Congress mandates healthcare pricing transparency—PBMs must disclose rebates, patients get itemized
H.R. 9117 — CHECK Act of 2026 · Filed by Nicholas Langworthy (R-NY) · Introduced Jun 3, 2026 · 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
The CHECK Act requires health plans and their service providers (including pharmacy benefit managers, third-party administrators, and networks) to disclose detailed pricing, fee schedules, rebates, and payment data to group health plans quarterly at no cost, and mandates that health plans provide patients with clear, itemized explanations of benefits within 45 days of a claim request. It also requires healthcare providers to furnish itemized bills within 30 days of final payment, with plain-language descriptions and billing codes, and prohibits collection actions unless the provider complied with these requirements or documented medical necessity for charges exceeding good-faith estimates.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is mandatory disclosure of pricing, rebates, and payment data to health plans and patients, coupled with itemized billing requirements and enforcement penalties. It is fundamentally a transparency and accountability measure, not a subsidy, carve-out, or deregulation.
What the text implies
- Pharmacy benefit managers and third-party administrators face significant operational burden and cost to extract, format, and transmit detailed rebate and fee data quarterly; this may accelerate consolidation or shift costs to plan sponsors and ultimately premiums.
- The 45-day explanation-of-benefits deadline and 30-day itemized-bill requirement create new compliance infrastructure for providers and plans; smaller providers may face disproportionate cost to implement systems.
- Good-faith estimates become binding unless provider documents medical necessity; this shifts burden of proof to providers and may reduce their pricing flexibility, potentially affecting negotiating leverage with plans.
- Disclosure of rebates, alternative discounts, and 'all other remuneration' may expose previously opaque revenue streams (e.g., data sales, network payments) to plan scrutiny and potential renegotiation or litigation.
- The bill does not cap prices or rebates—it only mandates disclosure; plans and patients gain information but no direct cost control, and providers retain pricing power unless market competition responds to transparency.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Ordinary citizens gain transparency into healthcare costs, billing practices, and what their plans are actually paying for services—enabling them to understand charges before collection and to dispute inflated bills. Health plans and patients both receive enforceable rights to pricing data previously hidden in opaque contracts, reducing information asymmetry that has historically favored providers and intermediaries.
Who stands to gain
- health plans (gain cost-control data and leverage in negotiations)
- self-funded employers (gain visibility into plan costs and service-provider fees)
- patients (gain itemized billing and explanation-of-benefits clarity)
Named in the bill
ERISA, Public Health Service Act, Internal Revenue Code, pharmacy benefit managers, third-party administrators, healthcare providers, healthcare facilities, group health plans, health insurance issuers, Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of the Treasury — and 5 more
Where it stands
- Jun 3, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Jun 3, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on Ways and Means and House Committee on Education and Workforce · Congress.gov: “Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education and…”
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 2 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $295,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 3 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.
Nicholas Langworthy, the sponsor, reported $1,046,611 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Sidecar Health, Inc — $235,000 on 1 filing
- Metriport Inc. — $60,000 on 1 filing
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 (30,607 characters) on Aug 17, 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 Jun 2026 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.
“Congress mandates healthcare pricing transparency—PBMs must disclose rebates, patients get itemized” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr9117 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.