A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See all 9 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
This bill, known as the ``Chronic Care Management Improvement Act of 2026'', aims to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act. The primary goal is to remove cost-sharing responsibilities for chronic care management services under Medicare Part B. These changes would apply to services furnished on or after January 1, 2027. It specifically modifies how much is paid for these services and addresses the application of deductibles.
Yes· 3 of 19
- Scored +9
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Seniors are the primary beneficiaries of Medicare and will see reduced costs for chronic care.
- Scored +9
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
People with disabilities often use Medicare and frequently require chronic care management services.
- Scored +9
Would retired people be better off under this?
Retirees are the primary group eligible for Medicare services.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Removing cost-sharing and deductibles increases federal spending via Medicare.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The government will cover 100% of these costs, increasing public expenditure.
- Scored -2
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Increases government expenditure without an identified funding source.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Elimination of Cost-Sharing: Under Section 2, the amount paid for chronic care management services would be 100 percent of the actual charge or the determined amount. This removes the financial burden of cost-sharing for these services.
-
Removal of Deductibles: Section 2, subsection (b) specifies that the deductible shall not apply to chronic care management services furnished on or after January 1, 2027. This provides a direct benefit to individuals receiving these services by removing the need to meet a deductible first.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts are explicitly stated in the text provided.
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 with disabilities be better off under this? — People with disabilities often use Medicare and frequently require chronic care management services. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees are the primary group eligible for Medicare services. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors are the primary beneficiaries of Medicare and will see reduced costs for chronic care. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Elimination of deductibles and cost-sharing significantly helps those with limited financial means. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Reduces out-of-pocket medical expenses for middle-class Medicare beneficiaries. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Many veterans rely on Medicare and will benefit from reduced chronic care costs. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Reduces medical cost burden for Medicare users. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Provides financial benefit, though impact is less critical than for lower-income groups. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Reduces medical cost burden for Medicare users. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Reduces medical cost burden for Medicare users. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Positive impact for any Medicare beneficiary, potentially aiding marginalized groups with chronic health disparities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Positive impact for any Medicare beneficiary, potentially aiding marginalized groups with chronic health disparities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Positive impact for any Medicare beneficiary, potentially aiding marginalized groups with chronic health disparities. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Positive impact for any Medicare beneficiary, potentially aiding marginalized groups with chronic health disparities. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Positive impact for any Medicare beneficiary.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Removing cost-sharing and deductibles reduces financial barriers to chronic care management. Does this put more money into Medicare, the health coverage for people over 65? — Increases the coverage level for chronic care management services under Medicare Part B.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this strengthen Social Security? — Enhances the benefits provided under the Social Security Act's health program (Medicare). Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Reduces healthcare spending for low-income seniors and disabled individuals.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Increases government expenditure without an identified funding source. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The government will cover 100% of these costs, increasing public expenditure. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Removing cost-sharing and deductibles increases federal spending via Medicare.
- 7/21/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/30/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/29/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 5/19/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/28/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/14/2026
- 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.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Ami BeraDemocrat · California
Janelle BynumDemocrat · Oregon
Donald DavisDemocrat · North Carolina
Mike KellyRepublican · Pennsylvania
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Linda SánchezDemocrat · California
Thomas SuozziDemocrat · New York
Eric SorensenDemocrat · Illinois
Marc VeaseyDemocrat · Texas