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…
The bill directs the HHS Secretary to revise 42 C.F.R. §413.65(e)(3)(i) within 60 days to remove the Medicare rule requiring an off-campus facility to be located within a 35-mile radius of a hospital or critical access hospital to be eligible for provider-based status. Effectively, the geographic 35-mile location requirement for Medicare provider-based status of off-campus facilities would be eliminated.
Liberal emphasizes rural access and equity gains
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive policy change with strong specificity about the regulatory text to be altered and a concise implementation directive.
The bill directs the HHS Secretary to revise 42 C.F.R. §413.65(e)(3)(i) within 60 days to remove the Medicare rule requiring an off-campus facility to be located within a 35-mile radius of a hospital or critical access hospital to be eligible for provider-based status.
Effectively, the geographic 35-mile location requirement for Medicare provider-based status of off-campus facilities would be eliminated.
Technically simple but fiscally uncertain; more likely to advance as part of a larger bipartisan health package than alone.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive policy change with strong specificity about the regulatory text to be altered and a concise implementation directive. It is weaker in addressing fiscal implications, transitional mechanics, edge cases, and accountability measures.
Liberal emphasizes rural access and equity gains
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal emphasizes rural access and equity gains
Supports the bill as a targeted regulatory change that can expand emergency and outpatient care access in remote rural areas.
Sees potential to strengthen small and critical access hospitals and reduce travel burdens for underserved patients.
Will watch for safeguards to prevent excessive increases in Medicare costs or predatory hospital consolidation.
Views the bill pragmatically: it could improve rural access but alters payment and regulatory incentives quickly.
Supports careful implementation with cost estimates, data collection, and guardrails to limit unintended fiscal or market effects.
Prefers amendments or administrative conditions rather than wholesale rapid change.
Skeptical of the bill due to potential increases in federal spending and changes to Medicare incentives.
However, some conservatives may welcome removing a regulatory barrier that allows providers flexibility.
Overall likely to oppose without fiscal safeguards and limits on scope to prevent gaming of payments.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically simple but fiscally uncertain; more likely to advance as part of a larger bipartisan health package than alone.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal emphasizes rural access and equity gains
Technically simple but fiscally uncertain; more likely to advance as part of a larger bipartisan health package than alone.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive policy change with strong specificity about the regulatory text to be altered and a concise implementation directive. It is weaker…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.