A Republican bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Health Insurance Transparency for Patients Act requires health insurance issuers and Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations to disclose specific information regarding coverage request rejections. These entities must submit deidentified data to the Secretary and publish it on their own websites. The required data includes the number and percentage of coverage requests denied or approved on initial review, as well as information on appeals and reversals. This information must be broken down by request type, reason for denial, and the review process used, such as automated or individual reviews. Additionally, organizations must list all items or services that require prior authorization. The Secretary of Health and Human Services will also publish this data on a government website annually.
Yes· 3 of 8
- Scored +5
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill enhances consumer protection by requiring transparency in how health insurance coverage requests are processed and denied.
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill increases government transparency by requiring public disclosure of health insurance coverage decision data.
- Scored +3
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Increased transparency in Medicare Advantage organizations benefits seniors by providing insight into coverage denials.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Transparency of Coverage Decisions: Health insurance issuers and MA organizations must provide the number and percentage of coverage requests that were approved or denied on initial review, as well as the results of appeals (Section 2(a), Section 2(b)). This provides people with clear data on how often their requests are turned down.
-
Insight into Review Processes: The bill requires information to be broken down by whether a denial was made through a fully automated process, an algorithmic review, or by an individual (Section 2(a), Section 2(c)). This allows people to see if decisions are being made by machines or people.
-
Clarity on Prior Authorization: Organizations are required to publish a list of all covered items or services that are subject to prior authorization (Section 2(a), Section 2(b)). This helps people know ahead of time which services require extra steps for approval.
-
Information on Processing Times: The data must include the time that elapsed between the filing of a request or appeal and the final determination, expressed in days and hours (Section 2(a), Section 2(c)). This allows people to understand how long they might have to wait for a decision.
-
Access to Comparative Data: The Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to make the submitted information available on a government website annually (Section 2(a), Section 2(e); Section 2(b), Subparagraph (E)). This makes it easier for the public to access the reported information.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts are explicitly stated in the text regarding burdens on the public; however, the bill notes that the Secretary should establish standards to ensure that the submission of information does not require health insurance issuers or MA organizations to seek additional information from a health care provider (Section 2(a), Section 2(d); Section 2(b), Subparagraph (D)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would retired people be better off under this? — The bill benefits retirees using Medicare Advantage by providing transparency regarding coverage denials and appeals. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Increased transparency in Medicare Advantage organizations benefits seniors by providing insight into coverage denials. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Greater transparency in coverage decisions can help lower-income individuals better understand their health insurance benefits. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Transparency in insurance processes can aid middle-class families in managing healthcare costs and coverage. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Transparency in prior authorization processes can assist people with disabilities in ensuring consistent access to necessary services.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill enhances consumer protection by requiring transparency in how health insurance coverage requests are processed and denied.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill increases government transparency by requiring public disclosure of health insurance coverage decision data.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Increased transparency regarding prior authorizations and denial rates can help patients navigate and access healthcare services more effectively.
- 8/13/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 8/3/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- Introduced in House
Tom BarrettRepublican · Michigan
James GallagherRepublican · California