Lauren Underwood (D-IL)
Primary and Behavioral Health Care Access Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
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
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Primary and Behavioral Health Care Access Act of 2026 requires group health plans and health insurance issuers to provide specific services without cost-sharing. This includes three primary care visits and three behavioral health care visits per plan year. The bill amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It ensures that these visits are not subject to more restrictive treatment limitations or different reimbursement rates than other similar visits. The requirements apply to plan years starting two years after the act is passed.
Yes· 3 of 35
- Scored +9
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Eliminating cost-sharing for essential visits significantly helps low-income patients.
- Scored +8
Does this make mental health care easier to get?
Eliminates cost-sharing for three behavioral health care visits per year.
- Scored +8
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
Removes financial barriers to primary and behavioral health care visits.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Employers providing group plans may face higher insurance premiums.
- Scored -3
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
Overrides state-level cost-sharing regulations with a federal mandate.
- Scored -2
Does this lower what people pay for private health insurance?
Removing cost-sharing may lead insurers to increase premiums to offset the cost.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Free Primary Care Visits: People can access three primary care visits per plan year without having to pay cost-sharing requirements, as stated in Section 2(a).
-
Free Behavioral Health Care Visits: People can access three behavioral health care visits per plan year without having to pay cost-sharing requirements, as stated in Section 2(a).
-
Fair Treatment and Payment: The bill prevents insurance providers from placing more restrictive treatment limits on these free visits compared to other visits and ensures reimbursement rates remain the same, according to Section 2(b).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for individuals or groups are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
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 households on low incomes be better off under this? — Eliminating cost-sharing for essential visits significantly helps low-income patients. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Reduces financial barriers to care in communities historically facing health disparities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Reduces financial barriers to care in communities historically facing health disparities. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Improves access to behavioral health services which are often critical for this community. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Reduces out-of-pocket costs for routine and behavioral health visits. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Reduces financial barriers to care in communities historically facing health disparities. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Reduces financial barriers to primary and behavioral health care. Would students be better off under this? — Increases access to behavioral health services for students. Would union members be better off under this? — Many union members utilize group health plans that would now offer free visits. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Improves access to essential healthcare services. Would children be better off under this? — Improves access to pediatric primary care and behavioral health. Would farmers be better off under this? — Improves access to essential healthcare. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Improves access for those with insurance coverage. Would men be better off under this? — Improves access to primary care and behavioral health. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Lowers financial barriers to primary and mental health services. Would retired people be better off under this? — Improves access to primary and behavioral health for those on group plans. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Improves access to care within rural insurance frameworks. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Improves access to geriatric primary care and behavioral health. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Improves access to care within urban insurance frameworks. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Improves access to behavioral health services. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Improves access to essential healthcare services. Would women be better off under this? — Improves access to primary care, including OB-GYN visits. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Lowers financial barriers to primary and mental health services. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Provides a benefit, though the financial impact is less significant. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Provides a benefit, though the financial impact is less significant. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Provides a benefit, though the financial impact is less significant. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Provides a benefit, though the financial impact is less significant. Would business owners be better off under this? — Employers providing group plans may face higher insurance premiums.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Removes financial barriers to primary and behavioral health care visits. Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Eliminates cost-sharing for three behavioral health care visits per year. Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — Increased access to behavioral health visits can support recovery and treatment. Does this strengthen the Affordable Care Act? — Expands the mandatory coverage benefits of insurance plans. Does this lower what people pay for private health insurance? — Removing cost-sharing may lead insurers to increase premiums to offset the cost.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Increases the value of health insurance plans for consumers by eliminating cost-sharing for specific visits.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Reduces out-of-pocket healthcare expenses for insured individuals. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Reducing cost-sharing improves healthcare access for marginalized communities.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Imposes new federal mandates on private health insurance issuers and group plans. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Overrides state-level cost-sharing regulations with a federal mandate.
- 6/11/2026
- 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.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Kim SchrierDemocrat · Washington