A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
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
This bill, known as the "American Pharmaceutical Security Act," requires the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to submit a report to Congress. The report must examine how coverage and reimbursement authorities can be used to protect markets for active pharmaceutical ingredients and key starting materials. It specifically looks at protecting the markets of the United States and its allies. Additionally, the report aims to address how to reduce direct and indirect dependence on foreign adversaries for these materials. The Administrator is tasked with providing findings and policy recommendations within one year of the Act's enactment.
Yes· 3 of 16
- Scored +5
Does this make the country readier for the next outbreak?
Reducing dependence on foreign adversaries for medical ingredients strengthens national pandemic preparedness.
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Domestic manufacturers may benefit from policies that prioritize domestic sources.
- Scored +3
Is this likely to create jobs?
The bill's focus on domestic manufacturing could indirectly support job creation in the pharmaceutical sector.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this make trade with other countries easier?
Prioritizing domestic sources over foreign ones could lead to increased trade tensions with current suppliers.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protecting Domestic Manufacturing: The report may include recommendations for price floor commitments to support the domestic manufacturing of active pharmaceutical ingredients and key starting materials, which helps protect investments in domestic markets against price manipulation (Section 2, subsection a, and Section 2, subsection b, part 1, part A).
-
Prioritizing Domestic Sources: The report may include recommendations to prioritize domestically manufactured ingredients and materials over those manufactured abroad when a domestic source is available (Section 2, subsection b, part 1, part B).
-
Reducing Dependence on Adversaries: The report aims to find ways to reduce the direct and indirect dependence of the United States on foreign adversaries for essential pharmaceutical ingredients and materials (Section 2, subsection a).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts or burdens are explicitly identified within the provided text.
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 business owners be better off under this? — Domestic manufacturers may benefit from policies that prioritize domestic sources. Would retired people be better off under this? — Securing medication supply is vital for the health stability of the retiree population. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Securing pharmaceutical supply chains provides stability for seniors who rely on these medications. Would union members be better off under this? — Boosting domestic manufacturing may increase opportunities for organized labor in the industrial sector. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Securing the pharmaceutical supply chain benefits veterans' access to essential medications. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Protecting medical supplies may prevent future price volatility and shortages for low-income families. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Supply chain security contributes to overall economic and health stability for the middle class. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — A more stable medication supply chain is beneficial for those with chronic health conditions.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Securing the pharmaceutical supply chain can protect consumers from potential shortages. Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill's focus on domestic manufacturing could indirectly support job creation in the pharmaceutical sector. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Supporting domestic manufacturing industries may contribute to long-term economic stability and growth.
- Healthcare
- Does this make the country readier for the next outbreak? — Reducing dependence on foreign adversaries for medical ingredients strengthens national pandemic preparedness. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Securing the supply of essential ingredients helps ensure long-term healthcare access and stability.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The required report provides transparency into the vulnerabilities of the pharmaceutical supply chain. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands the scope of the CMS Administrator's role in overseeing pharmaceutical market security.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — The bill looks to protect markets for the US and its allies, potentially strengthening those economic-security ties. Does this make trade with other countries easier? — Prioritizing domestic sources over foreign ones could lead to increased trade tensions with current suppliers.
- 8/6/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
Rick ScottRepublican · Florida