A Republican bill with 6 Democratic cosponsors · See all 10 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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 "Save our Safety-Net Hospitals Act of 2025" proposes changes to how disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payment adjustments are handled under the Medicaid program. It modifies the Social Security Act to change limitations on these payments. The bill also allows States to use unspent allotments from certain prior years to increase payment adjustments to hospitals.
Yes· 3 of 25
- Scored +8
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly supports the hospitals that provide critical care to low-income individuals.
- Scored +7
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
Supporting safety-net hospitals ensures continued care for low-income populations.
- Scored +6
Would people in cities be better off under this?
Urban areas have a high concentration of safety-net hospitals.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Increasing payment adjustments to hospitals likely increases federal spending.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill facilitates the distribution of more federal funds to hospitals.
- Scored -2
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
It allows for retroactive modification of state plans to increase spending.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Support for Safety-Net Hospitals: By modifying limitations on DSH payment adjustments in Section 2(a), the bill aims to support hospitals that serve a high number of low-income patients.
- Increased Hospital Funding: Section 2(b)(2)(A) allows States to use unspent Federal allotments from rate years beginning on or after October 1, 2021, to increase payment adjustments to hospitals.
- Protection of Hospital Payments: Section 2(b)(2)(B) prevents States from recouping payment adjustments already made to hospitals if those payments followed the rules in effect on October 1, 2021.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for individuals or groups are explicitly stated 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 households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly supports the hospitals that provide critical care to low-income individuals. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Protects the viability of rural hospitals serving low-income patients. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban areas have a high concentration of safety-net hospitals. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Safety-net hospitals are primary providers for undocumented or newly arrived immigrants. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Many individuals with disabilities rely on Medicaid and safety-net providers. Would retired people be better off under this? — Addresses the gap between Medicare payments and hospital costs. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — The bill explicitly addresses payments for services after Medicare (title XVIII) benefits are applied. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Low-income minority populations rely heavily on safety-net hospitals. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Low-income minority populations rely heavily on safety-net hospitals. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Low-income minority populations rely heavily on safety-net hospitals. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Provides benefits to low-income members of the community. Would children be better off under this? — Increased funding for safety-net hospitals improves pediatric care for low-income families. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? Would men be better off under this? Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Improves healthcare access for low-income middle-aged adults. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? Would white Americans be better off under this? — Provides benefits to low-income members of the community. Would women be better off under this? Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Improves healthcare access for low-income young adults.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Supporting safety-net hospitals ensures continued care for low-income populations. Does this put more money into Medicaid, the health coverage for people on low incomes? — It modifies limitations to allow for more DSH payment adjustments under Medicaid.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — It allows for retroactive modification of state plans to increase spending. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill facilitates the distribution of more federal funds to hospitals. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Increasing payment adjustments to hospitals likely increases federal spending.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Increases support for healthcare services targeted at the poor. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Safety-net hospitals often serve disproportionately minority populations.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Rural hospitals often function as primary safety-net providers.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Gives States the option to distribute unspent allotments and retroactively modify plans.
- 1/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/17/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/2/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/31/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/28/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/17/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/8/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/29/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
4 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Yvette ClarkeDemocrat · New York
Andrew GarbarinoRepublican · New York
Laura GillenDemocrat · New York
Young KimRepublican · California
Michael LawlerRepublican · New York
Doris MatsuiDemocrat · California
Frank MrvanDemocrat · Indiana
Claudia TenneyRepublican · New York
Gabe VasquezDemocrat · New Mexico
Eugene VindmanDemocrat · Virginia