KFF’s release dated 29 January 2026 reports that 32% of US adults were very worried about affording healthcare, above the other household expense categories tested. It also reports that 56% expected healthcare costs for their families to become less affordable.

The January tracking poll covered 1,426 adults surveyed from 13 to 20 January, with a full-sample margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Its population was US adults, not exclusively employees. The findings should therefore retain that description when used in a benefits discussion. They do not quantify hardship in a particular employer’s workforce.

Separate the employer and employee questions An employer’s premium forecast and an employee’s ability to pay for care describe different aspects of a benefits programme. Both can matter to a review, but neither should stand in for the other. Stable employer expenditure, for example, is not evidence that employees face an unchanged financial burden.

Benefits teams can use the poll as a prompt to examine the information they have about their own arrangements. That review should distinguish what employees contribute from the costs they may encounter when using services. Communications need to explain those differences in terms that employees can use when considering their options.

Use feedback with appropriate limits Workforce feedback can help identify questions that deserve attention. It should be interpreted alongside its own scope, response patterns and limitations. A national poll provides context; it cannot establish which specific intervention an employer should purchase or how much that intervention would save.

The full questionnaire and subgroup tables were not reviewed for this article. The reported percentages should not be used to make unsupported claims about individual employee groups. Nor does an expression of concern necessarily describe a missed treatment or a particular level of expenditure.

Make affordability visible in governance This editor recommends that benefits committees receive a clear account of employee cost exposure alongside employer financing information. Management can identify what is known, what remains uncertain and which communication or access questions need further examination.

KFF’s poll adds a new January 2026 view of public affordability concerns. It is distinct from an employer premium survey or a medical-cost forecast. Its value for GBV readers is to keep the employee’s experience visible while preserving the boundaries of the evidence.