Latest action: Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Bill is filed in its originating chamber and assigned a number.
Sponsor
Craig Goldman (R-TX)
Filed in the House.
Next: In Committee
Members of the committee(s) the bill was referred to
Requires health insurers to make faster decisions on whether to approve medical treatments.
The problem
Insurance companies sometimes take too long deciding if they will pay for doctor-recommended treatments, delaying patient care and frustrating doctors and patients.
The proposal
The bill sets strict time limits for insurers to approve or deny treatment requests and creates accountability measures when decisions take too long.
The impact
Patients, doctors, and insurance companies all face changes. Patients might get faster treatment access. Insurers must follow new rules. Healthcare costs could change.
Patients waiting for insurance approval on treatments could get decisions faster. This means people suffering from illnesses might receive care sooner. Delays in treatment can make health conditions worse.
Physicians know exactly how long insurance companies have to respond. Clear timelines help doctors plan patient care better. This removes frustration from the approval process.
Insurers must clearly explain why they deny treatments. Patients and doctors can better understand insurance decisions. This makes the system more fair and understandable.
Holding insurers accountable encourages them to work faster. Bureaucratic slowdowns decrease when companies face consequences. Patients benefit from more efficient processing.
Faster approval processes require more staff and resources. Insurance companies might pass these costs to customers through higher premiums. Families with insurance could pay more money.
Tight time limits might reduce insurers' ability to carefully review treatments. Companies need time to verify treatments are necessary and effective. Rushing could lead to approving unnecessary expensive treatments.
Large insurance companies handle many requests and have more staff. Smaller companies might struggle to meet strict deadlines. This could force small insurers out of business.
The bill might not specify what happens when insurers miss deadlines. Without strong penalties, companies may ignore the rules. Patients might not actually get faster decisions.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.