This is part 1 of an investigative series about money and influence in high-stakes health policy decisions, and how private polls and opaque “taxpayer” groups have helped shape the fight over local health care bills.
At first glance, a recent Broward County poll appears to answer a simple question: What do voters think about proposals involving public hospital districts? A closer look reveals other questions. How much do we really know about the entire system of polling, paid messaging, funding streams, and more that currently shapes community health discussions with enormous financial stakes?
Earlier this year, state lawmakers introduced House Bill 1047 (https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026/1047) and Senate Bill 1122 (https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026/1122), sponsored by Rep. Hilary Cassel and Sen. Joe Gruters.
The proposal subsequently stalled in committee and died at the end of this year’s legislative session. The bill would allow Broward Health and Memorial Healthcare System to work more closely together on certain services, contracts and programs under state oversight, while remaining two separate public hospital systems with their own boards, budgets and public meeting requirements.
Supporters say this kind of collaboration is needed to continue key services and expand access to care as health markets change. Critics worry it could weaken competitiveness.
Rewind a few weeks. Before these bills were introduced, the Tallahassee polling company was called Tyson Group (https://tysongroup.co/).
He was already testing how Broward voters would respond to a detailed explanation of the idea.
The Tyson Group, run by longtime political consultant Ryan Tyson, surveyed 500 likely voters in Broward County. One of the main questions did not cite the bill’s name or legal terminology. Instead, it asked whether North Broward Hospital District and South Broward Hospital District should be allowed to change the way they operate “without invoking the legal requirements, transparency, and voter approval normally required for a full merger.” After hearing this version, 73% of voters said their district should not be allowed to do so, including 62% who said “absolutely no.” Only 16% said yes
When HB 1047 and SB 1122 were introduced in January, the Tyson Group results quickly became a public topic of conversation. Florida Politics reported that poll results show Broward voters are uninterested in “shared services agreements” between hospital districts, with 73% saying no. The South Florida Sun Sentinel (https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2026/02/14/broward-hospital-district-bill-is-going-nowhere-heres-whats-next/) later referenced the same poll in its coverage of the bill.
The articles published by either news organization do not say who commissioned or paid for the survey, nor do they include the full text of the questions or detailed voting instructions.
Around the same time that the polls started making headlines, a new participant appeared in the discussion. It’s a group that calls itself (https://taxpayersforhealthcareaccountability.com/) “Taxpayers for Health Care Accountability.” Its website says it is a “Florida Future First Project” listed by ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer (https://www.floridasfuturefirst.org/https://www.floridasfuturefirst.org/).
(https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/851389338) as a 501(c)(4) organization based in Tallahassee. Under federal rules, 501(c)(4) organizations can spend money to influence public debate, but they are not required to publicly list their donors, so residents can see the messages but not who is paying them.
Shortly after the website went live, Meta’s ad library started showing paid messages from taxpayers seeking medical accountability (https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=political_and_issue_ads&country=US&is_targeted_country=false&media_type=all&search_type=page&sort_data)[mode]=total_impressions&sort_data[direction]=desc&start date[min]=2026-01-20&Start date[max]=2026-02-19&view_all_page_id=976369355540250) For audiences in Broward and Tallahassee on Facebook and Instagram. One ad warned that HB 1047 would allow “tax-funded hospital districts to merge without a popular vote” and said “less competition will lead to higher prices.” The language of these ads closely mirrors the Tyson Group’s question about changing the way the districts operate “toward a full merger…without transparency or voter approval,” but the bill itself would keep the two districts separate and would not authorize a merger.
There is little information publicly available about who is behind this campaign. Taxpayer medical liability documents do not list officers, board members, or major donors. The main detail is the connection with Future First in Florida. Filings for Florida’s Future First includes the basics needed for a 501(c)(4) organization, but does not name specific contributors, so the individuals or entities funding advertising cannot be easily identified from public records.
Taken together, the timing of the poll, the focus on merger scenarios that are absent from the bill’s text, the lack of sponsorship disclosure, and the overlap between that language and subsequent advertising indicate how some key parts of this debate are playing out in the public sphere.
