Health ACCESS Act
Introduced November 18, 2025 · Last action November 18, 2025
Plain English Summary
This bill amends federal anti-kickback law to create a new exemption allowing doctors, hospitals, and medical suppliers to pay online booking platforms (websites that let patients search for providers) without violating federal law. The exemption applies only if the platforms don't steer patients to higher-paying providers, don't provide medical advice, clearly disclose financial relationships, and use objective criteria for which providers can participate.
Who benefits
Online healthcare booking platform companies (such as Zocdoc, Healthgrades, Vitals, and similar appointment-scheduling services), healthcare providers and suppliers who use these platforms to attract patients without legal risk, and consumers who gain access to digital tools to find and schedule care. Medical practices and hospital networks benefit by reducing regulatory uncertainty around paying for patient acquisition through booking platforms.
Who pays / loses
Smaller or newer healthcare providers who lack financial resources to pay for prominent placement on booking platforms may lose competitive positioning against well-funded competitors; patients in underserved areas may lose access if platforms exclude less-profitable providers; Medicare and Medicaid (federal health programs) experience indirect costs if kickback payments inflate healthcare prices or incentivize unnecessary referrals.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
Online healthcare booking and appointment scheduling companies—including venture-backed startups and established platforms like Zocdoc—have a direct financial stake in this exemption. Healthcare providers, hospital systems, and medical suppliers benefit by clarifying that they can pay these platforms without legal liability. The bill's sponsors include members from both parties; Moore (R-UT), Schneider (D-IL), Tenney (R-NY), Panetta (D-CA), Van Duyne (R-TX), and Malliotakis (R-NY). No donor finance data was provided, but the industries with the clearest financial interest are digital health platforms, medical practices, and hospital networks.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Patients nationwide who use or could use online healthcare scheduling platforms (estimated 50+ million Americans use healthcare search and booking tools annually); healthcare providers in urban and competitive markets where booking platforms are prevalent; small and rural medical practices with limited marketing budgets; Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries whose out-of-pocket costs or program spending could shift if platform-driven referrals change provider mix.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue this bill reduces regulatory red tape, encourages digital health innovation, and makes it easier for patients to book appointments online—supporting telemedicine expansion and consumer convenience. Critics counter that the exemption creates perverse incentives: doctors and hospitals will pay platforms to rank high in search results, boosting costs for patients and payers; the financial disclosures may not prevent steering in practice; and the Secretary's undefined authority to set 'other conditions' creates regulatory uncertainty. Non-partisan evidence shows that appointment-booking platforms do increase patient access to care, but also that provider payments to ranking algorithms can distort competition and inflate prices in other digital marketplaces (e.g., Google search results, app stores). The bill's language on 'objective criteria' and anti-steering protections mirrors provisions in other anti-kickback exemptions, but enforcement history suggests these safeguards are difficult to monitor and often honored in letter rather than spirit.
Real-World Stakes
If this passes, online booking platforms can collect payments from providers without legal risk, likely accelerating consolidation of patient discovery into a few dominant platforms (Zocdoc, Healthgrades, Practo). Patients gain convenience but may see reduced transparency: platforms will disclose financial relationships, but patients typically ignore disclaimers and assume results are unbiased (see: search engine rankings, app store reviews). Providers who pay will likely see higher patient volume; those who don't may lose visibility. Medicaid and Medicare costs could rise if platforms incentivize higher-cost or unnecessary referrals, though the bill's language prohibits compensation that 'takes into account' program-paid services, creating ambiguity. Analogous state-level direct-pay laws (e.g., concierge medicine exemptions) have expanded consumer access but also increased out-of-pocket costs for price-sensitive patients. The lack of a fiscal estimate and the delegation of enforcement standards to the Secretary create ongoing regulatory risk.
What's Inside This Bill
Non-obvious provisions not apparent from the headline summary.
Vague 'Steering' Definition with No Enforcement Mechanism
The bill prohibits platforms from 'steering' patients to higher-paying providers but does not define what constitutes steering, establish metrics for compliance, or specify which agency enforces this prohibition or how violations are detected.
AffectsOnline booking platforms operating in a gray zone with unclear compliance standards, and patients who may still experience preference for higher-paying providers through subtle algorithmic or display methods that don't technically 'steer' but influence choices.
Subjective 'Objective Criteria' Standard
The exemption requires platforms use 'objective criteria' for provider participation but does not define what qualifies as objective, allowing platforms to design participation rules that may appear neutral but systematically exclude certain types of providers or practices.
AffectsSmall practices, rural providers, and providers with non-traditional credentials who may be excluded under vaguely-defined 'objective' standards that appear neutral on their face.
Financial Relationship Disclosure Without Penalty Specification
The bill requires 'clear disclosure' of financial relationships between platforms and providers but does not specify where disclosures must appear, how prominently, what format, or meaningful penalties for non-compliance or inadequate disclosure.
AffectsPatients who may receive compliant but buried or incomprehensible disclosure statements that technically satisfy the law while failing to meaningfully inform their choices.
No Private Right of Action or Audit Requirements
The bill does not establish a private right of action for patients or competitors to enforce the exemption's conditions, nor does it require platforms to undergo independent audits or self-certify compliance.
AffectsCompeting providers and patients with limited recourse if platforms violate the exemption's conditions, relying only on sporadic government enforcement.
Exemption Scope Unclear for Data-Sharing and Behavioral Tracking
Sponsor
Co-sponsors (11)
RRep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23]DRep. Schneider, Bradley Scott [D-IL-10]DRep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]RRep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24]RRep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24]DRep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19]DRep. Suozzi, Thomas R. [D-NY-3]RRep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11]DRep. Auchincloss, Jake [D-MA-4]RRep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1]DRep. Kennedy, Timothy M. [D-NY-26]
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
Top contributing industries
Other$187,224
Finance$37,500
Healthcare$3,350
Energy$3,300
Law$3,000
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.