See how Suzan K. DelBene's votes line up with your values.
DeepSyte scores Suzan K. DelBene's record on the issues you care about — not party, not press releases. Take the 2-minute values quiz to see your personal alignment.
Sign in and take the values quiz to see how Suzan K. DelBene's votes line up with your views.
Prediction track record
How often we called Suzan K. DelBene's passage votes correctly, from their stated positions on each bill's tagged topics. Excludes “unclear” calls and abstentions.
33 predictions on record · none have been resolved by a passage vote yet. Check back as bills move.
Pending vote119-hr-5340
To prohibit the disclosure of records by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development of individuals for the purposes of immigration enforcement, and for other purposes.
No paired statements and votes yet for Suzan K. DelBene
We haven't yet found statement/vote pairs on the same topic for Suzan K. DelBene. This usually means either the rep hasn't taken public positions on bills that have come to a passage vote, or those bills haven't been tagged yet. The checker runs as new press releases and votes come in.
Pro analysis
AI rep analysis — Pro
Get an AI-narrated read on Suzan K. DelBene's full voting record against your stated values — aligned themes, conflicts, notable votes, and what to watch for.
Positions Suzan K. DelBene took during their campaign, scored against their subsequent record — public statements cross-checked with related votes. “Kept” means 80%+ of those statement-vs-vote pairs aligned; “Broken” means 30% or fewer.
0 kept0 broken0 mixed0 no action yet
Suzan K. DelBene has 11 tracked positions but no scored statement-vs-vote pairs touching them yet. Verdicts will appear here as related statements and votes accumulate.
No action yetSupports
A government-run public health insurance option should be added to the ACA marketplace.
“I support getting America to universal quality coverage and the best way to incentivize competition is to give people a choice between public and private coverage options.”
A national law should protect access to abortion in every state.
“I'm a strong supporter of the Women's Health Protection Act, a bill to guarantee everyone access to abortion care no matter which state they live in.”
Passage votes where Suzan K. DelBene broke ranks with ≥75% of Democrats. Threshold catches substantively partisan splits; unanimous-ish or close votes are excluded.
DelBene Leads Bipartisan Scrutiny of Meta’s Data Center Tax Credits
Position: The lawmakers urge the Treasury Secretary to ensure that Meta's claims for the federal research tax credit meet the statutory four-part test, and state that ordinary data-center construction and deployment costs should not qualify as qualified research.
Today, Representatives Suzan DelBene (WA-01), Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Greg Steube (FL-17), and Mike Thompson (CA-04) led an effort expressing concerns about reports that Meta is seeking to use the federal research tax credit for its data center buildout. In a bipartisan letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the lawmakers emphasized that any claims by Meta for the federal research tax credit must meet the clearly defined requirements.
Congress established this tax credit in 1981 amid concerns about declining private-sector research investment and U.S. global technological competitiveness. By reducing the cost of qualifying research, the credit is meant to encourage businesses to pursue projects involving technical uncertainty and experimentation, rather than simply purchasing and deploying proven technology.
“We are concerned by Meta’s apparent position that expenditures associated with its massive data-center buildout qualify for the research credit,” wrote the lawmakers. “The purchase and deployment of commercially available servers, networking equipment, electrical infrastructure, cooling equipment, and other proven technologies cannot be transformed into qualified research merely because they are installed at unprecedented scale or in new configurations.”
To qualify for the credit, research must meet a four-part test, including being technological in nature, addressing technical uncertainty, seeking to develop or improve a product or process, and involving a process of experimentation. Certain activities, including research conducted after commercial production begins and duplication of an existing product or process, are excluded. The lawmakers emphasized that the scale or configuration of a data center does not, by itself, establish that its construction and equipment costs qualify.
“Allowing ordinary data-center construction and deployment costs to qualify would significantly expand the research credit beyond its intended purpose and risk converting an incentive for technological experimentation into a subsidy for capital expenditures that companies would undertake in the ordinary course of business,” continued the lawmakers.
“The research credit is an important tool for promoting American innovation. Protecting its integrity requires ensuring that it rewards genuine research and experimentation rather than subsidizing routine capital investment,” concluded the lawmakers.
The letter was also signed by Representatives Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03), Nanette Barragán (CA-44), Donald Beyer (VA-08), Joe Courtney (CT-02), Sharice Davids (KS-03), Danny Davis (IL-07), Veronica Escobar (TX-16), Sylvia Garcia (TX-29), Adelita Grijalva (AZ-07), Val Hoyle (OR-04), Jared Huffman (CA-02), John James (MI-10), Greg Landsman (OH-01), Kristen McDonald Rivet (MI-08), Kevin Mullin (CA-15), Chris Pappas (NH-01), Andrea Salinas (OR-06), Hillary Scholten (MI-03), Terri Sewell (AL-07), Victoria Spartz (IN-05), Lori Trahan (MA-03), and Nikema Williams (GA-05).
DelBene, Dexter Introduce Legislation to Stop Future Capture, Breeding of Whales for Public Display
Position: Representatives DelBene and Dexter reintroduced the SWIMS Act, which would prohibit future capture, breeding, and trade of whales for public display. The release states that whales held in captivity suffer distress and have shorter lifespans than wild whales.
Today, Congresswomen Suzan DelBene (WA-01) and Maxine Dexter, M.D. (OR-03) reintroduced the Strengthening Welfare in Marine Settings (SWIMS) Act, legislation that would end the future capture and breeding of whales for public display.
Certain cetaceans, such as orcas, beluga whales, pilot whales, and false killer whales, are cognitively, emotionally, and socially complex animals who cannot thrive in captivity, according to multiple studies. Whales held for display often exhibit signs of suffering and distress and have significantly shorter lifespans than whales in the wild. Currently, there are approximately 70 whales held in captivity in the United States.
“Whales and dolphins are treasures to the Pacific Northwest, and they belong in the wild,” said DelBene. “Scientific evidence shows that when these majestic animals are kept in captivity, they suffer significant distress and shorter life spans. This legislation would prevent the capture and breeding of whales for public display to ensure they remain in their natural habitats and free from abuse and exploitation.”
“Whales belong in the open ocean, not behind glass,” said Dexter. “These extraordinary animals are icons of the Pacific Northwest, forming deep family bonds and playing a vital role in healthy oceans. Captivity robs them of the space, freedom, and connection they need to thrive. Their lives should be defined by the ocean’s possibilities, not the walls of a tank.”
“Science increasingly supports the conclusion that we cannot provide conditions in a concrete enclosure that accommodate the size, wide-ranging nature, and physiological, behavioral, and social needs of these species,” said Dr. Naomi Rose, senior scientist for marine mammal biology at the Animal Welfare Institute. “The SWIMS Act recognizes that reality and offers a path forward by prohibiting breeding, trade, and capture for public display. Let this be the last generation in captivity of these ocean predators.”
The SWIMS Act is supported by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Welfare Institute, Born Free USA, Cetacean Society International, CompassionWorks International, Humane World Action Fund, Humane World for Animals, International Marine Mammal Project of Earth Island Institute, Last Chance for Animals, Oceanic Preservation Society, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Whale Sanctuary Project, and World Animal Protection.
DelBene Responds to White House Suspending Microsoft Workers from Permanent Resident Program
Position: Rep. DelBene opposes the administration's suspension of certain companies, including Microsoft and Adobe, from the Permanent Labor Certification (PERM) program, arguing it undermines a lawful green card pathway for skilled H-1B workers and harms innovation and the economy.
Today, Congresswoman Suzan DelBene (WA-01) issued the following statement on the Trump administration suspending Microsoft, Adobe, and other companies from the Permanent Labor Certification (PERM) program.
“The Trump administration’s action today is an attack on current H-1B visa holders already in the United States. Haphazardly taking away the pathway to a lawful green card for skilled workers at certain American companies is a biased and punitive misuse of the law. Let’s be clear: this move will have no impact on purported H-1B visa abuse. It simply undercuts a legal way for people to work, stay with their family, and become a part of our communities. This will inject even more uncertainty into our already turbulent economy while hamstringing innovation, competitiveness, and ultimately American workers.”
Rep. Suzan DelBene: Trump’s AI experiment is coming for seniors’ cancer treatments
Position: The release opposes the WISeR program, which uses private companies to review Medicare claims with AI, and argues it should not be expanded to cancer treatments, cardiology procedures, or air ambulances. It contends the program has caused treatment delays and denials for seniors.
When Health & Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. sat before me during a Ways & Means Committee hearing in April, I shared the story of Joanne, a Washington senior on Medicare who had been lingering in crippling pain for weeks while she waited for approval for a common pain treatment. Her delay was the direct result of the Trump administration’s new AI experiment that started earlier this year. This program, known as the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction (WISeR) program, pays private companies to use AI to review Medicare claims.
Joanne’s severe pain forced her to use crutches and a wheelchair to get around, leading to multiple falls that compounded her injuries. Secretary Kennedy called this a “terrible outcome,” yet defended the program, saying it was running as planned. Conveniently, Joanne’s treatment was approved quickly after the hearing. If her doctor had ordered the procedure last year, it would have been approved without friction. Instead, her nightmare is emblematic of this chaotic rollout.
When WISeR was first announced, I cautioned the administration that quickly rolling out a program that uses the same problematic delay tactics that private Medicare Advantage plans use would leave patients frustrated and in pain. Sure enough, I began hearing about issues with WISeR from health care providers and patients almost as soon as it launched in January in Washington and five other test states.
For months, the administration operated in the dark, releasing no meaningful data. Even Congress couldn’t see under the hood until the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the administration and finally received almost 1,000 pages of internal documents. What I called a Trojan horse to privatize Medicare earlier this year is now more alarming than ever.
So far, this pilot program only applies to certain procedures, like the pain treatment that Joanne was waiting for. My concern from the start was that once the administration started doing this, it was only a matter of time before it was scaled up to more procedures and more states. The new documents confirm exactly that, outlining the administration’s next targets: cancer treatments, cardiology procedures, and even air ambulances. To state the obvious, none of these treatments can wait weeks for approval.
Washington seniors have borne the brunt of this experimental program’s malfunctions. From January to March, over half of the claims submitted in Washington were denied and far exceeded the 72-hour decision deadline. This triggered an internal CMS audit and corrective action plan. This shouldn’t come as a surprise because the program pays these private companies for every claim they deny, which incentivizes them to reject more care.
The audit and corrective action plan have never been released, which would further help inform lawmakers, health care providers, and patients about how WISeR is failing to function. This stonewalling must end. That’s why I am filing a new FOIA request for these specific documents in addition to the audits and corrective action plans of any other private company participating in WISeR.
Congress has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the administration, but the Republican-controlled House has shown little interest in carrying out this responsibility since Trump took office. Most recently, the majority of Ways & Means Republicans voted down a proposal I offered that would have released more WISeR documents. After pressure from Republican leadership in the room, five of them flipped their votes to reject the effort. Even if my fellow lawmakers don’t represent districts in these pilot states, their constituents will be impacted if the administration scales up the program as planned. When Democrats take control of the House in November, we need to rigorously investigate this program so more seniors like Joanne aren’t victims of this reckless AI experiment.
Read the full article here.
Medicare’s Plan to Expand AI Program Criticized as Overreach
Position: The release opposes the Trump administration's plan to expand the WISeR AI-driven Medicare prior authorization pilot nationwide, citing reported coverage delays, increased denials, and concerns about patient harm, and characterizes the expansion as unlawful overreach.
Recently released federal documents show the Trump administration planned an expansion of an AI-driven Medicare prior authorization program to millions more patients nationwide, drawing concern after early data from the pilot points to delays in care.
Internal communications from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services surfaced by a FOIA request from the Electronic Frontier Foundation show how the administration planned to expand its Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction (WISeR) Medicare pilot beyond the handful of states now testing it.
The program uses artificial intelligence to screen whether costly procedures such as knee surgeries and steroid injections are medically necessary. Private insurance and Medicare have used this system — known as prior authorization — for years to control costs, though critics say the practice can delay necessary medical care, increase administrative burdens on providers, and compromise patient health outcomes.
The document, a June 2025 investment plan for the pilot, says the prior authorization model is intentionally designed for expansion to drive savings on low-value services without adversely affecting the quality of care. The CMS said in the document that the model would scale well to a larger population because prior authorization has been effectively demonstrated in other areas.
The pilot, which runs until 2031, is currently in place across Texas, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Ohio, Washington, and Arizona, and affects nearly 6.5 million patients on traditional Medicare.
The administration’s plan to expand the program nationwide has drawn pushback from lawmakers, since preliminary quality reporting data the Electronic Frontier Foundation analyzed in the released documents found coverage delays, increased denials, and physician complaints of patient harm.
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Director Abe Sutton said in a panel discussion with conservative health leaders in September that the agency had led several conversations with lawmakers about the demonstration program
“My hope is that we’ve been able to reassure folks that this has been well designed,” said Sutton, and “that we are going to closely monitor it and learn from its lessons before we look to expand.”
The CMS uses pilots to test ways to lower costs and improve quality of care in the Medicare program. Generally, Medicare law allows the agency to permanently adopt these pilots if they are proven to reduce spending without harming quality or if they improve quality without increasing costs.
The CMS in the Investment Plan said that if the “model is successful at reducing Medicare expenditures,” it believed that “this historical precedent and evidence would directly factor into a certification analysis and would strengthen the case for certification, regardless of evaluation results.”
The language came as a surprise to Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), who called the plans unlawful overreach by the agency.
“I don’t believe this is in their authority to do. I think that’s one of the reasons why they have been very cagey with us,” Landsman said in an interview.
A CMS spokesperson said in a statement the paragraph pertained to a specific component of the evaluation process and does not encompass all that goes into the decision to expand.
The agency said it “will consider evaluation findings related to quality of care, beneficiary access, or other model outcomes when considering whether WISeR should be expanded.”
The program was originally billed by the agency as a method to provide an “improved and expedited prior authorization process” relative to original Medicare’s existing process.
CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz said the goal was to “bring Medicare into the 21st Century by testing a streamlined prior authorization process, while protecting Medicare beneficiaries from being given unnecessary and often costly procedures.”
So far, WISeR has yet to accomplish those goals, according to the recently released documents. Records released by EFF found prior authorization request delays, with many taking longer than the 72 hours the agency promised.
Some doctors reported these delays have led to patients calling offices crying in pain because their procedures were postponed.
The CMS told Bloomberg Law that it took concerns of beneficiary access seriously but cautioned that some of the early data from specific months can often be accounted for by reporting issues that do not impact beneficiary access.
The agency said it will be releasing its own six-month analysis of outcomes data, prepayment review volumes, turnaround times, and preliminary data on accuracy in the months ahead.
Under current law, CMS expansion authority insulates the agency from litigation over the substance of a certification, said Jeff Wurzburg, a former attorney at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Challenges could instead focus on whether the agency followed the correct procedural processes.
“Any sort of challenge judicially is going to have to be pretty narrow. So in terms of APA challenges, it’s really going to be based on the record that the secretary provides in that rulemaking,” referring to the Administrative Procedure Act. “Perhaps if evidence demonstrates delayed or denied medically necessary care or CMS fails to adequately consider beneficiary access consequences,” he said.
Both lawyers and lawmakers say that it may ultimately take an act of Congress to prevent the CMS from continuing its plans to expand WISeR across the country. That said, while there are some Republicans joining Democrats in urging caution, efforts to repeal the program have stalled.
In May, Landsman, along with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution to axe the pilot. The Senate voted 46-50 along party lines to keep the program in place.
House appropriators also added language to a Health and Human Services Department funding bill that would block funding for the CMS model.
Landsman said a win in the midterm elections could be what it takes to get a repeal of the program across the finish line.
“We need folks who will stand up to Big Tech, and in this case, pause or end WISeR and require CMS to be fully transparent about what they are doing here.”
House Passes Bill Letting Taxpayer Advocate Fight for You in Federal Court
Position: The release describes a bipartisan House-passed bill (H.R. 9498) that would authorize the National Taxpayer Advocate to file amicus briefs in federal tax cases with broad taxpayer-rights implications, and reports that its sponsor urged Senate passage.
The U.S. House of Representatives approved a bipartisan measure Tuesday that would give the National Taxpayer Advocate a new court-related authority: seeking to participate as a friend of the court in federal tax cases involving issues that could affect large numbers of taxpayers. The bill passed under suspension of the rules by voice vote, so there is no record of how individual members voted. It now goes to the Senate.
H.R. 9498, known as the Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act, would authorize the National Taxpayer Advocate to appear as amicus curiae in federal tax cases, according to GovTrack. Under current statute, the National Taxpayer Advocate is barred from filing amicus briefs in federal court, according to reporting from the Tampa Free Press. The bill was co-sponsored by Florida Republican Rep. Greg Steube and Washington Democratic Rep. Suzan DelBene, per the same report.
The measure would amend section 7803(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, according to the legislative text reviewed by Tax Notes. The proposed text would require a U.S. court to grant the National Taxpayer Advocate's application to appear in qualifying cases and would make the change effective on the date of enactment.
The Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act would allow the National Taxpayer Advocate to weigh in on systemic legal questions, but only with respect to an issue that may broadly affect the rights of taxpayers, per the taxnotes.com legislative text. According to the Tampa Free Press, the bill does not authorize the National Taxpayer Advocate's office to represent individual taxpayers — its reach is limited to cases with wider implications for taxpayer rights, not one-off disputes.
The National Taxpayer Advocate's 2024 Purple Book says Internal Revenue Code section 7803(c)(2)(A) directs the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate to help taxpayers resolve problems with the IRS, identify recurring problems and recommend administrative and legislative remedies. The Taxpayer Advocate Service describes itself as an independent organization within the IRS, while the Purple Book says current law does not authorize the National Taxpayer Advocate to submit an amicus curiae brief in a federal tax case, according to the National Taxpayer Advocate's 2024 Purple Book.
Authorizing amicus participation was also an existing recommendation of the office, rather than an idea introduced only by H.R. 9498. The National Taxpayer Advocate's 2025 Purple Book included authorization to file amicus briefs among its recommendations, and the 2024 Purple Book likewise listed that proposal, according to the 2025 Purple Book.
Steube said current law prevents the National Taxpayer Advocate from weighing in on federal court cases that could affect millions of Americans, according to the Tampa Free Press. He said taxpayers should have an advocate when their rights are at stake and urged the Senate to send the bill to President Trump's desk.
DelBene said taxpayers deserve an independent voice in court and that the bipartisan measure would let the National Taxpayer Advocate address issues affecting large numbers of Americans, according to the Tampa Free Press.
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith said existing restrictions limit the National Taxpayer Advocate's core mission, the Tampa Free Press reported, and called the bill a targeted solution to a weakness in the office's ability to carry out its mission. The House Ways and Means Committee reportedly cleared the legislation unanimously on July 1, 2026, per the same report.
The bill has drawn support from a range of outside groups, including the National Taxpayers Union, Intuit, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, the 60 Plus Association, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the Tampa Free Press reported. The outlet also noted that the 2026 Purple Book includes recommendations backing the Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act.
The Taxpayer Advocate Service describes itself as an independent organization within the IRS that works to ensure every taxpayer is treated fairly, according to the Taxpayer Advocate Service. The bill was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee before reaching the floor, GovTrack's bill tracker shows.
H.R. 9498 now moves to the U.S. Senate for consideration, according to GovTrack, which also estimates the bill has a 34% chance of being enacted. That figure is GovTrack's own projection, not an official congressional determination, and the bill would still need Senate passage and a presidential signature before becoming law.
Read the full article here.
Position: DelBene opposes the Republican budget resolution, arguing it fails to address cost-of-living concerns for families and instead allocates $70 billion to ICE enforcement while leaving the Department of Homeland Security shutdown unresolved.
Today, Congresswoman Suzan DelBene (WA-01) released the following statement after voting against the Republican budget resolution.
“This budget does absolutely nothing to lower costs when families are struggling with high health care premiums, expensive grocery bills, and unaffordable gas prices due to Republican policies. Instead of addressing the issues that actually matter to families, this bill writes another blank check to ICE, providing $70 billion to continue terrorizing our communities.
“Despite Republican claims, this bill also does nothing to end the Department of Homeland Security shutdown, putting paychecks at risk for countless TSA, Coast Guard, and FEMA employees.
“The American people have been clear – they want a Congress that works to lower costs and keeps our communities safe. The Republican budget is completely out of touch, fails to address the cost-of-living crisis, and only creates more chaos.”
Position: Congresswoman DelBene opposes the Republican farm bill, arguing it fails to address food affordability for struggling Americans, preserves harmful food assistance cuts affecting 40 million people, and does not provide adequate support for farmers facing rising costs and market pressures.
Today, Congresswoman Suzan DelBene (WA-01) released the following statement after voting against the Republican farm bill.
“Too many Americans right now are struggling to put food on the table because of President Trump’s inflation and Republicans’ food assistance cuts. Meanwhile, farmers are facing higher overhead costs, shrinking markets, and unprecedented closures. As a former member of the Agriculture Committee, I know the farm bill can address these challenges and help families put American-grown food on the table.
“Instead, this Republican farm bill deliberately ignores these needs and does nothing to address the affordability crisis. It preserves the food assistance cuts that are ripping away food from 40 million Americans and doesn’t provide the support that farmers need to keep operating. Republicans are making their priorities abundantly clear: sell out farmers and families.”
DelBene: RFK Jr.’s AI Pilot Program Is A Trojan Horse For Privatizing Medicare
Position: Rep. DelBene opposes the WISeR pilot program, which uses AI and for-profit companies to review and deny Medicare claims. She argues the program delays necessary care, creates financial incentives to deny coverage, and represents a step toward privatizing traditional Medicare.
Earlier this year, Joanne, a Medicare patient from Quilcene, Washington, went to her doctor for severe pain in her lower back, down her leg and on the top of her foot. An MRI showed that a herniated disc was pressing on her sciatic nerve. Joanne’s doctor prescribed an epidural steroid injection to help alleviate the pain. Before this year, getting that procedure done would have been quick and routine.
But in January, Medicare started a new pilot program in Washington and five other states: Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas. This program, called the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction (WISeR) Model, allows for-profit companies to use artificial intelligence to review and deny Medicare claims. In just the first few months, the number of stories like Joanne’s, in which care is delayed or denied, have exploded across these six states. Joanne’s doctor recommended this injection more than six weeks ago and it still hasn’t been approved. For over a month, she has had to use crutches or a wheelchair, worsening the arthritis in her hands, knees and ankles and adding to her chronic pain. Joanne is now looking to see if she can pay out of pocket for the procedure because, as she told my office, she “can’t keep living like this.”
WISeR isn’t just making it harder for seniors to get the care their doctors prescribe. It also opens the door to something more troubling. Under WISeR, outside companies are paid a share of the costs they “save” by rejecting claims. This creates a pervasive incentive to deny care. By injecting private companies into traditional Medicare with the goal of limiting care, the Trump administration is testing a new avenue to privatize the program. Congress must recognize and reject this Trojan horse before it fundamentally reshapes Medicare as we know it.
So far, it appears that using AI to speed up claims review has resulted in rapid treatment denials and frustration for patients and providers alike. Months in, doctor’s offices are still in the dark about basic functions of the program, and the Department of Health and Human Services hasn’t provided answers to foundational concerns since WISeR was announced last June.
The practice of requiring procedures to be preapproved, known as prior authorization, is extremely rare in traditional Medicare but already widespread in employer-sponsored health plans and privately run Medicare Advantage plans. Under this deeply flawed process, patients and doctors routinely spend hours fighting on the phone for approval of basic care. Many seniors choose traditional Medicare precisely so they don’t have to deal with this red tape. By injecting prior authorization into traditional Medicare, the differences between it and private Medicare Advantage grow slimmer.
Worse, prior authorization often doesn’t work. Over 4 million prior authorization requests made for Medicare Advantage enrollees were denied in 2024. Eighty percent of the denials were overturned when patients appealed the initial denial, but because appeals denials require considerable time, knowledge and energy, few patients contest coverage decisions.
Even if a denial is reversed, the delay in care frequently leads to more serious health issues and higher long‑term costs. Nearly a third of physicians say that a prior authorization requirement has led to a serious adverse health event for one of their patients. The American Medical Association has said these worse health conditions resulting from delayed care “may actually add significant costs to the nation’s health system.”
Even HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seemed to acknowledge the problem, saying in June, “Americans shouldn’t have to negotiate with their insurer to get the care they need.” But four days later, HHS announced WISeR.
As Kennedy prepares to testify before the House Ways and Means Committee this week, he should be ready to explain why his department is moving forward with WISeR despite widespread concerns that it delays care and opens the door to privatizing Medicare.
The administration claims that this program is supposed to test new ways to use technology to fight fraud in Medicare. We must develop more ways to detect, stop and hold bad actors accountable, but WISeR simply repeats the same flawed tactics that already delay care, frustrate patients and cost us more money. Kennedy and HHS seem more focused on enriching private companies with tax dollars that should be going to care for seniors.
Congress cannot sit on the sidelines while our constituents linger in pain. I’ve introduced legislation that would stop this program and other AI pilot programs like it. The House should quickly move it forward. This isn’t a partisan issue. Stories like Joanne’s could happen anywhere, from the reddest areas in Texas all the way to the bluest corners of Washington. We need to stand up for our seniors and stop this attempt to privatize Medicare.
Read the op-ed on MS NOW
Everett Herald: As patients ‘get sicker while they wait,’ doctors fight insurance delays
Position: Insurance companies' use of prior authorization delays necessary medical care for patients and creates administrative burden on healthcare providers; reform is needed to expedite treatment approvals.
When doctors diagnosed Robin Sparks with cancer two years ago, they needed to act fast.
The hard lump on her neck was Stage 3 non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cancer that penetrates bone marrow and attacks the immune system.
Sparks, of Marysville, spent weeks wading through tests and appointments to get her diagnosis. Three months into her six-month chemotherapy treatment, Sparks’ doctors wanted to check her progress. But her insurance company, Ambetter, repeatedly denied a CT scan request.
“The reason was that it was ‘just not necessary,’” said Sparks, 61. “Well, I think it was pretty darn necessary to know if my targeted treatment was working or not.”
Patients “can get sicker while they wait days, weeks or even months in many cases for approval of routine treatments,” DelBene, D-Medina, said Tuesday. “We’ve also seen patients just abandon care because they aren’t sure if they’re ever going to hear if it’s covered.”
Health insurance companies sometimes require patients to prove they need medication or treatment before approving coverage, a practice called prior authorization. The practice is time-consuming for health care workers and delays necessary care for patients, said Dr. Brandon Tudor, an emergency physician at Overlake Medical Center in Bellevue.
Click here to read the full article on the Everett Herald.
Source: open-data mirrors of the Senate eFD and House Clerk financial-disclosure systems. Disclosure within 30 days of trade is required by law (45 for spouse/dependent trades).
Top PAC donors · 2026 cycle
Political action committees that gave the most to this rep's principal campaign committee this cycle. PAC giving is direct organizational support — industry, ideological, or leadership.
1.LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA (LIUNA) PACLabor2 contributionsTrade-union PAC for construction laborers — backs prevailing-wage standards, infrastructure investment, apprenticeship programs, and project labor agreements.AI$10,000
2.COUPANG, INC. COMPANY PAC2 contributions$10,000
3.AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NEUROSURGERYPAC)3 contributions$10,000
4.AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC)3 contributions$10,000
5.AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE3 contributions$10,000
6.TEACHERS INSURANCE ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA PAC (TIAA PAC)3 contributions$10,000
7.NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE2 contributions$10,000
8.NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL OF AMERICA COMMITTEE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COTTON2 contributions$10,000
9.NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL ADVISORS POLITICAL ACTION COMM3 contributions$10,000
10.AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEAgriculture2 contributionsAgricultural processing PAC for American Crystal Sugar — backs candidates supporting farm subsidies, sugar price supports, and agricultural trade policies.AI$10,000
Source: OpenFEC (api.open.fec.gov) Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “committee.” Aggregated by contributing committee. Self-transfers from joint-fundraising / victory committees are excluded.
Top individual contributors · 2026 cycle
Itemized individual contributions over $200 to this rep's campaign committee, aggregated by donor employer. PAC giving is shown above; this section is people, not organizations.
1.SELF$28,318
2.MICROSOFT$25,450
3.AMAZON$23,750
4.D4 INVESTMENTS$14,000
5.APOLLO$11,000
6.PERKINS COIE LLP$10,500
7.ARNOLD VENTURES$10,500
8.BURKE MUSEUM$8,000
9.SCOPELY INC$7,000
10.NIERENBERG INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CO.$7,000
Source: OpenFEC Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “individual,” aggregated by the donor's self-reported employer. This is a geographic / industry correlation, not a corporate endorsement.
