As Americans approach the midterm elections on November 3, health care remains a critical, if often indirect, factor influencing voter decisions across the country. While the issue may not appear explicitly on many ballots, health policy underpins a wide range of services and infrastructure that determine access, quality, and outcomes for patients nationwide.
Dr. Joseph V. Sakran, a trauma surgeon and executive vice chair of surgery at Johns Hopkins Medicine, underscores that much of a patient’s experience—such as insurance coverage, access to emergency services, and availability of medications—is shaped by decisions made beyond hospital walls. These choices are made by elected officials at all levels of government, from federal agencies and statehouses to county offices and school boards.
The impact of policy choices on health care is tangible. Over 73 million Americans were enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) as of June 2026, but recent legislative changes are projected by the Congressional Budget Office to reduce Medicaid enrollment by 13.1 million people by 2035. Public health remains vulnerable as well: measles, once considered eradicated in the U.S., has resurfaced, with nearly 4,600 cases reported this year through late October—double the number recorded in 2025. In response to outbreaks, New York declared a statewide disaster emergency. Meanwhile, funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a primary agency for medical research, currently operates under a temporary budget extension set to expire in December.
Health policy decisions have direct consequences for individuals and communities. Delays in treatment following loss of insurance, prolonged ambulance response times in rural areas, and outbreaks of preventable diseases all link back to the policies and funding priorities established by elected officials. According to Sakran, these effects accumulate over time, influencing whether early illnesses are detected, outbreaks are contained, and treatments are developed.
The intersection of health care and politics raises critical questions for voters to consider. Evidence-based policy-making, accountability for outcomes, flexibility to update approaches when facts change, and respect for health professionals’ expertise are among the key criteria Sakran highlights. While debate over the best models to pay for and deliver care persists, the core necessity remains that elected leaders ground their decisions in credible research and maintain responsiveness to evolving scientific understanding.
Clinicians engaged in public service argue that their work in government is an extension of their medical mission, applying clinical principles such as evidence evaluation and outcome measurement to broader population health. Meanwhile, health professionals are encouraged to inform patients about the broader policy environment shaping access and care without directing voting choices.
For voters, understanding health care as a foundational element tied intimately to governance may guide more informed decisions at the polls. The resources that enable timely emergency response, affordable treatment, disease prevention, and medical innovation are all contingent on elected officials’ priorities and actions. In this way, health care is inseparable from the democratic process, shaping not only individual lives but the conditions that support public well-being at large.