A Republican bill with no 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
This bill is called the Rural Hospital Fairness Act. It aims to change the Social Security Act regarding how certain hospitals are treated under Medicare. Specifically, it allows certain facilities to continue being treated as critical access hospitals. To qualify, a facility must have been designated as a critical access hospital before January 1, 2002. It also must have been certified as one by December 31, 2024. Finally, it must be located in a county where no other hospital, critical access hospital, or rural emergency hospital is located.
Yes· 3 of 16
- Scored +9
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Directly benefits residents of remote rural counties by protecting their only local hospital from losing critical access status.
- Scored +8
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The legislation ensures that qualifying rural facilities retain their critical access hospital status, preserving vital healthcare services in isolated areas.
- Scored +7
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Seniors heavily rely on Medicare and local critical access hospitals for ongoing medical care in rural regions.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Section 2: This provision allows certain facilities to keep their critical access hospital status even if they do not meet the standard location requirements. This is a positive for people living in the area because it helps keep established healthcare facilities running in communities where no other hospitals exist.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- There are no negative impacts explicitly found within the text of this bill.
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 people in rural areas be better off under this? — Directly benefits residents of remote rural counties by protecting their only local hospital from losing critical access status. Would retired people be better off under this? — Particularly beneficial for retirees living in rural areas who require frequent medical services under Medicare. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors heavily rely on Medicare and local critical access hospitals for ongoing medical care in rural regions. Would farmers be better off under this? — Ensures that agricultural workers and farmers have continued access to emergency medical services nearby. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Helps low-income individuals in rural areas retain access to essential healthcare services without traveling long distances. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Ensures ongoing availability of emergency and general medical services for middle-aged residents in remote locations. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Assists individuals with disabilities in remote areas by maintaining local healthcare infrastructure. Would children be better off under this? — Maintains local pediatric healthcare access in qualifying isolated rural communities. Would men be better off under this? — Preserves local access to emergency and general healthcare services for men in rural regions. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Provides stable local healthcare infrastructure for middle-class families living in isolated counties. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — May benefit Native American populations living in remote counties with limited hospital access. Would women be better off under this? — Preserves local access to maternal and general healthcare services for women in rural regions. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Supports healthcare availability for young adults residing in rural areas.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The legislation ensures that qualifying rural facilities retain their critical access hospital status, preserving vital healthcare services in isolated areas. Does this put more money into Medicare, the health coverage for people over 65? — The bill amends the Social Security Act to allow certain facilities to maintain critical access hospital status under Medicare, supporting rural healthcare finance.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — By protecting the status of critical access hospitals in isolated counties, the bill supports essential rural community infrastructure.
- 10/24/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- Introduced in House