Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Services relating to "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2027; and Basic Health Program".
A Democratic resolution with 14 Democratic cosponsors · See all 15 cosponsors
Last activity — Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 48 - 51. Record Vote Number: 251. (consideration: CR S5139-5140)
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
How Congress voted
- See who voted how →A vote on whether to start debating something · 09/29/2026
What this bill would do
This joint resolution is a proposal for Congress to disapprove of a specific rule created by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The rule in question relates to the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2027; and Basic Health Program." If passed, the resolution would ensure that this specific rule has no force or effect.
Yes
- Scored +2
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
By disapproving of a federal rule, it potentially returns more autonomy to state-managed health programs.
The opposite· 3 of 14
- Scored -4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Low-income individuals rely heavily on the ACA and Basic Health Programs which this bill targets for rule reversal.
- Scored -3
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
Disproportionate reliance on the ACA and Basic Health Programs means these communities may suffer from the removal of the rule.
- Scored -3
Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?
Disproportionate reliance on the ACA and Basic Health Programs means these communities may suffer from the removal of the rule.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The Senate: a vote on whether to start debating something This decides only whether the chamber takes the measure up at all. Nothing about the measure itself has been decided when it passes. Blocked 48 yes · 51 no
09/29/2026 · Roll call 251 · recorded as “On the Motion to Proceed S.J.Res. 197”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Congressional Oversight: This resolution allows Congress to use its authority under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to disapprove of a rule submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Removal of Rule: The resolution states that the rule relating to "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2027; and Basic Health Program" shall have no force or effect, which would eliminate the parameters set by that rule.
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? — Low-income individuals rely heavily on the ACA and Basic Health Programs which this bill targets for rule reversal. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Disproportionate reliance on the ACA and Basic Health Programs means these communities may suffer from the removal of the rule. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Disproportionate reliance on the ACA and Basic Health Programs means these communities may suffer from the removal of the rule. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — General potential for reduced healthcare stability under the ACA. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — People with disabilities are highly dependent on stable Medicaid and ACA payment parameters for care. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — General potential for reduced healthcare stability under the ACA. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Potential disruption of health insurance payment parameters may increase costs for middle-class users. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees may face instability in health benefit parameters. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents often depend more on federal health subsidies and parameters to maintain local clinic funding. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Changes to Medicare/Medicaid payment parameters can negatively impact coverage for elderly populations. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General potential for reduced healthcare stability under the ACA.
- Healthcare
- Does this strengthen the Affordable Care Act? — The bill seeks to invalidate a specific rule implementing the Affordable Care Act's benefit and payment parameters for 2027. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Voiding benefit and payment parameters for the ACA and Basic Health Program may disrupt healthcare access and funding.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — By disapproving of a federal rule, it potentially returns more autonomy to state-managed health programs. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill uses the Congressional Review Act to limit the power of an executive agency (CMS) to implement a rule.
- 9/29/2026
- Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 48 - 51. Record Vote Number: 251. (consideration: CR S5139-5140)
- 7/27/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/14/2026
- Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c).
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 456.
- 6/22/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/17/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 13 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.
Angela AlsobrooksDemocrat · Maryland
Michael BennetDemocrat · Colorado
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Tammy DuckworthDemocrat · Illinois
John HickenlooperDemocrat · Colorado
Amy KlobucharDemocrat · Minnesota
Angus KingIndependent · Maine
Ben LujánDemocrat · New Mexico
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Patty MurrayDemocrat · Washington
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Charles SchumerDemocrat · New York
Jeanne ShaheenDemocrat · New Hampshire
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Mark WarnerDemocrat · Virginia