SB 2989, the Stop Medical Profit-ering and Theft Act or “Stop MPT Act,” would restrict certain real estate transactions involving health care entities and real estate investment trusts (REITs). The bill bars a health care entity or a covered for-profit firm from selling or leasing real property to a REIT if the transaction terms would cause the entity’s long-term financial condition to weaken or would place public health at risk. Before such a transaction could proceed, the health care entity or covered firm would have to submit the terms to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for review, and the Secretary would determine whether the deal meets the bill’s risk standard.
The bill also authorizes the Secretary to consult with state attorneys general, and it gives the Department of Health and Human Services litigation authority and civil penalty authority of up to $10,000 per violation for noncompliance. States may enforce the requirements themselves, but if a state does not substantially enforce them, HHS may step in. The bill expressly preserves state laws unless they conflict with the federal requirements. In addition, the bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to treat rents from “qualified health care property” differently for REIT tax purposes, effectively limiting the tax treatment that can support these health care property arrangements.
The bill’s impact would be to create a new federal review and enforcement framework for health care real estate transactions involving REITs, with direct implications for hospitals, physician practices, skilled nursing facilities, hospices, behavioral health providers, opioid treatment programs, and certain Medicare-enrolled providers and suppliers. It would also affect for-profit corporations that own or are affiliated with health care entities, as well as REITs and investors that structure transactions around health care property. By tying approval to financial stability and public health risk, the bill seeks to curb transactions viewed as extracting value from health care assets at the expense of patient care.
No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text and sponsorship, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer- and patient-protection response to concerns about private equity, REIT ownership, and financialization of health care real estate. The absence of recorded votes or hearings means there is no documented bipartisan or partisan debate in the supplied materials.
The main points of contention likely center on the scope of federal oversight, the Secretary’s discretion in judging whether a transaction weakens finances or threatens public health, and the bill’s effect on legitimate financing and leasing arrangements. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing destabilizing sale-leaseback deals and protecting access to care, while opponents may argue that the bill could chill investment, complicate ordinary real estate transactions, and duplicate or interfere with state regulation and market-based financing.
The bill would add a new federal prohibition and review process for certain health care real estate sales and leases involving REITs, enforced primarily by HHS with backup state enforcement. It would also amend IRC section 856 to alter REIT treatment of rents from qualified health care property, affecting tax rules for health care property transactions and the entities that own, lease, or finance them.
No votes or committee discussion were provided, so there is no direct recorded sentiment from legislative proceedings. From the bill’s text and title, the measure is clearly intended as a reform/protection bill aimed at limiting perceived harmful financial practices in health care real estate, suggesting supportive framing around patient protection and opposition to profit-driven ownership structures.
Likely contention focuses on whether federal review of health care real estate deals is necessary and how broad the standard should be. Health care operators, REITs, and for-profit owners may object to the Secretary’s authority, the potential for civil penalties, and the possibility that ordinary sale-leaseback financing could be blocked. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill is needed to prevent long-term financial weakening of providers and protect public health, especially in hospitals, nursing facilities, behavioral health, and other essential care settings.