A Democratic bill with 5 Republican cosponsors · See all 8 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 Residential Recovery for Seniors Act. It adds Medicare Part A coverage for specific residential substance use disorder services. The legislation defines three types of care: clinically managed low-intensity, clinically managed high-intensity, and medically managed services. It outlines the specific rules, program standards, and facility requirements for each type of care. Additionally, the bill includes these residential facilities as official Medicare providers. Finally, it sets up a per diem prospective payment system for these services starting on or after October 1, 2026.
Yes· 3 of 32
- Scored +9
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Directly benefits seniors by covering residential substance use disorder treatment under Medicare Part A.
- Scored +8
Would retired people be better off under this?
Retirees on Medicare gain robust new benefits for addressing substance use disorders.
- Scored +8
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
Directly establishes comprehensive Medicare Part A coverage for residential substance use disorder services for seniors.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The legislation introduces a new prospective payment system and federal reimbursements under Medicare, increasing overall spending.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Adding new coverage under Medicare Part A will increase federal government spending and outlays.
- Scored -1
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Expanding entitlements without offsetting revenue measures marginally decreases fiscal responsibility.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Medicare Coverage for Substance Use Treatment: Under Section 2(a), the bill adds Medicare Part A coverage for clinically managed low-intensity, clinically managed high-intensity, and medically managed residential substance use disorder services. This is positive because it helps seniors get coverage for necessary addiction treatment and recovery support.
-
Access to Necessary Medications: Provisions in Section 2(b) (such as sections 1861(nnn)(2)(C), 1861(ooo)(2)(C), and 1861(ppp)(2)(F)) ensure that facilities directly provide or have direct affiliations with providers who can prescribe all addiction and psychiatric medications and provide medication management. This is beneficial because it ensures patients have access to vital medicines during their treatment.
-
Regular Care Reviews: According to Section 2(a) (amending section 1812(a)), a patient's continued need for services must be reviewed and reaffirmed periodically—at least every 30 days for clinically managed care and at least every 10 days for medically managed care. This is a positive safeguard to ensure patients receive the correct level of ongoing attention for their recovery.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Exclusion of Certain Professional Services: Under Section 2(b) (such as sections 1861(nnn)(1)(C)(i), 1861(ooo)(1)(C)(i), and 1861(ppp)(1)(D)(i)), the definition of covered services specifically excludes medical or surgical services provided by a physician, certain nurse practitioner or physician assistant services, qualified psychologist services, and private-duty nursing. This could be viewed as a negative burden because patients might have to navigate separate arrangements or costs for these specific types of professional care while in a facility.
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 over 65 be better off under this? — Directly benefits seniors by covering residential substance use disorder treatment under Medicare Part A. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees on Medicare gain robust new benefits for addressing substance use disorders. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income seniors who could not otherwise afford residential treatment will gain Medicare coverage for these services. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class seniors save out-of-pocket costs for necessary residential addiction care. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Older veterans dealing with substance abuse can utilize these new Medicare benefits. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Assists individuals with co-occurring physical or mental disabilities alongside substance use disorders. Would business owners be better off under this? — Facility owners gain access to Medicare reimbursement and new business models. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Improves access to healthcare for minority seniors suffering from substance use disorders. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Improves access to healthcare for minority seniors suffering from substance use disorders. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Improves access to healthcare for minority seniors suffering from substance use disorders. Would men be better off under this? — Provides equitable access to covered residential treatment for male seniors. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Adults approaching senior status may benefit from future applicability. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Improves access to healthcare for minority seniors suffering from substance use disorders. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Can encourage the development and Medicare participation of residential treatment facilities in rural areas. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Expands treatment facilities and options in urban settings. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Improves access to healthcare for seniors suffering from substance use disorders. Would women be better off under this? — Provides equitable access to covered residential treatment for female seniors.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Directly establishes comprehensive Medicare Part A coverage for residential substance use disorder services for seniors. Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — Directly addresses the opioid crisis by providing Medicare coverage for residential addiction treatment and medications. Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Expands access to residential treatment for co-occurring mental health and substance use conditions. Does this put more money into Medicare, the health coverage for people over 65? — The bill significantly expands Medicare Part A benefits to cover three distinct levels of residential substance use disorder care. Does this help veterans get medical care? — Veterans who are seniors can access newly covered residential addiction treatment services through Medicare.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this strengthen Social Security? — Amends the Social Security Act to provide vital health insurance benefits under Medicare Part A. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Supports individuals with substance use disorders, which can intersect with disability support. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Improving access to healthcare services can marginally help reduce health disparities among minority seniors. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Providing stable residential treatment environments can assist individuals experiencing housing instability due to addiction.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Expands federal oversight and administration through Medicare facility standards and prospective payment systems. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires reporting and cost data submissions to develop the prospective payment system.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — Provides additional healthcare pathways that may benefit older veterans needing addiction care.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill institutes care standards, periodic reviews, and facility accreditation requirements that protect patients. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Small addiction treatment facilities may benefit from becoming recognized Medicare providers and receiving prospective payments. Is this likely to create jobs? — The establishment of Medicare coverage for residential substance use disorder services will likely create new jobs within healthcare and treatment facilities. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The legislation introduces a new prospective payment system and federal reimbursements under Medicare, increasing overall spending. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Adding new coverage under Medicare Part A will increase federal government spending and outlays. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Expanding entitlements without offsetting revenue measures marginally decreases fiscal responsibility.
- 9/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/30/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Mike BostRepublican · Illinois
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Henry JohnsonDemocrat · Georgia
Darin LaHoodRepublican · Illinois
Carol MillerRepublican · West Virginia
Paul TonkoDemocrat · New York
David ValadaoRepublican · California
Debbie Wasserman SchultzDemocrat · Florida