CAHC RELEASES NEW VOTER SURVEY FINDINGS ON HEALTHCARE ISSUES IN SENATE BATTLEGROUND STATES

The following information was released by the Council for Affordable Health Coverage (CAHC):

The Council for Affordable Health Coverage commissioned a survey of 1,240 respondents from the nine key Senate battleground states focused on healthcare issues heading into the 2026 midterm elections.

"Voters are demanding something better. They're fed up with health insurers raising premiums, driving up out-of-pocket costs, and putting bureaucrats between patients and their doctors. Insurers second-guessing the decisions doctors make for their patients has only deepened voters' frustration with the status quo," said Joel White, President of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage. "When people are this frustrated with the current system, it is not surprising that a catchphrase such as 'Medicare for All' starts to sound attractive. The good news is solutions that bypass insurers and get resources directly to the patient have bipartisan support."

Below are the findings from the survey.

The cost of healthcare matters to voters, more than even war, jobs, and immigration enforcement.

79 percent of likely battleground voters say the cost of healthcare will be very important to their vote.

Just behind the cost of living (85 percent) and federal taxes and spending (80 percent), but ahead of other issues including foreign policy and wars (70 percent), jobs (67 percent), AI regulation (60 percent), and immigration enforcement (59 percent).

Voters support giving federal healthcare dollars to the people rather than insurance companies.

When asked if the federal government should give ACA money to the people buying policies or the insurance companies, swing state voters choose the people by a 57 to 23 percent margin.

A plurality of Democrats agree (49 to 33 percent) with independents (58 to 20 percent) and Republicans (64 to 18 percent).

Republicans have an opportunity to neutralize a traditional deficit in trust on healthcare by emphasizing Democrats' closeness to the insurance companies.

Republicans trail Democrats by a narrow 45 to 42 percent margin on trust on healthcare, in part because seven of the nine swing states supported President Trump in 2024.

But when voters are asked who they trust more on healthcare

a Republican who wants to give healthcare subsidies directly to people to give them more control over the money, or

a Democrat who wants to continue to pay healthcare subsidies to insurance companies and guarantee healthcare as a human right?

the Republican wins by a 46 to 39 percent margin.

Voters also think that health insurers and their employees donating twice as much to Democratic candidates as Republican candidates shows that "Democrats are better for insurance companies" rather than "Democrats are better for patients" by a 54 to 22 percent margin.

"Medicare for All" has initial supportuntil context is provided.

Even in these states that largely supported President Trump in 2024, voters initially support Medicare for

All by a 54 to 39 percent margin.

Voters need to hear some context, and voters split when we ask whether

Medicare for All would be a good thing because it would guarantee healthcare as a right for every American, paid for by the federal government, and eliminate most co-pays and deductibles, (43 percent) or

"Medicare for All would be a bad thing because a government-run system would drop millions of Americans from their current insurance and provide worse healthcare, longer wait times for appointments, and higher taxes (44 percent).

Voters agree with a negative statement about the Democrats' approach to healthcare AND with a positive statement about the Republicans' approach.

Majorities agree with both of the following statements:

Democrats have over-promised and under-delivered on healthcare since saying If you like your plan, you can keep it.' Their big-government plans have increased the cost of healthcare without improving the quality of care or even covering every American. (57 to 29 percent)

Republicans' small-government approach to healthcare has given us prescription drug coverage for every senior and health savings accounts to spend on care. Government should keep focusing on giving people more control over their healthcare spending." (59 to 28 percent)

The federal government is viewed as too generous in providing Obamacare subsidies to insurers.

A majority of voters say the massive growth of insurers since Obamacare was signed into

law shows that the federal government has been too generous toward the companies (55 percent), rather than the natural result of coverage being extended to more people (18 percent).

Notably, independents say the federal government has been too generous toward the companies by a four-to-one margin (58 to14 percent); even Democrats split on this question (36 to 33 percent), while Republicans say the federal government has been too generous by a 70 to 9 percent margin.

There is broad bipartisan opposition to the practice of insurance companies getting larger by buying providers.

Voters oppose insurance companies buying providers by a 79 to 4 percent margin, including a 78 to 3 percent margin among both Republicans and Democrats, and an 84 to 3 percent margin among independents.

Importantly, voters think this practice increases consumer costs "because health insurance companies can set their own prices across a variety of services" by a 64 to 17 percent margin. Voters also think this practice limits patient choice by a 79 to 4 percent margin.

###

Methodology

This battleground survey of 1,240 likely general election voters was conducted July 30-August 6, 2026; voters were contacted by text and invited to participate online. Respondents were selected randomly from DataTrust's registered voter file in the nine states, and quotas were set for county, gender, race, age, and education. We conducted 100 interviews in Alaska, 140 interviews in Georgia, 100 interviews in Iowa, 100 interviews in Maine, 150 interviews in Michigan, 100 interviews in New Hampshire, 150 interviews in North Carolina, 150 interviews in Ohio, and 250 interviews in Texas. Completed interviews were weighted by past turnout in each state and weighted minimally by education to reflect a sample of 1,000 voters.

The margin of error for the full sample, with respondents splitting 50 percent for one response and 50 percent for another response is plus-or-minus 2.78 percentage points. The margin of error increases for smaller subgroups within the sample. For example, the margin of error is plus-or-minus 4.38 percentage points for subgroups of 500, 6.20 percentage points for subgroups of 250, and 9.80 percentage points for subgroups of 100.