The Council’s 2026 Key Issues | An Overview
Issue:
Oppose Medicare for All
Threat:
A single-payer, Medicare for All model would significantly disrupt how many Americans receive their health insurance. The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers opposes this type of system because it compromises the insurance of 180 million Americans receiving coverage on the employer-provided insurance market.
The Council does not support a public option and will continue to educate lawmakers on the consequences of this option.
Issue:
Keep Employer-Provided Health Coverage Tax-Free
Threat:
Employer-sponsored health insurance markets face increased political pressure in Washington, with rising costs driving the narrative of unaffordable health coverage hampering employers and consumers. The favorable tax treatment enjoyed by employers for Employer-Sponsored Insurance (ESI) will continue to be scrutinized as the country faces mounting debt crises, and elected officials in both parties are increasingly demonizing the role of insurers and brokers in rising costs.
The current tax treatment of employer-sponsored health insurance lowers the cost of health insurance for employees and helps maintain coverage for more than 180 million Americans. Changing this tax treatment would be a tax increase on workers.
If employer-sponsored health insurance premiums lose their exemption from federal income and payroll taxes, employers would struggle to sustain comprehensive benefits programs, employee healthcare costs would rise, and the viability of the employer-sponsored insurance system would be jeopardized. Likewise, if a government insurance program interferes with market or artificial price caps are implemented, consumers will likely lose robust coverage as plan designs will face market limitations.
The Council continues to work with Congress to oppose legislation that raises taxes on employer-provided healthcare and to push back against government-controlled healthcare proposals such as state-level public option bills that would crowd out the private market and limit employer and employee choice.
Issue:
Third Party Litigation Funding (TPLF)
Threat:
Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) is the practice in which an outside group or individual not connected to the plaintiff invests in a lawsuit in exchange for a portion of the monetary reward if the lawsuit is successful.
Currently, there are no federal requirements for legal counsel to disclose any third-party funding. A large share of litigation costs is paid by insurers under insurance liability policies. Over the past decade, the litigation funding industry has exploded — increasing the number of lawsuits and litigation costs that contribute to the inflation of insurance costs.
The current tax treatment of TPLF allows litigation funders to pay taxes at the preferential capital gains tax rates on TPLF investments — incentivizing investments in lawsuits. Provisions to close this tax loophole and tax TPLF returns at ordinary income tax rates plus an additional 3.8% have been introduced in the House and Senate and were initially included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act but did not make it into the final bill.
The Council is educating elected leaders on the consequences of TPLF and the challenges it poses to rising insurance costs.
Issue:
Tort Reform
Threat:
Unchecked tort systems and legal system abuse pose a major threat to the insurance industry by driving excessive litigation, nuclear verdicts, and unpredictable loss costs, which force insurers to raise premiums, restrict coverage, or exit markets altogether, ultimately reducing affordability and availability for consumers.
The Council supports state and federal tort reform efforts that address the rising costs of legal system abuse and will continue to educate lawmakers about the consequences this practice has on insurance markets.
Issue:
Support Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) Reauthorization
Threat:
Without reauthorization of the program, there would be no market for terrorism insurance.
The Council has supported TRIA since its inception and subsequent reauthorizations and will continue to fight for its reauthorization well before its scheduled expiration on December 31, 2027.
Early reauthorization is critical to provide certainty for insurers making long-term capital decisions and policyholders considering major investments.
Issue:
Healthcare Pricing Transparency
Threat:
Machine readable file data containing in-network negotiated charges for every medical service with every provider could uncover new ways to decrease plan costs and improve health outcomes. The structure and completeness of the files currently create barriers to accessibility.
The Council supports codification of the Transparency in Coverage final rule along with specific ways to improve data usability.
Issue:
Cannabis Finance
Threat:
Cannabis remains illegal under federal law despite 40 states and the District of Columbia having some form of legal cannabis market. This creates potential criminal and civil penalties for financial institutions seeking to provide critical services, like insurance coverage, to state-legalized cannabis-related businesses.
In October 2025, Congress passed legislation to reclassify many hemp and CBD products as cannabis products under federal law. As a result, the number of businesses operating in the current legal landscape of federal illegality and state legality will likely increase, meaning more businesses and their service providers will need relief.
The Council supports the SAFER Banking Act, which would provide a safe harbor for financial services and insurance providers to work with state-legalized cannabis businesses.
Issue:
National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers (NARAB) Implementation
Threat:
NARAB was created more than a decade ago to provide a national standard for insurance licensure and to reduce regulatory burdens on brokerages who do business in multiple states.
The Council strongly supports NARAB because it simplifies and streamlines how agents and brokers are licensed in states where they do not reside.
The Council supports amending the requirement that the NARAB Board of Directors be confirmed by the Senate. Requiring Senate confirmation has delayed filling board positions and prevented NARAB from operating. Congress should authorize a Cabinet Secretary to appoint the NARAB Board of Directors. Allowing appointments at the departmental level would streamline the selection process, ensure that the NARAB Board can be constituted and maintained in a timely manner, and preserve appropriate federal oversight.