A Democratic bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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 Drug Origin Transparency Act of 2026 aims to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It focuses on enhancing how much information is reported regarding drug manufacturing amounts. The bill requires more detailed information about the drug supply chain, including the identity of suppliers for active ingredients and in-process materials. It also requires these reports to be submitted more frequently than once a year. Additionally, the bill mandates that drug labels include information about the original manufacturer and supply chain.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +6
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Mandates significantly more detailed government reporting on drug supply chains and original manufacturers.
- Scored +5
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Greater transparency regarding the origin and manufacturer of drugs improves safety and accountability for consumers.
- Scored +4
Does this make the country readier for the next outbreak?
Enhanced supply chain visibility for active pharmaceutical ingredients helps identify potential shortages and vulnerabilities.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Pharmaceutical business owners face increased regulatory burdens and reporting costs.
- Scored -2
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Increased reporting requirements and labeling mandates may impose higher administrative costs on small pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Supply Chain Transparency: The bill requires reports to include the identity of suppliers for each active pharmaceutical ingredient, intermediate, and in-process material (Section 2(a)(1)(C)(i)(I)). This provides more detail on who is supplying the components of drugs.
-
Detailed Manufacturing Data: Reports must include the specific amounts of drugs manufactured using materials from each identified supplier (Section 2(a)(1)(C)(i)(II)).
-
More Frequent Information: Reporting requirements may change from an annual schedule to a more frequent schedule, specified by the Secretary, but not more than 4 times per year (Section 2(a)(1)(C)(ii)).
-
Enhanced Labeling Information: Drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients may be required to bear labels containing the name, place of business, and unique facility identifier of the original manufacturer (Section 3(1)(A)(B)(2)(A)).
-
Comprehensive Manufacturer Identification: Labels may be required to include the name and place of business of the original manufacturer of each active pharmaceutical ingredient, any different manufacturers, and the packer or distributor (Section 3(1)(d)(1)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Increased Regulatory Burden: The Secretary of the government is granted the authority to specify additional information through regulation or guidance regarding the drug supply chain (Section 2(a)(1)(C)(i)).
-
Mandatory Labeling Changes: The bill introduces requirements for drug labeling to include specific information about original manufacturers and the supply chain, though the Secretary may allow for variations or electronic placement (Section 3(1)(A)(B)(2)(C) and Section 3(1)(d)(2)).
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.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Mandates significantly more detailed government reporting on drug supply chains and original manufacturers. Does this give the federal government more power? — Grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services increased authority to mandate reporting and labeling requirements.
- Healthcare
- Does this make the country readier for the next outbreak? — Enhanced supply chain visibility for active pharmaceutical ingredients helps identify potential shortages and vulnerabilities.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Greater transparency regarding the origin and manufacturer of drugs improves safety and accountability for consumers. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Increased reporting requirements and labeling mandates may impose higher administrative costs on small pharmaceutical manufacturers.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees benefit from increased drug safety and transparency regarding the origin of their medications. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors, who often use multiple prescription drugs, benefit from improved transparency and safety of drug origins. Would business owners be better off under this? — Pharmaceutical business owners face increased regulatory burdens and reporting costs.
- 4/16/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Dan CrenshawRepublican · Texas
Ashley HinsonRepublican · Iowa
Kim SchrierDemocrat · Washington