Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for co…
Requires the Government Accountability Office to complete, within 18 months, a study on anticompetitive contract clauses (anti-steering, anti-tiering, all-or-nothing, gag clauses) used between health insurers and providers. The GAO must evaluate effects on consolidation, prices, and access; list FTC and DOJ actions; assess those agencies’ enforcement capacity; and recommend legislative or administrative steps and resource needs if necessary.
Liberals want prompt action; conservatives prefer study-only first
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-defined statutory requirement for a GAO study.
Requires the Government Accountability Office to complete, within 18 months, a study on anticompetitive contract clauses (anti-steering, anti-tiering, all-or-nothing, gag clauses) used between health insurers and providers.
The GAO must evaluate effects on consolidation, prices, and access; list FTC and DOJ actions; assess those agencies’ enforcement capacity; and recommend legislative or administrative steps and resource needs if necessary.
The report will be delivered to relevant House and Senate committees.
Low-cost, administrative oversight bills historically have moderate success; industry opposition and committee calendars are main obstacles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-defined statutory requirement for a GAO study. It provides clear objectives, detailed subject-matter definitions, a timeline, and specified report recipients, and it mandates coordination with the relevant enforcement agencies.
Liberals want prompt action; conservatives prefer study-only first
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals want prompt action; conservatives prefer study-only first
Likely strongly supportive because the bill targets anticompetitive clauses that harm consumers and market competition.
Sees the GAO study as useful evidence to justify stronger enforcement or legislative bans on harmful contract clauses.
Generally favorable to a fact-finding GAO study as a modest, evidence-based step before policy changes.
Will weigh benefits of improved information against potential duplication, cost, and timing concerns.
Mixed but cautiously supportive since the bill only mandates a GAO study, not new regulation.
Concerned about potential downstream calls for expanded FTC/DOJ power and interference with private contracts.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Low-cost, administrative oversight bills historically have moderate success; industry opposition and committee calendars are main obstacles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals want prompt action; conservatives prefer study-only first
Low-cost, administrative oversight bills historically have moderate success; industry opposition and committee calendars are main obstacles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-defined statutory requirement for a GAO study. It provides clear objectives, detailed subject-matter definitions, a timeline, and specified report recipient…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.