Insights^

On March 18, 2026, the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the US health provider landscape. Subcommittee members raised concerns about hospital consolidation, price transparency, the health care workforce, and the impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, among others. While there was bipartisan concern about the high cost of health care, members did not agree on paths forward.

OPENING STATEMENT

• Subcommittee Chairman Morgan Griffith (R-VA-9)

• Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette (D-CO-1)

• Full Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY-2)

• Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ-6)

WITNESS TESTIMONY

• Mr. Richard Pollack, President and CEO, American Hospital Association – Testimony
• Dr. David H. Aizuss, MD, Chair, Board of Trustees, American Medical Association – Testimony
• Mr. R. Shawn Martin, Executive Vice President and CEO, American Academy of Family Physicians – Testimony
• Ms. Elizabeth Mitchell, President and CEO, Purchaser Business Group on Health – Testimony
• Dr. Anthony DiGiorgio, DO, MHA, Neurosurgeon, University of California, San Francisco Health – Testimony
• Ms. Barbara Merrill, CEO, American Network of Community Options and Resources – Testimony

MEMBER DISCUSSION

Hospital Consolidation

Subcommittee Republicans were very concerned about the loss of independent medical practices and increasing consolidation. Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL-2) asked Mr. Pollack to explain how hospitals are consolidating, but Mr. Pollack shared that hospitals themselves are not the major driver of consolidation. Instead, Mr. Pollack emphasized the role of private equity and shared that many private practices seek to be part of a hospital system due to the burden of compliance and administrative costs. Additionally, he stated that hospital systems are often a lifeline for rural hospitals. Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL-3) asked if the consolidation lowers prices for patients. Mr. Pollack explained that it reduces operating costs and often improves quality of care, but the reductions in cost are not seen by patients, as hospitals still maintain the contracted rates with insurers. Rep. John Joyce (R-PA-13) was curious about how larger hospital systems react to referrals to providers outside the system. Mr. Martin shared that, in his experience, it is not looked favorably upon, and Dr. DiGiorgio agreed, sharing that providers that he knows have been reprimanded. Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragan (D-CA-44) asked about how to prevent consolidation, and Dr. Aizuss responded that greater reimbursements under the Medicare Fee Schedule will prevent private practices from seeking to sell to larger systems.

Price Transparency

There were many suggestions for pricing transparency reforms during the Subcommittee hearing. Rep. John James (R-MI-10) highlighted H.R.5582, the Patients Deserve Price Tags Act. Ms. Mitchell expressed support for this bill, sharing that pricing information is helpful in increasing competition and accountability. Rep. Nick Langworthy (R-NY-23) suggested an advanced explanation of benefits would help patients understand the cost of care before they receive it. Mr. Pollack shared that the idea has promise, and he said that hospitals have been working with stakeholders to provide cost information to patients. Mr. Pollack continued to explain that many hospitals are committed to helping their patients but are confused by the many different laws and regulations that have been passed in the past decade regarding price transparency procedures.

Impact of Reconciliation Bill

Many Democrats were focused on the impacts of the One Big Beautiful Bull Act, specifically the changes to Medicaid. Full Committee Ranking Member Pallone (D-NJ-6) and Health Subcommittee Ranking Member DeGette (D-CO-1) were interested in how the bill’s changes will impact the delivery of health care services and which ones will be most affected. Ms. Merril shared her view that providers will see a reduction in reimbursement rates across the board, but home and community-based care will be greatly impacted as they are not required services. Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA-25) and Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA-3) questioned what the effect will be on hospital systems. Mr. Pollack explained that, in his view, emergency departments will see higher patient volumes, and services for obstetrics, behavioral health, and pediatrics will be greatly reduced or eliminated. Mr. Pollack also said that in severe cases, hospitals will close.

Workforce

Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX-33) highlighted the current physician shortage and asked for Dr. Aizuss to elaborate on the future impacts of this shortage. Dr. Aizuss shared that it will be more difficult for patients to receive care and that this problem will only get worse as less students attend medical schools in the future due to the high cost of tuition. Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-OR-2) wanted to know what strategies could be helpful in addressing this issue. Dr. DiGiorgio emphasized the need for more residency spots and suggested Congress find ways to increase physician autonomy, like private practices, to keep physicians in the workforce for longer.

Other Topics

• Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA-1) highlighted H.R.5256, the 340B ACCESS Act, and asked if Mr. Pollack would be supportive of the bill. Mr. Pollack shared that the 340B program benefits patients by providing additional services and that he could be interested in a conversation with Rep. Carter about his proposals.
• Rep. Erin Houchin (R-IN-9) highlighted the reimbursement differences between Medicare, Medicaid, and private payers. Dr. Aizuss agreed and emphasized the need for Medicare and Medicaid payment reform, including updates for inflation.
• Health Subcommittee Chairman Griffith expressed support for physician owned hospitals and questioned Mr. Pollack about his concerns. Mr. Pollack explained that while he is not opposed to physician-owned hospitals, they often do not provide all services, such as emergency departments and obstetric care, and many do not accept Medicaid. Dr. DiGiorgio responded that all hospitals expand access to care.

On March 17, 2026, the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing on the role of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in combating Medicare and Medicaid fraud. While both Democrats and Republicans agreed that fraud is hurting the program and its beneficiaries and should be stopped, they disagreed on the current practices CMS is using to assess state programs and identify fraud.

OPENING STATEMENTS

• Subcommittee Chairman John Joyce (R-PA-13)

• Subcommittee Ranking Member Yvette Clarke (D-NY-9)

• Full Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY-2)

• Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ-6)

WITNESS TESTIMONY

• Kim Brandt, Deputy Administrator and Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services – Testimony

MEMBER DISCUSSION

Current Tactics Used to Find and Prevent Fraud

There was bipartisan questioning regarding the tactics CMS is currently using to identify and combat fraud. Full Committee Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY-2) asked about the Fraud Defense Operation Center being referred to as the Fraud War Room. Ms. Brandt described this center as staffed by a mix of medical professionals and law enforcement, and she emphasized its data-driven approach to comparing Medicare and Medicaid spending with the state’s population enrolled in the programs. Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN-1) asked Ms. Brandt about the most common types of fraud. Ms. Brandt listed fraud related to skin substitutes, genetic testing, hospice, home health, and durable medical equipment as being at the top of the list.

Vice Chairman Troy Balderson (R-OH-12) asked whether the provider verification and cross-check methods have been an effective tool. Ms. Brandt described them as very effective, specifically for on-site visits, background checks, fingerprinting, and data matching against the Social Security Death Masterfile. Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX-7) expressed concerns about the sharing of this data, to which Ms. Brandt explained CMS’s view that shared data can help identify types of fraud, but it must be protected.

Minnesota Investigation

Democrats used the Minnesota investigation as a cornerstone throughout their questioning. Subcommittee Ranking Member Yvette Clarke (D-NY-9) and Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ-6) asked for more details on the steps taken as CMS has worked with Minnesota. Ms. Brandt explained that a team of experts from the Center for Program Integrity at CMS evaluated the corrective action plan submitted by Minnesota, and she personally communicated the feedback to them. Ranking Member Pallone then questioned the decision to withhold funds, given CMS historically withholds funds only when a state refuses to cooperate, which he argued Minnesota has done. Ms. Brandt said CMS only said it could withhold funds and that no action would be taken until the agency thoroughly reviewed the corrective action plan. She further explained that they determined Minnesota had adequate funds to sustain programming and said they would share the analysis with the subcommittee.

California Investigation

Another major topic for members of both parties was CMS’s investigation into alleged Medicare home health care and hospice fraud in California. Subcommittee Chair John Joyce (R-PA-13) and Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-CA-15) asked about these investigations. Ms. Brandt explained that she and Dr. Oz were recently in California and are planning to visit several states to conduct site visits to evaluate the condition of care centers and ensure that valid and legitimate services are being provided.

Future of Fraud Prevention in CMS

Republicans spent more time on the future of CMS’s anti-fraud efforts. Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA-12) and Rep. Harshbarger (R-TN-1) asked where Ms. Brandt sees current practices progressing. She explained they are working to create a 50 State Medicaid Program Integrity Playbook with the best practices so states can learn from one another. She further explained that they are working towards a “Stop and Cop” system, rather than a “Pay and Chase” system, to prevent money from being lost to fraud rather than attempting to recover it.

Other Topics

• Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX-14) asked how CMS is working to educate the elderly about suspected fraudulent activity. Ms. Brandt explained that Dr. Oz is making videos encouraging beneficiaries to call HHS and CMS if they suspect fraud, and that they are working with state officials to improve patrols.

• Rep. Lori Trahan (D-MA-3) and Rep. Kim Schrier (D-WA-8) questioned the removal of the independent Inspector General and President Trump’s pardoning of a number of people who have been convicted of fraudulently using Medicare and Medicaid services.

• Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY-20) raised concerns about Vice President Vance’s involvement in antifraud efforts as he was designated by President Trump to be the anti-fraud lead.

• Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA-1) voiced apprehensions regarding skin substitute fraud and the possibility of adverse effects for those needing care. Ms. Brandt stated they have not seen any adverse effects yet.

On March 2, 2026, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) held the first day of its March meeting. The Commissioners held two sessions on the Medicare Advantage (MA) program, where they discussed the impacts of provider networks for beneficiaries as well as possible risk-adjustment policies. While the Commission is not planning to publish the work presented in these sessions in future reports to Congress, it was noted that the conversations would help guide future work by the Commission.

PROVIDER PARTICIPATION IN MA NETWORKS

MedPAC staff began the session by offering a comprehensive overview of MA networks and the beneficiary experience. Staff noted that provider participation in specific networks can change mid-year, which can greatly impact the beneficiary experience. Through 2023 claims and encounter data, MedPAC staff found that most clinicians participated in at least 1 MA network, with 75% of providers participating in 3 or more networks. Staff highlighted how mid-year provider network changes can be disruptive for enrollees as beneficiaries need to find new providers. MedPAC staff found that from February 2023 to June 2023, MA networks experienced a net increase in providers, with a 3% increase in primary care providers (PCPs) and a 1% increase in specialists. However, providers still left networks, with 6% of PCPs and 4% of specialists exiting by mid-year.

Commissioners were most interested in understanding the level of access beneficiaries have to providers, noting that provider participation in a network does not directly translate into beneficiaries having access in a reasonable amount of time. Some suggestions for ways to better measure access included understanding the types of care beneficiaries receive out of network, analyzing Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) scores for correlation rates, and offering structured interviews with beneficiaries, providers, and hospitals.

A few Commissioners suggested that future work could examine reasons why providers left a network, with one Commissioner pointing out that a large decrease in provider availability in a single network may be due to a larger system deciding not to renew a contract. One Commissioner who works in the space shared that, in his opinion, there are significant differences between data from 2023 and data from 2026 due to changes that reward clinical performance. The Commissioner explained that many MA plans are taking actions to steer beneficiaries towards high-performing but lower-cost care options, and removing higher-cost providers, which may have an impact on network robustness.

The Chair wrapped up the session by sharing that overall, the core value of the health system is being able to see a provider when care is needed, and conversations about MA provider networks can be difficult due to data completeness issues.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING MA ENCOUNTER DATA IN RISK ADJUSTMENT

The MedPAC staff member provided an overview of how risk adjustment affects payments to MA plans and policy decisions that would need to be made in order to calibrate a risk adjustment system. There were 3 options presented. Under the first option, MA and Fee-For-Service (FFS) scores would be calculated from an MA-based risk model. Under the second option, MA and FFS risk scores would be calculated from separate MA-based and FFS-based risk models. Under the third option MA spending-based benchmarks would be calculated from existing MA data sources. Each option had different impacts on coding intensity and favorable selection, as well as partially or fully delinking MA payments from FFS data.

The Commissioners were very receptive to the presentation. No Commissioners expressed support for the first option, while options 2 and 3 were both of interest for future consideration. There was a desire from many Commissioners to create an external anchor for calculating payments, with a fear that if there is not an external source, it could be very easy for payments to increase drastically.

Commissioners had a few other considerations for a possible model, including clearly defining what constitutes an encounter, understanding the effects of different coding intensities, and separating benchmark and risk-adjustment policies. Commissioners shared the sentiment that moving towards a risk-adjustment model would improve plan data collection and reporting, which could be beneficial for other analyses.

Overall, the Commissioners were supportive of the options presented but wanted more pressure testing to better understand the possible implications for beneficiaries before a recommendation could be discussed.