The bill
Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2025
HR. 3514, 119th Congress — read as touching Health Insurance.
Sponsored by
Rep. Kelly, Mike [R-PA-16]
ID: K000376
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 3514, 119th Congress — read as touching Health Insurance.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 497-499 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 42 - 0.
July 14, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. The "Improving Seniors' Timely Access to Care Act of 2025" - because, you know, seniors weren't getting timely access to care before, and it had nothing to do with the fact that Medicare Advantage plans are designed to maximize profits for insurance companies.
Let's dissect this bill, shall we? It establishes new requirements for prior authorization under Medicare Advantage plans, because apparently, the current system of denying claims and forcing patients to jump through hoops wasn't efficient enough. The bill mandates electronic prior authorization programs (because who needs human interaction, anyway?) and transparency requirements that will surely be a bureaucratic nightmare.
The affected industries? Insurance companies, healthcare providers, and pharmaceutical companies - all of whom will find ways to game the system and increase their profits. Compliance requirements? Oh boy, get ready for a tsunami of paperwork and administrative burdens. The timelines? January 1, 2027, and January 1, 2028 - plenty of time for lobbyists to "accidentally" influence the regulatory process.
Enforcement mechanisms and penalties? Ha! Don't make me laugh. The bill relies on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations and standards, which will undoubtedly be watered down by industry pressure. Penalties? Maybe a slap on the wrist for non-compliance, but let's be real, who gets punished in this system? Not the corporations, that's for sure.
Economic and operational impacts? Well, this bill will create a new layer of bureaucracy, increase administrative costs, and likely lead to more denials of care. But hey, at least the insurance companies will make more money, right? It's all about prioritizing profits over people's health.
In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of legislative malpractice. It's a symptom of a deeper disease - the corrupting influence of money in politics and the prioritization of corporate interests over human well-being. So, let's give it a diagnosis: "Acute Regulatory Capture Syndrome" with a side of "Chronic Profiteering Disease." Prognosis? Poor. Treatment? A healthy dose of skepticism and outrage.
Rep. Kelly, Mike [R-PA-16]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: D000617
Top Contributors
10
ID: J000302
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001287
Top Contributors
10
ID: V000134
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001080
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001120
Top Contributors
10
ID: C001067
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001210
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001160
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001306
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 63 nodes and 45 connections (68 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $165,200
Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 1 harmed.
Section 2 establishes requirements for Medicare Advantage plans with respect to prior authorization, which may increase administrative burdens and costs for health insurance companies, potentially harming their business.
The bill's provisions for electronic prior authorization programs (Section 2(a)(2)) and transparency requirements (Section 2(a)(3)) may streamline the prior authorization process, reducing delays and improving patient access to care, which could benefit hospitals and health systems.
The bill's focus on prior authorization for applicable items and services (Section 2(a)(5)) may lead to increased transparency and efficiency in the approval process for medical devices, potentially benefiting manufacturers.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Kelly, Mike [R-PA-16])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 465 — Department of Health and Human Services 1. Make Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option. 2. Give beneficiaries direct control of how they spend Medicare dollars. 3. Remove burdensome policies that micromanage MA plans. 4. Replace the complex formula-based payment model with a competitive bidding model. 5. Reconfigure the current risk adjustment model. 6. Remove restrictions on key benefits and services, including those related to prescription drugs, hospice care, and medical savings account plans.26 Legacy Medicare Reform. Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should: l Base payments on the health status of the patient or intensity of the service rather than where the patient happens to receive that service. l Replace the bureaucrat-driven fee-for-service system with value- based payments to empower patients to find the care that best serves their needs. l Codify price transparency regulations. l Restructure 340B drug subsidies27 toward beneficiaries rather than hospitals. l Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program28 and Inflation Reduction Act.29 Medicare Part D Reform. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) created a drug price negotiation program in Medicare that replaced the existing private-sector negotiations in Part D with government price controls for prescription drugs. These government price controls will limit access to medications and reduce patient access to new medication. This “negotiation” program should be repealed, and reforms in Part D that will have meaningful impact for seniors should be pursued. Other reforms should include eliminating the coverage gap in Part D, reducing the government share in — 466 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the catastrophic tier, and requiring manufacturers to bear a larger share. Until the IRA is repealed, an Administration that is required to implement it must do so in a way that is prudent with its authority, minimizing the harmful effects of the law’s policies and avoiding even worse unintended consequences.30 Medicaid. Over the past 45 years, Medicaid and the health safety net have evolved into a cumbersome, complicated, and unaffordable burden on nearly every state. The program is failing some of the most vulnerable patients; is a prime target for waste, fraud, and abuse; and is consuming more of state and federal budgets. The dramatic increase in Medicaid expenditures is due in large part to the ACA (Obamacare), which mandates that states must expand their Medicaid eligibility standards to include all individuals at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), and the public health emergency, which has prohibited states from performing basic eligibility reviews. The overlap of available benefits among the various health agencies has led to a complex, confusing system that is nearly impossible to navigate—even for recipients. Recipients are often faced with a “welfare cliff” of benefit losses as they earn above a certain amount, which is contrary to the fundamental purpose of empowering individuals to achieve economic independence. Benefits increasingly involve nonmedical services such as air conditioning and housing, many of which are already handled by departments other than HHS. Improper payments within Medicaid are higher than those of any other federal program. These payments are evidence of the inappropriateness of Medicaid’s expansion, which, stemming largely from public health emergency maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements and the Affordable Care Act, has crowded out the primary targets of these programs: those who are most in need. True health care reform cannot be accomplished in a bureaucratic silo or only through Medicaid and health safety net programs. Reform of the tax code is also essential to genuine, effective reform of our health care system. All components of the health care system should be part of the reform efforts, and it is imperative that the system be modified to assist states with their current programs. Therefore, the next Administration should: l Reform financing. Allow states to have a more flexible, accountable, predictable, transparent, and efficient financing mechanism to deliver medical services. This system should include a more balanced or blended match rate, block grants, aggregate caps, or per capita caps. Any financial system should be designed to encourage and incentivize innovation and the efficient delivery of health care services. Federal and state financial participation in the Medicaid program should be rational, predictable, and reasonable. It should also incentivize states to save money and improve the quality of health care.
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.