Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill amends Medicaid’s enhanced Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for coverage of low-income adults to phase that enhanced match down between 2027 and 2034 on a state-by-state schedule and return to ordinary FMAP levels in 2035.
It defines a state-specific annual reduction (difference between 90% and the state's FY2026 FMAP divided by eight) and removes a separate temporary FMAP increase for states that begin providing coverage to low-income adults.
The bill also prevents paragraph (1) enhanced matching from applying to non-expansion states after 2024, requires late-expanding states to receive only the regular FMAP, and allows current expansion states limited options tied to 100% FPL eligibility.
High controversy, large fiscal shifts to States, and limited bipartisan appeal make enactment unlikely as a standalone bill.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive statutory amendment that specifies a multi-year phase-down formula and integrates into existing FMAP calculations. It provides concrete numerical mechanics and limited definitional rules for State categories.
Progressives emphasize coverage loss and equity harms
Progressives emphasize coverage loss and equity harms
Likely strongly opposed; views the bill as a phased withdrawal of federal funding that will reduce coverage access for low-income adults.
They will emphasize harm to health equity, increased uninsured rates, and pressure on state budgets to fill gaps.
Mixed to skeptical; recognizes fiscal intent but worries about coverage disruption and state-level consequences.
Would seek clearer transition protections, cost estimates, and options for states facing hardship.
Generally supportive; views the bill as correcting an unfair, open-ended federal subsidy and returning responsibility to states.
Appreciates removing incentives for late expansions and reducing federal expenditures.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High controversy, large fiscal shifts to States, and limited bipartisan appeal make enactment unlikely as a standalone bill.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize coverage loss and equity harms
High controversy, large fiscal shifts to States, and limited bipartisan appeal make enactment unlikely as a standalone bill.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly focused substantive statutory amendment that specifies a multi-year phase-down formula and integrates into existing FMAP calculations. It provides concre…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.