S. 1105 (119th)Bill Overview

No UPCODE Act

Health|Health
Cosponsors
Support
Bipartisan
Introduced
Mar 25, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

The bill amends Medicare Advantage risk adjustment rules in the Social Security Act.

Key changes: require CMS to use two years of diagnostic data starting in 2026; exclude diagnoses obtained from chart reviews and health risk assessments from risk-adjustment calculations; require CMS procedures to identify and verify such diagnoses; and direct CMS to evaluate and publicly report coding-pattern differences and apply coding adjustments, potentially at plan/contract level.

Passage35/100

Narrow technical reform with fiscal impact that attracts strong industry and provider interest; could pass if folded into larger health or budget package.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill delivers direct, well-targeted statutory amendments to Medicare Advantage risk-adjustment rules and assigns clear responsibilities and timelines, but it provides limited fiscal detail, incomplete definitions, and only high-level implementation and verification guidance.

Contention28/100

Liberals worry exclusion may undercount vulnerable patients' needs

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
Targeted stakeholdersTargeted stakeholders
Likely helped
  • Targeted stakeholdersReduces payment incentives for retrospective upcoding from chart reviews and health risk assessments.
  • Targeted stakeholdersUses two years of diagnostic data to smooth year-to-year risk score variability, improving payment accuracy.
  • Targeted stakeholdersRequires CMS to evaluate and publicly report coding pattern differences, increasing transparency and accountability.
Likely burdened
  • Targeted stakeholdersLower payments to Medicare Advantage plans could lead to reduced benefits, higher cost-sharing, or narrower networks.
  • Targeted stakeholdersExcluding chart-review diagnoses may undercount legitimate conditions, reducing risk scores for some beneficiaries.
  • Targeted stakeholdersCompliance costs rise as CMS establishes verification procedures and plans adapt coding systems.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Liberals worry exclusion may undercount vulnerable patients' needs
Progressive65%

Likely cautiously supportive of measures reducing payment gaming and protecting Medicare solvency, while wary of unintended harm.

Concern centers on whether excluding chart-review and HRA diagnoses will undercount true health needs of vulnerable beneficiaries.

Split reaction
Centrist70%

Pragmatic view: the bill targets plausible overpayments and seeks better measurement.

Support hinges on CMS rule clarity, administrative feasibility, and ensuring risk scores remain accurate and equitable.

Leans supportive
Conservative75%

Generally favorable: the bill combats coding-driven payment inflation and protects taxpayers.

Some reservations about expanding CMS procedural requirements, but net positive if it reduces excessive MA payments.

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 likelihood35/100

Narrow technical reform with fiscal impact that attracts strong industry and provider interest; could pass if folded into larger health or budget package.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • Magnitude of payment impact on Medicare Advantage plans
  • CBO/actuarial cost estimate absence in text
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 worry exclusion may undercount vulnerable patients' needs

Narrow technical reform with fiscal impact that attracts strong industry and provider interest; could pass if folded into larger health or…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill delivers direct, well-targeted statutory amendments to Medicare Advantage risk-adjustment rules and assigns clear responsibilities and timelines, but it provides limi…

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