| With health care a key concern in the upcoming November midterm elections, lawmakers are moving forward on bills they can tout on the campaign trail. That includes legislation designed to make it easier for consumers to find out in advance how much their medical care will cost. Committees in both the House and Senate approved price transparency bills this week supported by both parties to require insurance companies, hospitals and other providers to post more information. The bills share the same basic premise: Consumers can’t shop for health care if they don’t know what it costs. Both bills would require insurers, hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, laboratories and imaging centers to disclose more pricing information for services — both with and without insurance coverage. But lawmakers still must resolve differences between the two bills regarding the scope of some requirements before the policies can become law. Why it matters: Lawmakers are eager to show that they can work together on issues important to voters. Cost is the most important health care issue for voters, with more than half of all voters calling the issue extremely important, according to a poll by the nonpartisan health policy information organization KFF. “We should get it done before the election,” Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colorado), one of the champions of the Senate price transparency bill, said at a press briefing Wednesday. “There are a lot of Democrats and a lot of Republicans who want to get credit for this because it is something that will not just bring almost immediate savings to American families, but it is that threshold that allows us to get to much greater coverage.” The Senate’s transparency offering, called the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act, sailed through the committee Wednesday. “There is no way to lower health care costs unless the consumer knows the price. Period. End of story,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, following the markup. Another view: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), the only lawmaker to vote against advancing the transparency measure out of committee, said that he did not want anyone to think the bill fixes the problems with health care costs. He noted that most hospital prices are fixed by the government or in insurance contracts. → The Senate markup comes a day after the House Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously approved its own sweeping price transparency bill, called the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act, which has been in the works for years. “While there is more work to be done, as we continue our efforts to improve this bill through the legislative process, I am extremely proud of the bipartisan work that we’ve done here to make our healthcare system work better for patients across the country,” said Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Kentucky), a leading champion of the House bill. The latest version of the House’s transparency bill added some requirements for providers to disclose more information about their ownership structure, including mergers and acquisitions. “Mounting evidence shows that consolidation and private equity investments in health care are major drivers of cost in the system, and in some cases there are correlations with ownership structures and quality as well,” said Diana DeGette (D-Colorado), who pushed for the disclosures during the markup. “Unfortunately, the language does not ensure the ultimate owners of a given provider entity will be revealed, only the immediate parent company.” She urged lawmakers to continue working to strengthen the provision. So, now what? The House process is a little more complex than the Senate’s, with three committees weighing in on different components. In addition to the Energy and Commerce Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee has advanced its own price transparency legislation on a party-line vote. The House Education and the Workforce Committee has jurisdiction over employer-sponsored insurance and advanced legislation that would allow employers to access health claims, payment and pricing data. Zoom out: The process began in earnest not long after the first Trump administration began implementing price transparency requirements for insurers and hospitals. The House passed the initial version of the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act in 2023, but the issue never made it beyond committee discussions in the Senate. Then, momentum began building when regulators continued to update the regulations during President Donald Trump’s second term. As Americans’ concerns about affordability increased, lawmakers increasingly spoke about codifying the rules to make the transparency requirements permanent. What to watch: Although the House leaves for August recess after this week, a Republican Energy and Commerce Committee staffer tells me that work will continue throughout the next month to come up with a broader House package that pulls together the work being done by the other committees. Then, there will be negotiations with the Senate. “And if there’s an opportunity to include something [in a year-end package], then we’ll be in the strongest position,” said the staffer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal details. “That’s our ultimate barometer: What can we get done? Because you can have the best deal in the world, but if you can’t get it across the finish line, it doesn’t help.” I asked Cassidy, who won’t be returning to the Senate next year, how difficult it would be to reconcile the two efforts. “I would say ours is stronger,” Cassidy said. “And believe me, we’re working together with the House. But if you want the strongest version, I think our bill is a stronger version, and I’m hoping that they would land on ours as something which is the most pro-patient, pro-business.” What’s next for industry: While there’s a sense of urgency to get a package done before the end of the year, there’s some skepticism about whether Congress will ultimately have time — or political will — to finish the job this year. “They’re doing what they need to because they have to be able to say, ‘We have these pieces ready,’ when they get the lame duck. But that doesn’t mean it’s going to actually happen,” said Rodney Whitlock, a lobbyist at McDermott+ who represents providers, on the firm’s weekly podcast. “But, if you’re a stakeholder, two things: You treat it like it could, and you’ve got a window between now and lame duck to really go in and try to refine what they’'ve done — and particularly things that you think are problematic.” Gallup’s newest poll: “One in Four U.S. Employees Locked in Jobs for Health Insurance.” ”Amazon, gig companies see spike in workers on SNAP and Medicaid, study shows,” write Lauren Kaori Gurley and Rachel Lerman at The Post. “U.S. measles cases hit 35-year record with months left in 2026,” The Post’s Lena H. Sun writes. This newsletter is published by WP Intelligence, The Washington Post’s subscription service for professionals that provides business, policy and thought leaders with actionable insights. WP Intelligence operates independently from The Washington Post newsroom. Learn more about WP Intelligence. | 
