Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Requires the HHS Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) to conduct an annual, 10‑year study of State‑level health care competition and consolidation. The study must consult FTC and DOJ antitrust, collect data on licensure, mergers and acquisitions, COPAs and CONs, alternative insurance types, counts of providers and facilities, and calculate Herfindahl‑Hirschman Indexes for specified services.
Liberals see study as tool for consumer protection and enforcement
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear statutory mandate for recurring study and public reporting on State‑level health care competition and consolidation, with well-specified topical metrics and interagency consultation requirements.
Requires the HHS Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) to conduct an annual, 10‑year study of State‑level health care competition and consolidation.
The study must consult FTC and DOJ antitrust, collect data on licensure, mergers and acquisitions, COPAs and CONs, alternative insurance types, counts of providers and facilities, and calculate Herfindahl‑Hirschman Indexes for specified services.
ASPE must submit annual reports to relevant Congressional committees and publish reports and interactive public datasets online.
Administrative, narrowly scoped study with bipartisan potential and low cost raises prospects; lack of funding authorization and Senate procedure are main constraints.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear statutory mandate for recurring study and public reporting on State‑level health care competition and consolidation, with well-specified topical metrics and interagency consultation requirements. It provides a formal accountability channel to Congress and public access to data.
Liberals see study as tool for consumer protection and enforcement
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals see study as tool for consumer protection and enforcement
Generally supportive of a recurring, public study that documents consolidation and licensing barriers.
Sees value in transparency and antitrust consultation but wants the study used to protect patients and access rather than justify deregulation.
Favors evidence‑based, interagency study to inform policy decisions while wanting clarity on funding, scope, and duplication.
Appreciates public transparency but expects pragmatic follow‑through and protections for confidential data.
Skeptical of expanded federal study of state health regulation and potential federal encroachment.
However, may welcome data exposing state licensing, CONs, and consolidation that restrict markets and competition.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Administrative, narrowly scoped study with bipartisan potential and low cost raises prospects; lack of funding authorization and Senate procedure are main constraints.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals see study as tool for consumer protection and enforcement
Administrative, narrowly scoped study with bipartisan potential and low cost raises prospects; lack of funding authorization and Senate pro…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear statutory mandate for recurring study and public reporting on State‑level health care competition and consolidation, with well-specified topical m…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.