PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 1, 2011
Cancer Drug Coverage Parity Act of 2011 - Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code to require a group or individual health plan providing benefits for intravenously administered or injected anticancer medications to provide no less favorable coverage for prescribed, orally administered anticancer medication that is used to kill or slow the growth of cancerous cells and that has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Applies such requirement to medication that is prescribed based on a finding by the treating physician that the medication is: (1) medically necessary for the purpose of killing or slowing the growth of cancerous cells in accordance with nationally accepted standards of medical practice; (2) clinically appropriate in terms of type, frequency, extent site, and duration; and (3) not primarily for the convenience of the patient, physician, or other health care provider.
Permits such coverage to be subject to the same cost-sharing applicable to intravenously administered or injected anticancer medications under the plan.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits a health plan from imposing an increase in out-of-pocket costs, or reclassifying benefits, with respect to anticancer medications.
Requires a plan to provide notice to each participant and beneficiary regarding the coverage required under this Act.
Prohibits a health plan from taking specified actions to avoid the requirements of this Act.
Requires the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to assess how closing the Medicare part D donut hole affects Medicare coverage for orally administered anticancer medications, with a particular focus on cost and accessibility.
People & committees
Rep. Higgins, Brian [D-NY-27] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2746 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2746 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2746 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2746 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.