Victoria Spartz (R-IN)
Restoring Rights of Physicians to Own Hospitals Act
A Republican bill with no 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
H.R. 3022, also called the "Restoring Rights of Physicians to Own Hospitals Act", aims to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act. The main goal is to repeal the Obamacare ban on provider-owned hospitals. The bill modifies Section 1877 of the Social Security Act related to exceptions to ownership or investment prohibition for hospitals.
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
The bill repeals the Obamacare ban on provider-owned hospitals, potentially increasing the number of hospitals, especially in rural areas, and giving people more options for healthcare (based on the bill's intent to restore rights to physicians).
-
Section 2 focuses on repealing requirements for hospitals to qualify for rural provider and hospital exceptions, which could lead to increased investment and healthcare access in rural communities.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
The repeal of the ban on provider-owned hospitals (Obamacare ban) could lead to doctors referring patients to hospitals they own, potentially resulting in unnecessary or more expensive treatments, and raising healthcare costs for individuals.
-
The bill amends Section 1877 of the Social Security Act by striking certain subparagraphs. This could potentially remove existing protections or requirements related to hospital ownership and investment, leading to unforeseen negative consequences for patients.
Yes· 3 of 13
- Scored +7
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Increased incentive for physicians to build and own hospitals in underserved rural areas.
- Scored +6
Would business owners be better off under this?
Directly benefits medical professionals acting as business owners.
- Scored +6
Does this invest in rural communities?
Facilitates the establishment and operation of hospitals in rural areas by easing ownership restrictions.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -5
Does this strengthen the Affordable Care Act?
The bill specifically seeks to repeal a ban established under the Affordable Care Act.
- Scored -4
Does this give the federal government more power?
Reduces federal restrictions on private ownership of healthcare facilities.
- Scored -3
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Repealing ownership bans may increase conflicts of interest, potentially leading to unnecessary treatments.
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 people in rural areas be better off under this? — Increased incentive for physicians to build and own hospitals in underserved rural areas. Would business owners be better off under this? — Directly benefits medical professionals acting as business owners. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Removes regulatory barriers to hospital ownership and investment. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Provides new investment opportunities in healthcare facilities. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Opens up hospital ownership for high-level investors. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Benefits physicians and investors who can now own and profit from hospitals. Would retired people be better off under this? — Potential for increased healthcare facility availability. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Potentially increases healthcare access and availability of hospitals for seniors.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Facilitates the establishment and operation of hospitals in rural areas by easing ownership restrictions.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Allows physicians to own and operate hospitals, treating these as business ventures. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Removing restrictions on physician ownership can stimulate private investment in healthcare infrastructure. Is this likely to create jobs? — Increased hospital ownership and investment may lead to more healthcare facilities and related job growth. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Repealing ownership bans may increase conflicts of interest, potentially leading to unnecessary treatments.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Reduces federal restrictions on private ownership of healthcare facilities.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Increases the potential number of hospitals and healthcare options, particularly in rural areas. Does this strengthen the Affordable Care Act? — The bill specifically seeks to repeal a ban established under the Affordable Care Act. Does this lower what a hospital stay costs? — Potential for increased costs if physician-owned hospitals prioritize profit over cost-efficiency.
- 4/24/2025
- 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