Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill amends the Social Security Act to require, beginning January 1, 2026, that State Medicaid programs (50 states and DC) regularly obtain and act on enrollee address information from "reliable data sources" (per 42 C.F.R. 435.919(f)(1)(iii)). It extends the requirement to the Children’s Health Insurance Program and requires managed care entities under State contracts to transmit to the State any enrollee address information they obtain or verify directly from the enrollee.
Privacy and disenrollment risk (liberal) vs. integrity and fraud reduction (conservative)
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped substantive amendment that meaningfully modifies statutory obligations for states and managed-care entities to improve address data reliability.
The bill amends the Social Security Act to require, beginning January 1, 2026, that State Medicaid programs (50 states and DC) regularly obtain and act on enrollee address information from "reliable data sources" (per 42 C.F.R. 435.919(f)(1)(iii)).
It extends the requirement to the Children’s Health Insurance Program and requires managed care entities under State contracts to transmit to the State any enrollee address information they obtain or verify directly from the enrollee.
Modest administrative requirement tied to existing rules, limited fiscal impact, and narrow scope improve chances; procedural hurdles remain in Senate and negotiations.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped substantive amendment that meaningfully modifies statutory obligations for states and managed-care entities to improve address data reliability. It is explicit about where the obligations are added in the Social Security Act, sets an implementation date, and relies on an existing regulatory definition for 'reliable data sources.'
Privacy and disenrollment risk (liberal) vs. integrity and fraud reduction (conservative)
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Privacy and disenrollment risk (liberal) vs. integrity and fraud reduction (conservative)
Generally cautious.
Supports improving continuity of care and reducing lost communications, but worried about privacy, disenrollment risk, and burdens on vulnerable people.
Wants strong consumer protections, clear limits on data sources, and implementation funding to prevent harmful outcomes.
Leans supportive if implemented with safeguards.
Sees this as a sensible administrative fix to improve program integrity and communications, but wants clarity on costs, data sources, and protections for vulnerable populations.
Prefers state flexibility and measurable reporting.
Generally favorable.
Views requirement as promoting program integrity, reducing improper payments, and improving accountability from managed-care entities.
Concerned only about avoiding unnecessary federal micromanagement or unfunded mandates on states.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest administrative requirement tied to existing rules, limited fiscal impact, and narrow scope improve chances; procedural hurdles remain in Senate and negotiations.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Privacy and disenrollment risk (liberal) vs. integrity and fraud reduction (conservative)
Modest administrative requirement tied to existing rules, limited fiscal impact, and narrow scope improve chances; procedural hurdles remai…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped substantive amendment that meaningfully modifies statutory obligations for states and managed-care entities to improve address data reliability.…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.