PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Kean, Thomas H. [R-NJ-7] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 9, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10626 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10626 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10626 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10626 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-28 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would let states keep more money recovered from overpayments caused by fraud by reducing the federal government's share of those recoveries. States could choose to retain up to 25 percent of the federal share, rather than 25 percent of the total recovery. They would have to use that money to protect the program against fraud and improper payments and report annually on its use.
the Secretary shall exclude up to 25 percent (as elected by the State) of the pro rata share of such amounts so recovered to which the United States is equitably entitled, as determined for purposes of subparagraph (A), from the amount of overpayment to be adjusted under this subsection.
shall use such amounts for activities related to program integrity
not less frequently than annually, shall report to the Secretary (in a form and manner specified by the Secretary) how the State used such amounts.
The proposed recovery rule would apply when a state recovers an overpayment made to a person or other entity because of fraud. It would amend the existing federal-state overpayment adjustment rules in section 1903(d)(3) of the Social Security Act.
Section 1903(d)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(d)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
in the case that a State recovers during such quarter any amounts which represent an overpayment made to a person or other entity due to fraud
The change would apply to recoveries during quarters beginning on or after the date 18 months after enactment. That timing is conditional on enactment; it is not measured from the bill's introduction.
For quarters beginning on or after the date that is 18 months after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, in the case that a State recovers during such quarter
States would have to spend the retained amounts on program integrity—work to detect, prevent, or recover improper payments. Permitted activities could include audits, investigations, data analysis, and improvements to information technology systems.
shall use such amounts for activities related to program integrity, which may include audits, investigations, data analysis, investment in information technology systems that improve the detection, prevention, or recovery of improper payments, and other activities associated with the detection of fraud and the recovery of improper payments
States would have to report at least annually to the Secretary on how they used the retained money. The Secretary would specify the report's form and manner.
not less frequently than annually, shall report to the Secretary (in a form and manner specified by the Secretary) how the State used such amounts.
The supplied October 9, 2026 source snapshot records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on September 28, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-09T17:12:48Z. 2026-09-28: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2026-09-28: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-28. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to that version, not other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish formal earmark status in accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The generally available state recovery rule is the bill's main policy. This conclusion applies only to the supplied version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 9, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI