A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
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 "No Surprises Act Enforcement Act" aims to strengthen the enforcement of balance billing protections. It increases penalties for health plans, insurance issuers, and nonparticipating providers that violate balance billing requirements. The bill also introduces penalties for late payments following an IDR (Independent Dispute Resolution) entity payment determination and requires more frequent and detailed transparency reporting to Congress.
Yes· 3 of 25
- Scored +5
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Low-income households are particularly vulnerable to surprise medical bills, so increased protections are very helpful.
- Scored +4
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Middle-class households can be significantly impacted by surprise medical bills, so stronger enforcement provides welcome relief.
- Scored +4
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill mandates more frequent and detailed transparency reporting to Congress.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Penalties for Violations of Balance Billing Requirements (Section 2): This bill raises the fines for those who break the rules around "surprise billing." This could help stop unexpected and unfairly high medical bills, especially after emergency care.
-
Penalties for Late Payment or Non-Payment (Section 3): This adds penalties if insurance plans or providers are late in paying what they owe after an independent review has decided on the payment amount. This part of the bill can speed up payments and reduce hassle for patients.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Requirement for Providers to Return Overpayments (Section 3): If a provider receives an initial payment that is more than the final determined amount after an IDR decision, they must return the difference within 30 days. While this may seem fair, some might argue that this could place a financial burden on smaller practices or facilities, especially if these overpayments are frequent or substantial. This could affect the availability of certain providers, particularly in rural areas.
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 households are particularly vulnerable to surprise medical bills, so increased protections are very helpful. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households can be significantly impacted by surprise medical bills, so stronger enforcement provides welcome relief. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Due to healthcare disparities, this group might benefit more than others. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Due to healthcare disparities, this group might benefit more than others. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Immigrants, especially those with limited English proficiency, may be vulnerable to surprise billing. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Due to healthcare disparities, this group might benefit more than others. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — People with disabilities may require more frequent medical care, making them more susceptible to surprise bills. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees often have more healthcare needs and could benefit from these protections. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — This group may benefit from billing transparency. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — This group may benefit from billing transparency. Would men be better off under this? — This group is expected to equally benefit from billing transparency. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged individuals are often balancing family healthcare costs, so this could help them better manage expenses. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — This group may benefit from billing transparency. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors may face frequent medical needs, making balance billing protections beneficial. Would students be better off under this? — This group may benefit from billing transparency. Would people in cities be better off under this? — This group may benefit from billing transparency. Would white Americans be better off under this? — This group is expected to equally benefit from billing transparency. Would women be better off under this? — This group is expected to equally benefit from billing transparency. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults may lack comprehensive insurance knowledge, so balance billing protections are helpful. Would children be better off under this? — Children are vulnerable to unexpected medical bills; this may help them in the long run. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income households are less vulnerable to surprise billing but could still benefit from billing transparency.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates more frequent and detailed transparency reporting to Congress.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill increases penalties for violating balance billing requirements, improving consumer protection.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill aims to improve healthcare access by penalizing violations of balance billing requirements. Does this lower what people pay for private health insurance? — While not directly reducing premiums, better enforcement could indirectly stabilize costs.
- 7/23/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 1 Cosponsor 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.
Michael BennetDemocrat · Colorado