PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Dec 20, 2012
Medicare Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2012 - Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish cost-effective procedures to ensure that: (1) a Social Security account number (or any derivative) is not displayed, coded, or embedded on the Medicare card issued to an individual entitled to benefits under part A (Hospital Insurance) of title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act or enrolled under Medicare part B (Supplementary Medical Insurance); and (2) any other identifier displayed on such card is easily identifiable as not being the Social Security account number (or a derivative).
Requires the Secretary, in implementing this Act, to: (1) establish a cost-effective process that involves the least amount of disruption to Medicare beneficiaries and health care providers; and (2) consider implementing a process similar to the one involving Railroad Retirement Board beneficiaries under which the Medicare beneficiary identifier used is not a Social Security account number (or derivative), is external to HHS, and is convertible over to a Social Security account number (or derivative) for use internal to HHS and the Social Security Administration.
Applies these requirements to Medicare cards issued on and after an effective date, specified by the Secretary, which shall not be later than three years after enactment of this Act. Requires reissuance of existing Medicare cards within those three years to comply with this Act, but also permits individuals to apply for reissuance earlier than the official reissuance date. Makes amounts from the Medicare Improvement Fund available for transfer to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Program Management Account to offset the costs of implementing this Act. Requires the Commissioner of Social Security and the Secretary to enter into an agreement for such funding, and keep a detailed accounting for submission to Congress. Directs the Comptroller General (GAO) to examine whether the Medicare program should use smart card technology for Medicare beneficiary cards and provider membership cards.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Sam [R-TX-3] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 12/19/2012 H7309-7310)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 12/19/2012 H7309-7310)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7416)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Doggett objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1509.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7309-7313)
Mr. Johnson, Sam moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Social Security.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
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: Apr 7, 2025. 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.1509 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.1509 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.1509 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.1509 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.