A Republican bill with 5 Democratic cosponsors · See all 6 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Natural Resources, 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
This bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to set up a program to wipe out hepatitis C in the United States. It creates a national strategy, advisory committees, and a public dashboard to track progress. The legislation sets up a subscription program to purchase hepatitis C treatments in bulk and distribute them without cost-sharing to specific groups. It also provides grants and funding for public health activities, testing, and treatment access across states, tribal areas, and correctional facilities. Finally, the bill eliminates deductibles and cost-sharing for direct acting antivirals used to treat hepatitis C under Medicare Part D.
Yes· 3 of 24
- Scored +9
Does this lower the price of prescription medicines?
The bill establishes a subscription program providing hepatitis C treatments without cost-sharing and eliminates Medicare Part D deductibles and cost-sharing for direct acting antivirals.
- Scored +9
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The legislation removes prior authorizations, provides free treatments for covered populations, and funds widespread public health testing and outreach.
- Scored +8
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Seniors on Medicare Part D benefit directly from the elimination of deductibles and cost-sharing for direct acting antiviral drugs.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill authorizes billions in mandatory spending for the Hepatitis C Elimination Program and associated grants.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Free Treatment for Covered Populations: Section 4(b)(1)(A)(ii) ensures that individuals within the covered population can receive hepatitis C treatments without any cost-sharing.
-
No Cost-Sharing in Medicare: Section 7 eliminates deductibles and cost-sharing for direct acting antivirals used to treat hepatitis C under Medicare Part D for plan years 2028 through 2032.
-
Support for Reentering Prisoners: Section 4(b)(3)(A)(iv) requires participating state and local correctional systems to provide individuals upon release with the remainder of their hepatitis C treatment course and a referral to ongoing care.
-
Grants for Local Health Services: Section 5(a)(2)(A) provides grants to states and political subdivisions to facilitate access to hepatitis C screening, diagnosis, treatment, and wraparound services.
-
No Prior Authorization Barriers: Section 4(b)(3)(A)(iii) requires participating state Medicaid or CHIP agencies and correctional systems to agree not to impose prior authorization requirements for screening and treatment.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Exclusion from Other Discount Programs: Section 4(b)(1)(B)(i) prohibits health care providers, pharmacies, and sites of dispensing from using any other Federal drug discount program, including the section 340B drug discount program, for hepatitis C treatments obtained through the program.
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? — Uninsured individuals, Medicaid enrollees, and low-income populations gain access to life-saving hepatitis C treatments without cost-sharing. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors on Medicare Part D benefit directly from the elimination of deductibles and cost-sharing for direct acting antiviral drugs. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees on Medicare enjoy zero cost-sharing for direct acting antiviral treatments for hepatitis C. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged adults at higher risk for hepatitis C receive enhanced access to testing, preventative care, and curative medications. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The legislation explicitly incorporates Indian health programs and tribal areas into treatment distribution and grant funding. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults benefit from expanded community-based screening, outreach, and free treatment access if uninsured or under covered populations. Would children be better off under this? — Children enrolled in participating CHIP programs gain access to zero-cost-sharing hepatitis C treatments and screenings. Would men be better off under this? — Men, who historically account for a large share of hepatitis C infections, benefit substantially from expanded screening and free therapeutics. Would women be better off under this? — Pregnant women and mothers covered under Medicaid or CHIP programs receive specialized screening and access to zero-cost treatments. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Priority populations, which often include disproportionately affected minority communities, benefit from targeted outreach and screening programs. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Targeted public health strategies and expanded access help underserved Hispanic communities burdened by hepatitis C. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households with members suffering from hepatitis C benefit from reduced out-of-pocket costs and broadened treatment availability. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural health centers and local clinics receive targeted awards to build capacity for hepatitis C screening and treatment. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Asian American communities facing higher viral hepatitis risks benefit from broad national screening and treatment initiatives. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Uninsured individuals, regardless of background, can access life-saving treatments through designated safety-net health care providers. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban public health departments and community clinics receive grant funding to expand local testing and treatment. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The bill coordinates federal efforts with the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve overall hepatitis C prevention and treatment. Would white Americans be better off under this? — White Americans within priority populations or without insurance benefit from improved nationwide access to hepatitis C care.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The legislation removes prior authorizations, provides free treatments for covered populations, and funds widespread public health testing and outreach. Does this lower the price of prescription medicines? — The bill establishes a subscription program providing hepatitis C treatments without cost-sharing and eliminates Medicare Part D deductibles and cost-sharing for direct acting antivirals. Does this put more money into Medicaid, the health coverage for people on low incomes? — Participating Medicaid and CHIP programs benefit from zero-cost-sharing hepatitis C treatments and expanded screening resources. Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — Grants are explicitly awarded to opioid treatment programs to support hepatitis C testing and treatment.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The legislation establishes a publicly available dashboard to monitor progress toward achieving hepatitis C elimination goals. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal oversight and coordinates a national strategy through HHS and interagency working groups.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill authorizes billions in mandatory spending for the Hepatitis C Elimination Program and associated grants.
- 10/5/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/10/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/14/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Natural Resources, 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.
- 3 Cosponsors 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.
Jake AuchinclossDemocrat · Massachusetts
Don BaconRepublican · Nebraska
Emanuel CleaverDemocrat · Missouri
Diana DeGetteDemocrat · Colorado
Josh GottheimerDemocrat · New Jersey
Henry JohnsonDemocrat · Georgia