Controversial “Luigi Mangione Act”: Necessary reform or political stunt?
By isabelle // 2025-03-31
Copy
 
  • A controversial California ballot measure named after accused murderer Luigi Mangione aims to hold insurers accountable for denying medical care.
  • Critics condemn the bill’s branding and heavy-handed regulations, arguing it glorifies violence and could harm the healthcare system.
  • The bill would allow patients to sue insurers for triple damages if they delay or deny doctor-recommended treatments.
  • Mangione, accused of killing a healthcare CEO, has gained a cult following, with supporters funding his legal defense.
  • The measure faces backlash for exploiting a crime for political gain, with calls for market-based healthcare reforms instead.
A proposed California ballot measure named after an accused murderer is drawing fierce backlash—not just for its shocking branding but for what critics say is a misguided attempt to reform healthcare. The “Luigi Mangione Access to Health Care Act,” filed by retired attorney Paul Eisner, seeks to hold insurance companies accountable for unjust denials of medical care. While the bill’s intent—protecting patients from bureaucratic delays—may be commendable, its association with an alleged killer and its heavy-handed regulatory approach raise serious concerns. The measure, currently under review by the California Attorney General’s Office, would make it illegal for insurers to “delay, deny, or modify” doctor-recommended treatments if doing so could result in severe harm, including death or disability. If passed, patients could sue insurers for triple damages. But the bill’s namesake, Luigi Mangione—an Ivy League graduate accused of assassinating UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson—has turned what should be a serious policy discussion into a spectacle.

A questionable namesake

Mangione, 26, is facing federal murder charges for the December 2024 shooting of Thompson in Manhattan. The words “delay” and “deny” were reportedly inscribed on the bullet casings, a grim reference to insurance industry practices. Despite the brutality of the crime, Mangione has gained a cult-like following, with supporters raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for his legal defense. Eisner, the bill’s sponsor, admits he used Mangione’s name for shock value. “For a very simple reason: it is getting the attention it needs, because sometimes things require publicity,” he told CBS 8. “People are tired of carriers, of insurance companies denying them health care.” While he claims to oppose Mangione’s violent methods, Eisner insists the accused killer’s underlying grievance—insurance denials—is valid. Critics, however, argue that glorifying an alleged murderer undermines the bill’s credibility. “THE LUIGI MANGIONE ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE ACT? Seriously?” journalist Gerald Posner wrote on X. “A ballot initiative about health care submitted today to the California Attorney General is named after the accused killer. Crazy.”

Flawed fixes for a broken system

The bill’s core premise of preventing insurers from overriding doctors has merit. Too often, patients face arbitrary denials for life-saving treatments. But some argue that the solution shouldn’t be more litigation and government mandates, which could drive up costs and push insurers out of California entirely. The California Association of Health Plans condemned the measure as “a repugnant action,” arguing that exploiting a murder to push a political agenda is unacceptable. They are certainly looking out for their best interests, but they have a point: real reform should focus on market-based solutions, such as increasing price transparency and competition.

What comes next?

The public comment period ends April 25, after which the Attorney General will finalize the measure’s official title—likely dropping Mangione’s name. If approved for signature-gathering, supporters will need 546,000 valid petitions to place it on the 2026 ballot. While frustration with insurance denials is justified, naming a bill after an accused killer is a bridge too far—and the proposed regulations could do more harm than good. California’s healthcare system needs reform, but not like this. The “Luigi Mangione Act” may have succeeded in grabbing headlines, but serious policy shouldn’t be reduced to a publicity stunt. If lawmakers truly want to fix healthcare, they should focus on practical, free-market solutions—not sensationalism. Sources for this article include: NYPost.com KTLA.com Newsweek.com
Copy