PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.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.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 10, 2025
Patient Matching And Transparency in Certified Health IT Act of 2025 or the MATCH IT Act of 2025
This bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish a definition and standards for patient matching (i.e., the process of accurately matching patients with their medical records, including when records are exchanged between health care providers). It also requires the development of (1) a minimum data set for technology standards to increase patient matching, and (2) incentives for patient matching under Medicare.
Specifically, the bill requires HHS to develop a uniform definition and standards for patient matching to track patient match rates and document improvement over time. The definition and standards must account for certain situations, including duplicate records and multiple matches.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill also requires the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) to adopt a minimum data set to help health care providers or health information systems achieve a patient match rate of 99.9%. The minimum data set and related standards must be incorporated into the U.S. Core Data for Interoperability and the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program for health information technology.
Additionally, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) must establish a voluntary bonus measure within the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program to allow health care providers who have a patient match rate over a certain percentage to receive a payment adjustment. The ONC and CMS must develop a voluntary reporting program for providers to anonymously submit patient matching data to HHS.
People & committees
Rep. Kelly, Mike [R-PA-16] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 15, 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.2002 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.2002 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.2002 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.2002 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.