PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Mar 22, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on March 15, 2017. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the McCarran-Ferguson Act to declare that nothing in that Act modifies, impairs, or supersedes the operation of antitrust laws with respect to the business of health insurance, including the business of dental insurance. This declaration does not apply to a contract, combination, or conspiracy to: (1) collect, compile, or disseminate historical loss data; (2) determine a loss development factor for historical loss data; (3) perform actuarial services if the collaboration does not involve a restraint of trade; or (4) develop or disseminate a standard insurance policy form if adherence to the form is not required.
Prohibitions against unfair methods of competition apply to the business of health insurance without regard to whether the business is for profit.
People & committees
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-4] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 416 - 7 (Roll no. 184).
House roll call 184 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 416 - 7 (Roll no. 184).
House roll call 184 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 189 - 233 (Roll no. 183).
House roll call 183 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2311-2312)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the motion to recommit with instructions, the Chair put the question on the motion and by voice vote, announced that the nays had prevailed. Ms. Rosen demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the motion to recommit with instructions until a time to be announced.
The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to reported back to the House with an amendment to add a subsection to the bill titled Protecting Affordable Healthcare for Older Americans.
Ms. Rosen moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR H2274)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 372.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 372 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 209. (consideration: CR H2267; text of measure as reported in House: CR H2267)
Rule H. Res. 209 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 209 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 372 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 18.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 115-36.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 115-36.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial And Antitrust Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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.372 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.372 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.372 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.372 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.