Bill · S. 2420· Senate(119-S-2420)
No Surprises Act Enforcement Act
- Introduced
- 7/23/2025
- Last activity
- 7/23/2025 — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- Sponsored by
- Roger Marshall
- Cosponsors
- - 0 - 1
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The "No Surprises Act Enforcement Act" aims to strengthen the enforcement of balance billing protections. It increases penalties for health plans, insurance issuers, and nonparticipating providers that violate balance billing requirements. The bill also introduces penalties for late payments following an IDR (Independent Dispute Resolution) entity payment determination and requires more frequent and detailed transparency reporting to Congress.
Yes· 3 of 25
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?+5
Low-income households are particularly vulnerable to surprise medical bills, so increased protections are very helpful.
Would middle-income households be better off under this?+4
Middle-class households can be significantly impacted by surprise medical bills, so stronger enforcement provides welcome relief.
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?+4
The bill mandates more frequent and detailed transparency reporting to Congress.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Penalties for Violations of Balance Billing Requirements (Section 2): This bill raises the fines for those who break the rules around "surprise billing." This could help stop unexpected and unfairly high medical bills, especially after emergency care.
-
Penalties for Late Payment or Non-Payment (Section 3): This adds penalties if insurance plans or providers are late in paying what they owe after an independent review has decided on the payment amount. This part of the bill can speed up payments and reduce hassle for patients.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Requirement for Providers to Return Overpayments (Section 3): If a provider receives an initial payment that is more than the final determined amount after an IDR decision, they must return the difference within 30 days. While this may seem fair, some might argue that this could place a financial burden on smaller practices or facilities, especially if these overpayments are frequent or substantial. This could affect the availability of certain providers, particularly in rural areas.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Low Income Households+5Good For Middle Class Households+4Good For African Americans+3Good For Hispanic Americans+3Good For Immigrants+3Good For Native Americans+3Good For People With Disabilities+3Good For Retirees+3Good For Asian Americans+2Good For L G B T Q Community+2Good For Men+2Good For Middle Aged+2Good For Rural Residents+2Good For Seniors+2Good For Students+2Good For Urban Residents+2Good For White Americans+2Good For Women+2Good For Young Adults+2Good For Children+1Good For High Income Households+1
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Government Transparency+4
- Economy And Finance
- Improves Consumer Protection+3
- Healthcare
- Improves Healthcare Access+2Reduces Private Insurance Premiums+1
- 7/23/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Michael BennetDemocrat · Colorado