Bipartisan Bill Seeks to Exempt Radiologists from $100,000 Visa Fee

(UNITED STATES) — Lawmakers introduced a bipartisan bill on March 17, 2026, to exempt radiologists, physicians and other healthcare workers from a new $100,000 visa fee that has become a flashpoint for hospitals and medical practices seeking H-1B hires.

The measure, titled the H-1Bs for Physicians and the Healthcare Workforce Act, arrived months after the government implemented the fee in late 2025 and as healthcare employers warn the added cost could shut out recruitment in hard-to-staff communities. As of March 18, 2026, the bill had been introduced, DHS and USCIS had acknowledged questions over exemption authority, and no sector-wide exemption had been announced.

Representatives Mike Lawler, Sanford D. Bishop Jr., Maria Elvira Salazar and Yvette Clarke sponsored the bill. It would exempt physicians, including radiologists, and other healthcare workers from the $100,000 fee, bar additional visa fees for healthcare workers beyond standard immigration law, and define healthcare workers using the Affordable Care Act standard.

“As our nation faces a growing physician shortage, we must ensure that steep fees do not stand in the way of hospitals bringing in the medical talent American patients depend on,” Salazar said in a March 17, 2026 statement.

The dispute centers on how federal agencies have begun applying the new charge to H-1B filings. In USCIS guidance for the FY 2027 H-1B Cap registration period issued in February 2026, the agency said: “Pursuant to the Presidential Proclamation. a petitioner whose registration is selected. may need to pay an additional $100,000 fee before filing the H-1B petition as a condition of eligibility.”

USCIS had already laid out the filing mechanics months earlier. On October 20, 2025, the agency confirmed that the $100,000 payment was a “labor-market protection fee” that must be paid through pay.gov before filing, and that petitions filed without proof of payment or an official exception “will be denied.”

That language has given the fee immediate operational force for employers preparing cap-season cases. It also frames the issue not as a future proposal, but as an active condition on filing eligibility for petitions that fall within the covered categories.

DHS has also been pulled into the debate over medical exemptions. After 100 members of Congress sent a February 11, 2026 letter seeking a sector-wide exemption for healthcare, DHS under Secretary Kristi Noem acknowledged the request but did not announce relief.

Agency summaries state: “DHS has the authority to grant a sector-wide exemption. the agency has not yet announced whether it will act on the lawmakers’ request.” That has left employers, doctors and recruiters waiting to see whether relief will come from Congress, from DHS action, or from the courts.

The bipartisan bill seeks to settle that question legislatively for the healthcare workforce. Its sponsors argue that physician shortages and access problems make the fee especially damaging in medicine, where recruitment often depends on international hires and where hiring delays can translate into longer waits for patients.

Radiologists sit near the center of that argument. They are among the physicians explicitly included in the bill, and their employers range from large hospital systems to private practices and rural facilities that say a $100, 000 visa fee can alter hiring decisions.

The current policy grew out of a September 19, 2025 Presidential Proclamation titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers.” Under that framework, the fee applies to new H-1B petitions when the beneficiary is outside the United States or needs consular notification.

Not every H-1B filing is treated the same way. The fee does not apply to change of status filings, including cases involving F-1 students already in the United States who are moving to H-1B status, and it does not apply to standard extensions for existing H-1B holders already in the country.

That distinction matters for hospitals and physician groups because it can divide candidates into very different cost categories. A doctor already in the United States on another status may avoid the fee through a change of status filing, while a physician abroad seeking a new H-1B petition tied to consular processing may trigger the $100,000 payment requirement.

Healthcare employers say that difference does not lessen the pressure. Many recruitment needs, especially in underserved areas, involve international candidates who are not already inside the country and whose petitions can fall into the covered group.

The legal footing of the fee is also under challenge. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities have filed a lawsuit against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, arguing that the fee exceeds presidential authority.

That case adds another track to the fight over the policy. For now, though, the fee remains in effect while the legislative push and the administrative questions continue.

Medical groups have sharpened the case against the charge in public statements. The American College of Radiology and the American Medical Association say the $100,000 fee is prohibitive, particularly for private practices and rural hospitals that already operate with tighter budgets and persistent staffing gaps.

Their argument rests not only on employer costs but on access to care. According to the Health Resources and Services Administration, nearly 87 million Americans live in federally designated healthcare shortage areas.

AMA President Bobby Mukkamala, MD, tied that shortage data directly to the fee in a March 17, 2026 statement. “Medicare patients and people in rural and underserved areas already struggle to get the care they need. the new $100,000 fee [makes] it harder to recruit highly skilled physicians,” he said.

That warning captures why radiologists have become a prominent focus of the debate. Imaging services often sit at the center of diagnosis and treatment planning, and hospitals that cannot recruit specialists can face knock-on effects across patient care, scheduling and referrals.

Private practices and smaller hospitals say the numbers are hard to absorb. A single $100,000 charge attached to one new H-1B petition can exceed what some employers budget for visa-related filing costs altogether, especially when added to attorney fees, filing fees and processing expenses.

Those costs increased again on a separate track this month. Beginning March 1, 2026, USCIS raised the premium processing fee for Form I-129 from $2,805 to $2,965 to account for inflation.

That increase is not part of the $100,000 fee, but it adds to the wider cost backdrop for employers moving quickly to secure physicians and other professional staff. Hospitals that rely on premium processing for time-sensitive hires now face that higher charge even in cases that do not trigger the larger labor-market protection fee.

USCIS announced those premium processing adjustments in a Newsroom notice dated January 9, 2026. Together with the February 2026 H-1B registration guidance, the notice shows how filing costs and processing rules have shifted at the same time that employers are trying to plan for the FY 2027 cap cycle.

Congressional sponsors have used the House announcement of the bill to press the argument that healthcare should be treated differently from other sectors. In a House press release from March 17, 2026, the sponsors presented the legislation as a direct response to physician shortages and access concerns that they say the fee would deepen.

That legislative move does not itself change filing rules. Employers still confront the current fee framework unless Congress passes the bill, DHS creates a broader exemption, or the courts block the policy.

For immigration lawyers and hospital recruiters, the result is a narrow but consequential window of uncertainty. USCIS has operationalized the fee in cap guidance, DHS has acknowledged it may have authority to exempt a sector, and lawmakers from both parties have now moved to carve healthcare workers out by statute.

The timing has made the issue more urgent for employers preparing new H-1B cases. A hospital or radiology practice deciding whether to sponsor a physician from abroad must now assess not just the worker shortage it is trying to fill, but whether the petition falls into a category that carries a six-figure additional payment.

The politics of the measure may help keep it in focus. Immigration fights often split along party lines, but this bipartisan bill brings together Republicans and Democrats around a narrower workforce argument centered on doctors, patient access and shortage areas.

Whether that alliance can produce a fast legislative outcome remains unresolved. So does the question of whether DHS will use the authority it says it has to create a healthcare-wide exemption while the bill advances.

For now, the official record points in several directions at once. USCIS has tied the fee to filing eligibility, DHS has acknowledged but not granted a sector-wide exemption, Congress has proposed one for healthcare, and litigation is testing the fee’s legal basis. The fee remains a live policy and legal issue, with legislative and administrative paths still unresolved.