Hospitals must report residency hiring data or lose Medicare payments

What it does

This bill requires hospitals with approved medical residency training programs to report to the federal government how many applicants they receive from osteopathic and allopathic medical schools, how many they accept from each, and to affirm they consider both types of candidates and accept exam scores from either licensing pathway. Hospitals that fail to submit this information face a 2% reduction in Medicare reimbursement for each year of non-compliance, starting in fiscal year 2025. The data will be published publicly so applicants can see which hospitals recruit from both medical school types.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a data-reporting requirement paired with a financial penalty to enforce equitable consideration of osteopathic and allopathic medical school graduates in residency selection. It is fundamentally a transparency and anti-discrimination measure in medical education, not a subsidy, deregulation, or commemorative act.

What the text implies

• Public reporting of hospital residency recruitment data may create competitive pressure on hospitals to demonstrate equitable practices, potentially shifting hiring patterns across the medical education sector.
• The 2% Medicare payment reduction is cumulative (2% per year of non-compliance), so a hospital non-compliant for multiple years faces compounding penalties, creating strong incentive to comply quickly.
• The bill does not mandate acceptance of osteopathic candidates, only reporting and affirmation of non-discriminatory policy—enforcement of actual non-discrimination depends on future regulatory interpretation and complaint mechanisms not specified here.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill increases transparency about how hospitals select medical residents and creates a financial incentive for hospitals to consider candidates from both osteopathic and allopathic medical schools equally. Prospective physicians gain public information about hospital recruitment practices, and patients benefit from a more diverse physician pipeline and reduced discrimination in residency selection. The compliance cost to hospitals is modest (data reporting) and the penalty is proportionate.

Named in the bill

Department of Health and Human Services, Medicare, osteopathic medical schools, allopathic medical schools, hospitals with approved medical residency training programs, Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination, United States Medical Licensing Examination

Where it stands

8 cosponsors: 4 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 1 Independents.

• Sep 4, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
• Sep 4, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on Finance · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance”

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

Money around this bill

6 lobbying clients named this bill on 11 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $6,186,200 in lobbying spend. A filing names 10 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 82% of bills with at least one filing.

Steve Daines, the sponsor, reported $901,144 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• American Medical Association — $5,643,000 on 2 filings
• American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine — $240,000 on 2 filings
• American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine — $100,000 on 2 filings
• American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine — $80,000 on 2 filings
• Rutgers the State University of New Jersey — $80,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 21, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.