PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 13, 2003
Medicare+Choice Revitalization Act of 2003 - Amends part C (Medicare+Choice) of title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to make each annual Medicare+Choice capitation rate for a Medicare+Choice payment area for a contract year equal to the largest of the amounts specified under current law or, for 2004 and any subsequent year, 100 percent of the fee-for-service costs for the Medicare+Choice payment area for services covered under Medicare parts A (Hospital Insurance) or B (Supplementary Medical Insurance) for individuals entitled to benefits under part A and enrolled under part B who are not enrolled in a Medicare+Choice plan for the year.Provides that, in determining the adjusted average per capita cost of Medicare+Choice for a year, such cost shall be adjusted to include the Secretary of Health and Human Services's estimate, on a per capita basis, of the amount of additional payments that would have been made in the area involved under Medicare if individuals entitled to Medicare benefits had not received services from facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or the Department of Defense (DOD).Revises the calculation of the national standardized annual Medicare+Choice capitation rate used in determining the input-price-adjusted annual national Medicare+Choice capitation rate for a Medicare+Choice payment area.Terminates use of a payment adjustment budget neutrality factor after 2003.Raises the minimum percentage increase for calculation of annual Medicare+Choice capitation rates, beginning 2004, to 104 percent of the annual rate for the area for the previous year.Provides for the inclusion of costs of DOD and VA military facility services to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries in calculation of Medicare+Choice payment rates.Makes permanent the current Medicare+Choice reporting deadlines, and makes the month of November the permanent annual coordinated election period.Declares that Federal standards supercede certain State law or regulations with respect to Medicare+Choice plans.Prescribes requirements for specialized Medicare+Choice plans for special needs beneficiaries, allowing them to be any type of coordinated care plan.
People & committees
Rep. Greenwood, James C. [R-PA-8] · 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 Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 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.2070 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.2070 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.2070 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.2070 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.