CONGRESS FOR VOTERS

Neal Dunn (R-FL)

Ensuring Lasting Smiles Act

H.R. 3277 · House bill Health

A Republican bill with 149 Democratic cosponsors · See all 224 cosponsors

Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Workforce, and 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

  1. Introduced
  2. In Committee

What this bill would do

This bill is called the Ensuring Lasting Smiles Act. It requires group health plans and health insurance issuers to cover outpatient and inpatient items and services for diagnosing and treating congenital anomalies or birth defects. The targeted conditions are those that primarily impact the appearance or function of the eyes, ears, teeth, mouth, or jaw. Plans must provide this coverage with cost-sharing requirements that are no more restrictive than those applied to other medical and surgical benefits. The bill also requires health plans to notify participants and beneficiaries about this coverage starting no later than January 1, 2026. Finally, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must study and report to Congress on network adequacy and out-of-pocket costs by December 31, 2027.

Yes· 3 of 22

  • Scored +9

    Would children be better off under this?

    Most congenital anomalies are identified at birth, and this bill secures their long-term treatment coverage.

  • Scored +9

    Would people with disabilities be better off under this?

    Directly improves health outcomes and financial accessibility for those with congenital physical disabilities.

  • Scored +8

    Would households on low incomes be better off under this?

    Reduces the catastrophic out-of-pocket costs associated with birth defect treatments.

The opposite

  • Scored -2

    Would business owners be better off under this?

    May increase costs for employer-sponsored group health plans.

  • Scored -2

    Does this lower what people pay for private health insurance?

    Mandating new coverage benefits may lead to slight increases in premiums for private insurance plans.