Great American Healthcare Plan
- Sponsor
- Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7]
- Committees
- Foreign Affairs Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 16, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to increase consumer control over healthcare spending and promote market competition through enhanced price transparency and expanded HSA use, while also addressing drug pricing and access.
What it actually does
This bill significantly expands the utility and accessibility of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) by increasing contribution limits, removing the high-deductible health plan requirement, and allowing HSA funds for a broader range of expenses including health insurance premiums, direct primary care, healthy food, and fitness. It also mandates extensive price transparency requirements for hospitals, clinical laboratories, imaging centers, and ambulatory surgical centers, alongside new data access rules for group health plans. Furthermore, the bill modifies Medicare Part B drug rebate calculations and establishes a framework for 'expanded-access prescription drugs' that can be dispensed by non-physician healthcare professionals.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill empowers consumers by giving them greater control over their healthcare dollars through expanded HSAs and by providing unprecedented access to transparent pricing information, enabling informed choices. They contend that increased competition among providers and insurers, driven by transparency, will lower healthcare costs and improve quality. The expanded-access drug provisions are seen as a way to improve patient access to necessary medications and reduce burdens on physicians.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that expanding HSAs without addressing underlying healthcare costs could disproportionately benefit wealthier individuals who can afford to save, while potentially shifting more financial risk onto patients. Critics may also raise concerns about the administrative burden and compliance costs associated with the extensive price transparency mandates for healthcare providers and insurers, which could be passed on to consumers. Concerns could also be raised about the safety and oversight of 'expanded-access prescription drugs' when dispensed by non-physicians.
The bill is lengthy and complex, requiring significant time to read and understand its numerous amendments to existing law. Given its omnibus nature, a thorough review would demand more time than typically afforded for legislative consideration.
Title I, Sec. 102
Increase in Health Savings Account Contribution Limitations
This provision significantly increases the maximum annual contribution limits for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Instead of the current tiered limits based on individual or family coverage, the new limit is tied to the applicable dollar amount for elective deferrals under section 402(g)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code, which is generally much higher. It also retains an additional catch-up contribution for individuals aged 50 or older.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that higher HSA limits empower individuals to save more for healthcare, fostering greater personal responsibility and financial security for medical costs, especially as healthcare expenses rise.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that increasing HSA contribution limits primarily benefits wealthier individuals who have the disposable income to maximize these tax-advantaged accounts, potentially exacerbating healthcare disparities.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire to encourage individual savings for healthcare with concerns about the regressive nature of tax-advantaged accounts that disproportionately benefit higher earners.
Title I, Sec. 103
Freedom from High-Deductible Health Plan Mandate for HSAs
This section amends the Internal Revenue Code to remove the requirement that an individual must be covered by a high-deductible health plan (HDHP) to be eligible to contribute to a Health Savings Account (HSA). It strikes subsections (c) and (g) of section 223, which previously defined 'eligible individual' and linked HSA eligibility to HDHP coverage. This change broadens HSA eligibility to virtually any individual.
Title I, Sec. 104
HSA Coverage for Health Insurance Premiums and Direct Primary Care
This section expands the definition of 'qualified medical expenses' for HSAs to include amounts paid for health insurance premiums and payments made for direct primary care service arrangements. Previously, HSA funds could only be used for certain health insurance premiums (e.g., COBRA, long-term care, Medicare). This change allows individuals to use their HSA funds to pay for a broader range of health insurance and direct primary care fees.
Title I, Sec. 108
HSA Coverage for Healthy Food, Vitamins, Dietary Supplements, and Sports/Fitness Expenses
This provision expands the definition of 'qualified medical expenses' to include 'qualified wellness expenses,' which encompass healthy food, vitamins, dietary supplements, and qualified sports and fitness expenses. There are monthly limits on these expenses, tiered by the HSA balance: $100/month for balances up to $5,000, $150/month for balances between $5,000 and $10,000, and $200/month for balances over $10,000. Specific definitions are provided for 'healthy food' and 'qualified sports and fitness expenses,' including facility memberships, instruction, and equipment.
Title II, Sec. 202
Health Marketplace Pools Deemed 'Employer' for Group Health Plans
This section amends ERISA to allow 'health marketplace pools' to be deemed an 'employer' for the purpose of offering group health plans or group health insurance coverage. These pools must meet specific requirements, including being formed in good faith to create a risk pool, not conditioning membership on health status, and offering coverage to all members at established rates. They can offer drug coverage as a standalone benefit and provide administrative services. This effectively creates a new type of entity that can offer group health benefits.
Title III, Sec. 302
Strengthening Hospital Price Transparency Requirements
This section significantly strengthens existing hospital price transparency rules. It requires hospitals to publicly disclose all standard charges (gross charge, discounted cash price, payer-specific negotiated charges, de-identified maximum/minimum negotiated charges) for every item and service, in a machine-readable format, and a consumer-friendly format for at least 300 shoppable services (all shoppable services by 2028). It mandates monthly updates, prohibits price estimator tools from being deemed compliant, establishes annual compliance monitoring, requires attestation by senior officials, and imposes substantial civil monetary penalties for non-compliance, tiered by hospital bed count, with no waivers or mitigation.
Title III, Sec. 303, 304, 305
Expanding Price Transparency to Clinical Labs, Imaging, and Ambulatory Surgical Centers
These sections extend the detailed price transparency requirements, similar to those for hospitals, to clinical diagnostic laboratories, imaging service providers, and ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). These entities must publicly disclose gross charges, discounted cash prices, payer-specific negotiated charges, and de-identified maximum/minimum negotiated charges for their services in machine-readable and consumer-friendly formats. Labs and imaging centers must update annually, while ASCs must update annually for shoppable services. Enforcement mechanisms, including civil monetary penalties, are also established for non-compliance.
Title III, Sec. 306
Strengthening Health Coverage Transparency Requirements for Insurers
This section amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to strengthen transparency requirements for health plans and insurers. It mandates a self-service tool providing real-time, accurate information on in-network rates, maximum allowed amounts for out-of-network, patient cost-sharing, accumulated deductibles/out-of-pocket maximums, and prior authorization requirements. It also requires monthly public submission of detailed rate and payment information (in-network rates, historical net drug prices, out-of-network billed/allowed amounts) in machine-readable files. An officer attestation for accuracy is required, and audits by the Secretaries of HHS and Labor are mandated, with civil monetary penalties for non-compliance.
Title III, Sec. 307
Increasing Group Health Plan Access to Health Data
This section amends ERISA to ensure group health plans have full access to claims and encounter information, medical records, and policy documents from their service providers (including health care providers, networks, and third-party administrators). It prohibits contractual provisions that limit or delay this access, restrict audit scope, or limit disclosure of pricing terms for value-based arrangements, overpayments, or administrative fees. It also voids any such restrictive provisions as against public policy and establishes a civil penalty of $10,000 per day for violations. Additionally, it updates attestation requirements for plans to verify compliance with data access and gag clause provisions.
Title III, Sec. 308
Oversight of Administrative Service Providers
This section further strengthens oversight of health plan service providers (including providers, networks, TPAs, etc.) by requiring them to provide group health plans with quarterly disclosures of detailed information. This includes contractual and subcontractual calculation methodologies, all rebates, fees, and remuneration received or paid, and all payment data related to alternative compensation arrangements (e.g., ACOs, value-based programs). It prohibits agreements that limit or delay this disclosure and voids such provisions as against public policy. Non-compliance incurs a civil penalty of $100,000 per day.
Title III, Sec. 310
Requirement for Explanation of Benefits (EOB)
This section mandates that group health plans and health insurance issuers provide an itemized Explanation of Benefits (EOB) to participants within 45 days of receiving a payment request. The EOB must be in clear, understandable language and include whether the provider is in-network, a plain language description of each item/service with billing codes, the amount the plan is responsible for, the patient's cost-sharing, amounts incurred towards deductibles/out-of-pocket maximums, and the site of service. This aims to provide patients with a comprehensive and clear breakdown of costs and coverage post-service.
Title III, Sec. 311
Provision of Itemized Bills by Healthcare Providers
This section requires healthcare providers and facilities to provide a written, itemized bill to individuals within 30 days of receiving final payment from a third party. The bill must include a plain language description of each item/service, all applicable billing codes, the price and billed amount, any payments already made, language assistance information, contact details for bill discussion, and charity care policies. It prohibits collection actions if the provider fails to comply or if the billed amount exceeds a good faith estimate (unless medically necessary due to unforeseen complications), with the burden of proof on the provider. Penalties of up to $10,000 per instance of non-compliance are established.
Title IV, Sec. 402
Rebate by Manufacturers for Selected Drugs Subject to Maximum Fair Price Negotiation (Medicare Part B)
This section amends the Social Security Act to modify how Medicare Part B pays for 'selected drugs' subject to maximum fair price (MFP) negotiation. It requires manufacturers of these drugs to pay a rebate to the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund. The rebate amount is calculated based on the difference between the ASP+6 (Average Sales Price plus 6%) payment amount and the MFP+6 payment amount, taking into account beneficiary coinsurance. This means beneficiaries' coinsurance for selected drugs will be based on the lower MFP+6 amount, and manufacturers will rebate the difference to Medicare. Civil monetary penalties apply for non-compliance.
Title V, Sec. 501
Expanded-Access Prescription Drugs
This section amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish a new category of 'expanded-access prescription drugs.' The Secretary of HHS is required to create and maintain a list of such drugs, designated based on safety data, low risk, and suitability for assessment in a pharmacy or similar setting (e.g., certain antibiotics, antivirals, hormonal therapies). These drugs may be dispensed and administered by 'covered individuals' (pharmacists, advanced practice registered nurses, physician assistants, etc.) after an appropriate patient assessment, consistent with Secretary-issued protocols. State laws conflicting with this are preempted, though states can explicitly opt-out.
Allows Health Savings Account (HSA) funds to be rolled over to a child, parent, or grandparent of the account holder upon death, in addition to the surviving spouse. For a child, if a deduction under section 151 is allowable to another taxpayer, the HSA is treated as the child's account.
Title I, Sec. 107
Why it matters:This is likely standard legislative practice for technical amendments to existing tax code provisions, rather than an attempt to obscure. It refines beneficiary rules for HSAs.
Case for: Supporters argue this expands flexibility for families in managing healthcare savings across generations, allowing funds to be used by a wider range of family members for medical expenses, aligning HSAs more closely with broader family financial planning.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it primarily offers greater flexibility to account holders and their families without significant fiscal or policy controversy.
Estimated impact: Minor fiscal impact, primarily affecting estate planning and intergenerational wealth transfer for healthcare expenses.
Establishes 'qualified general contributions' to HSAs, allowing contributions from governmental entities (excluding U.S. possessions/subdivisions) or 501(c)(3) organizations to specified 'qualified classes' of account beneficiaries (all beneficiaries, or those in designated geographic areas). These contributions are excluded from the beneficiary's gross income.
Title I, Sec. 112
Why it matters:The complexity arises from creating a new funding mechanism and ensuring its tax treatment, which often requires detailed definitions and cross-references. It might also be a way to introduce a novel concept without drawing immediate, broad attention.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision allows charitable organizations and certain governmental entities to directly contribute to individuals' HSAs, potentially expanding access to healthcare savings for specific populations or in underserved areas, fostering community health initiatives.
Case against: Critics might raise concerns about the potential for political influence or favoritism in designating 'qualified geographic areas' or classes. There could also be questions about the oversight of such contributions and whether they align with the original intent of HSAs as individual savings vehicles.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, depending on the scale of general funding contributions. Could involve substantial transfers of funds to HSAs, with corresponding tax expenditure implications.
Explicitly states that the Secretary of HHS shall not grant or extend any waiver, delay, tolling, or other mitigation of a civil monetary penalty for violation of hospital price transparency requirements.
Title III, Sec. 302(e)(5)(C)
Why it matters:This provision is a critical enforcement detail that removes administrative discretion, ensuring strict adherence to the transparency mandates. Its placement within the enforcement section is logical but its absolute nature could be overlooked.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures robust enforcement of price transparency, preventing hospitals from seeking exemptions or delays that could undermine the policy's effectiveness. It signals a strong commitment to holding hospitals accountable.
Case against: Opponents might argue that removing all discretion for waivers or mitigation is overly rigid and could lead to unfair penalties in cases of genuine hardship, technical difficulties, or good faith efforts to comply, especially for smaller or rural hospitals.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it ensures that any hospital failing to comply will face penalties without exception, increasing the financial risk of non-compliance.
Amends ERISA to declare any provision in an agreement that unduly delays or limits a group health plan's access to claims and encounter data, or violates the new data access requirements of section 408(b)(2)(C), to be 'void as against public policy.'
Title III, Sec. 307(a)(3)
Why it matters:This is a powerful legal tool designed to ensure compliance with the data access mandates by nullifying any contractual attempts to circumvent them. Its placement in a general ERISA section on void provisions ensures broad applicability.
Case for: Proponents argue this is a necessary and strong measure to prevent service providers from using contractual language to obstruct transparency and fiduciary oversight, ensuring that the intent of the data access provisions cannot be undermined by private agreements.
Case against: Opponents might argue that unilaterally voiding contract provisions could create legal uncertainty, disrupt existing business relationships, and potentially lead to litigation, especially if the definition of 'unduly delays or limits' is subject to interpretation.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant legal and contractual impact, as it could invalidate numerous existing clauses in contracts between group health plans and their service providers, forcing renegotiation or legal challenges.