The Patients Over Profit Act (POP Act) would bar any entity from simultaneously owning a health insurance issuer and an applicable provider (or a management services organization that contracts with an applicable provider). It sets clear divestment deadlines: two years for entities acquired before enactment and one year for acquisitions after enactment.
The bill creates civil rights and competition enforcement tools—allowing the Inspector General of HHS, the DOJ Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission, or a state Attorney General to pursue injunctive relief and divestiture, with disgorgement of any revenue tied to the violation.
The POP Act also extends enforcement to Medicare Advantage and Part D, requiring MA organizations to certify compliance and prohibiting plan contracts with entities that violate the ownership prohibition. It gives FTC authority to promulgate rules implementing the act and provides a framework for reviewing the effects of any divestiture on competition, financial viability, and the public interest.
The bill defines key terms (applicable provider, management services organization, and management services agreement) and lists certain hospitals, suppliers, and pharmacies as exclusions from the prohibition.
At a Glance
What It Does
Imposes a prohibition on common ownership between health insurers and providers/MSOs, with divestment requirements for pre- and post-enactment acquisitions. It also enables civil actions, disgorgement, and FTC-rulemaking to implement the measure.
Who It Affects
Health insurers, providers contracted through MSOs, Medicare Advantage plans, and the agencies (FTC, DOJ Antitrust Division, HHS OIG) empowered to enforce the statute; states may participate through their AG offices.
Why It Matters
Significantly curbs vertical integration in health care markets tied to Medicare, aiming to preserve competition, reduce potential overcharges, and protect patient access in communities impacted by ownership consolidation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The POP Act targets a core structural concern in health care markets: the same entity owning both insurance plans and health care providers (or the management entities that run providers). It defines a narrow set of participants eligible for the prohibition and sets out a divestiture timeline that mirrors typical antitrust remedies—two years for older acquisitions and one year for newer ones.
The substance is simple in concept: separate ownership ties between insurers and care delivery to prevent conflicts of interest and potential anticompetitive practices that could harm patients or reduce competition in Medicare markets.
Enforcement is designed to be aggressive but measured. When authorities—federal or state—suspect a violation, they can sue in federal court to obtain an injunction and require divestiture.
They can also order disgorgement of revenue earned during the violation, with proceeds funneled to a fund administered by the FTC for use in improving health care in harmed communities. This framework creates a clear pathway for undoing improper ownerships and deterring future violations, while preserving a mechanism to review the adequacy and impact of any divestiture on competition and patient access.The bill explicitly extends its reach to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans.
MA organizations must certify compliance with the ownership prohibition, and the bill ties false payments to noncompliant entities to the False Claims framework. Definitions are carefully drawn to distinguish applicable providers from hospitals, pharmacies, and durable medical equipment suppliers, ensuring that the core prohibition targets relevant entities without sweeping carve-outs that would undermine competition.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill prohibits common ownership between an applicable provider (or an MSO) and a health insurance issuer.
Divestment timelines are 2 years for pre-enactment acquisitions and 1 year for post-enactment acquisitions.
Civil actions may be brought by HHS OIG, DOJ Antitrust Division, FTC, or state AGs with injunctive relief and disgorgement.
Disgorged revenues are deposited into an FTC-created fund to aid the health care needs of harmed communities.
Medicare Advantage requires certification of compliance, and MA/Part D contracts cannot include entities violating the prohibition.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Section 1 provides the act’s official name, the Patients Over Profit Act (POP Act). It signals the bill’s policy aim and sets the framing for the statute’s scope and interpretation.
General prohibition on common ownership
Section 2(a) establishes that it is unlawful for any person to simultaneously own, operate, or control an applicable provider (or an MSO with a management services agreement with an applicable provider) and a health insurance issuer. The core mechanism is to prevent cross-ownership that could enable vertically integrated control of both payor and provider markets.
Divestment requirements
Section 2(b) requires divestiture by the offending party. If the acquisition occurred before enactment, divestiture must occur within two years; if after enactment, within one year. The provision creates a clear deadline to unwind prohibited ownership configurations and restore competitive conditions.
Civil actions and remedies
Section 2(c) authorizes civil actions by the HHS Inspector General, the DOJ Antitrust Division, the FTC, or a State AG to seek injunctive relief and to require divestiture. Courts may also order disgorgement of revenues earned during the violation, aligning remedies with traditional antitrust enforcement while targeting redress to harmed communities.
FTC reporting and divestment review
Section 2(d) requires reporting of divestitures to the FTC and the DOJ Antitrust Division. It tolls the divestment period during wait times for antitrust review and directs ongoing review of the divestiture’s competitive and public-interest effects by the FTC and DOJ.
Rulemaking authority
Section 2(e) grants the FTC authority to promulgate rules to implement the POP Act, ensuring consistent interpretation and practical guidance for compliance without diminishing other obligations.
Rule of construction
Section 2(f) clarifies that nothing in the POP Act limits the broader enforcement and investigative authorities of the FTC, OIG, HHS, or state AGs under other laws.
Medicare Advantage and Part D enforcement
Section 2(g) adds to MA plan requirements: for plan years beginning in 2026, the Secretary may not contract with or pay MA organizations that own an applicable provider or MSO, or are owned by such a person. It also mandates certifications of compliance and treats false claims from violators as fraudulent.
Definitions
Section 2(h) provides detailed definitions for terms used in the act: 'applicable provider,' 'health insurance issuer,' 'management services agreement,' 'management services organization,' and 'person,' with explicit exclusions for hospitals, rural hospitals, suppliers of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and pharmacies.
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
- Medicare beneficiaries in markets affected by vertical integration—who may see improved access, pricing pressure, and maintained care options as competition is preserved.
- Independent providers and management services organizations not owned by insurers, who retain autonomy and reduce risk of being squeezed by cross-ownership.
- Rural and small health systems that often face concentrated market power, potentially benefiting from restored competitive dynamics and better negotiating leverage.
- Local health care markets and communities at large, where more competition can translate into more favorable prices and service quality.
- Federal regulators (FTC and DOJ) and state attorneys general gain a clearer toolset to address anti-competitive ownership and protect public health.
Who Bears the Cost
- Health insurers that currently own providers or MSOs and any entity with prohibited cross-ownership will incur divestiture costs and potential network disruption during the unwind.
- Providers and MSOs subject to divestiture face transaction costs, potential loss of integrated business models, and transitional uncertainties.
- Acquired entities facing divestiture bear costs associated with restructuring, renegotiating contracts, and potential patient access adjustments during the wind-down.
- Administrative and compliance costs borne by MA plans and regulated entities due to new certifications and reporting requirements.
- Regulatory agencies may incur short-term enforcement and rulemaking costs to implement and monitor the act.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether forcing divestitures to unwind cross-ownership will meaningfully improve competition and patient access without destabilizing existing care networks or increasing costs for beneficiaries.
The POP Act introduces a strong structural intervention in health care markets, but it raises questions about how divestitures will affect care coordination and access in the short term. While the aim is to reduce vertical integration, the process of unwinding ownerships could disrupt existing care networks, supplier arrangements, and patient referral patterns.
The definitions of 'applicable provider' and 'management services organization' hinge on nuanced distinctions that will matter in practical enforcement and compliance. Moreover, the interplay with existing antitrust regimes means a coordinated federal and state approach will be essential to avoid duplicative—or conflicting—action.
A key tension is balancing the benefits of reduced market power with the potential for unintended consequences, such as reduced efficiency or higher costs if divestitures disrupt care delivery. The act relies on divestiture as a remedy, but it does not detail transition planning, valuation standards, or how to handle partial ownership scenarios that may arise in complex corporate structures.
The reliance on disgorgement funds for harmed communities is laudable but raises questions about funding capacity and distribution in diverse geographies; the mechanism will require careful administration to avoid undermining patient needs in less served areas.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.