A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
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 "Medicaid VBPs for Patients Act" (or "MVP Act") aims to codify value-based purchasing arrangements within the Medicaid program. It updates how drug prices are reported and calculated, specifically allowing for multiple best price points for single drugs if offered to all States. The bill provides guidance for these arrangements regarding inpatient drugs and creates an exception under the antikickback statute for certain payments triggered by patient outcomes. Finally, it mandates a GAO study to evaluate how these arrangements affect patient access, outcomes, and healthcare costs.
Yes· 3 of 18
- Scored +6
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Improves access to high-cost transformative therapies for Medicaid recipients.
- Scored +5
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
Aims to facilitate access to transformative therapies and gene therapies for rare diseases.
- Scored +4
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
Facilitates access to rare disease therapies and transformative treatments.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Improved Access to Therapies: Section 6(a)(1)(A) directs a study on how these arrangements facilitate access to transformative therapies, including gene therapies for rare diseases.
-
Reducing Disparities: Section 6(a)(1)(B) focuses on mitigating socioeconomic disparities by requiring State Medicaid programs to have access to the same pricing structures available in the commercial market.
-
Outcome-Based Accountability: Section 2(b)(1)(A)(iv) allows for refunds, rebates, or payment reductions to manufacturers if a patient fails to achieve specific outcomes or measures defined in the arrangement.
-
Patient Mobility: Section 4 provides guidance for States to enter agreements allowing funds to transfer between States, so people receiving inpatient drugs in a different State from where they reside can be treated as if they received the drug in their home State.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Limited Availability: Section 2(a)(1)(D) specifies that multiple best price points are only available if the manufacturer offers the arrangement to all States, which could limit the benefit if a manufacturer does not offer it universally.
-
Price Uncertainty: Section 6(a)(1)(E) indicates a need to study the impact on drug prices for people in States that choose not to enter into these value-based purchasing arrangements.
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? — Improves access to high-cost transformative therapies for Medicaid recipients. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Facilitates access to rare disease therapies and transformative treatments. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Focuses on mitigating socioeconomic disparities in drug access. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Focuses on mitigating socioeconomic disparities in drug access. Would children be better off under this? — Potential for improved access to rare disease gene therapies. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Focuses on mitigating socioeconomic disparities in drug access. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Potential for improved access to transformative therapies. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Focuses on mitigating socioeconomic disparities in drug access. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Potential for improved access to transformative therapies via Medicaid. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Focuses on mitigating socioeconomic disparities in drug access. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Potential for improved access to transformative therapies.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Aims to facilitate access to transformative therapies and gene therapies for rare diseases. Does this lower the price of prescription medicines? — Facilitates value-based purchasing and rebates if drugs fail to achieve outcomes.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — Provides guidance for fund transfers between states for inpatient drug treatment. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Provides states more options and guidance for entering drug purchasing arrangements.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Ties drug payments to patient outcomes, potentially reducing wasteful spending. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Outcome-based rebates to manufacturers may reduce overall Medicaid expenditures.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Includes a study on mitigating socioeconomic disparities in drug access.
- 5/7/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Maggie HassanDemocrat · New Hampshire
Tim ScottRepublican · South Carolina