
Alan Armstrong Voting Record & Scorecard | Center for Healthcare Affordability
US Senator from OK
Republican
119th Congress Score:
100.00%
Alan Armstrong Scorecard Summary
- Current rating
- 100.00%
- Substantive votes
- 5 of 5
119th Congress Ratings by Policy Category
Sen. Alan Armstrong (R-OK) currently holds a 100% Center for Healthcare Affordability score for the 119th Congress (2025–2026), ranking among lawmakers most aligned with healthcare reform and limited-government healthcare positions. Alan Armstrong voted on 5 of the 5 substantive bills scored by Reform Healthcare. This is an ongoing scorecard, updated throughout the session as new votes and bill sponsorships are recorded. Highest category scores: Rising Medical Treatment Costs (100%), Exploding Government Spending (100%), and Skyrocketing Insurance Premiums (100%). Alan Armstrong serves Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate.
Healthcare Policy
Lawmaker Position
S.Con.Res. 33 (Ossoff Amdt. 4897)
Senate
119th Congress
Hiking Health Insurance Premiums by Banning Providers from Including Cost-Controls in Plans.
This amendment, sponsored by Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA), would create a point of order against reconciliation legislation that does not "address the practice of insurance companies stepping between patients and their doctors to delay or deny access to care". The underlying resolution sets the congressional budget for fiscal year 2026 and establishes budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035.
This amendment represents a procedural weapon to block passage of a federal budget unless it meets vague demands by members of the Democratic party. In practice, that kind of federal pressure can lead to more mandates, more litigation, and more compliance costs that get passed back to families through higher premiums. Real reform should make insurance more affordable, transparent, and flexible, not create another procedural tool to force top-down federal control over private coverage.
S.Con.Res. 33 (Sanders Amdt. 5159)
Senate
119th Congress
Imposing Foreign Price Controls Through a Most Favored Nation Drug Pricing Mandate.
This amendment, sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), would impose price controls on prescription drugs through a Most Favored Nation pricing mandate. Under this approach, the federal government would tie U.S. prescription drug prices to prices paid in Europe and Canada, where government-run healthcare systems often suppress drug prices through centralized pricing decisions and restricted access. The underlying resolution sets the congressional budget for fiscal year 2026 and establishes budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035.
While lawmakers should work to lower drug costs by combatting PBM schemes, this amendment worsens the quality of our nation's healthcare system by importing price controls from countries with socialized healthcare systems. Most Favored Nation pricing would force American drug pricing to follow foreign governments that already ration access and underpay for innovation, making it harder for manufacturers to recover the enormous investments required to develop new treatments. That makes drug development less attractive to investors and ultimately threatens the innovation pipeline patients depend on for future cures.
S.Con.Res. 33 (Schumer Amdt. 4799)
Senate
119th Congress
Mandating Increased Government Spending and Control over Healthcare in the 2026 Budget.
This amendment, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), would create a point of order against reconciliation legislation that does not "lower out-of-pocket healthcare costs". The underlying resolution sets the congressional budget for fiscal year 2026 and establishes budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035.
This amendment represents a procedural weapon to block passage of a federal budget unless it meets the Democratic party's definition of affordability. In practice, that usually means more subsidies, more federal mandates, or more price-control schemes that shift costs to taxpayers, employers, and future patients instead of fixing the real drivers of healthcare inflation. Congress should be focused on lowering costs through competition, transparency, flexibility, and patient choice, not creating new procedural traps that protect the same government-driven approach that made healthcare more expensive.
S.Con.Res. 33 (Wyden Amdt. 5336)
Senate
119th Congress
Using Drug Pricing Studies to Pressure Manufacturers Into Worse Government Price Control Deals.
This amendment, sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), would require the Comptroller General to study the economic consequences of private or confidential drug pricing agreements between any federal department, agency, or office and pharmaceutical manufacturers. The underlying resolution sets the congressional budget for fiscal year 2026 and establishes budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035.
This amendment is not really about lowering costs for patients. It is another tool to pressure drug manufacturers into worse government-directed "deals," especially in the context of Most Favored Nation-style pricing that ties American drug prices to foreign countries that rely on price controls and rationed access. Using federal studies and oversight to attack confidential pricing agreements makes it harder for manufacturers to recover the investments needed to develop new treatments, makes drug development less attractive to investors, and ultimately threatens the innovation pipeline patients depend on for future cures.
S.J.Res. 141
Senate
119th Congress
Hiking Healthcare Costs by Making it Harder for Providers to Recover Medical Debt.
This joint resolution, sponsored by Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), uses the Congressional Review Act to nullify the Trump Administration's withdrawal of a Biden-era advisory opinion by the CFPB on "Debt Collection Practices (Regulation F); Deceptive and Unfair Collection of Medical Debt." The Biden-era guidance had expanded CFPB pressure over medical debt collection practices by warning that certain efforts to collect disputed, inaccurate, already-paid, or otherwise challenged medical bills could be treated as deceptive or unfair under federal debt collection rules.
While patients should be protected from real billing errors and fraud, this resolution would bring back a heavy-handed CFPB approach that makes it harder for providers to recover legitimate medical debt. When Washington weakens the ability of hospitals and providers to collect payment for care already delivered, those unpaid costs do not disappear. They get shifted back into the system through higher prices, tighter hospital finances, and fewer resources for patient care.
S. 4355
Senate
119th Congress
Worsening Extortion of Drug Manufacturers Under Most Favored Nation Price Controls Through New Disclosure Mandates.
This bill, the "Drug Deal Disclosure Act", sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), requires HHS to publicly disclose documents, communications, contracts, meeting notes, and other records tied to certain drug pricing agreements between the federal government and drug manufacturers entered into on or after January 20, 2025. The bill specifically targets agreements involving most-favored-nation pricing, direct-to-consumer drug discounts, TrumpRx or similar platforms, tariff treatment, domestic investment commitments, CMMI demonstrations, stockpile purchasing, and FDA priority review vouchers. It also requires CBO and GAO to analyze the economic and budgetary effects of the disclosed agreements.
This is not real transparency aimed at lowering costs for patients. It is a tool to pressure drug manufacturers into even worse "deals" under most-favored-nation price controls, which tie American drug pricing to foreign countries that already rely on government price controls and rationed access. Forcing companies into politically driven pricing schemes makes it harder for manufacturers to recover the massive investments required to develop new treatments, makes drug development less attractive to investors, and ultimately threatens the innovation pipeline patients depend on for future cures.
S. 4519
Senate
119th Congress
Reducing Outdated FDA Labeling Burdens by Allowing Electronic Medical Device Instructions.
This bill, the "Medical Device Electronic Labeling Act", sponsored by Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN), amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to expand when required medical device labeling may be provided electronically. The bill allows device manufacturers, including makers of in vitro diagnostic devices, to provide labeling online if users can easily access it, paper copies remain available upon request at no extra cost, and safety information still meets federal requirements.
This is a practical FDA modernization bill. Patients and providers already rely on digital information in nearly every part of healthcare, but outdated labeling rules still force unnecessary paper manuals and slow updates for medical devices. By allowing electronic instructions while preserving access to paper copies, the bill reduces waste, lowers regulatory friction, and helps patients get current safety and use information faster.
S. 4550
Senate
119th Congress
Fueling New Federal Spending and Bureaucracy Through Maternal Health Emergency Programs.
This bill, the "Maternal Health Pandemic Response Act", sponsored by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), authorizes $190 million for federal data collection, surveillance, and research on maternal and infant health during public health emergencies. The bill funds CDC programs, maternal mortality surveillance, PRAMS survey expansion, and NIH research, while also directing federal agencies to publish emergency maternal health data, run public health education campaigns, and create a new HHS task force on maternity care during public health emergencies.
While maternal and infant health are important priorities, this bill responds with more federal spending, more federal reporting systems, and another Washington task force. Instead of focusing on removing barriers that make maternity care harder to access, the bill expands the public health bureaucracy and uses emergency response as a vehicle for new programs and future federal recommendations on how care should be delivered. This is exactly the kind of open-ended federal expansion that drives taxpayer costs higher without fixing the underlying affordability problems in healthcare.
S. 4552
Senate
119th Congress
Growing Bureaucracy and Federal Deficit Spending Through Another Maternal Health Grant Program.
This bill, the "Moms Matter Act", sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), creates a Maternal Mental Health Equity Grant Program to support programs addressing maternal mental health conditions and substance use disorders during and after pregnancy. The bill also creates a separate grant program to grow and diversify the maternal mental and behavioral healthcare workforce, including through new training programs, expanded school capacity, and scholarships. Together, the bill authorizes $200 million from fiscal years 2027 through 2031.
Supporting mothers is important, but this bill relies on the same federal spending playbook: new grants, new reporting requirements, new workforce programs, and more HHS involvement in how care is delivered. Instead of lowering costs, expanding choice, or removing regulatory barriers that limit access to maternal care, the bill pushes more taxpayer dollars through Washington-directed programs. That means more federal healthcare spending without fixing the broken incentives driving access and affordability problems in the first place.
S. 4583
Senate
119th Congress
Restoring Medicare Patient Choice by Letting Seniors Use Their Benefits with the Doctor They Choose.
This bill, the "Legalizing Premium Health Care Act of 2026", sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), amends Medicare to let beneficiaries freely contract with eligible healthcare professionals for Medicare fee-for-service items and services without losing access to their Medicare benefits. Under the bill, a beneficiary could see a doctor or other eligible provider outside the usual Medicare participation structure, submit a claim for Medicare payment, and receive reimbursement at the standard Medicare rate, while paying any remaining difference under the private contract.
This is a patient choice bill that pushes back on Medicare rules that trap seniors in a government-controlled system even after they paid into it for decades. When doctors leave Medicare because of red tape and low reimbursement, patients should not be forced to abandon trusted physicians or pay the entire cost out of pocket. By allowing seniors to use their own Medicare benefits with the provider they choose, the bill strengthens the doctor-patient relationship and makes it easier for providers to keep serving Medicare patients.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Sen. Alan Armstrong's voting record?
Sen. Alan Armstrong (R-OK) currently holds a 100% Center for Healthcare Affordability score for the 119th Congress (2025–2026), ranking among lawmakers most aligned with healthcare reform and limited-government healthcare positions. Alan Armstrong voted on 5 of the 5 substantive bills scored by Reform Healthcare. This is an ongoing scorecard, updated throughout the session as new votes and bill sponsorships are recorded. Highest category scores: Rising Medical Treatment Costs (100%), Exploding Government Spending (100%), and Skyrocketing Insurance Premiums (100%). Alan Armstrong serves Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate.
How aligned is Alan Armstrong with healthcare reform and limited-government healthcare positions?
Alan Armstrong earned a 100% Center for Healthcare Affordability score in 2025, ranking among lawmakers most aligned with healthcare reform and limited-government healthcare positions.
What is Alan Armstrong's Reform Healthcare score?
Alan Armstrong has a 100% Reform Healthcare score for 2025.
Where does Alan Armstrong serve?
Sen. Alan Armstrong (R-OK) serves Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate as a Republican.
What issue categories does Alan Armstrong score highest and lowest on?
Alan Armstrong's strongest categories on the Center for Healthcare Affordability scorecard are Rising Medical Treatment Costs (100%) and Exploding Government Spending (100%). The lowest-scoring categories are Stagnating Advancements in Healthcare (100%) and Skyrocketing Insurance Premiums (100%).