Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill (LIVE Beneficiaries Act) amends Medicaid law to require, beginning January 1, 2027, that States (the 50 States and D.C.) screen the Social Security Death Master File at least quarterly to identify deceased Medicaid enrollees, treat DMF matches as factual confirmation of death for regulatory purposes, disenroll matched individuals and stop post-death payments, and immediately reinstate and retroactively restore coverage if a match is later determined erroneous. States may also use other electronic data sources but must comply with these requirements.
Progressives emphasize risks of misidentification and harm to vulnerable beneficiaries
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a new statutory obligation for States to verify and act on deceased enrollee information using the Death Master File on a quarterly basis, with provisions for disenrollment and correction of errors.
The bill (LIVE Beneficiaries Act) amends Medicaid law to require, beginning January 1, 2027, that States (the 50 States and D.C.) screen the Social Security Death Master File at least quarterly to identify deceased Medicaid enrollees, treat DMF matches as factual confirmation of death for regulatory purposes, disenroll matched individuals and stop post-death payments, and immediately reinstate and retroactively restore coverage if a match is later determined erroneous.
States may also use other electronic data sources but must comply with these requirements.
Technocratic integrity measure with modest savings and implementation costs; plausible bipartisan support but not weighty priority and faces procedural hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a new statutory obligation for States to verify and act on deceased enrollee information using the Death Master File on a quarterly basis, with provisions for disenrollment and correction of errors. It integrates with existing statute and regulation but leaves several practical and fiscal implementation details unspecified.
Progressives emphasize risks of misidentification and harm to vulnerable beneficiaries
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize risks of misidentification and harm to vulnerable beneficiaries
Supports efforts to reduce improper payments but worries about data errors harming vulnerable people.
Sees merit in reinstatement clause but demands strong safeguards, oversight, and funding for accurate implementation.
Generally favorable as a targeted integrity measure with pragmatic caveats.
Values the retroactive-reinstatement protection, but wants clarity on implementation costs, timelines, and error rates before full endorsement.
Strongly favorable as a limited, common-sense step to stop waste and fraud.
Emphasizes fiscal savings and improved stewardship of Medicaid funds; generally accepts federal requirement tied to program funding.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic integrity measure with modest savings and implementation costs; plausible bipartisan support but not weighty priority and faces procedural hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize risks of misidentification and harm to vulnerable beneficiaries
Technocratic integrity measure with modest savings and implementation costs; plausible bipartisan support but not weighty priority and face…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly establishes a new statutory obligation for States to verify and act on deceased enrollee information using the Death Master File on a quarterly basis, with pr…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.