Rep. Troy Balderson

R

Ohio – District 12

Leadership

Vice Chairman Oversight and Investigations

119th Congress

News & Announcements


O&I Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Ongoing Investigation into Medicare and Medicaid Programs Nationwide

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, led a hearing titled  Protecting Patients and Safeguarding Taxpayer Dollars: The Role of CMS in Combatting Medicare and Medicaid Fraud. “Taxpayers are being defrauded of outrageously large amounts of money,”  said Chairman Joyce.  “For too long, states have been permitted to run Medicaid programs with weak guardrails, making them easy targets for criminals to exploit. While states have a duty to steward federal and state taxpayer dollars responsibly, federal oversight is necessary to root out systemic fraud, waste, and abuse.” Watch the full hearing  here .    Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing: Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02):  “How does the Fraud Defense Operation Center work?”  Ms. Brandt:  “The way it works is we get a mix of fraud investigators, lawyers, law enforcement, HHS, OIG, DOJ, and medical professionals all together, and we look at the data again, it's all data driven. We look at real time Medicare claims data and determine where we see big spikes in the data. For instance, on skin subs last year, one of the cases we saw was an 89-year-old woman who it showed that she had had 5,029 claims for skin subs submitted on her behalf and she was on hospice. Obviously, that's a pretty clear indicator of fraud.”  Guthrie:  “Is that improper payment or fraud?”  Ms.   Brandt:  “That would be fraud. And she would be mummified if that was actually the case.” Congressman Randy Weber (TX-14):  “In Texas, $65 million was paid in fraudulent Medicare claims related to genetic testing that was never even requested on behalf of the beneficiaries. It seems like you're aware of that, what have you observed with respect to their lab schemes involving fraudulent or unnecessary lab testing? How do you get to that? What's the process?”  Ms. Brandt:  “It's very difficult, sir, and we have observed it. In fact, as I mentioned to you with our fraud detection war room that we have of the $1.8 billion we stopped last year, $100 million+ of it was related to just those types of laboratory services. And unfortunately, what that means is then when those services get billed—even if they're not provided—they go on the patient's medical record and it precludes them from being able to get that type of testing in the future when they might need it for a cancer diagnosis or something more serious.”  Weber:  “So, our great citizens are the brunt of that, really, while the thieves are making way with the taxpayer dollars?”  Ms. Brandt:  “Correct.” Congressman Troy Balderson (OH-12):  “Across many states, Medicaid providers have been found billing for services supposedly delivered to patients who were deceased, hospitalized, incarcerated, or living abroad. For example, in Massachusetts, a transportation company billed for nearly 17,000 rides, including 100 for patients already confirmed dead. In Colorado, a defendant billed $165,000 for rides for a beneficiary who had passed. In New York, investigators identified 25 transportation companies billing for rides for patients confirmed deceased or hospitalized. What mechanisms does CMS currently have to cross-check active claims against death records, hospital admission records, and incarceration records before approving payment?”  Ms. Brandt:  “We have a data matching agreement with SSA to be able to do a cross reference to something called the Death Master File, and in the Death Master File, all of the localities report all deaths. And as a result, we are able to run both providers and beneficiaries against that—to not only ensure that we aren't paying for dead people, but we aren't paying dead people, and that is what we do on the federal side. On the state side, it's more complicated because for states, they each have to do that on their own. I can't speak to what each state would do, and that is responsible for several of the cases that you just referenced.”



Feb 11, 2026
Press Release

Health Subcommittee Examines Prescription Drug Supply Chain to Lower Costs for American Patients

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, led a hearing titled Lowering Health Care Costs for All Americans: An Examination of the Prescription Drug Supply Chain, featuring witness testimony from representatives across the entire prescription drug supply chain.

“I’m proud of this subcommittee’s work, but there is still more to be done—which is why I was proud to continue building on our affordability series through today’s hearing with representatives across the entire prescription drug supply chain,” said Chairman Griffith. “Hearing from these witnesses on how to best navigate this complex web helps Congress make better-informed policy decisions so that we are able to meaningfully lower the cost of care for all American patients.”

Watch the full hearing here:

Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing:

BV8A3493 copy.JPG

Congressman Troy Balderson (OH-12): “I represent a very rural district, and not only is access to health care a problem, but access to pharmacy services is growing more challenging as well. A 2025 FTC report examined PBM pharmacy contracting practices and found that internal PBM documents suggested rural pharmacies are often forced to accept ‘take it or leave it’ reimbursement rates. Could you elaborate on the specific challenges rural pharmacies face when negotiating contracts with PBMs, and how these practices may affect access to care in rural communities?” Mr. Hoey: “‘Take it or leave it’ contracts are part and parcel of the so-called negotiations between pharmacies and PBMs. PBMs hold all the leverage. They hold the patient lives. So, if a pharmacy does not sign whatever is put in front of them—with very little negotiation—I’m sure our friends at PMA will say there’s robust negotiation, but in reality, it’s a take-it-or-leave-it contract. These pharmacies are often forced to sign contracts that pay them below their cost to acquire the drug. And yes, rural pharmacies, as well as pharmacies in underserved areas, urban areas, and suburban communities, are all taking contracts in which they are paid below cost. As a result, 5,000 pharmacies have gone out of business in the last four years alone. That’s 5,000 fewer pharmacy choices in just four years. It’s a systemic problem. In fact, pharmacy deserts—especially in your district in Ohio and across the country—are growing because of these ‘take it or leave it’ contracts.”

BV8A3761 copy.JPG

Congresswoman Kat Cammack (FL-03):Three companies control the majority of drug distribution in the United States, and many are vertically integrated to control each phase of the prescription drug supply chain—from manufacturer to pharmacy. Does consolidating the prescription drug industry lower prices for patients? Yes or no?” Mr. Davis: “It has the potential to, yes.” Congresswoman Kat Cammack: “Respectfully, your own industry report projects that the ‘big three’ will generate $871 billion in revenue this year—after four straight years of double-digit growth. So, if this is potentially saving patients money, why are revenues growing so fast, and where are patients seeing the savings?”

BV8A3822 copy.JPG

Congressman Michael Rulli (OH-06): “President Trump recently launched TrumpRx, a revolutionary platform aimed at bringing price transparency and competition back to the drug market. My constituents tell me every day about how much they dread going to the pharmacy because they never know what price they’re going to pay at the counter; it always changes. Then, you have brand-name versus [generic]... How have your members reacted to the transparent pricing of brand-name [drugs] on TrumpRx?” Mr. Marin: “The PBM industry is all about transparency. We are enhancing it for our customers every day, particularly for employers. The bill Congress passed a couple of weeks ago takes [transparency] to another level—we’re happy with that. We support and applaud the mission of the administration’s goal with TrumpRx.”



Feb 3, 2026
Energy

Subcommittee on Energy Holds Hearing on the Oversight of FERC

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Bob Latta (OH-05), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, led a hearing titled Oversight of FERC: Advancing Affordable and Reliable Energy for All Americans.

“Now, as our nation stands at the precipice of substantial change in the global economy, it is imperative for FERC to remain steadfastly focused on their core mission in order to fuel technological advancements and stabilize the bulk power system to keep the lights on,” said Chairman Latta. “Winning the AI race, reshoring manufacturing jobs, and lowering energy costs are not mutually exclusive. When done properly, research continues to show that the growth of large energy users like data centers and manufacturing facilities can help stabilize the grid and make electricity more affordable.

Watch the full hearing here.

Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing:

BV8A0012 copy.JPG

Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11): “How is FERC working with states that block pipelines? And how are you balancing the affordability mission when you have states like New York that actually kill pipeline projects?” Chairman Swett: “That is a 100-billion-dollar question. Effectively, under the regime that Congress has created, and the Clean Water Act, states have the ability to veto a project if they do not give a certification, and that is a problem that FERC simply cannot work around. If Congress saw fit to change that, we would be happy and ready to implement any directives.” Mr. Pfluger: “Is it your belief that having those pipelines in the capacity to deliver that natural gas lowers prices?” Chairman Swett: “Well, I think as you very wisely stated at the beginning of your comments, the proof is in the pudding. The fact that areas that don’t have enough gas are paying maybe 300 times what they should, as you said, is unacceptable. That is not a just and reasonable rate for Americans.”

BV8A9858 copy.JPG

Congressman Troy Balderson (OH-12):When opponents claim that LNG exports raise domestic prices, they ignore the factors that actually increase natural gas costs for consumers, such as the lack of pipeline capacity during the storm. Regions with pipelines to deliver natural gas had significantly lower prices than areas with constrained capacity. In fact, on January 26, 2026, the Monday after Winter Storm Fern, Northeast winter gas prices were up 2.4 times higher than the Appalachia supply. FERC has taken important actions to address constrained pipeline capacity, like repealing Order 871 and examining cost thresholds for blanket approvals. Can you discuss what other action FERC is considering taking to expedite the construction of needed energy infrastructure projects? And how will these actions help deliver affordable, reliable energy to our constituents?” Chairman Swett: “Thank you for the question. I also am very concerned about Northeast prices, and one thing that was really shocking for me coming out of the storm was that, in the Northeast during Fern, 40 percent of generation came from fuel oil or diesel, and that’s simply because we don’t have enough gas infrastructure to bring gas to New England. So, I fully agree with you. That’s why we are looking to, wholesale across the board, take a hard look at our permitting actions. And when it comes to pipelines in particular, we are trying to streamline our NEPA process.”

BV8A0015 copy.JPG

Congressman Russell Fry (SC-07): “Chairman Swett, the Seven County [Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County] Supreme Court decision was remarkable in a way, because it was won unanimously. So, in a body like ours that oftentimes has several different ways to view any particular issue, when you see a unanimous Supreme Court decision, it kind of raises your eyebrows a little bit. The Court held that courts should—afford substantial deference to an agency as to the scope and contents of an environmental impact statement. How has FERC changed its NEPA practice in response to the Seven County decision? And to piggyback on top of that, what is left to do to come in line with that decision?” Chairman Swett: “Thankfully, the Seven County decision allowed FERC, in my opinion, to realign our emissions analyses with our statutory responsibility as a primarily economic regulator charged with encouraging the development and plentiful supply of natural gas at reasonable prices, per Congress’s instruction. So, what that means, when the rubber hits the road, is now we no longer analyze the indirect emissions from upstream production or downstream combustion.”


Letters


Dec 19, 2024
Press Release

E&C Republicans Request HHS Watchdog Investigate Promotion of Gender Transition Procedures for Children

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General Christi Grimm, House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans requested an investigation into the strength, quality, and types of evidence-based scientific and pediatric medical literature relied on by the department to promote gender transition procedures for children.  KEY LETTER EXCERPT:  “As the agency responsible for safeguarding the health and well-being of Americans, all of HHS’s medical treatment recommendations, especially medical treatment recommendations for children, should be based on rigorous and well-established research, such as randomized controlled trials, that have definitively illustrated the long-term benefits of gender affirming care treatments.”  BACKGROUND:  Under the Biden administration, HHS has advocated for sex reassignment procedures on minors, including the use of serum puberty blockers, which have historically been used to treat children with precocious puberty (i.e., early onset puberty affecting about one percent of U.S. children) and sex offenders.   Puberty blockers, however, are known to stunt normal childhood development in children unaffected by precocious puberty.  HHS officials contend that sex reassignment procedures on minors are an unanimously accepted medical practice.  HHS Secretary Becerra testified before Congress that “every major medical association,” “medical journals,” and “scientific and medical evidence” has demonstrated the benefits of transitioning children’s biological sex.  When asked, via a Freedom of Information Act request, for the underlying scientific or medical basis for its position, HHS was only able to produce a two-page brochure that was already publicly available.  In contrast to HHS, a growing body of literature from medical experts and authorities around the world, including those in Europe, caution against performing such procedures on minors.   Courts and government health agencies responsible for determining child welfare have sought to limit child sex reassignment procedures.   Other countries have banned these interventions and surgeries on minors altogether.  An article published in the British Journal of Medicine found “there is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries in young people.”   A court in the United Kingdom noted the obvious about administering puberty blocking chemicals onto children: “[i]t is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.”  In April 2024, the Cass Review , an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, commissioned by the National Health Service England, found “[w]hile a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.”   The Cass Review also found that “[t]he rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health,” as well as unknown effects on cognitive and psychosexual development.  In August 2024, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) became the first major U.S. medical association to express caution on the use of gender surgery for gender dysphoria in adolescents. In its formal statement, the association stated: “ASPS currently understands that there is considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria, and the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty. This patient population requires specific considerations.”   The letter was signed by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA), Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL), Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL), Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH), Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), and Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL).  CLICK HERE to read the letter.



Oct 7, 2024
Letter

Chair Rodgers Leads House GOP in Demanding Answers Over FCC Fast-Tracking Democrat Mega-Donor’s Media Takeover Weeks Before Election

Soros-linked fund to acquire more than 200 local radio stations weeks before election Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) led 40 of her Republican colleagues in demanding answers from the Chairwoman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding her recent decision to fast-track a media deal allowing the Fund for Policy Reform, a group aligned with Democratic mega-donor George Soros, to buy over 200 radio stations just weeks before the 2024 election. With a party line vote of 3-2, the decision at the Commission level by the Democratic members of the FCC to temporarily waive the required national security review and allow excessive foreign ownership of American radio stations is deeply disturbing. KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “It is highly concerning that the FCC did not follow regular order for a transaction of this magnitude. Licensees and investors need certainty that the FCC will follow its rules and procedures when approving transactions so that the broadcast industry can have the resources it needs to continue serving the public.”  BACKGROUND: Audacy, Inc., a radio broadcasting group, which owns more than 200 radio-station licenses, filed for bankruptcy earlier this year.  Audacy’s filings revealed that a George Soros-backed group known as the Fund for Policy Reform had acquired at least 40 percent of Audacy’s debt.   Audacy estimated that, upon emerging from bankruptcy, 25 percent or more of its stock would be indirectly foreign owned, which triggers FCC review.   This review process requires national security agencies to review the transaction and offer any policy or national security concerns.   On September 30, 2024, the FCC released an Order granting a temporary waiver of this review process, delaying a national security review until after the bankruptcy process is complete and allowing foreign control of a significant number of radio stations across the entire United States, weeks before a national election. CLICK HERE to read Breitbart's exclusive coverage. CLICK HERE to read the full letter.



May 14, 2024
Letter

E&C Republican Leaders Press Biden EPA for Answers About Grants Awarded to Political Allies

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Reagan, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA), on behalf of the Oversight and Environment Subcommittee Republicans, are pressing for answers about the recently-awarded Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) grants.  KEY LETTER EXCERPTS :  “As you know, the Committee has questioned how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) planned to distribute the $20 billion available to selected recipients under the new GGRF program, including the $14 billion for the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF). Specifically, the Committee cited warnings that the EPA could use these large awards to subsidize favored organizations. At a January 30, 2024, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing, Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers highlighted examples of former Biden administration officials and Democratic campaign staff in leadership roles of organizations vying for NCIF funding. Predictably, the EPA’s April 4, 2024, announcement of NCIF recipients confirmed our fears that this program would funnel taxpayer dollars to political allies.” [...] “Other individuals with ties to Democratic politics also lead organizations partnering with these recipients. While the EPA insists it had ethics rules and a fair competition policy in place, doling out billions of dollars to organizations led by politically connected individuals undermines public trust in the legitimacy of the federal financial awards process. It also furthers the concern that this program was created as an excuse to hand out funding to political allies.” The Chairs cited more than a dozen examples of politically connected leaders of organizations to which EPA plans to distribute billions of taxpayer dollars, and have requested a list of all of the nearly two dozen stakeholder meetings the EPA held in designing the program, including the dates, names of the individuals and organizations participating as well as any related minutes or memoranda by May 28, 2024. CLICK HERE to read the full letter.