To eliminate sweetheart deals under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 1, 2011
Repeals provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 related to: (1) the disproportionate share hospital (DSH) allotment for Tennessee and Hawaii; (2) an adjustment to the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) for qualifying disaster-recovery states; (3) the establishment of a floor on the area wage index for a frontier state for purposes of a geographic adjustment to Medicare payments to hospitals for inpatient services; (4) the eligibility for Medicare coverage of certain individuals exposed to environmental health hazards; and (5) the appropriation of funds for debt service on, or direct construction or renovation of, a health care facility that provides research, inpatient, tertiary care, or outpatient clinical service.
Amends PPACA to eliminate revisions to the formula for determining the wage index applicable to Section 508 hospitals. (Section 508 of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 allows the temporary reclassification of a hospital with a low Medicare area wage index to a nearby location with a higher index so that the hospital will receive the higher Medicare reimbursement rate.)
Makes this Act effective as if it were included in PPACA or, if applicable, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
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.
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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 7, 2024. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.1324 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.1324 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.1324 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.1324 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.