PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 27, 2009
Medicare Long-Term Care Hospital Improvement Act of 2009 - Amends the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007, as amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, to extend from three years to five years the delay in application of: (1) the 25% patient threshold payment adjustment to freestanding and grandfathered long-term care hospitals (LTCHs); (2) any payment adjustment, in certain circumstances, to any applicable LTCH or satellite facility located in a rural area or co-located with an urban single or metropolitan statistical area (MSA) dominant hospital; (3) the very short-stay outlier policy; and (4) a specified one-time prospective adjustment to LTCH prospective payment rates.
Extends from three years to five years the moratorium on: (1) the establishment and classification of a LTCH or satellite facility, other than an existing one; and (2) an increase of LTCH beds in existing LTCHs or satellite facilities.
Establishes a formula for annual adjustment of the base prospective payment rate for LTCHs for rate years 2011 through 2015 in order to implement a budget neutrality offset of the costs of implementing this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Pomeroy, Earl [D-ND-At Large] · D–ND
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 Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 4, 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.2124 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.2124 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.2124 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.2124 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.