Supporters of "Medicare for All" now outnumber opponents by nearly 2-to-1, according to a new survey of U.S. adults from the Axios-Ipsos American Health Index.

The big picture: Two-thirds of all survey respondents — and half of Republicans — said the federal government should be willing to spend more tax dollars to lower health care costs for Americans.

Why it matters: With three weeks to go before the midterm elections, and private health insurance premiums and prescription prices crushing voters, these findings suggest a path for swing-state candidates who embrace socialized medicine.

• But the public's openness is driven more by desperation than by confidence in government. Affordability is foremost on most Americans' minds, and health care brings almost daily reminders of economic pressure.

Between the lines: Survey respondents say they want more government intervention — but they trust those leaders less than ever.

• Trust in President Trump for health-related information fell to a survey low of 20%.
• Trust in Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fell to a survey low of 25%.
• Trust in congressional Republicans (20%) and Democrats (25%) also were at lows.

By the numbers: 43% of Americans said they support the idea of establishing a "Medicare for All" program to provide government-run health insurance to all, largely replacing private health insurance; 24% oppose the idea and 32% say they aren't sure.

• Nearly half of independents (47%) support it, as do 62% of Democrats.
• 21% of Republicans support Medicare for All, and 27% are undecided, compared with 52% who oppose the idea.

The other side: Opponents said their top reason is they fear Medicare for All would have a worse quality of care than private insurance.

• Other reasons were feeling it would become too expensive for taxpayers; that government should not be providing health care; or that it would expand the size of government too much.
• But resistance to the idea has changed markedly from recent campaign cycles, when centrist Democrats were likelier to embrace a public health insurance option or a version of Medicare for All with a role for private insurance.

What we're watching: Respondents said they'd be more likely to support congressional candidates this year if those candidates favored expanding government subsidies of health care costs, reinstating enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits that expired at the beginning of this year and expanding prescription drug discount platforms.

• Republicans are less supportive than Democrats and independents. But the GOP is divided over expanding government subsidies for health care costs, with 31% more likely to back a candidate who supports the idea, 29% less likely and 31% saying it would make no difference.
• Half of respondents said they'd be less likely to support a candidate backed by pharmaceutical and drug companies, compared with 7% saying they'd be more likely.

What they're saying: "Health care is one of the significant ways that people experience economic pressure every day," said Mallory Newall, Ipsos vice president for U.S. public affairs.

• "'Medicare for All' is still something that many Americans have questions on" and "the amount of Americans answering 'not sure' tells me people's sentiments aren't fully formed," Newall said. Still, the current level of support is "noteworthy — and it is not solely driven by members of the Democratic Party," she added.
• Depending on the candidate's party affiliation or the makeup of their district, "Maybe they don't call it 'Medicare for All,'" Newall said. But expanding federal programs to cover more Americans' health costs "is a message that can connect with voters during this cycle."

Methodology: This Axios-Ipsos Poll was conducted Sept. 25–28, 2026, by Ipsos' KnowledgePanel®. This poll is based on a nationally representative probability sample of 1,122 general population adults age 18 or older.

• The margin of sampling error is +/-3.0 percentage points at the 95% confidence level, for results based on the entire sample of adults.

Urban hospitals are closing at the same rate as facilities in outlying areas, according to a new study in JAMA Network that upends the widespread belief that facility closures are mostly a rural health problem.

Why it matters: Reductions in hospital care will be a key barometer in weighing the effects of billions in cuts to federal Medicaid spending stemming from last year's Republican budget law.

• Researchers said policymakers should focus on preserving access for vulnerable communities regardless of where they live.

What they found: The Harvard-led study covering 2010 to 2025 found hospital closures increased by 4% year over year, and openings decreased 3%, with 432 hospitals closing and 216 opening.

• The net loss of 216 hospitals translated to more than 24,000 beds, and there was no significant difference between rural and urban areas.
• Facilities likeliest to close were for-profit, small and safety-net, and those in socially vulnerable counties. Safety-net hospitals and those serving a high number of Medicaid patients rarely opened.

Context: The Government Accountability Office last year found more urban hospitals closed than opened between 2019 and 2023, often after experiencing years of financial decline and factors like aging infrastructure and low inpatient volume.

• Some eliminated or cut back services such as cardiology or neurosurgery prior to the closure after struggling to maintain staffing levels given their low volume of patients.
• GAO cited as a reason for some closures ongoing shifts in the industry, including more services being offered in outpatient settings and fewer patient referrals, because struggling facilities employ fewer physicians than other nearby hospitals.

Between the lines: Though the closures of rural hospitals often leave patients with no other options for care in the area, GAO found that urban hospital closures also created access issues for community members, despite having alternative care options nearby.

• Some community residents, for example, lacked transportation to other facilities or didn't have access to primary care providers.