Kevin Hern (R-OK)
Securing Access to Care for Seniors in Critical Condition Act of 2025
A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 9 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
H.R. 1924, known as the "Securing Access to Care for Seniors in Critical Condition Act of 2025," seeks to change the Social Security Act. It creates a new "high acuity criterion" for long-term care hospitals under the Medicare program. This new criterion determines when site-neutral payments do not apply. To meet this criterion, a discharge must be assigned to a specific diagnosis-related group with a relative weight of 0.8 or higher. Additionally, the discharge must happen on or after October 1, 2026.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +7
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Specifically designed to secure access to critical care for seniors by adjusting hospital payment criteria.
- Scored +7
Would retired people be better off under this?
Provides better security for high-acuity medical access for retirees using Medicare.
- Scored +5
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
By providing higher reimbursement for high-acuity patients, it encourages hospitals to maintain critical care services for seniors.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Exempting payments from site-neutrality likely increases Medicare expenditures, potentially increasing the deficit.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill allows for higher payments to long-term care hospitals, increasing government healthcare spending.
- Scored -2
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Increasing payment rates for specific healthcare providers generally contradicts fiscal austerity goals.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Access to Care: By establishing the "high acuity criterion" in Section 2, the bill creates a new way for site-neutral payments to not apply to long-term care hospitals, which is linked to securing access to care for seniors in critical condition.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for individuals or groups are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would retired people be better off under this? — Provides better security for high-acuity medical access for retirees using Medicare. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Specifically designed to secure access to critical care for seniors by adjusting hospital payment criteria. Would business owners be better off under this? — Positive for owners of long-term care hospitals as it allows for higher reimbursement rates. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Potentially benefits those requiring long-term critical care hospital services.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — By providing higher reimbursement for high-acuity patients, it encourages hospitals to maintain critical care services for seniors. Does this put more money into Medicare, the health coverage for people over 65? — The bill effectively increases funding available to providers within the Medicare program for high-acuity care.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Increasing payment rates for specific healthcare providers generally contradicts fiscal austerity goals. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill allows for higher payments to long-term care hospitals, increasing government healthcare spending. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Exempting payments from site-neutrality likely increases Medicare expenditures, potentially increasing the deficit.
- 9/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/4/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/9/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/6/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Brendan BoyleDemocrat · Pennsylvania
James ComerRepublican · Kentucky
Mike CareyRepublican · Ohio
Donald DavisDemocrat · North Carolina
John JoyceRepublican · Pennsylvania
Carol MillerRepublican · West Virginia
Nathaniel MoranRepublican · Texas
Lloyd SmuckerRepublican · Pennsylvania
Claudia TenneyRepublican · New York