Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Requires HHS to report to Congress within 18 months on State Medicaid authorities and practices for covering remote physiologic monitoring devices for pregnant and postpartum women. The report must identify limitations and barriers and, as appropriate, recommend ways to address them to improve maternal and child health.
Liberals favor stronger, funded coverage; conservatives want state choice preserved.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward reporting requirement with a narrow administrative follow-up.
Requires HHS to report to Congress within 18 months on State Medicaid authorities and practices for covering remote physiologic monitoring devices for pregnant and postpartum women.
The report must identify limitations and barriers and, as appropriate, recommend ways to address them to improve maternal and child health.
Within six months after that report, HHS must update State Medicaid resources, such as telehealth toolkits, consistent with the report's recommendations.
Short, technical, low-cost, bipartisan-friendly reporting bill has a relatively strong chance, especially if bundled or expedited.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward reporting requirement with a narrow administrative follow-up. It clearly defines the problem and deliverables and assigns responsibility and timelines. It omits methodological, resourcing, and stakeholder-engagement specifics and does not include metrics or statutory citations to guide how findings should be applied to existing Medicaid authorities.
Liberals favor stronger, funded coverage; conservatives want state choice preserved.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals favor stronger, funded coverage; conservatives want state choice preserved.
Likely supportive because the bill targets maternal health inequities in Medicaid populations and encourages access to monitoring devices.
May view the report and toolkit update as useful steps but prefer stronger, binding coverage and funding provisions.
Sees potential to reduce disparities and prevent complications if recommendations lead to implementation.
Generally favorable as a targeted, evidence-gathering measure that avoids immediate mandates or large new spending.
Values the study and toolkit update as prudent steps before changing coverage rules.
Will watch HHS recommendations for cost estimates and feasibility.
Cautiously skeptical but not uniformly opposed because the bill is a study and technical assistance rather than a federal mandate.
Worried that report and toolkit could pressure states toward expanding coverage and costs.
Prefers state-led decisions and minimal new federal influence.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Short, technical, low-cost, bipartisan-friendly reporting bill has a relatively strong chance, especially if bundled or expedited.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals favor stronger, funded coverage; conservatives want state choice preserved.
Short, technical, low-cost, bipartisan-friendly reporting bill has a relatively strong chance, especially if bundled or expedited.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward reporting requirement with a narrow administrative follow-up. It clearly defines the problem and deliverables and assigns responsibility and time…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.