H.R. 1776 (119th)Bill Overview

New Health Options Act of 2025

Health|Health
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Mar 3, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by t…

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

The bill (New Health Options Act of 2025) amends the ACA to create a federal reinsurance program for certain off-exchange individual market plans, allows issuers to elect to opt certain plans out of the single risk pool and to vary adult age rating beyond current limits for those opt-out plans, requires HHS/Labor/Treasury to allow such plans to integrate with individual reimbursement arrangements, permits certain out-of-network costs to count toward in-network deductibles/OOP maximums under conditions, and requires provider price-disclosure to patients with a private right of action. Funding for the reinsurance program is appropriated at $50 per member-month (capped at $6 billion annually) for 2026–2030, and HHS sets attachment/payment parameters (2026 example: $110,000 attachment, 90% payment proportion, $300,000 cap).

Why people may split

Progressives emphasize risk segmentation harms; conservatives emphasize consumer choice.

Watch point

Substantive ACA changes plus new spending and private‑suit provisions create intra‑chamber controversy despite some insurer-friendly features.

The bill (New Health Options Act of 2025) amends the ACA to create a federal reinsurance program for certain off-exchange individual market plans, allows issuers to elect to opt certain plans out of the single risk pool and to vary adult age rating beyond current limits for those opt-out plans, requires HHS/Labor/Treasury to allow such plans to integrate with individual reimbursement arrangements, permits certain out-of-network costs to count toward in-network deductibles/OOP maximums under conditions, and requires provider price-disclosure to patients with a private right of action.

Funding for the reinsurance program is appropriated at $50 per member-month (capped at $6 billion annually) for 2026–2030, and HHS sets attachment/payment parameters (2026 example: $110,000 attachment, 90% payment proportion, $300,000 cap).

Passage22/100

Low probability: controversial changes to ACA risk pools and age rating, plus new spending and litigation exposure, limit cross‑aisle support; narrow compromise elements provide limited negotiating space.

CredibilityPartial

How solid the drafting looks.

Contention68/100

Progressives emphasize risk segmentation harms; conservatives emphasize consumer choice.

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
ConsumersFederal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitReinsurance payments could lower premiums for high-cost enrollees in opted-out off-exchange plans.
  • ConsumersIssuers gain flexibility to design narrower or lower-benefit plans appealing to some consumers.
  • ConsumersPrice transparency and disclosure requirements may help consumers find lower cash prices and reduce out-of-pocket costs.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenAllowing issuers to opt out may fragment the individual market risk pool, raising exchange premiums.
  • Federal agenciesFederal appropriations up to $6 billion per year increase federal spending and budgetary commitments.
  • Potential burdenRemoving age‑rating limits for opted-out plans could increase premiums for older adults in those plans.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize risk segmentation harms; conservatives emphasize consumer choice.
Progressive20%

Likely skeptical or opposed.

While transparency and some consumer protections are positive, opt-out of the single risk pool and relaxed age-rating raise concerns about segmentation and weakened consumer protections.

Likely resistant
Centrist50%

Mixed view.

Supports measures that lower observable premiums and improve transparency, but cautious about provisions that may increase market segmentation or shift costs to vulnerable populations.

Split reaction
Conservative80%

Generally favorable.

Values increased market flexibility, issuer choice to offer alternative plans, HRA integration, reinsurance to lower premiums, and stronger price transparency for consumers.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood22/100

Low probability: controversial changes to ACA risk pools and age rating, plus new spending and litigation exposure, limit cross‑aisle support; narrow compromise elements provide limited negotiating space.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • No CBO score or official budget estimate included
  • Net impact on premiums and enrollment is uncertain
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives emphasize risk segmentation harms; conservatives emphasize consumer choice.

Low probability: controversial changes to ACA risk pools and age rating, plus new spending and litigation exposure, limit cross‑aisle suppo…

Unlocked analysis

Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for New Health Options Act of 2025.

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis