisconsin
Compare
2014
7.3%
2015
5.7%
2016
5.3%
2017
5.4%
2018
5.5%
2019
5.7%
2020
Not available
2021
5.4%
2022
5.2%
2023
4.9%
2024
5.3%
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
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
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 · your comparison
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 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.
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
2020 · Wisconsin: $9,982 · Rank #28 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $10,191 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Wisconsin Personal healthcare spending per resident history
Period
Wisconsin
Compare
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New York
$14,007
—
#2
Alaska
$13,642
—
#3
Massachusetts
$13,319
—
#4
Delaware
$12,899
—
#5
West Virginia
$12,769
—
#6
Vermont
$12,756
—
#7
South Dakota
$12,495
—
#8
Connecticut
$12,489
—
#9
Maine
$12,077
—
#10
New Jersey
$11,868
—
#11
New Hampshire
$11,793
—
#12
Rhode Island
$11,694
—
#13
Pennsylvania
$11,603
—
#14
North Dakota
$11,301
—
#15
Wyoming
$10,989
—
#16
Minnesota
$10,846
—
#17
Maryland
$10,839
—
#18
Indiana
$10,517
—
#19
Louisiana
$10,515
—
#20
Nebraska
$10,514
—
#21
Ohio
$10,478
—
#22
California
$10,299
—
#23
Hawaii
$10,291
—
#24
Kentucky
$10,257
—
#25
Montana
$10,212
—
#26
Illinois
$10,190
—
#27
Oregon
$10,071
—
#28
Wisconsin · your comparison
$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.
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
2022 · Wisconsin: 78.1 years · Rank #16 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 77.5 years · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Wisconsin Life expectancy at birth history
Period
Wisconsin
Compare
2018
79.3 years
2019
79.3 years
2020
77.7 years
2021
77.8 years
2022
78.1 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
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 · your comparison
78.1 years
—
#17
Florida
77.9 years
—
#17
Iowa
77.9 years
—
#17
North Dakota
77.9 years
—
#20
Maryland
77.8 years
—
#21
Oregon
77.7 years
—
#22
Illinois
77.5 years
—
#22
Virginia
77.5 years
—
#24
Montana
77.3 years
—
#24
Pennsylvania
77.3 years
—
#24
South Dakota
77.3 years
—
#27
Texas
77.1 years
—
#28
Michigan
76.8 years
—
#28
Wyoming
76.8 years
—
#30
Arizona
76.7 years
—
#31
Maine
76.6 years
—
#32
Delaware
76.5 years
—
#32
Kansas
76.5 years
—
#34
Nevada
76.4 years
—
#35
Georgia
75.9 years
—
#35
North Carolina
75.9 years
—
#37
Alaska
75.8 years
—
#38
Ohio
75.6 years
—
#39
Indiana
75.4 years
—
#40
Missouri
75.2 years
—
#41
South Carolina
75.1 years
—
#42
New Mexico
74.5 years
—
#43
Arkansas
73.9 years
—
#44
Alabama
73.8 years
—
#44
Louisiana
73.8 years
—
#44
Oklahoma
73.8 years
—
#44
Tennessee
73.8 years
—
#48
Kentucky
73.6 years
—
#49
Mississippi
72.6 years
—
#50
West Virginia
72.2 years
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Compare age-adjusted adult prevalence using the same survey year and definition.
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
2023 · Wisconsin: 9.6% · Rank #30 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 10.7% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Wisconsin Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history
Period
Wisconsin
Compare
2019
7.5%
2020
7.7%
2021
8%
2022
8.9%
2023
9.6%
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Mississippi
15.1%
95% CI: 13.7–16.6
#1
West Virginia
15.1%
95% CI: 13.9–16.3
#3
Louisiana
14.6%
95% CI: 13.4–15.8
#4
Alabama
14%
95% CI: 12.7–15.3
#5
Arkansas
13.1%
95% CI: 12–14.3
#6
South Carolina
12.7%
95% CI: 11.9–13.6
#6
Tennessee
12.7%
95% CI: 11.7–13.8
#8
Texas
12.1%
95% CI: 11–13.3
#9
Indiana
11.7%
95% CI: 11.1–12.4
#10
Georgia
11.5%
95% CI: 10.7–12.3
#10
Ohio
11.5%
95% CI: 10.8–12.2
#12
Oklahoma
11.3%
95% CI: 10.5–12.1
#13
Delaware
11.1%
95% CI: 9.8–12.6
#14
North Carolina
11%
95% CI: 9.8–12.3
#15
Illinois
10.9%
95% CI: 9.9–12.1
#15
Maryland
10.9%
95% CI: 10.2–11.7
#15
Michigan
10.9%
95% CI: 10.1–11.8
#18
Nevada
10.8%
95% CI: 8.9–13
#18
New Mexico
10.8%
95% CI: 9.3–12.6
#20
Missouri
10.7%
95% CI: 9.9–11.7
#20
South Dakota
10.7%
95% CI: 8.9–12.8
#22
California
10.6%
95% CI: 9.8–11.4
#23
Kansas
10.5%
95% CI: 9.7–11.3
#24
Virginia
10.4%
95% CI: 9.5–11.4
#25
Florida
10.1%
95% CI: 9.1–11.1
#26
Rhode Island
10%
95% CI: 9.1–11
#27
Arizona
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#27
Iowa
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#29
Nebraska
9.7%
95% CI: 9–10.3
#30
Wisconsin · your comparison
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.
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
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 · your comparison
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
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.
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Alaska
$8,635
—
#2
New York
$8,177
—
#3
New Hampshire
$7,991
—
#4
Vermont
$7,868
—
#5
Wyoming
$7,743
—
#6
Nebraska
$7,611
—
#7
South Carolina
$7,516
—
#8
Connecticut
$7,501
—
#9
Maine
$7,496
—
#10
Massachusetts
$7,452
—
#11
Washington
$7,440
—
#12
New Mexico
$7,424
—
#13
Illinois
$7,376
—
#14
New Jersey
$7,373
—
#15
Maryland
$7,352
—
#16
Rhode Island
$7,326
—
#17
Indiana
$7,319
—
#18
Delaware
$7,280
—
#19
Wisconsin · your comparison
$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.
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
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 · your comparison
24.6%
—
#23
Idaho
24.5%
—
#24
Nebraska
24.1%
—
#25
Louisiana
24.1%
—
#26
Alaska
24%
—
#27
Pennsylvania
23.9%
—
#28
New Mexico
23.9%
—
#28
Ohio
23.9%
—
#30
Connecticut
23.7%
—
#31
Kansas
23.7%
—
#32
Michigan
23.6%
—
#33
Virginia
23.1%
—
#34
Alabama
23%
—
#35
North Dakota
23%
—
#36
Maryland
22.7%
—
#37
Oklahoma
22.6%
—
#38
Minnesota
22.6%
—
#39
Illinois
22.2%
—
#40
Delaware
22.1%
—
#41
New York
21.9%
—
#42
South Dakota
21.8%
—
#43
California
21.6%
—
#44
North Carolina
21.4%
—
#45
Florida
20.8%
—
#46
Texas
20.7%
—
#47
Mississippi
20.5%
—
#48
Hawaii
19.8%
—
#49
South Carolina
19.8%
—
#50
New Jersey
18.1%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
246 of 246 reviewed Wisconsin actions · newest first
Aug 4, 2026 · DOJ 2026-08-04 · Joined litigation challenging federal marketplace rules affecting eligibility, enrollment and the affordability of health insurance for 2027. · Reported actionWisconsin agencies · DOJ 2026-08-04
Joined litigation challenging federal marketplace rules affecting eligibility, enrollment and the affordability of health insurance for 2027.
Aug 4, 2026 · Reported action
Attorney General Josh Kaul · Filed lawsuit
FactVote reviewed summary
On August 4, 2026, Wisconsin DOJ reported its participation in a lawsuit filed the preceding week challenging federal marketplace rules governing health-insurance eligibility, enrollment and affordability for 2027.
2026-08-04: Wisconsin DOJ announced participation in litigation filed the preceding week. The source does not give an exact filing date. The lawsuit challenged 2027 marketplace rules; filing does not establish a final court outcome.
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 Wisconsin evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
strophic Health Insurance Plans and Again Undermine Affordable Care Act Protections Coalition Sues Over Federal Rule That Reinstates Provisions Blocked by a Federal Court and Adds New Harmful Changes MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) has joined a coalition in filing a lawsuit challenging a federal rule that once again illegally undermines the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and would make health insurance more expensive and harder to obtain for millions of Americans. The coalition seeks to block provisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) 2027 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters, a federal rule that sets standards for health plans offered in 2027 and was opposed by the coalition in a March 2026 comment letter. HHS estimates the new rule will cause two million people to lose coverage in 2027 alone and a total of five million by 2030. The rule expands eligibility for catastrophic health insurance plans that are ineligible for premium tax credits, offer only limited coverage, and can leave consumers facing significantly higher out -of-pocket costs than standard ACA plans. The rule also all ows catastrophic and bronze plans to exceed ACA limits on maximum annual out -of-pocket costs, increasing the financial burden on consumers . The rule also attempts to reinstate several provisions that a federal court recently found to be unlawful. Page 2 of 3 DOJ Communications Office [email protected] (608) 266-1220 The coalition argues these provisions unlawfully undermine the ACA’s goal of expanding access to affordable healthcare by increasing costs, reducing enrollment, and shifting financial burdens onto consumers, states, and healthcare providers. “The Trump admini
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jun 29, 2026 · DOJ 2026-06-29 · Joined litigation challenging the federal definition of medically frail individuals exempt from Medicaid work requirements scheduled for 2027. · Reported actionWisconsin agencies · DOJ 2026-06-29
Joined litigation challenging the federal definition of medically frail individuals exempt from Medicaid work requirements scheduled for 2027.
Jun 29, 2026 · Reported action
Attorney General Josh Kaul · Filed lawsuit
FactVote reviewed summary
Joined litigation challenging the federal definition of medically frail individuals exempt from Medicaid work requirements scheduled for 2027.
2026-06-29: Filed lawsuit. The June 30 release says the Medicaid-work-requirement lawsuit was filed Monday. This is the historical action, not a determination of current litigation status.
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 Wisconsin evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
266-1220 NEWS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 30, 2026 Wisconsin DOJ Joins Lawsuit Challenging Trump Administration’s Unlawful Implementation of Medicaid Work Requirements for Medically Frail Individuals MADISON, Wis. – The Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) Monday joined a multistate coalition in suing the Trump administration over its unlawful implementation of new Medicaid work requirements included in the One Big Beautiful 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. The rule makes it more difficult for individuals with serious medical problems to be exempted from the requirement that they must work to keep Medicaid coverage. Medicaid is the nation’s healthcare program for low-income Americans and is jointly funded by states and the federal government. Wisconsin Medicaid receives federal funding that covers an average of 60% of expenditures on most eligible enrollees. “The Trump administration is lawlessly trying to restrict access to Medicaid coverage,” said AG Kaul. “No Wisconsinite should be denied coverage because of this unlawful interim final rule.” 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 more stringent interpretation of the key term , “medically frail,” making it harder for medically vulnerable individuals to be excused from the work requirements. Page 2 of 3 DOJ Communication
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 30, 2026 · AB 954 · a requirement to report lost or stolen firearms and providing a penalty. (FE) · Did not passWisconsin Legislature · AB 954
a requirement to report lost or stolen firearms and providing a penalty. (FE)
Mar 30, 2026 · Did not pass
Rep. Lisa Subeck · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sponsored AB954: a requirement to report lost or stolen firearms and providing a penalty. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: Under this bill, a person who owns a firearm that is stolen or missing must report the theft or loss to a law enforcement agency within 24 hours of discovering the theft or loss. A person who violates this requirement is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense and guilty of a Class I felony for a subsequent offense. A person who falsely reports a stolen or lost firearm is guilty of the current-law crime of obstructing an officer and is subject to a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to nine months, or both. This bill also requires a person who…
2026-03-30: Senator Keyeski added as a cosponsor. 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 this bill, a person who owns a firearm that is stolen or missing must report the theft or loss to a law enforcement agency within 24 hours of discovering the theft or loss. A person who violates this requirement is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense and guilty of a Class I felony for a subsequent offense. A person who falsely reports a stolen or lost firearm is guilty of the current-law crime of obstructing an officer and is subject to a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to nine months, or both. This bill also requires a person who commercially sells or transfers a firearm to provide the purchaser or transferee a written notice of the requirement, created in this bill, to report a theft or loss of a firearm within 24 hours of discovering it. A seller or transferor who violates this requirement is subject to a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for up to 30 days, or both. 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.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 30, 2026 · SB 946 · containers or trigger locks provided at a firearm sale and providing a penalty. · Did not passWisconsin Legislature · SB 946
containers or trigger locks provided at a firearm sale and providing a penalty.
Mar 30, 2026 · Did not pass
Sen. Chris Larson · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sponsored SB946: containers or trigger locks provided at a firearm sale and providing a penalty. Introduced proposal analysis: This bill requires a person who commercially sells or transfers a firearm to provide the purchaser or transferee with either a secure, lockable container that is designed to store a firearm or a trigger lock for the firearm. A seller or transferor who violates this requirement is subject to a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for up to 30 days, or both. 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. This describes the proposal at introduction;…
2026-03-30: Senator Keyeski added as a coauthor. 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 requires a person who commercially sells or transfers a firearm to provide the purchaser or transferee with either a secure, lockable container that is designed to store a firearm or a trigger lock for the firearm. A seller or transferor who violates this requirement is subject to a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for up to 30 days, or both. 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.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 30, 2026 · AB 953 · containers or trigger locks provided at a firearm sale and providing a penalty. · Did not passWisconsin Legislature · AB 953
containers or trigger locks provided at a firearm sale and providing a penalty.
Mar 30, 2026 · Did not pass
Rep. Lisa Subeck · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sponsored AB953: containers or trigger locks provided at a firearm sale and providing a penalty. Introduced proposal analysis: This bill requires a person who commercially sells or transfers a firearm to provide the purchaser or transferee with either a secure, lockable container that is designed to store a firearm or a trigger lock for the firearm. A seller or transferor who violates this requirement is subject to a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for up to 30 days, or both. 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. This describes the proposal at introduction;…
2026-03-30: Senator Keyeski added as a cosponsor. 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 requires a person who commercially sells or transfers a firearm to provide the purchaser or transferee with either a secure, lockable container that is designed to store a firearm or a trigger lock for the firearm. A seller or transferor who violates this requirement is subject to a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for up to 30 days, or both. 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.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 30, 2026 · SB 947 · a requirement to report lost or stolen firearms and providing a penalty. (FE) · Did not passWisconsin Legislature · SB 947
a requirement to report lost or stolen firearms and providing a penalty. (FE)
Mar 30, 2026 · Did not pass
Sen. Chris Larson · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Sponsored SB947: a requirement to report lost or stolen firearms and providing a penalty. (FE) Introduced proposal analysis: Under this bill, a person who owns a firearm that is stolen or missing must report the theft or loss to a law enforcement agency within 24 hours of discovering the theft or loss. A person who violates this requirement is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense and guilty of a Class I felony for a subsequent offense. A person who falsely reports a stolen or lost firearm is guilty of the current-law crime of obstructing an officer and is subject to a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to nine months, or both. This bill also requires a person who…
2026-03-30: Senator Keyeski added as a coauthor. 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 this bill, a person who owns a firearm that is stolen or missing must report the theft or loss to a law enforcement agency within 24 hours of discovering the theft or loss. A person who violates this requirement is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense and guilty of a Class I felony for a subsequent offense. A person who falsely reports a stolen or lost firearm is guilty of the current-law crime of obstructing an officer and is subject to a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to nine months, or both. This bill also requires a person who commercially sells or transfers a firearm to provide the purchaser or transferee a written notice of the requirement, created in this bill, to report a theft or loss of a firearm within 24 hours of discovering it. A seller or transferor who violates this requirement is subject to a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for up to 30 days, or both. 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.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified Wisconsin 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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 proposalView proposals from Lt. Gov. Sara RodriguezWisconsin 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.
4 proposalsView proposals from Rep. Alex JoersWisconsin 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.
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.
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.
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.
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Amanda NedweskiWisconsin 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
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Angela StroudWisconsin 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.
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Ann RoeWisconsin 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
4 proposalsView proposals from Rep. Barbara DittrichWisconsin 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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Wisconsin 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 Wisconsin, 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.