H.R. 193 (119th)Bill Overview

Maintaining Innovation and Safe Technologies Act

Health|Advanced technology and technological innovationsHealth
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Jan 3, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for c…

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

The bill directs the HHS Secretary to issue guidance by January 1, 2027 on Medicare Part B payment requirements for remote monitoring devices (for example, continuous glucose monitors) that include an artificial intelligence component and transmit data to health care providers for patient management. It requires use of existing HHS communication channels to publish that guidance but does not itself establish payment amounts or mandatory coverage.

Why people may split

Liberals stress privacy, equity, and safety safeguards absent in text

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused administrative directive that adequately identifies the responsible official, a clear deadline, and the subject matter for guidance but provides limited procedural or content-level detail.

The bill directs the HHS Secretary to issue guidance by January 1, 2027 on Medicare Part B payment requirements for remote monitoring devices (for example, continuous glucose monitors) that include an artificial intelligence component and transmit data to health care providers for patient management.

It requires use of existing HHS communication channels to publish that guidance but does not itself establish payment amounts or mandatory coverage.

Passage40/100

Content is narrow and technical with low controversy, increasing prospects; however, standalone administrative directives often advance only when attached to larger health or appropriations packages.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused administrative directive that adequately identifies the responsible official, a clear deadline, and the subject matter for guidance but provides limited procedural or content-level detail.

Contention30/100

Liberals stress privacy, equity, and safety safeguards absent in text

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
ManufacturersLikely burdened

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • ManufacturersClarifies Medicare payment criteria for AI-enabled remote monitoring devices, reducing provider and manufacturer uncert…
  • Potential benefitMay increase patient access to AI-enabled continuous glucose monitors and similar devices under Medicare Part B.
  • Potential benefitCould encourage private investment and innovation in AI medical device development for remote monitoring.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenGuidance could expand Medicare spending if broader device categories receive payment.
  • Potential burdenMay create administrative or documentation burdens for providers to qualify devices for payment.
  • Potential burdenRisk of patient data privacy and cybersecurity issues from AI components transmitting health information.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberals stress privacy, equity, and safety safeguards absent in text
Progressive70%

Generally supportive of clarifying Medicare policy for AI-enabled remote monitoring if it improves patient access and safety.

Concerned the bill is limited to payment guidance and lacks explicit protections on equity, privacy, and clinical safety standards.

Leans supportive
Centrist65%

Views the bill as a pragmatic, narrowly tailored administrative step to reduce uncertainty about Medicare payment for AI-enabled remote monitoring.

Wants clear technical standards, cost estimates, and a measured implementation approach.

Split reaction
Conservative75%

Likely favorable toward removing barriers to innovation and clarifying payment for AI-enabled devices.

Some worry about any federal guidance that might expand entitlement spending or create de facto mandates for coverage.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood40/100

Content is narrow and technical with low controversy, increasing prospects; however, standalone administrative directives often advance only when attached to larger health or appropriations packages.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • No cost estimate or CBO-style fiscal analysis included
  • Ambiguity in definition of 'artificial intelligence component'
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Liberals stress privacy, equity, and safety safeguards absent in text

Content is narrow and technical with low controversy, increasing prospects; however, standalone administrative directives often advance onl…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused administrative directive that adequately identifies the responsible official, a clear deadline, and the subject matter for guidance but provides…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis