H.R. 8871 (119th)Bill Overview

DME Scammer Prevention Act of 2026

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
May 19, 2026
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

Amends Medicare (Title XVIII) to tighten claims rules for certain durable medical equipment and supplies (DME): requires electronic claims submission, shortens the time to file claims for defined “specified items” to 90 days (with enumerated exceptions), and directs the Government Accountability Office to report on Medicare Administrative Contractors’ screening technology for those items by January 1, 2030. “Specified items” are DME on the Medicare Master List furnished on or after January 1, 2027. The bill excludes items subject to face-to-face, written-order, prior authorization, or monthly rental rules from the 90-day requirement.

Why people may split

Progressives stress beneficiary access and protections.

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted substantive statutory amendment that also includes a reporting requirement.

Amends Medicare (Title XVIII) to tighten claims rules for certain durable medical equipment and supplies (DME): requires electronic claims submission, shortens the time to file claims for defined “specified items” to 90 days (with enumerated exceptions), and directs the Government Accountability Office to report on Medicare Administrative Contractors’ screening technology for those items by January 1, 2030. “Specified items” are DME on the Medicare Master List furnished on or after January 1, 2027.

The bill excludes items subject to face-to-face, written-order, prior authorization, or monthly rental rules from the 90-day requirement.

Passage45/100

Technical, low‑cost Medicare integrity measure with bipartisan potential, but affected suppliers, timing, and procedural barriers lower chances absent inclusion in a larger legislative vehicle.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted substantive statutory amendment that also includes a reporting requirement. It specifies concrete changes to claims submission methods and deadlines for a defined subset of durable medical equipment and supplies and directs a GAO review of screening technologies.

Contention22/100

Progressives stress beneficiary access and protections.

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Likely helpedLikely burdened

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

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitMay improve detection and prevention of DME fraud and improper Medicare payments.
  • Potential benefitStandardized electronic claims could reduce paperwork and speed claims processing for many providers.
  • Potential benefitA 90-day billing window may accelerate provider billing cycles and reduce outstanding claim aging.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenSmaller DME suppliers may face higher compliance and IT costs to meet electronic claims requirements.
  • Potential burdenA 90-day filing deadline could increase denied claims when administrative or documentation delays occur.
  • Potential burdenAutomated screening technologies risk false positives, which can delay legitimate payments to suppliers.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives stress beneficiary access and protections.
Progressive75%

Generally supportive of stronger program integrity to protect taxpayer funds and beneficiary access, but cautious about implementation risks.

Will want safeguards so fraud-fighting does not deny needed equipment to vulnerable beneficiaries.

Leans supportive
Centrist65%

Favors program-integrity measures if implemented pragmatically.

Will weigh efficiency and fraud reduction against administrative cost and disruption to patient care.

Split reaction
Conservative70%

Generally favorable toward stronger fraud prevention and tighter claims controls to protect Medicare resources.

Concerned about federal mandates that impose paperwork or harm provider reimbursement if overbroad.

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 likelihood45/100

Technical, low‑cost Medicare integrity measure with bipartisan potential, but affected suppliers, timing, and procedural barriers lower chances absent inclusion in a larger legislative vehicle.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • Estimated federal cost and CMS administrative burden not provided
  • Extent of opposition from small or rural DME suppliers unknown
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

Progressives stress beneficiary access and protections.

Technical, low‑cost Medicare integrity measure with bipartisan potential, but affected suppliers, timing, and procedural barriers lower cha…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a targeted substantive statutory amendment that also includes a reporting requirement. It specifies concrete changes to claims submission methods and deadlines for…

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