Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill amends the Public Health Service Act’s 340B program to prohibit covered entities from using savings derived from the difference between 340B ceiling prices and acquisition costs to pay for sex reassignment surgeries and hormone treatments when furnished for the purpose of gender alteration of a transgender individual. It adds a definitional clause for the covered entities and for the “services described” (sex reassignment surgeries and hormone treatments).
Progressives emphasize reduced access and discrimination concerns
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a statutory prohibition within the 340B program on using savings derived from 340B pricing for specified transgender-related surgeries and hormone treatments and includes basic definitional language.
This bill amends the Public Health Service Act’s 340B program to prohibit covered entities from using savings derived from the difference between 340B ceiling prices and acquisition costs to pay for sex reassignment surgeries and hormone treatments when furnished for the purpose of gender alteration of a transgender individual.
It adds a definitional clause for the covered entities and for the “services described” (sex reassignment surgeries and hormone treatments).
The text does not specify enforcement mechanisms, penalties, or alternative funding provisions.
Narrow statutory change favors advancement in a receptive chamber, but high controversy, litigation risk, and limited compromise features reduce overall odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a statutory prohibition within the 340B program on using savings derived from 340B pricing for specified transgender-related surgeries and hormone treatments and includes basic definitional language. It lacks implementation detail, fiscal acknowledgment, edge-case handling, and accountability mechanisms.
Progressives emphasize reduced access and discrimination concerns
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize reduced access and discrimination concerns
Likely views the bill as a targeted restriction that will reduce access to gender-affirming care and stigmatize transgender people.
Sees the prohibition as singling out a medically recognized form of care for political reasons, and expects negative public-health consequences for vulnerable patients.
Approaches the bill pragmatically: understands concerns about how 340B savings are used, but worries about singling out specific medical care without clear fiscal justification.
Wants clearer definitions, reporting, and evidence of fiscal impact before full endorsement.
Likely supportive, viewing the bill as a reasonable limitation preventing 340B discounts from subsidizing gender-transition surgeries and hormone therapy.
Sees it as restoring focus to the original intent of 340B funds and protecting taxpayers from subsidizing controversial treatments.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow statutory change favors advancement in a receptive chamber, but high controversy, litigation risk, and limited compromise features reduce overall odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize reduced access and discrimination concerns
Narrow statutory change favors advancement in a receptive chamber, but high controversy, litigation risk, and limited compromise features r…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a statutory prohibition within the 340B program on using savings derived from 340B pricing for specified transgender-related surgeries and hormone…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.