Executive Summary

Background

Prescription drugs are an essential part of health care for many individuals and families. National data indicate that nearly seven in every ten American adults (69%) are prescribed at least one medication,[i]

making affordability an important consideration for a large share of the population.

At the same time, prescription drug prices in the United States are substantially higher than in other high‑income countries, contributing to ongoing concerns about access and affordability. Prescription drug prices in the United States are nearly 2.8 times higher than the prices in other OECD countries, like Canada, Japan, and France.[ii] High drug costs can affect whether people are able to obtain and use medications as prescribed, particularly for conditions that require ongoing or long-term treatment.

This brief uses data from Altarum’s Consumer Healthcare Experience State Survey (CHESS) to examine Georgia residents’ experiences with prescription drug affordability, including medication rationing due to cost, and concerns about affording needed prescriptions. It also explores views on policy approaches aimed at addressing high prescription drug costs. Methods and participant characteristics are described in the Appendix.

Medication Rationing

More than one in three respondents (37%) reported rationing medication due to cost concerns in the last year, 18% reported cutting pills in half or skipping a dose, and 27% reported not filling a prescription due to cost concerns (Figure 1).

Medication rationing varies across respondent groups in Georgia (Table 1). Differences were observed by household income, insurance coverage type, and other respondent characteristics, underscoring that cost-related barriers to obtaining prescription drugs affects multiple populations. National evidence similarly indicates that medication rationing and access barriers persist across income and insurance status, including among insured individuals.[1]

While some patients may attempt to manage high drug costs through secondary coverage, paying out-of-pocket, or manufacturer coupons, these approaches are not sufficient for many. Half (50%) of survey respondents reported being somewhat or very worried that they or a family member living with them would not be able to afford the prescription drugs they need. This helps explain why 31% of survey respondents identified reducing out-of-pocket prescription drugs costs as a priority for government action.

Respondent Perceptions of Health Care Systems, Policy Solutions

Georgia respondents most often identified drug companies as a driver of rising health care costs (70%). Support for action was even stronger: 92% of respondents favored policies to reduce prescription drug price increases, and 90% supported efforts to limit prescription drug prices. These findings suggest that prescription drug affordability is a common concern among respondents and support to address issues cuts across political affiliation, demonstrating broad, bipartisan agreement that policymakers should take meaningful steps to make prescription drugs more affordable (Table 3).

Conclusion

Findings from the Georgia Consumer Healthcare Experience State Survey show that prescription drug costs remain a significant concern for many respondents. More than one in four respondents reported rationing medications due to cost, and more than half reported worry about being able to afford the prescription drugs they or a family member living with them need. Together, these findings highlight the financial pressures associated with prescription drug costs and the ways these pressures can affect how people use needed medications.

At the same time, respondents across political affiliations express strong support for policy approaches aimed at lowering prescription drug prices and reducing out‑of‑pocket costs. Ongoing, state‑level survey data can help policymakers, advocates, and other stakeholders track trends in prescription drug affordability over time and assess whether efforts to address these concerns are improving patients’ experiences.

For more detailed information about health care affordability burdens facing Ohio respondents, please see Healthcare Value Hub, Georgia Residents Struggle to Afford High Health Care Costs; Worry About Affording Health Care in the Future; Support Government Action across Party Lines, Data Brief (September 2026).

Notes

[1] NCHS Data Query System. (2024). Prescription Medication Use Among Adults [Internet]. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/dqs

[2] Mulcahy, A., Schwam, D., Lovejoy, S. (2024, February 1). International Prescription Drug Price Comparisons: Estimates Using 2022 Data. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA788-3.html

[3] IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science. (2025, April). Understanding the use of medicines in the U.S. 2025: Evolving standards of care, patient access, and spending. https://www.iqvia.com/-/media/iqvia/pdfs/institute-reports/understanding-the-use-of-medicines-in-the-us-2025/iqvia-institute-iqi-us-use-of-medicines-04-25-forweb.pdf

[4] Nekui, F., Galbraith, A. A., Briesacher, B. A., Zhang, F., Soumerai, S. B., Ross-Degnan, D., Gurwitz, J. H., & Madden, J. M. (2021). Cost-related Medication Nonadherence and Its Risk Factors Among Medicare Beneficiaries. Medical care, 59(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001458 

Appendix. Methodology and Population

Altarum’s Consumer Healthcare Experience State Survey (CHESS) is designed to elicit respondents’ views on a wide range of health system issues, including confidence using the health system, financial burden and possible policy solutions. This survey, conducted from July 8^th to July 23^rd, 2026, used a web panel from Dynata with a demographically balanced sample of nearly 1,400 respondents who live in Georgia. Information about Dynata’s recruitment and compensation methods can be found here. The survey was conducted in English or Spanish and restricted to adults ages 18 and older. Respondents who finished the survey in less than half the median time were excluded from the final sample, leaving 1,379 cases for analysis. After those exclusions, the demographic composition of respondents was as follows, although not all demographic information has complete response rates:

Percentages in the body of the brief are based on weighted values, while the data presented in the demographic table is unweighted. An explanation of weighted versus unweighted variables is available here. Altarum does not conduct statistical calculations on the significance of differences between groups in findings. Therefore, determinations that one group experienced a significantly different affordability burden than another should not be inferred. Rather, comparisons are for conversational purposes. The groups selected for this brief were selected by advocate partners in each state based on organizational/advocacy priorities. We do not report any estimates under N=100 and a co-efficient of variance more than 0.30.