A Democratic bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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 known as the Patients Over Profit Act or the POP Act. It stops health insurance companies and certain Medicare health care providers from being under the same ownership. Any person or company that currently has this common ownership must separate them within a specific timeline. Government officials can bring civil actions in court against anyone who breaks these ownership rules. The bill also stops the government from making contracts or payments to Medicare Advantage organizations that violate the common ownership ban.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +6
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill protects healthcare consumers by preventing conflicts of interest between insurers and providers.
- Scored +5
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
Separating insurers and providers helps ensure business interests do not override patient care needs.
- Scored +5
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Seniors benefit from protections against conflicts of interest in Medicare Advantage plans.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -5
Would business owners be better off under this?
Corporate healthcare and insurance entities face mandatory divestment and strict legal penalties.
- Scored -3
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
Investors in integrated healthcare corporations face financial disruption and forced asset sales.
- Scored -3
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
Major stakeholders in large health insurance and provider conglomerates face forced restructuring.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Funds for the community: Under Section 2(c)(3), any revenue that is forced away from companies breaking the ownership rules must be put into a fund by the Federal Trade Commission and distributed to serve the health care needs of the harmed community. This helps put money back toward the people who were hurt by these business practices.
-
Clear separation of business: Under Section 2(a), the bill makes it unlawful for a person to own both certain health care providers and health insurance issuers. This prevents the same entity from controlling both the care side and the insurance side, which could help keep business interests from overriding patient care.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Disruption from forced sales: Under Section 2(b), individuals or companies that already own both a provider and an insurance issuer must sell off one of them within two years, and newer acquisitions within one year. This forced divestment could cause major administrative and financial disruptions for the organizations involved.
-
Strict penalties for false claims: Under Section 2(g)(1), any claim for payment submitted by a Medicare Advantage entity that violates the common ownership rule is automatically treated as a false or fraudulent claim. This exposes entities to severe legal and financial penalties under federal law.
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.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Separating insurers and providers helps ensure business interests do not override patient care needs. Does this lower what people pay for private health insurance? — Restricting common ownership may reduce vertical integration pressures that drive up healthcare and insurance costs.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill protects healthcare consumers by preventing conflicts of interest between insurers and providers.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal oversight and regulatory authority through the FTC and DOJ regarding healthcare ownership. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill explicitly empowers state Attorneys General to bring civil enforcement actions.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees relying on Medicare Advantage benefit from reduced corporate conflicts of interest. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors benefit from protections against conflicts of interest in Medicare Advantage plans. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Community health funds generated from disgorged revenues help serve the healthcare needs of harmed populations. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Consumer protections in healthcare can lower overall costs for middle-class families. Would business owners be better off under this? — Corporate healthcare and insurance entities face mandatory divestment and strict legal penalties. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Billionaires holding stakes in combined health insurance and provider entities will be negatively impacted by divestment mandates. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Investors in integrated healthcare corporations face financial disruption and forced asset sales. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Major stakeholders in large health insurance and provider conglomerates face forced restructuring.
- 9/17/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 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.
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts