Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determi…
The bill directs the Comptroller General (GAO) to study insurance coverage for dyspraxia/developmental coordination disorder (DCD) and report to Congress within one year. The study must assess coverage across Medicare, Medicaid (by State), other Federal health programs, group and individual plans, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, identify covered services, age cutoffs, barriers, parity compliance, and provide recommendations, including whether CMS should issue guidance.
Progressive wants faster, stronger coverage action beyond a study
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified study mandate: it assigns the Comptroller General a one-year deadline and enumerates concrete questions to be answered about coverage of dyspraxia/DCD across federal programs, state Medicaid programs, and private insurance.
The bill directs the Comptroller General (GAO) to study insurance coverage for dyspraxia/developmental coordination disorder (DCD) and report to Congress within one year.
The study must assess coverage across Medicare, Medicaid (by State), other Federal health programs, group and individual plans, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, identify covered services, age cutoffs, barriers, parity compliance, and provide recommendations, including whether CMS should issue guidance.
Content is technical, narrow, and nonbinding; such study bills frequently pass or are folded into larger packages, though not guaranteed.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified study mandate: it assigns the Comptroller General a one-year deadline and enumerates concrete questions to be answered about coverage of dyspraxia/DCD across federal programs, state Medicaid programs, and private insurance.
Progressive wants faster, stronger coverage action beyond a study
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressive wants faster, stronger coverage action beyond a study
Likely supportive because the study addresses a disability-related coverage gap and could lead to improved access.
However, this persona may view a study alone as insufficient and push for concrete coverage requirements or CMS action afterward.
Generally favorable as a measured, evidence-gathering step before policy changes.
Sees the GAO study as an appropriate, low-cost way to inform federal and state decisions, while wanting clear cost estimates and practical recommendations.
Cautiously supportive of a fact-finding study but wary that it could be a stepping stone to federal mandates and increased costs.
Prefers maintaining state flexibility and avoiding new federal coverage requirements.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is technical, narrow, and nonbinding; such study bills frequently pass or are folded into larger packages, though not guaranteed.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressive wants faster, stronger coverage action beyond a study
Content is technical, narrow, and nonbinding; such study bills frequently pass or are folded into larger packages, though not guaranteed.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified study mandate: it assigns the Comptroller General a one-year deadline and enumerates concrete questions to be answered about coverage of dyspraxia…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.