The bill
VA National Formulary Act of 2025
HR. 6580, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.
Sponsored by
Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]
ID: M001215
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 6580, 119th Congress — read as touching Pharmaceuticals.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
25 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 679-681 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Committee Hearings Held
May 19, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
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, brought to you by the same geniuses who thought it was a good idea to put a "Department of Veterans Affairs" in charge of... well, veterans' affairs.
**Main Purpose & Objectives**
The VA National Formulary Act of 2025 is a bill that claims to improve the administration of the national formulary for the Department of Veterans Affairs. In reality, it's just another excuse for politicians to pretend they care about veterans while lining their pockets with pharmaceutical industry donations.
The main objective is to create a centralized review process for approving or rejecting medications on the national formulary, because God forbid we trust individual clinicians to make decisions based on actual medical evidence. The bill also establishes a Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee (PTC) to support this process, staffed by "experts" who are conveniently employed by the VA.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**
The bill amends title 38 of the United States Code to codify the national formulary and establish the PTC. It also creates a new subchapter (VI) that outlines the procedures for managing the national formulary, including:
* A centralized review process for waiver requests * Public communication of formulary decisions (because transparency is overrated) * Annual reports on nonformulary decisions and appeals * A requirement for the PTC to meet monthly (or bimonthly) to review newly approved medications
Oh, and let's not forget the obligatory "conflict of interest" provisions that are about as effective as a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**
The usual suspects:
* Veterans who will be affected by the formulary decisions (but don't worry, they'll just have to deal with it) * Pharmaceutical companies who will either benefit or lose out depending on which medications are approved * VA bureaucrats who get to expand their empire and pretend they're doing something useful * Politicians who get to grandstand about "supporting our troops" while taking campaign donations from Big Pharma
**Potential Impact & Implications**
This bill is a perfect example of the "solution in search of a problem" phenomenon. The VA's national formulary has been a mess for years, but instead of addressing the root causes (e.g., bureaucratic inefficiency, lack of transparency), Congress decides to create more red tape and centralized control.
The real impact will be:
* More delays and obstacles for veterans trying to access necessary medications * Increased costs for taxpayers due to the expanded bureaucracy and administrative overhead * A further erosion of trust in the VA's ability to provide quality care
But hey, at least the politicians can claim they "did something" about veterans' healthcare. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this farce unfold.
Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No committee contributions found
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 65 nodes and 25 connections (57 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $166,100
Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 1 harmed.
Section 2 establishes a national formulary with uniform implementation, restricting local formularies from including drugs not on the national list unless waived (Sec. 7385(b)(1)-(2)). Section 3 allows the VA to negotiate additional discounts with manufacturers and use value-based purchasing tied to effectiveness (Sec. 8130(a)(1)-(2), (b)(2)). These provisions give the VA increased leverage to lower drug prices and tie payments to outcomes, which could reduce pharmaceutical manufacturers' revenu
The bill standardizes formulary management across VA medical facilities and creates processes for timely review of new medications, appeals, and therapy management (Sec. 7385-7388). This could improve efficiency and predictability in VA pharmacy operations, benefiting VA hospitals and health systems by streamlining drug procurement and reducing administrative variability.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-1])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.
— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo, — 647 — Department of Veterans Affairs reimagine the health care footprint in some locales, and spur a realignment of capacity through budgetary allocations. Specifically: 1. Embrace the expansion of Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) as an avenue to maintain a VA footprint in challenging medical markets without investing further in obsolete and unaffordable VA health care campuses. 2. Explore the potential to pilot facility-sharing partnerships between the VA and strained local health care systems to reduce costs by leveraging limited talent and resources. Personnel l Extend the term of the Under Secretary for Health (USH) to five years. Additionally, authority should be given to reappoint this individual for a second five-year term both to allow for continuity and to protect the USH from political transition. l Establish a Senior Executive Service (SES) position of VHA Care System Chief Information Officer (CIO), selected by and reporting to the chief of the VHA Care System with a dotted line to the VA CIO. l Identify a workflow process to bring wait times in compliance with VA MISSION Act–required time frames wherever possible. 1. Assess the daily clinical appointment load for physicians and clinical staff in medical facilities where wait times for care are well outside of the time frames required by the VA MISSION Act. 2. Require VHA facilities to increase the number of patients seen each day to equal the number seen by DOD medical facilities: approximately 19 patients per provider per day. Currently, VA facilities may be seeing as few as six patients per provider per day. 3. Consider a pilot program to extend weekday appointment hours and offer Saturday appointment options to veterans if a facility continues to demonstrate that it has excess capacity and is experiencing delays in the delivery of care for veterans. 4. Identify clinical services that are consistently in high demand but require cost-prohibitive compensation to recruit and retain talent, and examine exceptions for higher competitive pay.
— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo,
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.