Lawmakers Seek Answers on Health-Related Contracts
Two Democratic senators are pressing the Department of Health and Human Services to explain how it is addressing risks from prediction-market contracts tied to clinical drug trials and Food and Drug Administration approval decisions. In a Wednesday, November 11, 2026, letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Maryland Sen. Angela Alsobrooks and Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden questioned whether adequate protections exist for patients and the drug-development process, according to CNBC, which first obtained the letter.
The senators argued that allowing people to wager on trial results and drug approvals could create conflicting incentives for researchers, undermine scientific work and expose patients to harm. Their intervention focuses on the potential consequences of these markets, rather than a documented instance of misconduct. The source report did not identify a trial, approval decision or patient outcome that had been affected by trading.
Patient Decisions and Confidential Information at Issue
Alsobrooks and Wyden echoed concerns from some health care professionals that prediction markets could influence how patients evaluate participation in clinical trials. They also highlighted the possibility of insider trading by researchers and regulators with access to information that has not been made public. These concerns put both participation in medical research and the handling of confidential trial or regulatory information at the center of their inquiry.
The senators asked HHS to provide all internal communications concerning staff participation in prediction markets involving matters overseen by the department. They also sought communications with prediction-market platforms and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates event contracts, along with any internal assessments of the markets’ potential effects. In their view, HHS, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health need safeguards that protect the integrity of drug development and public confidence in health institutions.
Platforms Offer Contracts Under Different Arrangements
Kalshi and Polymarket both offer contracts linked to clinical trials and drug approvals, CNBC reported. Polymarket’s versions are available only on its international exchange, which is not regulated in the United States. That distinction matters to the oversight discussion: the two platforms offer exposure to similar medical events, but the contracts described in the report do not all operate within the same U.S. regulatory setting.
When Kalshi introduced its related markets in July, it said it had established limits intended to reduce trading risks. Those included restricting contracts to late-stage trials and listing them only after enrollment had finished. Kalshi also pledged to apply employee-verification technology to every trader participating in these markets. The report did not detail how that technology works or provide an assessment of the safeguards’ effectiveness.
Information Benefits Weighed Against Unresolved Risks
Kalshi Chief Executive Tarek Mansour defended the markets’ purpose in July, describing drug development as an important industry in which crucial information is difficult to access. He argued that much of the data determining which medicines progress is unavailable to people who need it, and presented Kalshi’s role as bringing information into view. That rationale contrasts with the senators’ concerns about incentives and privileged access.
The immediate question is what measures HHS has taken and what its records show about these risks. CNBC reported that HHS, Kalshi and Polymarket did not immediately respond to requests for comment, leaving their responses to the letter unresolved. The report announced no new restrictions on the contracts. CNBC also disclosed a commercial relationship with Kalshi involving customer acquisition and a minority investment.
Source: CNBC