Male-pattern baldness affects millions of men across the United States, but new research suggests that whether men seek medical treatment for hair loss depends far more on where they live and what insurance they have than on biology alone.
According to a recent analysis by GoodRx, a prescription savings platform, between 30% and 50% of men will experience androgenetic alopecia by age 50. Despite its prevalence, prescriptions used to treat hair loss vary dramatically by state, reflecting differences in income levels, insurance coverage, access to care and cultural attitudes toward baldness.
Geography Plays a Major Role in Hair Loss Treatment
Nationally, hair-loss medications account for about 0.7% of all prescriptions filled by men ages 18 to 44. In some regions, however, treatment rates are several times higher.
Washington, D.C., leads the nation by a wide margin. In the capital, 3.7% of prescriptions filled by men in this age group are for hair-loss medications—more than five times the national average. Other high-ranking states include Massachusetts (1.6%), New York (1.5%), California (1.4%) and Connecticut (1.2%).
Researchers noted that these areas tend to have higher average incomes and large urban centers, where professional appearance may carry greater social and economic value.
Southern and Midwestern States Lag Behind
At the opposite end of the spectrum, hair-loss prescriptions are far less common in parts of the South and Midwest. West Virginia recorded the lowest treatment rate at 0.18%, followed by Mississippi and North Dakota at 0.24%, Wyoming at 0.27% and Alabama at 0.28%.
In these states, hair-loss prescriptions represent roughly one-quarter or less of the national average, underscoring how regional norms and financial barriers may discourage treatment.
Kansas Falls Below the National Average
Kansas also ranks below the national benchmark. The state’s hair-loss prescription fill rate stands at 0.40%, compared with the U.S. average of 0.7%. That places Kansas as the 17th lowest state nationwide for hair-loss treatment.
Insurance Coverage Remains a Key Barrier
Insurance access plays a decisive role in whether treatment is affordable. Finasteride and its brand-name counterpart, Propecia, are FDA-approved for male-pattern baldness, but coverage is inconsistent.
About 70% of people with commercial insurance have unrestricted access to generic finasteride, while more than a quarter have no coverage at all. Coverage for Propecia is tighter, with only about half of commercially insured individuals receiving unrestricted access.
For Medicare recipients, coverage is nearly nonexistent. Almost 90% lack coverage for generic finasteride, and nearly all are excluded from coverage for Propecia due to Medicare’s restrictions on cosmetic treatments. Medicaid offers slightly better access, though many beneficiaries still face coverage limits or restrictions.
Understanding Male-Pattern Baldness
More than 50 million men in the U.S. are affected by androgenetic alopecia, a genetic condition caused by hair follicles’ sensitivity to androgen hormones. Hair loss can begin as early as puberty and becomes increasingly common with age. While it is more prevalent among white men, it also affects men of all racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Studies have also linked male-pattern baldness to higher risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and psychological distress, particularly among men who experience early or extensive hair loss.
Treatment Options Continue to Expand
Common treatments include topical minoxidil, oral finasteride and dutasteride, which is prescribed off-label. Emerging and alternative treatments such as platelet-rich plasma injections, hair transplants and microneedling are also gaining traction.
GoodRx researchers calculated prescription fill rates using national claims data from late 2024 through mid-2025, focusing on men ages 18 to 44. The analysis excluded over-the-counter topical treatments and standardized state-level results against national averages.
The findings highlight a clear conclusion: while hair loss is nearly universal, the ability and willingness to treat it in the U.S. is shaped largely by geography, income and insurance—not genetics.
