A Republican bill with 12 Democratic cosponsors · See all 17 cosponsors
Last activity — 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 consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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
The "MATCH IT Act of 2025" aims to improve how patients are matched with their medical records in the U.S. health care system. It requires the Secretary to create a uniform definition and standards for "patient match rate" to track accuracy over time. The National Coordinator will also identify a minimum data set to support high-rate patient matching. These standards will be integrated into health IT certification and Medicare interoperability requirements. Additionally, the bill creates a voluntary bonus payment for providers who achieve a high patient match rate.
Yes· 3 of 33
- Scored +7
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Seniors often have more complex records; improved matching significantly reduces their risk of medical errors.
- Scored +7
Would retired people be better off under this?
High impact for those with multiple chronic conditions and fragmented medical histories.
- Scored +7
Does this lower what a hospital stay costs?
Directly targets the reduction of costs associated with duplicate records and denied claims.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Improved Patient Safety: By decreasing patient misidentification, the bill addresses a threat to patient safety that has caused medical errors and loss of life (Sec. 2).
-
Lower Healthcare Costs: The bill targets the reduction of unnecessary repeated medical tests and the high costs associated with duplicate records and denied claims (Sec. 2).
-
Protection of Privacy: Establishing better matching standards helps prevent "overlaid records," which can lead to unauthorized disclosures of private health information under HIPAA (Sec. 2).
-
Better Treatment Accuracy: Improved matching reduces the risk of a patient receiving treatment intended for another person's condition (Sec. 2).
-
Financial Incentives for Providers: The bill establishes a voluntary bonus measure for eligible providers who meet a high accurate patient match rate, encouraging them to improve their systems (Sec. 3(c)(1)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for individuals or groups are explicitly listed 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? — High impact for those with multiple chronic conditions and fragmented medical histories. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors often have more complex records; improved matching significantly reduces their risk of medical errors. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Explicitly involves the VA and DoD to improve matching standards for veterans. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Improved patient safety and reduced errors benefit all demographic groups. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Improved patient safety and reduced errors benefit all demographic groups. Would children be better off under this? — Improves patient safety and reduces medical errors for all ages. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Improves overall quality and safety of healthcare delivery. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Improved patient safety and reduced errors benefit all demographic groups. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Better matching standards can help those with non-standard naming conventions or records across different systems. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — General improvement in patient safety and medical record accuracy. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reduces unnecessary repeated medical tests which can be a financial burden. Would men be better off under this? — General improvement in patient safety and medical record accuracy. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Improves patient safety and reduces medical errors for all ages. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Reduces unnecessary repeated medical tests and improves patient safety. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Includes Indian Health Service in consultations to improve matching for native populations. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — General improvement in healthcare safety and record accuracy. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Improves interoperability between disparate rural providers and larger centers. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Reduces systemic inefficiencies in large urban hospital networks. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Improved patient safety and reduced errors benefit all demographic groups. Would women be better off under this? — General improvement in patient safety and medical record accuracy. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Improves patient safety and reduces medical errors for all ages.
- Healthcare
- Does this lower what a hospital stay costs? — Directly targets the reduction of costs associated with duplicate records and denied claims. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Improves patient safety and treatment accuracy by ensuring clinicians have the correct medical records. Does this help veterans get medical care? — Includes the VA in consultations to improve matching standards for veteran medical records. Does this lower what people pay for private health insurance? — Reducing duplicate tests and denied claims may lower systemic costs passed to premiums. Does this put more money into Medicare, the health coverage for people over 65? — Creates voluntary bonus payments for eligible providers within the Medicare program.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Protects patients from medical errors and unauthorized disclosure of private health information. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Reduces waste in the healthcare system caused by duplicate records and denied claims. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Aims to reduce the billions of dollars lost annually due to inaccurate patient identification.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Mitigates the risk of medical record overlays and HIPAA violations. Does this give the federal government more power? — Grants the Secretary and National Coordinator authority to set national standards for patient matching.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Reduces the risk of overlaid records leading to unauthorized disclosures of private health info.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — Improves the accuracy of medical record matching for veterans through DoD and VA consultation.
- 9/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/31/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/2/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/29/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/28/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/8/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/1/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/31/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/26/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/24/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/18/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/10/2025
- 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 consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Angie CraigDemocrat · Minnesota
Donald DavisDemocrat · North Carolina
Bill FosterDemocrat · Illinois
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Josh HarderDemocrat · California
Seth MoultonDemocrat · Massachusetts
Carol MillerRepublican · West Virginia
Blake MooreRepublican · Utah
Sarah McBrideDemocrat · Delaware
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Jimmy PanettaDemocrat · California
David SchweikertRepublican · Arizona
Terri SewellDemocrat · Alabama
Darren SotoDemocrat · Florida
Thomas SuozziDemocrat · New York
Claudia TenneyRepublican · New York
Frederica WilsonDemocrat · Florida