Pentagon opens cancer insurance market to two private firms, preempts state oversight
H.R. 3148 — SALUTE Act · Filed by Brian Jack (R-GA) · 32 cosponsors · Introduced May 1, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill directs the Department of Defense to establish a three-to-five-year pilot program allowing active-duty service members and their TRICARE-enrolled dependents to purchase supplemental cancer insurance from up to two private companies. The supplemental plans would cover cancer-related expenses not covered by existing military health benefits, with premiums deducted from military pay. The government does not subsidize the premiums; companies are not treated as federal contractors; and state insurance laws are preempted except for licensing and solvency rules.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core function is to expand supplemental cancer coverage for military families, a genuine public-health benefit. However, the mechanism—a federally preempted, two-company monopoly with no government subsidy—creates a private-market carve-out within the military health system.
What the text implies
- Federal preemption of state insurance laws (except licensing/solvency) may shield the two selected companies from state consumer-protection rules, rate-review requirements, or claims-handling standards that would otherwise apply to supplemental insurers.
- The 'not considered contractors' language may exempt the selected companies from federal procurement oversight, audit requirements, or conflict-of-interest rules that would normally apply to entities receiving federal business.
- Military families bear 100% of premium costs with no government subsidy, creating a regressive burden on lower-income service members who may need cancer coverage most but can least afford it.
- The pilot's three-to-five-year window and requirement for a formal determination to make it permanent creates uncertainty for both service members (who may enroll expecting continuity) and the selected insurers (who must plan for potential termination).
- The bill does not specify how the two companies will be selected ('based on expertise'), leaving the award process opaque and potentially vulnerable to lobbying or favoritism.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Service members and dependents gain access to additional cancer coverage options they currently lack, addressing a genuine gap in military health benefits. However, the bill creates a captive market for two private insurers with federal preemption of state consumer protections, and the lack of government subsidy means military families bear the full cost of premiums—a potential burden on lower-income service members.
Who stands to gain
- Private supplemental health insurers (up to two companies selected)
- Pharmaceutical and oncology-services companies (indirect benefit from expanded cancer-treatment cove
Named in the bill
Department of Defense, Secretary of Defense, TRICARE program, Active-duty service members, Military dependents, Private supplemental insurers, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMY), Merck (MHVYF), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Fintech Acquisition Corp III (FBIN)
Where it stands
32 cosponsors: 19 Republicans, 13 Democrats.
- May 1, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- May 1, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Armed Services · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
2 lobbying clients named this bill on 5 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $54,767,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 253 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 41% of bills with at least one filing.
Brian Jack, the sponsor, reported $918,803 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle. $10,000 of that came from 1 PAC tied to these lobbying clients.
- Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. — $54,660,000 on 3 filings
- Aflac — $107,000 on 2 filings
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (5,140 characters) on Aug 20, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 20, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Pentagon opens cancer insurance market to two private firms, preempts state oversight” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr3148 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.