A Democratic bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 2 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 is called the Consumer Appeal Rights Enforcement Act. It amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to set up new rules and penalties for claims and appeals. The bill gives the Secretary the power to collect civil penalties for violations of claims procedures and external reviews. It outlines specific penalties for both global violations that affect entire plans and individual violations that affect specific participants. Finally, it repeals a section to change direct enforcement authority.
Yes· 3 of 13
- Scored +8
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill enhances consumer protections by establishing strict penalties and enforcement mechanisms for employee benefit plans that fail to process claims and appeals in a timely manner.
- Scored +7
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The legislation strengthens due process protections for plan participants by imposing penalties on administrators who fail to respond to claims and appeals properly.
- Scored +7
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
By penalizing delays in urgent care claims and appeals, the legislation helps ensure timely access to necessary medical treatments.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Business owners and plan administrators face increased financial and legal liability for compliance failures under ERISA.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(b), adding section 502(c)(14)(A)(iii) to the Act: This provision protects participants and beneficiaries by treating failures to respond to claims, appeals, or requests for information in a timely manner as individual violations, which helps hold plans accountable for ignoring people.
-
Section 2(b), adding section 502(c)(14)(B)(iii) and (iv) to the Act: This provision allows civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each day an individual violation goes uncorrected, and allows these penalties to be trebled if not fixed within specific timeframes like 3 days for urgent care, which encourages fast resolution of critical health and benefit issues.
-
Section 2(b), adding section 502(c)(14)(B)(v) to the Act: This provision lets the Secretary penalize plans that engage in a pattern or practice of individual violations for up to three years prior, which protects people from systemic mistreatment by their plans.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(b), adding section 502(c)(14)(B)(i) to the Act: This provision imposes global violation penalties up to $1,000 multiplied by the number of participants and beneficiaries in the plan, which could potentially result in massive financial burdens on plans that might indirectly affect the overall resources available to the plan.
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? — Low-income workers often suffer the most from administrative delays in benefits, making these stronger accountability rules particularly helpful. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Individuals requiring ongoing health treatments and disability accommodations benefit significantly from strict penalties on delayed claim responses. Would union members be better off under this? — Union workers covered by multi-employer and employer-sponsored plans benefit from more robust protections and appeal rights. Would children be better off under this? — Faster resolution of family health claims benefits children dependent on group health plans. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged workers benefit from stronger enforcement rules regarding their employment-based retirement and health benefits. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households benefit from greater assurance that their benefit claims will be handled in accordance with the law. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees depending on ERISA plans are better protected against administrative neglect or delayed information requests. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors relying on ERISA-governed benefit plans receive enhanced accountability measures from plan administrators. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults enrolled in employer-sponsored plans gain stronger protections against delayed benefit decisions. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners and plan administrators face increased financial and legal liability for compliance failures under ERISA.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The legislation strengthens due process protections for plan participants by imposing penalties on administrators who fail to respond to claims and appeals properly. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands the enforcement authority of the Secretary of Labor regarding ERISA claims and appeals procedures.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill enhances consumer protections by establishing strict penalties and enforcement mechanisms for employee benefit plans that fail to process claims and appeals in a timely manner.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — By penalizing delays in urgent care claims and appeals, the legislation helps ensure timely access to necessary medical treatments.
- 8/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/16/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- Introduced in House
André CarsonDemocrat · Indiana
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia