Congress quietly opens door for health platforms to accept provider payments

What it does

This bill amends federal anti-kickback law to create a safe harbor for online health-care scheduling and directory platforms (like Zocdoc or similar services). It allows providers and suppliers to pay these platforms for listing without violating anti-kickback rules, provided the platform doesn't steer patients toward higher-paying providers, doesn't offer medical services itself, discloses financial relationships to patients, and uses objective criteria for provider inclusion.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core function is to exempt online health-care scheduling and directory platforms from federal anti-kickback rules under specific conditions. While framed as 'easing patient access,' the mechanism is a regulatory safe harbor that permits financial relationships between platforms and providers that would otherwise be prohibited.

What the text implies

• The 'objective criteria' standard for provider inclusion is undefined and self-policed, creating potential for platforms to favor higher-paying providers while claiming objectivity.
• Platforms must disclose financial arrangements to consumers, but the bill does not specify format, prominence, or timing—disclosure could be buried in terms of service.
• The safe harbor applies only to 'information service providers' that do not provide medical services themselves, but the definition of 'medical services' is not clarified—telemedicine platforms or AI-assisted diagnosis tools may exploit this ambiguity.
• Fair market value compensation is required, but 'fair market value' for platform services in health care is not established by regulation, leaving room for inflated payments.
• The bill does not address algorithmic ranking or search result ordering—platforms could legally rank providers by payment received while claiming they meet 'objective criteria.'

Who it affects

Patients may benefit from easier online scheduling and broader provider discovery. However, the safe harbor could enable platforms to accept payments from providers without full transparency, and the anti-steering safeguards rely on self-reporting and vague standards ('objective criteria'), creating risk that financial incentives subtly influence which providers are promoted or ranked.

Who stands to gain

• online health-care scheduling platforms (e.g., Zocdoc, Healthgrades, Zocdoc competitors)
• large health systems and provider networks with capital to pay for platform placement
• health insurance companies operating directory platforms

Named in the bill

Social Security Act Section 1128B, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Federal anti-kickback statute, providers of services, suppliers, information service providers, Federal health care program beneficiaries

Where it stands

11 cosponsors: 6 Democrats, 5 Republicans.

• Nov 18, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Nov 18, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Ways and Means and House Committee on Energy and Commerce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a…”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

1 lobbying clients named this bill on 2 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $5,643,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 103 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 0% of bills with at least one filing.

Blake Moore, the sponsor, reported $1,475,500 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Medical Association — $5,643,000 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.