Derek Schmidt (R-KS)
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to adjust the eligibility for the rural emergency hospital designation under the Medicare program.
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 proposes a change to the Social Security Act regarding rural emergency hospitals under Medicare. It adjusts how facilities qualify for the rural emergency hospital designation. Specifically, it changes the timeframe a facility had to be operating as a critical access hospital or certain other types of facilities. The new timeframe is at any point during the period beginning on January 1, 2015. It also allows the designation to happen regardless of whether the national provider identification number changes due to an ownership change.
Yes· 3 of 16
- Scored +5
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The bill directly targets rural communities by expanding and protecting rural emergency hospital designations.
- Scored +5
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
Broadening eligibility criteria for rural emergency hospitals helps preserve essential healthcare services in rural communities.
- Scored +4
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Seniors disproportionately rely on rural hospitals and Medicare services, benefiting from secured facility designations.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Broader Eligibility: Section 1 adjusts eligibility by allowing facilities to qualify if they were operating at any point between January 1, 2015, and the enactment date, which could help more rural facilities qualify for the designation.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No Negative Impacts Identified: The provided text does not contain any specific sections or provisions that outline negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups.
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? — The bill directly targets rural communities by expanding and protecting rural emergency hospital designations. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees relying on Medicare and local rural health facilities benefit from the adjusted eligibility guidelines. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors disproportionately rely on rural hospitals and Medicare services, benefiting from secured facility designations. Would farmers be better off under this? — Farmers and agricultural workers living in remote areas benefit from reliable local emergency hospital access. Would business owners be better off under this? — Rural healthcare facility owners and operators benefit from more flexible eligibility rules. Would children be better off under this? — Children living in rural areas benefit from better-preserved local emergency medical services. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income individuals in rural areas gain better access to vital healthcare services. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged individuals in rural areas benefit from broader eligibility for local emergency hospitals. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households in rural areas benefit from stable local emergency medical infrastructure. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Native Americans living in rural regions may experience improved proximity to designated emergency facilities. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Individuals with disabilities in rural areas benefit from closer proximity to emergency medical care. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans residing in rural locations benefit from more accessible local emergency healthcare options. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults in rural areas benefit from improved local access to emergency healthcare.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Broadening eligibility criteria for rural emergency hospitals helps preserve essential healthcare services in rural communities. Does this put more money into Medicare, the health coverage for people over 65? — The bill expands Medicare designation eligibility for rural emergency hospitals, potentially improving program access.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Supporting rural emergency hospitals helps maintain critical infrastructure in rural areas.
- 6/2/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- Introduced in House