A Republican bill with no cosponsors
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
This bill is titled the Healthy Competition for Better Care Act. It targets facility and insurance contracts that limit access to better quality and lower cost care. The legislation bans certain anticompetitive terms in these contracts. It amends the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The bill also gives states an option to grandfather certain older agreements under specific conditions. Finally, it requires the relevant government secretaries to issue regulations within one year of enactment.
Yes· 3 of 33
- Scored +6
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The bill protects consumers by prohibiting anticompetitive contract terms that artificially inflate healthcare pricing and restrict network choices.
- Scored +5
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Lower-income households stand to gain significantly from cost reductions and fairer pricing practices in health insurance plans.
- Scored +5
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Middle-class households benefit through decreased medical and insurance costs enabled by the elimination of anticompetitive clauses.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Under Section 2, the bill stops group health plans and health insurance issuers from entering into agreements that restrict them from steering participants to other health care providers or offering incentives to use specific providers. This could help people find higher quality and lower cost care by giving plans more freedom.
-
Under Section 2, the legislation bans agreements that force a health plan to enter into extra contracts with an affiliate of a covered entity, or agree to payment rates for affiliates not part of the agreement. This provision prevents hidden bundling of services that could drive up costs for everyday people.
-
Under Section 2, the bill prohibits agreements that stop other health plans from paying a lower rate for items or services than the plan involved in the agreement pays. This helps protect the public by ensuring that pricing remains competitive rather than artificially inflated.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Under Section 2, the bill allows an applicable state authority to exempt certain specified agreements executed on June 19, 2019, and related agreements from these new prohibitions for up to ten years. This means some people living in those states might have to wait up to a decade before seeing the competitive benefits of this law in their current health plans.
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? — Lower-income households stand to gain significantly from cost reductions and fairer pricing practices in health insurance plans. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households benefit through decreased medical and insurance costs enabled by the elimination of anticompetitive clauses. Would business owners be better off under this? — Business owners providing group health plans gain more flexibility in network design and options to manage healthcare expenses. Would children be better off under this? — Children and families benefit from lower healthcare costs and broader access to quality providers resulting from increased market competition. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged individuals benefit from lower health insurance premiums and protection against hidden bundling costs. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Individuals with disabilities benefit from rules that prevent restrictive provider networks and encourage access to specialized care. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees covered by supplemental or group health plans benefit from lower medical inflation and reduced hidden costs. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors relying on group health plans benefit from enhanced access to affordable, high-quality healthcare options. Would union members be better off under this? — Union members covered by employer-sponsored group health plans benefit from lower costs and greater network flexibility. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults benefit from more flexible health insurance network designs and reduced overall healthcare expenses. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Improved healthcare affordability and network access positively impact minority communities that often face disparities in healthcare costs. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Broader access to lower-cost care helps alleviate financial barriers to healthcare within Hispanic communities. Would men be better off under this? — Men benefit from more transparent and competitive health insurance contract terms. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents can benefit when plans have fewer restrictions on steering patients to available higher-quality regional care. Would women be better off under this? — Women, who frequently manage family healthcare decisions, benefit from increased plan flexibility and lower costs. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — General improvements in health plan pricing and transparency benefit all demographic groups. Would farmers be better off under this? — Farmers and rural workers with group health coverage can benefit from lower premium costs and expanded provider choices. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income households may experience minor indirect savings on private health insurance coverage. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Immigrants with access to group health plans benefit from lower out-of-pocket costs and competitive pricing. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Broader healthcare market reforms can indirectly benefit native populations reliant on commercial health plans. Would students be better off under this? — Students covered under family or group health plans may benefit from lowered insurance premiums. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban residents benefit from increased provider competition within densely populated health markets. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans participating in employer or group health plans may experience cost savings from enhanced market competition. Would white Americans be better off under this? — All participants in group health plans benefit from increased market competition.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — By giving health plans greater flexibility to steer patients to higher quality and lower cost providers, the legislation improves overall access to effective care. Does this lower what a hospital stay costs? — The prohibition of forced affiliate bundling and pricing restrictions helps curb excessive hospital and facility fees. Does this lower what people pay for private health insurance? — Banning anticompetitive clauses and pricing restrictions in health plan contracts helps reduce unnecessary healthcare costs, potentially lowering insurance premiums.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — By banning anticompetitive contracting terms across health insurance and facility agreements, the bill promotes fairer market competition. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill's statutory updates enhance transparency regarding contractual terms between health plans and medical providers. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The legislation provides a specific state grandfathering option allowing state authorities to exempt certain older agreements. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill imposes federal mandates on health plans and insurance contracts and requires joint federal agency rulemaking.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill protects consumers by prohibiting anticompetitive contract terms that artificially inflate healthcare pricing and restrict network choices. Is this likely to slow the rise in prices? — By banning anticompetitive contracting terms, the bill promotes market competition which can help lower healthcare cost inflation over time.
- 3/9/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 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.