Every time an American receives medical care, someone translates that care into a number. A routine office visit, a knee replacement, a fifteen-minute telehealth call: each becomes a five-character code. Those codes are called Current Procedural Terminology, or CPT, and federal law effectively requires doctors to use them to bill Medicare and Medicaid.

Here is the part that stops people when they first hear it. The federal government does not own those codes. The American Medical Association does. The country's largest physician lobby owns the mandatory vocabulary of American medical billing, updates it once a year, and licenses it back to the hospitals, insurers, software vendors and government programs that are required to use it.

That arrangement has existed quietly for decades. It is now the target of two congressional investigations at once, and the reason is worth understanding, because the stated reason and the real stakes are not the same thing.

What Comer actually asked

On April 30, 2026, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer sent a letter to CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz. The framing was fraud. Comer wrote that the CPT system's complexity "may be contributing to improper billing and higher costs" and that it creates an environment where billing inaccuracies can flourish. He requested a staff-level briefing on CMS's oversight of the system.

Read past the fraud language and the sharper question is structural. Comer's letter asks whether federal reliance on a privately owned coding standard raises concerns about "transparency, cost control, and whether federal healthcare policy is shaped in the best interest of patients, or by entities with financial incentives tied to the system's continued complexity."

That is the actual charge, and it is a good one. The AMA maintains a system that has grown to over 7,800 codes, expanded annually through a process driven substantially by external stakeholders. Complexity is not a side effect of that arrangement. Complexity is the product. The more codes there are, the more the code set is worth to the organization that sells access to it.

Comer's letter asked CMS a pointed follow-up: whether the agency even has the authority to assert greater control, reduce reliance on the proprietary standard, or promote alternatives. That is the policy hinge. Not "is there fraud," but "can the government stop renting its own billing language from a lobby."

Two committees, one target

Comer is not alone, and that is what elevates this from a letter to a campaign.

Senator Bill Cassidy has run a parallel line of attack, and his was blunter. He said he was offended by the AMA "abusing its government-endorsed CPT monopoly" to charge every stakeholder in the system while, in his telling, advancing an anti-patient agenda. Where Comer keeps the AMA at arm's length and routes his questions through CMS, Cassidy names the monopoly directly.

House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith has folded the AMA into a broader Republican investigation of what he calls health care "empires." Three committees, two chambers, one privately owned code set.

The money involved is not small. The CPT licensing windfall runs to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for the AMA, a substantial share of its revenue. Which supplies the less-stated Republican subtext: some of that money funds an organization whose politics they dislike. The maternity-coding fight makes the point. The AMA approved new maternity codes, effective January, that shift from a bundled payment toward a more itemized structure. Critics warn this could increase the number of billable services tied to pregnancy and make the cost of childbirth harder to predict. More line items, more billing, more licensing relevance. The pattern repeats at every level of the system.

The fraud framing is doing political work

Step back and notice what the fraud framing accomplishes, because this is the part worth reporting rather than repeating.

Republicans spent 2025 cutting more than $1 trillion from health spending over a decade, mostly from Medicaid, to help pay for tax cuts. Cuts to health benefits are unpopular. Fighting fraud is not. So the same policies can be sold twice: as savings to the deficit hawks, and as fraud enforcement to everyone else. Reframing the billing code system as a fraud vector lets a benefit reduction wear the uniform of program integrity.

That does not make the fraud concern fake. It makes it convenient, which is different. And there is real evidence underneath it. Comer's own office cites an HHS Inspector General finding that hospital billing at the highest severity level rose nearly 20% from 2014 to 2019, reaching 40% of Medicare inpatient cases. That is upcoding, the practice of documenting care at a higher complexity than delivered, and the granularity of CPT is exactly what makes it possible. When there are 7,800 codes and a ladder of severity levels for the same underlying service, the difference between an honest bill and an inflated one can be a single character, chosen by whoever is motivated to choose it.

The complexity is not a bug being fixed. It is the business model.

Here is the connection nobody investigating this has drawn, and it is the whole story.

The health care industry is currently deploying AI at scale to do one thing above all others: navigate CPT coding to capture more revenue. Ambient scribes and coding engines exist to find every billable complexity in an encounter and assign the code that pays most. Payers are deploying their own AI to fight back. The entire administrative arms race that is inflating medical spending runs on the CPT code set as its terrain. The codes are the board the game is played on.

Which means Comer has, perhaps without fully intending to, put his finger on something real. The complexity of CPT is not merely an opportunity for fraud. It is the raw material for an entire industry of billing optimization, human and increasingly artificial, whose purpose is to extract maximum reimbursement from a system whose vocabulary is designed, updated and sold by a party with a direct financial interest in that vocabulary growing.

Simplify the codes and you do not just reduce fraud. You drain the swamp that the billing-AI industry is built to farm. That is a far bigger intervention than a fraud briefing, and it is why the AMA will fight it to the last code. Its revenue depends on the complexity, and so, now, does a growing technology sector layered on top.

What actually happens next

Probably not much, quickly. CPT is embedded in tens of thousands of software systems, payer contracts, and clinical workflows. There is no shadow code set sitting on a shelf ready to replace it, and building a public alternative would take years and a level of federal capacity that CMS does not obviously have. Comer asked CMS whether it even has the authority to move away from CPT. The likely answer is that untangling forty years of dependency is a project, not a memo.

But the governance question he raised is legitimate regardless of motive, and it will not go away. A privately owned standard embedded in public law, maintained by an interested party, sold back to the public programs that mandate it, is an odd arrangement that has survived mostly because almost no one outside medical billing understood it existed. Now three committees understand it exists.

The AMA created a language, got the government to require it, and has collected rent on it ever since. The investigation is framed as a hunt for fraud. What it has actually exposed is that the United States does not own the words it uses to pay for its own health care.

Further reading