By JT Santana | jtwb768

There is something almost irresistible about a political advertisement featuring a member of Congress staring into a camera and challenging an enormous industry to a fight. It is clean. It is memorable. It fits nicely into 30 seconds between commercials for pickup trucks, prescription drugs, pizza, and whatever medication now comes with 47 seconds of warnings delivered over footage of somebody kayaking.

Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks has embraced that format in the 2026 campaign. In one television advertisement, the Iowa Republican says she fights “big insurance companies that are ripping us off.” A later general-election advertisement portrays her as the “number one enemy” of the big insurance lobby before Miller-Meeks looks into the camera and declares, “You know what I say to big insurance? Bring it on!” Reporting on the advertisements confirms both statements and places health-care affordability near the center of her reelection messaging. (Bleeding Heartland⁠)

That is an attention-getting claim. It is fair game for scrutiny.

Here is where this gets interesting. Some attacks on Miller-Meeks are well supported by her votes and campaign-finance history. Some are overstated. One claim circulating about her insulin record is incomplete enough that I would not publish it without correction, and the correction does not make the rest of her record disappear. It simply means we have to do something political campaigns occasionally find inconvenient: read the actual legislation, examine the actual roll calls, look at the actual money, account for contradictory evidence, and resist the temptation to turn five years of congressional activity into one glorious sentence for Facebook.

I started this fact check expecting a straightforward story. Miller-Meeks was accused of voting against an insulin cap after taking pharmaceutical money, she is now portraying herself as an adversary of insurance companies, and campaign-finance reporting documents substantial health-industry contributions to her campaign. Then the March 2022 roll call appeared, followed by her September 2026 insulin legislation. Those records complicate the narrative considerably.

That complication is not a reason to abandon the inquiry. It is the reason to do it correctly.

Political fact-checking cannot mean checking only the facts that flatter whatever position we started with. If Miller-Meeks deserves criticism for a vote, use the vote. If a pharmaceutical PAC gave her money, document the contribution. If she supported legislation that challenged an industry practice, acknowledge that too. Facts do not become less factual when they inconvenience our argument.

And in Miller-Meeks’s case, the complete record raises plenty of questions without inventing any.

Start With the Claim That She “Voted Against Capping Insulin”

This is the correction that has to come first.

The simple assertion that Mariannette Miller-Meeks “voted against capping insulin costs” is not an adequate description of her record. On March 31, 2022, Miller-Meeks voted yes on H.R. 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act. The House passed it 232–193, with every voting Democrat and 12 Republicans supporting the legislation. Miller-Meeks was one of those 12 Republicans. (Office of the Clerk⁠)

And this was not some symbolic resolution declaring insulin expensive and diabetes unpleasant. The legislation contained an actual $35 cost-sharing limit.

The text required group health plans and insurers offering group or individual coverage to cover selected insulin products without applying a deductible and to limit cost-sharing for a 30-day supply to the lesser of $35 or 25 percent of the plan’s negotiated price. The bill contained Medicare provisions too. Contemporary congressional materials described it as applying the $35 cap to Medicare Part D and commercial health insurance. (Congress.gov⁠)

That fact creates a serious problem for any advertisement, article, meme, campaign mailer, or social-media post declaring without qualification that Miller-Meeks opposed a $35 insulin cap. She voted for one.

This is not a technicality. It is a recorded vote on the precise policy being discussed.

The qualification comes five months later.

On August 12, 2022, the House considered H.R. 5376, the Inflation Reduction Act. Miller-Meeks voted no. The measure passed 220–207, with all voting House Republicans opposing it and all voting Democrats supporting it. The House Clerk’s official roll call records Miller-Meeks among the “nay” votes. (Office of the Clerk⁠)

The Inflation Reduction Act contained major prescription-drug provisions. It created the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, required manufacturer rebates in certain circumstances when drug prices increased faster than inflation, altered Medicare prescription-drug cost sharing, and established the $35 monthly cost-sharing limit for covered insulin products used by Medicare beneficiaries. CMS states that the Part D insulin protection took effect January 1, 2023, with protections involving insulin administered through covered pumps following in July 2023. (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services⁠)

So Miller-Meeks absolutely voted against a bill that contained the Medicare insulin cap that became law.

She did not, however, cast a standalone vote saying, “No, insulin should not be capped at $35.” The same member of Congress had voted for a broader standalone insulin-cap bill five months earlier.

Those two facts belong next to each other.

Miller-Meeks says she opposed the Inflation Reduction Act over its tax, spending, IRS, and other provisions rather than opposition to the insulin cap itself. In an August 2026 op-ed defending her record, she cited her March 2022 vote and argued that criticism based solely on the Inflation Reduction Act omitted that earlier support. Her explanation is a political argument about the larger legislation, but the underlying March vote she cites is verifiable. (Washington Examiner⁠)

A fair description is much more precise: Miller-Meeks supported a standalone $35 insulin cost-sharing cap in March 2022, then opposed the much larger Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022, which enacted a $35 insulin cap for Medicare beneficiaries along with numerous other health, tax, climate, and fiscal provisions.

That is longer than “she voted against an insulin cap.”

It is longer for a reason.

Then Something Happened in September 2026 That Makes the Current Record More Complicated

Any article published now has another piece of evidence to account for.

On September 2, 2026, Representatives Diana DeGette, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Kim Schrier, Robert Bresnahan, and Angie Craig introduced H.R. 10227, the Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now Act of 2026, better known as the INSULIN Act of 2026. The official bill text identifies Miller-Meeks as one of the original members introducing the bipartisan legislation. (GovInfo⁠)

The American Diabetes Association publicly praised the bipartisan House group for introducing it. As of September 24, the measure has been introduced and referred to congressional committees; it has not passed the House or become law. (American Diabetes Association⁠)

Among its provisions is a $35 monthly insulin cost-sharing limit for people with private health insurance. The legislation contains other patient protections and measures aimed at insulin affordability, including provisions involving access and competition. Miller-Meeks’s congressional office has actively promoted the bill and described it as an extension of her earlier work on insulin affordability. (Miller-Meeks⁠)

There is a strange detail buried inside Miller-Meeks’s own September press release. Her office says the 2022 Affordable Insulin Now Act capped insulin at $35 “for Medicare seniors” and describes the new 2026 legislation as extending the protection to privately insured Americans. Yet the actual 2022 bill was broader: it contained provisions for both Medicare and commercial insurance. The 2022 bill text and congressional materials are clear on that point. (Congress.gov⁠)

That discrepancy does not negate her vote. It simply demonstrates why campaign press releases are terrible substitutes for legislation.

The current evidence leaves little room for a responsible article to characterize Miller-Meeks as categorically opposed to insulin cost caps. She voted for H.R. 6833 in 2022. She opposed the larger Inflation Reduction Act. She is now an original participant in another bipartisan insulin-cost bill in 2026.

There is still a legitimate debate over her opposition to the Inflation Reduction Act. Voters may examine her vote against Medicare drug negotiation, manufacturer inflation rebates, the Medicare insulin protection that became law, and the other health provisions within that legislation. Miller-Meeks may respond that she supported some of those objectives but opposed the overall package.

That is precisely what a legislative record sometimes looks like.

Congress does not vote on individual policy ideas nearly as often as campaign advertisements pretend it does. Members routinely vote on enormous packages containing provisions they support, provisions they oppose, and provisions they might happily launch into the Potomac River if given the opportunity. Anyone assessing such a vote should distinguish opposition to the entire bill from documented opposition to every provision inside it.

That same standard should apply whether the politician has an R, D, or anything else after the name.

Now Follow the Money

Correcting the insulin claim does not make Miller-Meeks’s pharmaceutical and health-insurance campaign funding disappear.

An analysis published by the Iowa Independent in June 2026 examined roughly 250 Federal Election Commission contribution records and reported that pharmaceutical and health-insurance interests had contributed approximately $450,000 to Miller-Meeks during her congressional career. The contributions identified in the analysis ranged from $100 to $5,000. (The Iowa Independent⁠)

There is an important distinction here. The FEC records contributions and identifies committees, contributors, dates, amounts, recipients, and other legally required information. The FEC does not place one giant number on Miller-Meeks’s candidate page labeled “Big Pharma Money.” Industry totals are produced by researchers who classify contributing organizations.

The raw FEC totals show how heavily Miller-Meeks’s campaign relies on political committees more broadly. For the 2025–2026 election period through June 30, 2026, her principal campaign committee reported more than $7.2 million in total receipts, including about $2.42 million in contributions from other committees. That $2.42 million is not a pharmaceutical-industry figure; it includes PACs and committees representing many interests. Confusing those two numbers would grossly overstate pharmaceutical giving. (FEC.gov⁠)

The industry-specific records remain substantial.

The Eli Lilly contribution has drawn particular attention. Reporting based on FEC records shows that the Eli Lilly and Company PAC contributed $1,000 to Miller-Meeks on August 12, 2022, the date of the House vote on the Inflation Reduction Act. Eli Lilly manufactures insulin. The Iowa Independent reports that the PAC contributed another $12,500 to her campaign during the next three years. (The Iowa Independent⁠)

Here again, precision keeps the story honest.

The fact that a contribution and a congressional vote occurred on the same date is verifiable. It is fair to report. It is fair to ask voters to examine the relationship between campaign funding and legislative activity.

It is not proof that Eli Lilly purchased Miller-Meeks’s vote.

A campaign contribution establishes a financial contribution. A roll call establishes a vote. Proving that the contribution caused the vote would require evidence of causation that a date and dollar amount alone cannot provide.

That distinction can frustrate anyone looking for a devastating one-line indictment. Too bad. Evidence gets to be inconvenient.

The broader contribution pattern still deserves serious scrutiny. Miller-Meeks has accepted money associated with pharmaceutical manufacturers, insurers, medical-technology firms, and health-sector political committees during her congressional tenure. The Iowa Independent’s approximately $450,000 combined pharmaceutical and health-insurance figure is based on FEC records, and other campaign-finance databases have documented substantial pharmaceutical-sector giving to her committees. (The Iowa Independent⁠)

Reporting cited from late 2025 identified another $16,500 from pharmaceutical and medical-technology PACs during one filing period, along with prior PhRMA PAC contributions. Those numbers add useful context, but no individual quarter should be confused with the career total. (DCCC⁠)

The appropriate question is not whether Miller-Meeks has received health-industry money. She has.

The harder question is what her legislative record looks like next to that money.

“Bring It On, Big Insurance” Meets the Rest of the Record

Miller-Meeks’s 2026 advertising makes the comparison unavoidable.

Her earlier campaign advertisement features her in a white coat telling viewers, “I fight against big insurance companies that are ripping us off. They made prices too high.” The August 14 advertisement went further, describing her as the “number one enemy” of the big-insurance lobby and ending with “Bring it on!” (Bleeding Heartland⁠)

Those are expansive claims.

They are not the same as saying Miller-Meeks has never accepted an insurance PAC contribution. Campaign contributions do not automatically dictate legislative conduct. A candidate can receive money from an industry and vote against that industry on some issues.

Still, once a politician builds campaign advertising around being an industry’s chief adversary, voters have every reason to compare that claim against fundraising records and votes.

One relevant vote occurred on January 8, 2026. The House considered H.R. 1834, the Breaking the Gridlock Act, which would have extended the enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits through 2028. The measure passed 230–196, with 17 Republicans joining House Democrats. Miller-Meeks voted no. (Office of the Clerk⁠)

Those enhanced tax credits had increased premium assistance and removed the previous 400-percent-of-poverty income ceiling for eligibility during the temporary expansion period. The enhanced provisions expired at the end of 2025 under prior law. The January House bill sought a three-year extension. (Congress.gov⁠)

Miller-Meeks has argued that these subsidies send taxpayer money to profitable insurance companies without fixing the structural cost of health care. That argument deserves to be represented accurately. Her position is that subsidizing premiums can mask underlying prices rather than reduce the underlying cost of medical services and insurance.

Critics respond that the credits reduce what eligible consumers pay for marketplace coverage and that expiration exposed many households to much higher net premiums. Both statements can coexist: the credits subsidize insurance premiums rather than directly setting hospital, physician, or pharmaceutical prices, and that subsidy can still materially reduce what an enrolled household pays.

Miller-Meeks’s vote against extending those credits is fair territory for anyone assessing her claim to be fighting insurance companies. It does not prove she was voting for insurance companies. Her stated rationale was the opposite.

This is where political advertising gets slippery.

“Fighting Big Insurance” is not a piece of legislation. There is no congressional roll call labeled Are You Fighting Big Insurance? Yes or No.

An insurer may support one bill and oppose another. A pharmaceutical manufacturer may dislike Medicare negotiation and dislike a PBM. Hospitals, PBMs, insurers, drug manufacturers, physicians, pharmacies, employers, Medicare, Medicaid, and consumers occupy different positions inside a health-care financing system that routinely puts one industry’s financial interest against another’s.

That makes sweeping campaign labels nearly useless without examples.

If Miller-Meeks says she fights insurance companies, the evidence should identify what she fought, when she fought it, what legislation she supported, what legislation she opposed, and whether those actions altered costs, coverage, payment rules, or industry practices.

There Are Parts of Her Record That Support Her Argument

A serious fact check cannot stop at unfavorable evidence.

In March 2025, Miller-Meeks introduced the bipartisan Delinking Revenue from Unfair Gouging Act, or DRUG Act. The legislation targeted compensation structures used by pharmacy benefit managers, commonly called PBMs, by seeking to disconnect certain PBM payments from the prices of prescription drugs and replace percentage-based arrangements with flat fees in covered circumstances. (Miller-Meeks⁠)

PBMs occupy a contested position between drug manufacturers, pharmacies, insurers, and health plans. Critics argue that percentage-based compensation and rebate structures can create incentives favoring more expensive medications. PBMs and their defenders dispute many broad accusations made against the industry and argue that their negotiations can reduce net drug spending.

Miller-Meeks’s legislation represents a concrete policy action aimed at a health-sector business practice. It is not campaign rhetoric. It is legislation.

Her current work on H.R. 10227 falls into the same category. The INSULIN Act of 2026 is bipartisan and has support from the American Diabetes Association. Miller-Meeks is an original participant in the House legislation, and the bill seeks to extend $35 insulin cost-sharing protections in private insurance alongside other insulin-market provisions. (GovInfo⁠)

These actions complicate any argument portraying her as a legislator who reflexively votes for every pharmaceutical or insurance industry preference.

Then comes the other side of the ledger.

Miller-Meeks voted against the Inflation Reduction Act, including its Medicare prescription-drug reforms. CMS implemented that law’s Medicare negotiation program, insulin protections, manufacturer inflation-rebate requirements, and later out-of-pocket reforms. (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services⁠)

She voted in July 2025 for H.R. 1, President Donald Trump’s major tax and spending legislation. The official House vote shows the measure passed 218–214, with Miller-Meeks voting yes. (Office of the Clerk⁠)

Reporting by the Iowa Independent states that the legislation altered parts of Medicare’s drug-negotiation framework and that pharmaceutical companies had lobbied for some of those changes. The same investigation reported $11,500 in contributions from pharmaceutical-company PACs to Miller-Meeks in the days before her vote. Those facts invite scrutiny, but once again they do not independently establish a causal exchange between contribution and vote. (The Iowa Independent⁠)

This is the record voters actually have to assess.

It is mixed.

“Mixed” should not be confused with meaningless. It means there are documented actions pointing in more than one direction, and any claim broad enough to erase half of them needs to be treated skeptically.

Then There Is the Pharmaceutical-Lobbyist Apartment

Campaign money is not the only connection that has attracted scrutiny.

Iowa Starting Line reported in April that Miller-Meeks rented a Washington apartment from Carlyle “Carl” Thorsen and James “Alec” French, registered lobbyists whose firm represented the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA. The publication reported that their firm received approximately $1.8 million over years of work for PhRMA and lobbied on drug-pricing issues. (Iowa Starting Line⁠)

The relationship was confirmed by both a Miller-Meeks spokesperson and one of the landlords, according to that reporting. Miller-Meeks’s spokesperson said she paid fair-market rent and defended the arrangement as permissible. The reporting found congressional office funds had been used for the housing reimbursement under a House program permitting members to receive lodging reimbursement for official Washington expenses. (Iowa Starting Line⁠)

That distinction is substantial. “Miller-Meeks secretly received a free apartment from pharmaceutical lobbyists” would be unsupported by the evidence reviewed here. Reporting says she was a tenant paying rent, with eligible congressional funds used for reimbursable lodging expenses.

The ethical question raised by critics is different: whether renting housing from lobbyists representing an industry affected by matters before her committee created an appearance problem or deserved fuller disclosure.

Miller-Meeks served on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s health-related work, giving her a role in policy affecting pharmaceuticals and health care. Critics have argued the landlord relationship should have received greater public scrutiny given the lobbying connection.

A rental relationship does not prove legislative influence. Neither does it disappear simply since the arrangement was lawful or involved market-rate rent.

Readers can hold both facts at once.

That is a recurring theme here.

The Most Interesting Fact Check Is Actually of the People Fact-Checking Her

There is a lesson inside this story that extends past Miller-Meeks.

An outside group attacking her health-care record used the line that an “insulin maker cut her a check” and that “she voted against capping costs.” The first portion refers to the Eli Lilly PAC contribution. The second relies on her vote against the Inflation Reduction Act. Bleeding Heartland documented the advertisement and traced the claims behind it. (Bleeding Heartland⁠)

Each component has a factual basis.

Put together without context, however, the line creates an impression that is incomplete. It strongly suggests Miller-Meeks opposed the policy of capping insulin costs. Her March 2022 vote for H.R. 6833 directly complicates that impression.

Her September 2026 participation in H.R. 10227 complicates it further.

That is precisely why political fact-checking cannot become a team sport.

If I criticize a Miller-Meeks advertisement for compressing a complicated legislative record into “I fight Big Insurance,” then I cannot turn around and accept an opposition advertisement compressing the same record into “she voted against capping insulin” when a recorded standalone vote says she supported such a cap.

The standard has to survive contact with facts we do not particularly enjoy.

Miller-Meeks’s campaign rhetoric deserves scrutiny. So do attacks on Miller-Meeks.

The objective is not to produce a 3,000-word advertisement for either side. The objective is to provide enough verified information that readers can decide for themselves what weight each vote, contribution, bill, and explanation deserves.

That is harder than partisan content.

It is supposed to be.

Campaign Contributions Are Evidence of Access and Relationships, Not Automatic Proof of Corruption

This distinction deserves more attention than it usually receives during election season.

Political action committees contribute to candidates for many reasons. They may support a candidate’s past voting record, hope to gain access, seek relationships with policymakers, prefer the candidate’s party, care about committee assignments, oppose the candidate’s opponent, or pursue several goals at once.

Recipients may agree with donors before a contribution is ever made.

This is why “Company PAC gave Candidate X $5,000, then Candidate X voted Y” should be treated as evidence worth examining rather than automatic proof that the vote was purchased.

The same principle applies to Democrats, Republicans, independents, incumbents, challengers, unions, environmental groups, corporations, professional associations, trial lawyers, banks, gun-rights organizations, civil-rights organizations, pharmaceutical companies, insurers, and every other organized interest spending money in American politics.

That does not make campaign-finance records irrelevant.

Quite the opposite.

Patterns matter. Timing can matter. Committee assignments can matter. Repeated contributions from firms affected by a member’s legislative work can matter. A candidate portraying herself as an industry’s “number one enemy” makes money from that industry especially relevant to evaluating the campaign claim.

The proper language, though, is “received contributions from,” not “was bought by,” unless evidence supports the latter accusation.

That standard protects credibility.

It makes the verified facts stronger, not weaker.

So What Does the Record Actually Say?

Strip away the campaign music, ominous voiceovers, white coats, dramatic edits, party talking points, and fundraising emails, and the Miller-Meeks health-care record contains several facts that can coexist.

She did vote for the Affordable Insulin Now Act in March 2022, joining only 11 other House Republicans. That legislation contained a $35 insulin cost-sharing limit affecting commercial insurance and Medicare. (Office of the Clerk⁠)

She did vote against the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022. That law enacted the $35 Medicare insulin protection, created Medicare drug-price negotiation, imposed manufacturer inflation-rebate requirements in certain circumstances, and made other major changes to federal prescription-drug policy. (Office of the Clerk⁠)

Her campaign did receive $1,000 from the Eli Lilly PAC on August 12, 2022, the same date as the Inflation Reduction Act vote. FEC-based reporting documents further Eli Lilly PAC contributions later. (The Iowa Independent⁠)

Her campaign has received substantial pharmaceutical and health-insurance industry contributions during her congressional career. An Iowa Independent analysis of FEC records placed the combined total at roughly $450,000 as of June 2026. (The Iowa Independent⁠)

She did vote against the January 2026 House legislation extending the enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits through 2028. Seventeen House Republicans voted for that extension; Miller-Meeks was not one of them. (Office of the Clerk⁠)

She has introduced or supported legislation aimed at PBMs, including the bipartisan DRUG Act. That legislation targeted payment structures critics say can reward higher drug prices. (Miller-Meeks⁠)

She is currently an original participant in the bipartisan INSULIN Act of 2026, which seeks a $35 monthly insulin cost-sharing limit for privately insured Americans and contains other insulin-affordability measures. It remains pending in Congress as of September 24, 2026. (GovInfo⁠)

She did rent Washington housing from registered lobbyists whose firm had represented PhRMA, according to reporting confirmed by her spokesperson and one landlord. The reporting says she paid fair-market rent, and the existence of the rental relationship by itself does not establish improper legislative influence. (Iowa Starting Line⁠)

Put those facts together and the record is more complicated than either “Miller-Meeks fights Big Pharma” or “Miller-Meeks always sides with Big Pharma.”

Neither slogan does the evidence justice.

Before November, Fact-Check Everybody

We are heading deeper into a midterm election season filled with enormous amounts of money, sophisticated advertising, clipped video, selective quotations, algorithmically targeted outrage, opposition research, campaign-funded websites, super PACs, party committees, influencer politics, and social posts that can circle Iowa before anyone bothers checking whether the underlying bill actually says what the meme claims it says.

That environment rewards certainty.

Facts are rarely that cooperative.

Mariannette Miller-Meeks wants Iowa voters to see a doctor-turned-legislator willing to confront insurance companies, pharmaceutical middlemen, and entrenched health-care interests. Her advertisements are making that case aggressively. Her voting and legislative record contains evidence supporting parts of that argument and evidence critics can reasonably use to challenge other parts.

Her opponents want voters to see a politician taking substantial money from pharmaceutical and insurance interests and casting votes that benefited or aligned with those industries. Campaign-finance records and several major votes give them substantial material for that argument. Their case becomes weaker when they stretch those facts past what the record supports.

The insulin issue is the perfect example.

Miller-Meeks voted for a $35 insulin cap in 2022. She later voted against a much larger bill containing a Medicare insulin cap. She is now helping sponsor another bipartisan $35 insulin proposal in 2026. Eli Lilly’s PAC contributed to her campaign on the date of the Inflation Reduction Act vote, and pharmaceutical interests have contributed far more to her across multiple cycles.

Every one of those statements can be true at the same time.

That is not ambiguity created to protect a politician. It is accuracy.

I have no interest in replacing one misleading campaign narrative with another one that happens to point in the opposite political direction. If an advertisement says a candidate is the great enemy of Big Insurance, check the donations. Check the votes. Check the bills. Check what those bills actually did rather than what either party says they did.

Then apply exactly the same treatment to the attack ad.

We do not need voters who memorize party talking points more efficiently. We need voters willing to ask annoying questions, click through to the roll call, follow the campaign money, read past the headline, distinguish correlation from causation, and correct claims when the evidence changes them.

Miller-Meeks’s record should be examined aggressively. So should Christina Bohannan’s. So should every candidate asking Iowans for authority over taxes, health care, war, civil rights, agriculture, education, spending, regulation, and the enormous machinery of the federal government.

You do not have to forget your values.

You do have to protect them from bad information.

And if somebody running for Congress looks into a television camera and says, “Bring it on,” perhaps the most useful response is neither applause nor outrage.

Open the voting record.

References

• American Diabetes Association. (2026, September 3). Statement on the introduction of the INSULIN Act of 2026 by the House of Representatives. (American Diabetes Association⁠)
• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2023). Anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act: Update on CMS implementation. (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services⁠)
• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2023). CMS releases revised guidance for Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services⁠)
• GovInfo. (2022). H.R. 6833, Affordable Insulin Now Act. (GovInfo⁠)
• GovInfo. (2026). H.R. 10227, INSULIN Act of 2026. (GovInfo⁠)
• Iowa Independent. (2026, June 18). Pharmaceutical, health insurance groups have donated $450,000 to Miller-Meeks campaign. (The Iowa Independent⁠)
• Miller-Meeks, M. (2025, March 18). Miller-Meeks, colleagues introduce DRUG Act. U.S. House of Representatives. (Miller-Meeks⁠)
• Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. (2022, March 31). Roll Call 102: Affordable Insulin Now Act. (Office of the Clerk⁠)
• Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. (2022, August 12). Roll Call 420: H.R. 5376. (Office of the Clerk⁠)
• Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. (2025, July 3). Roll Call 190: H.R. 1. (Office of the Clerk⁠)
• Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. (2026, January 8). Roll Call 11: H.R. 1834, Breaking the Gridlock Act. (Office of the Clerk⁠)