The Protecting Health Care for All Patients Act of 2025 amends title XI of the Social Security Act to forbid federal agencies, states, and their contractors from using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), dollars-per-QALY calculations, or “similar measures” when making coverage, payment, reimbursement, or incentive decisions under federal health care programs. The prohibition is broad: it applies to Medicare (including Parts A–D and Medicare Advantage), Medicaid state plans and managed care organizations, CHIP, and, by explicit inclusion, the federal employee health program established under chapter 89 of title 5.
The bill also closes off waiver and demonstration pathways (including section 1115 and section 1115A authorities and CMI-related activities) as escape hatches, sets an effective compliance date of January 1, 2027, increases specified Prevention and Public Health Fund appropriations for fiscal years 2026–2031, and requires the GAO to report annually on how QALYs affect individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. For payers, providers, and regulators, the statute replaces a technical debate about methodology with an across-the-board legal prohibition that will force operational and contracting changes within federal programs and state Medicaid systems.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends section 1182(e) to bar the use of QALYs, dollars-per-QALY, and similar measures in coverage and payment determinations across federal health programs, and it adds parallel requirements into Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Part D authorities. It also prohibits waiving that ban through demonstrations or other authorities.
Who It Affects
CMS and other federal agencies, Medicare Advantage and Part D plan sponsors, state Medicaid agencies and managed care organizations, CHIP administrators, and entities participating in federal employee health plans under chapter 89 of title 5. Pharmaceutical and device manufacturers that face cost‑effectiveness assessments will also be affected.
Why It Matters
This is a statutory prohibition, not a guidance tweak: it removes a common cost‑effectiveness tool from the toolbox of federal programs and constrains how states and contractors may structure benefit designs, utilization management, and payment models. The bill reshapes policy levers used to balance access, cost, and clinical value across major federal health financing programs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill rewrites a provision of the Social Security Act (section 1182(e)) to create a categorical ban on using QALYs, dollars‑per‑QALY, or ‘‘similar measures’’ when federal health programs determine coverage, reimbursement, or incentives. The new text expressly forbids treating life extension for older, disabled, or terminally ill people as having lower value than for younger or non‑disabled people, and replaces agency‑only language with a prohibition that binds both Federal agencies and States.
The statute also broadens the definition of federal health care programs to capture the federal employee health program (chapter 89, title 5) in addition to programs already covered by section 1128B.
To prevent workarounds, the bill adds a specific sentence blocking the use of section 1115, section 1115A, or other demonstration or waiver authorities to sidestep the prohibition. Practically, that means CMS cannot approve demonstrations or CMI projects that employ QALYs or analogous measures to inform coverage or payment decisions under federal programs.The bill includes conforming amendments that graft the prohibition onto program‑specific statutory authorities: it inserts compliance obligations into Medicaid state plan requirements (new paragraph 88 of section 1902(a)), requires Medicaid managed care contracts and prepaid plans to follow the ban, adds the rule to CHIP state plan obligations, and creates parallel prohibitions for Medicare Advantage plans and prescription drug plans under Parts C and D.
The cumulative effect is coverage across fee‑for‑service, managed care, and private plan settings where federal financing applies.Beyond the prohibition, the bill adjusts funding allocations for the Prevention and Public Health Fund, replacing three numbered paragraphs to set specific dollar amounts for fiscal years 2026–2031. It also tasks the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with producing a report within one year of enactment — and then annually — on how QALY use negatively affects individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their access to care.
The statute sets January 1, 2027 as the date when these programmatic prohibitions take effect, giving agencies and contractors a defined compliance horizon.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends section 1182(e) to bar federal agencies and States from using dollars‑per‑quality‑adjusted‑life‑year metrics or ‘‘similar measures’’ in coverage, payment, reimbursement, or incentive decisions across federal health programs.
It explicitly prevents section 1115, section 1115A (including CMI activities), or any other demonstration or waiver authority from being used to waive the new prohibition.
The prohibition is inserted into program statutes for Medicaid (section 1902(a)), Medicaid managed care (section 1932(b)), CHIP (section 2102), Medicare Advantage (section 1852), and Medicare Part D (section 1860D–12).
The definition of ‘‘Federal health care program’’ is broadened to include the health program under chapter 89 of title 5 (the Federal Employees Health Benefits framework), and the statutory changes take effect January 1, 2027.
The bill revises Prevention and Public Health Fund allocations for FY2026–FY2031 with specified dollar amounts and requires the GAO to report within one year — and annually thereafter — on how QALYs impact people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a broad statutory ban on QALYs and similar measures
This provision replaces agency‑only language with a prohibition that applies to Federal agencies and States and adds a sentence explicitly preventing valuation that treats life extension for elderly, disabled, or terminally ill people as lower in value. For practitioners, the change converts a technical guidance issue into a statutory bar: agencies cannot rely on QALY‑style metrics to justify coverage or payment decisions where federal financing is implicated.
Closes waiver channels including 1115 and 1115A (CMI)
The bill adds a clause that prevents waiving the new 1182(e) prohibition under section 1115, section 1115A, or any other demonstration or waiver authority. Operationally, states and CMS cannot use demonstrations or innovation projects to pilot QALY‑based approaches that would otherwise be barred, which limits experimental pathways that historically tested value‑based models.
Grafts the prohibition into Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare Advantage, and Part D
Lawyers will find identical or parallel language embedded across program statutes: a new Medicaid state plan requirement (section 1902(a)(88)), an express restriction on managed care organizations (section 1932(b)(9)), a CHIP state plan subsection, and new subsections for MA plans and prescription drug plans. These insertions mean plan contracts, benefit designs, utilization management rules, and actuarial certifications tied to federal authority must be reviewed for compliance.
Compliance deadline of January 1, 2027
The statute sets a single effective date. Agencies, states, and plan sponsors must adapt policies, contract language, and internal decision frameworks by this deadline. The bill does not supply transition funding or a phased compliance process, so operational workstreams — regulatory updates, contract amendments, and internal guidance — fall to existing program resources.
Adjusts Prevention Fund appropriations and mandates annual GAO reporting
Section 3 rewrites three numbered paragraphs in the Prevention and Public Health Fund to specify funding amounts for fiscal years 2026–2031. Section 4 directs the Comptroller General to report within one year and annually thereafter on how QALYs negatively affect individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their access to care. The GAO product is a recurring analytic input that could inform litigation, rulemaking, or future legislation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People with disabilities and older adults — the statute prevents coverage decisions that explicitly devalue life‑extension for these groups using QALY‑style metrics, potentially preserving access to treatments that reduce quality‑adjusted life years scores.
- Patient advocacy organizations focused on rare diseases and intellectual and developmental disabilities — they gain a statutory shield against cost‑effectiveness arguments that prioritize population‑level utility over individual access.
- Public health programs funded by the Prevention and Public Health Fund — the bill specifies higher appropriations for FY2026–FY2031, which may increase available funding for prevention activities covered by the Fund.
- Manufacturers and developers of high‑cost therapies for small populations — the prohibition reduces the legal risk that federal programs will deny coverage based on dollars‑per‑QALY thresholds, potentially improving market access prospects.
Who Bears the Cost
- CMS and other federal agencies — they must revise coverage guidance, contracts, and potentially rulemaking language to remove reliance on QALY or similar measures, absorbing regulatory and administrative workload without allocated implementation funding.
- State Medicaid agencies and managed care organizations — states lose an analytic tool commonly used for benefit design and cost‑containment and may face higher program costs or need to identify alternative frameworks to manage budgets.
- Medicare Advantage organizations and Part D sponsors — plans will need to alter utilization management, formulary decision processes, and internal value assessments where federal rules or contracts previously permitted QALY‑informed analyses.
- Employers and taxpayers — if federal programs and plans replace cost‑effectiveness thresholds with more permissive coverage, program spending could rise, increasing fiscal pressure on federal and state budgets and potentially on employer premium contributions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits non‑discrimination and protection of vulnerable populations — preventing measures that devalue life extensions for the elderly, disabled, or terminally ill — against the policy need to use quantitative cost‑effectiveness tools to allocate finite health dollars; removing QALYs protects individual access in some cases but narrows policymakers' ability to compare interventions and contain costs, leaving no clear, universally accepted alternative for making trade‑offs.
The statutory ban trades a narrowly targeted protection against discriminatory valuation for the wholesale removal of a widely used health economics tool. ‘‘Similar measures’’ is open‑ended language: agencies and courts will need to parse which analytic approaches cross the statutory line. Health systems and payers rely on diverse cost‑effectiveness and health‑utility methods; determining what qualifies as ‘‘similar’’ will be litigated and contested in guidance.
The bill does not provide a definition or safe harbor for alternative metrics (for example, cost per life‑year gained, burden‑of‑disease metrics, or multi‑criteria decision analysis), so implementers will need to draft granular operational definitions or risk noncompliance.
The mechanics of enforcement are under‑specified. The statute embeds the prohibition into program law but does not create new civil penalties or an explicit private right of action; enforcement will likely occur through CMS oversight, conditionality of federal payments, audit and contract remedies, and potentially litigation.
Separately, the fiscal trade‑offs are real: removing QALY‑style analyses could preserve access for some patients but will also constrain tools used to control costs, placing pressure on formularies, benefit design, and state budgets. Finally, the GAO is directed to report annually on impacts to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, but the scope and methodologies for that assessment are not prescribed; the GAO's findings will be informative but may not resolve methodological disputes about measuring value in heterogeneous populations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.