A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See all 4 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
The Cancer Drug Parity Act of 2026 amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. It requires group health plans to ensure that cost-sharing for FDA-approved, patient-administered oral anticancer drugs is no less favorable than the cost-sharing for anticancer medications administered by a health care provider. This applies to medications that a physician finds medically necessary or clinically appropriate. The bill prohibits plans from increasing out-of-pocket costs or restricting oral medications further to comply with these rules. It also directs the Comptroller General to study the impact of these changes on out-of-pocket costs.
Yes· 3 of 22
- Scored +7
Does this lower the price of prescription medicines?
Reduces out-of-pocket costs for patients using FDA-approved oral anticancer medications.
- Scored +6
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Reduces the financial burden of expensive oral cancer drugs for low-income patients in group plans.
- Scored +6
Would middle-income households be better off under this?
Lowers out-of-pocket costs for cancer treatments for middle-class families.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Would business owners be better off under this?
May increase costs for business owners providing group health insurance to employees.
- Scored -2
Does this lower what people pay for private health insurance?
Requiring more favorable cost-sharing for oral drugs may lead insurers to raise premiums to cover costs.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Fairer Cost-Sharing: Patients using oral anticancer drugs may see costs that are no less favorable than those for injected or intravenous medications, as required by SEC. 2(a).
-
Protection Against Cost Hikes: Group health plans are prohibited from increasing out-of-pocket costs or reclassifying benefits to raise costs specifically to comply with this act, according to SEC. 2(c).
-
Maintaining State Protections: The bill does not override State laws that already provide more protections for oral anticancer medication coverage, per SEC. 2(d)(3).
-
Future Improvements: The GAO study required by SEC. 3 will assess financial barriers and provide recommendations to Congress on how to improve access to these medications.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Continued Use of Controls: The bill does not stop group health plans from requiring prior authorization or other utilization controls for anticancer medications, according to SEC. 2(d)(2).
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? — Reduces the financial burden of expensive oral cancer drugs for low-income patients in group plans. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Lowers out-of-pocket costs for cancer treatments for middle-class families. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Beneficial for middle-aged adults who are primary users of group health plans and cancer treatments. Would union members be better off under this? — Union workers often have strong group health plans that would now be required to provide drug parity. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Improves affordability of cancer drugs for those in group health plans. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Improves affordability of cancer drugs for those in group health plans. Would children be better off under this? — Beneficial for children with cancer who are covered by group health plans. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Provides cost-sharing parity, though the impact is less critical for high-income individuals. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Improves affordability of cancer drugs for those in group health plans. Would men be better off under this? — Beneficial for men with cancers treated by oral medications. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Improves affordability of cancer drugs for those in group health plans. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Beneficial for those with cancer-related disabilities using oral medications. Would students be better off under this? — Beneficial for students covered under group health plans. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Improves affordability of cancer drugs for those in group health plans. Would women be better off under this? — Beneficial for women with cancers treated by oral medications. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Beneficial for young adults with cancer who are covered by group health plans. Would business owners be better off under this? — May increase costs for business owners providing group health insurance to employees.
- Healthcare
- Does this lower the price of prescription medicines? — Reduces out-of-pocket costs for patients using FDA-approved oral anticancer medications. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Increases access to cancer treatments by reducing financial barriers to oral medications. Does this lower what people pay for private health insurance? — Requiring more favorable cost-sharing for oral drugs may lead insurers to raise premiums to cover costs.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Protects patients from higher out-of-pocket costs for oral cancer drugs.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal mandates on group health plans regarding cost-sharing. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Explicitly preserves state laws that provide greater protections for cancer drug coverage.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Reduces medical expenses for cancer patients, which helps prevent medical-related poverty.
- 9/30/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/14/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/15/2026
- 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.
Tammy BaldwinDemocrat · Wisconsin
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Jerry MoranRepublican · Kansas
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon