A Democratic bill with 6 Democratic cosponsors · See all 7 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 "Health Over Wealth Act" aims to amend the Public Health Service Act to increase oversight of for-profit corporations that own health care systems. It mandates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services collect detailed financial and operational data from these covered firms, including those affiliated with private equity funds. The bill establishes a Task Force to monitor the impacts of private equity and market consolidation on health care quality and access. Additionally, it introduces risk mitigation requirements, such as mandatory escrow accounts, to protect against the impact of facility closures or service reductions. The Act also creates a licensure system for private equity firms looking to invest in health care entities. Finally, it implements new requirements for hospitals notifying the government of service discontinuations or full closures.
Yes· 3 of 12
- Scored +8
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill mandates public disclosure of detailed financial and operational data from for-profit healthcare corporations.
- Scored +7
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The bill establishes risk mitigation, such as escrow accounts and mitigation plans, to prevent sudden loss of essential healthcare services.
- Scored +6
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The bill includes protections against the loss of essential services which often disproportionately impacts low-income communities.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Transparency: The bill requires covered firms to submit detailed financial and operational data, which the Secretary must make publicly available (Section 3402). This allows the public to see information regarding debt levels, political spending, and staff retention rates.
-
Protection of Essential Services: The Secretary can establish mechanisms to mitigate risks, such as requiring covered firms to establish escrow accounts to cover operating and capital expenditures for at least five years in the event of a closure or service reduction (Section 3403).
-
Mitigating Impact of Hospital Closures: For hospitals, the bill requires a notification process and the potential submission of a mitigation plan to preserve access to essential services for impacted communities (Section 5).
-
Accountability for Private Equity Firms: The Secretary is empowered to issue licenses for private equity firms to invest in health care, with the authority to deny or revoke these licenses if the firm engages in practices like price gouging or understaffing (Section 3403).
-
Research into Health Care Trends: The bill directs the Secretary to conduct research on various impacts, including how private equity affects health care costs, access, and worker pay (Section 3407).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Administrative Burden on Health Care Firms: While the bill states the Secretary should reduce administrative burdens, it still imposes significant new reporting requirements regarding debt, fees, political spending, and staffing (Section 3402 and Section 3404).
-
Restrictions on Real Estate Transactions: The bill prohibits health care entities from entering into sale or lease agreements with real estate investment trusts if the terms would lead to a long-term weakened financial status or place public health at risk (Section 3403).
-
Potential Limits on Investment: The creation of a licensure system and the ability for the Secretary to deny or revoke licenses could act as a barrier to private equity firms investing in health care entities (Section 3403).
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? — The bill includes protections against the loss of essential services which often disproportionately impacts low-income communities. Would union members be better off under this? — The bill requires disclosure of staff retention rates and protects against wage and benefit reductions. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill targets the reduction of healthcare disparities through enhanced monitoring and oversight. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill protects essential services for specific demographics, including those with disabilities. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — The bill protects essential services in healthcare facilities often utilized by older populations. Would women be better off under this? — The bill protects access to essential services regardless of sex or sexuality. Would people in cities be better off under this? — The bill provides oversight on hospital closures which can heavily impact urban service availability.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill establishes risk mitigation, such as escrow accounts and mitigation plans, to prevent sudden loss of essential healthcare services. Does this put more money into medical research? — The bill directs the Secretary to conduct research on the impacts of private equity on healthcare costs, access, and quality.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates public disclosure of detailed financial and operational data from for-profit healthcare corporations.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill increases transparency and accountability for for-profit healthcare owners to protect patients from price gouging and service reductions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill establishes a Task Force to monitor and address healthcare disparities that can be exacerbated by market consolidation.
- 7/23/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
- 7 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.
Tammy BaldwinDemocrat · Wisconsin
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Tina SmithDemocrat · Minnesota
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts