A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
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
This bill makes changes to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to increase transparency and data access for group health plans. It sets rules allowing group health plans to audit de-identified claims and pricing data from service providers like pharmacy benefit managers and third-party administrators. The legislation establishes privacy requirements for handling this data and clarifies fiduciary duties regarding plan data management. It also prohibits employers, plan sponsors, plan administrators, and plan fiduciaries from discriminating against participants or beneficiaries based on this health plan data. Finally, the bill creates civil penalties for providers and entities that violate these new transparency and anti-discrimination rules.
Yes· 3 of 36
- Scored +6
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill directly increases the transparency of group health plan data, pricing terms, and administrative practices.
- Scored +6
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The legislation increases transparency, prevents discrimination based on plan data, and protects health plan participants through robust enforcement mechanisms.
- Scored +5
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?
It establishes strong privacy protections and restrictions on the use and disclosure of de-identified and protected health data.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a) improves transparency by giving group health plans the right to audit de-identified claims, encounter information, and pricing terms from health care providers, third-party administrators, and pharmacy benefit managers. This helps ensure that plans comply with rules and that compensation received by these entities is reasonable.
-
Section 4(a) protects individuals by making it unlawful for employers, plan sponsors, plan administrators, and plan fiduciaries to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, discipline, or discriminate against participants or beneficiaries based on plan data. This provision also allows participants or beneficiaries to bring a legal action without needing to exhaust administrative remedies first.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(b) allows the Secretary to assess a civil penalty of $10,000 for each day a violation continues against health care providers, networks, third-party administrators, or pharmacy benefit managers that violate section 724. While holding bad actors accountable is important, these daily fines could potentially be passed down as increased costs to everyday consumers or businesses.
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 middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households with employer-sponsored health insurance benefit from lower potential costs and greater protection against unfair practices. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill reinforces protections against discrimination and supports individuals with health conditions or disabilities in group plans. Would union members be better off under this? — Union workers covered by multiemployer or group health plans benefit greatly from enhanced audit rights and transparency regarding PBMs. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income workers benefit from enhanced health plan transparency and strong legal protections against discrimination based on health plan data. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged workers benefit significantly from better oversight of health benefits and pricing terms in employer-sponsored group health plans. Would women be better off under this? — Women benefit from robust anti-discrimination rules and enhanced transparency regarding healthcare pricing and benefits. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Anti-discrimination provisions in the bill help ensure equitable treatment for all plan participants regardless of demographic background. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Asian Americans benefit from strengthened anti-discrimination protections within employer-sponsored health plans. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners sponsoring group health plans gain better audit rights and tools to manage healthcare spending effectively. Would children be better off under this? — Children covered under family group health plans benefit from improved plan transparency and protections against discriminatory practices. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Protections against discrimination based on plan data provide equitable safeguards for Hispanic Americans enrolled in group health plans. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Immigrants covered under group health plans are protected by the bill's robust anti-discrimination and transparency standards. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Anti-discrimination safeguards in the bill help protect LGBTQ individuals from biased treatment related to health plan data. Would men be better off under this? — Male participants in group health plans benefit from improved pricing transparency and plan governance. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees covered under group health plans benefit from strengthened fiduciary duties and transparency mandates. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Older workers and retirees on group health plans benefit from increased transparency and safeguards regarding their health benefits. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans participating in employer-sponsored health plans benefit from increased transparency and consumer protections. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults covered by employer-sponsored group health plans benefit from increased data transparency and anti-discrimination rules. Would farmers be better off under this? — Farmers and agricultural workers sponsoring or receiving group health plans benefit from improved transparency and audit rights. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income individuals experience minor positive effects from broader health plan transparency and governance standards. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Native Americans participating in group health plans benefit from improved transparency and anti-discrimination measures. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents benefit from improved access to health plan data and stronger accountability measures for service providers. Would students be better off under this? — Students covered under group health plans benefit from increased pricing transparency and consumer protections. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban residents benefit generally from more transparent and accountable group health plan administration. Would white Americans be better off under this? — White Americans enrolled in group health plans benefit from the general transparency and consumer protection provisions.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill directly increases the transparency of group health plan data, pricing terms, and administrative practices. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — It establishes strong privacy protections and restrictions on the use and disclosure of de-identified and protected health data. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — It gives participants and beneficiaries direct legal avenues without needing to exhaust administrative remedies first when facing discrimination based on plan data. Does this give the federal government more power? — The legislation expands federal regulatory oversight under ERISA by setting new transparency rules and civil penalties.
- Healthcare
- Does this lower the price of prescription medicines? — Providing group health plans with audit rights over pharmacy benefit managers helps control prescription drug costs and ensure reasonable compensation. Does this lower what people pay for private health insurance? — Increased transparency and audit rights regarding third-party administrators and pharmacy benefit managers can help lower overall health plan costs. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — By expanding transparency and preventing discrimination based on plan data, the bill supports better and fairer access to health plan benefits.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The legislation increases transparency, prevents discrimination based on plan data, and protects health plan participants through robust enforcement mechanisms. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill enhances group health plan transparency and audit rights, which can help small and medium businesses offering health plans better manage costs and ensure fair pricing.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — The bill reinforces strict privacy and data protection requirements regarding protected health information and plan data governance.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The legislation explicitly prohibits discrimination against plan participants and complements existing disability and civil rights protections.
- 6/25/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- Introduced in House