Election 2026 · Public beta
Independent, source-first accountability
Issue record
Campaign positions remain attributed. Official actions are shown separately, with narrow relationship labels and limits.
Campaign positions
Her official health page, written in the first person as a physician and former director of the Iowa Department of Public Health, lists bills she says she worked on to lower drug costs, including on pharmacy benefit managers, Medicaid enrolment and non-opioid pain treatment. Her September 3, 2026 statement says she is leading a bipartisan bill to cap insulin at $35 a month for people on private insurance.
Her campaign says she would reverse this year's Medicaid cuts, fully extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits, let Iowans buy into Medicare at any age while opposing a single-payer system, cap insulin, epi pens and inhalers at $35, widen Medicare drug negotiation and extend the negotiated prices to private insurance, and add vision, dental, hearing and family-caregiver home health to Medicare.
His campaign says he would require hospitals and insurers to publish exact upfront cash prices with penalties for non-compliance, raise Medicare reimbursement for critical access hospitals in rural counties, mandate site-neutral billing, correct Medicare Advantage overpayments and force transparency on pharmacy benefit managers.
Evidence timeline
official action
Her official statement says she is leading a bipartisan bill to cap insulin at $35 a month for people on private insurance, and that in 2022 she was one of only twelve Republicans who voted to pass the Affordable Insulin Now Act. The Clerk's roll call for March 31, 2022 records the House passing H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act, 232 to 193 (Roll Call 102), with exactly twelve Republicans voting Yea, and she is one of the twelve. As the House passed it, the bill capped cost-sharing at $35 a month under both private insurance and the Medicare drug benefit; it never became law in that form, and its bill number was later used for an unrelated appropriations act. The $35 Medicare insulin cap that is law came from section 11406 of the Inflation Reduction Act, Public Law 117-169, on which she voted Nay when the House agreed to the Senate amendment 220 to 207 on August 12, 2022 (Roll Call 420). She is one of seven cosponsors of the INSULIN Act of 2026, H.R. 10227, recorded as an original cosponsor on the day Representative DeGette introduced it, September 2, 2026; it sits in committee. Limit: The countable part of her claim is exactly right: twelve Republicans voted Yea on that roll call and she was one. Two things the statement does not say are on the record beside it. The bill she voted for did not become law, and the act that did put a $35 cap on insulin for Medicare beneficiaries is one she voted against. On the 2026 bill she is an original cosponsor, not its sponsor. Whether a cap is good policy, and whether her reason for the 2022 vote against the larger act was insulin, are not questions this card assesses.
official action
Her campaign account says she wrote the law against the drug middlemen and that the House passed her bill to lower premiums. H.R. 6703, the Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act, is her own bill: she is its sponsor and introduced it on December 15, 2025. The House passed it 216 to 211 on December 17, 2025 (Roll Call 349), having rejected a motion to recommit 210 to 218 the same day, and the Senate received it on December 18. It is not law. Its second title, Lowering Health Care Premiums for Everyone, has two sections. Section 201 writes oversight of entities that provide pharmacy benefit management services into the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code: for plan years beginning thirty months after enactment such an entity would have to report to the group health plan it serves at least every six months, in plain language and in a machine-readable format, and no plan, issuer or such entity could contract with anyone who would limit or delay the information those reports require. The bill never uses the phrase pharmacy benefit manager; its own term is an entity providing pharmacy benefit management services, and the words pharmacy benefit appear 88 times in the text the House passed. Spread pricing appears nowhere in it, and it carries no divestiture or ownership provision. Section 202 permanently appropriates the cost-sharing reduction payments of section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act for plan years beginning January 1, 2027, and bars those funds from any qualified health plan that covers abortion, except where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life or results from rape or incest. The first title, Improving Health Care Options for Workers, is association health plans, an exclusion from the definition of health insurance coverage for certain medical stop-loss insurance, and health reimbursement arrangements. Limit: The bill is hers, the House did pass it, and its second title is about pharmacy benefit managers, which is what the drug middlemen names. Two things the record does not carry. It is not law: it passed one chamber and has sat in the Senate since December 18, 2025. And what section 201 does to those entities is require them to disclose, twice a year, in a form the health plan can read; the text the House passed bans no practice and breaks up nothing, so that verb is the post's characterization of a reporting requirement. The post names the middlemen only, and section 202 is the part of the same title with the plainest effect on premiums and the sharpest politics: it funds the Affordable Care Act's cost-sharing reductions permanently and withholds that money from plans covering abortion. Whether the bill would lower premiums is a question about its effects, which this card does not assess.
official action
Her official issues pages say she introduced two bills, the Accelerating Kids' Access to Care Act and the MAMMO for Veterans Act. Congress.gov records one sponsor for each bill, and it is not her. H.R. 4758 was introduced by Representative Lori Trahan on July 19, 2023; Miller-Meeks is recorded as its first cosponsor and its only original cosponsor, added the same day, of 124 cosponsors in all. The bill passed the House by voice vote on September 17, 2024 and was received in the Senate, as her page says. H.R. 4794, the Making Advances in Mammography and Medical Options for Veterans Act, was introduced by Representative Julia Brownley on July 29, 2021, with Miller-Meeks again the first cosponsor and the only original one, of twenty-three in all; that bill's last action is a subcommittee hearing, and the act became law as the Senate companion S. 2533, Public Law 117-135. Across the 117th, 118th and 119th Congresses she sponsored 129 bills and resolutions, and neither of these two is among them. Both bills were co-led, and her own releases at the time say so. Her release of May 18, 2022 records that in July of 2021 she, Brownley and Boozman joined Senator Jon Tester, the chair of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, to introduce the MAMMO for Veterans Act. Her release of September 17, 2024 says she and Trahan "celebrated passage of their" Accelerating Kids’ Access to Care Act, quotes her on "Our legislation", and quotes Trahan calling it "my bipartisan Accelerating Kids’ Access to Care Act". The Sponsor field on Congress.gov names exactly one member for a bill by design, so it cannot record a co-lead. Limit: The Sponsor field names Trahan on one bill and Brownley on the other, so on the official record she is not the sponsor of either. What the record does establish is that she was the sole original cosponsor of each on the day it was introduced, the only member either sponsor brought aboard at that point, which is how a co-lead appears in that record, and that her own releases of 2022 and 2024 describe both bills as jointly introduced, the second in Trahan's words as well as hers. On that evidence this desk does not find the word introduced false, and does not find it confirmed either: what the record supports is that the claim runs the same way as her part in the two bills. On the paired SERVICE Act the roles were reversed, with her as sponsor and Brownley as first cosponsor. The same pages use "I cosponsored" accurately elsewhere, and other "I introduced" claims on them are correct, including H.R. 8111 and the Critical Infrastructure Manufacturing Feasibility Act. This card is about attribution, not about whether either bill was worth passing.
See something wrong or incomplete? Report it for review.