A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
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 Patients First Act of 2026, makes several changes to how physicians are paid under the Medicare program. It updates payment conversion factors and sets up a hybrid payment model for certain primary care services. The legislation also reforms the Merit-based Incentive Payment System by renaming it to the Patient Outcome Improvement National Tabulation System. Additionally, it creates a Quality Reform Task Force to issue recommendations on quality and efficiency measures. Finally, the bill adjusts budget neutrality rules and places limits on year-to-year conversion factor variances to help protect against steep payment drops.
Yes· 3 of 12
- Scored +8
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The legislation introduces a hybrid payment model for primary care services with zero patient cost-sharing and protects access in high-cost areas.
- Scored +7
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Medicare beneficiaries over 65 benefit from improved primary care access and zero cost-sharing under the new hybrid payment model.
- Scored +7
Would retired people be better off under this?
Retirees relying on Medicare benefit from strengthened primary care payment models and enhanced provider participation rules.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 102: Establishes a hybrid payment model for primary care services that provides monthly payments to qualifying suppliers without applying cost-sharing requirements to patients. This could benefit individuals by lowering out-of-pocket costs for essential primary care.
-
Section 103: Implements a work geographic floor adjustment during high inflationary years, which helps ensure that doctors in high-cost areas continue to receive fair payments. This protects patient access to local medical care regardless of broader economic inflation.
-
Section 203: Creates a Quality Reform Task Force with strong representation from medical professionals and specialists. This ensures that the rules and measures used to judge doctors' performance are grounded in real clinical guidelines rather than arbitrary bureaucracy.
-
Section 204: Requires the government to provide timely, quarterly feedback to professionals on administrative claims-based measures and prevents negative payment adjustments if the government fails to provide this necessary feedback. This holds officials accountable and protects doctors from unfair financial penalties when the government makes administrative errors.
-
Section 404: Places a limit on year-to-year conversion factor variance by restricting budget neutrality adjustments from changing the conversion factor by more than 2.5 percent compared to the previous year. This shields both doctors and the healthcare system from sudden, drastic drops in Medicare payments.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 204: Reduces positive payment adjustments by 50 percent for MIPS-eligible professionals who are part of an excluded practice. This could create financial burdens for certain larger or corporate-backed medical practices that rely on these bonuses to cover operational costs.
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 retired people be better off under this? — Retirees relying on Medicare benefit from strengthened primary care payment models and enhanced provider participation rules. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Medicare beneficiaries over 65 benefit from improved primary care access and zero cost-sharing under the new hybrid payment model. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The elimination of cost-sharing requirements for primary care services under the hybrid model helps lower out-of-pocket medical expenses. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill provides specific imaging service exemptions and adjustments for small and rural practices facing provider shortages. Would business owners be better off under this? — Independent medical practice owners benefit from protections against steep payment drops and timely updates to direct practice expense costs.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The legislation introduces a hybrid payment model for primary care services with zero patient cost-sharing and protects access in high-cost areas. Does this put more money into Medicare, the health coverage for people over 65? — The bill establishes hybrid payment models and adjusts geographic floors under Medicare, increasing support for primary care providers. Does this put more money into medical research? — The bill expands access to Medicare and Medicaid claims data for clinical data registries and researchers to support quality improvement. Does this make mental health care easier to get? — The bill includes behavioral health integration services within the designated primary care services of the hybrid payment model.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill provides protections and payment stability measures for independent medical practices and limits steep conversion factor drops.
- Education And Technology
- Does this make patent and copyright rules fairer? — The bill establishes robust protections ensuring that clinical measures developed by qualified clinical data registries remain their intellectual property.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires detailed public reporting and formal written responses from the Secretary regarding quality measure recommendations from the Task Force.
- 9/30/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.