PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 25, 2013
Ambulatory Surgical Center Quality and Access Act of 2013 - Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to require alignment of updates for ambulatory surgical center (ASC) services under a revised prospective payment system (PPS) with updates for hospital outpatient department (OPD) services.
Revises requirements for the reporting and applying of quality measure data by ASCs and hospital OPDs.
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish an ASC value-based purchasing program under which each ASC that the Secretary determines meets (or exceeds) performance standards established, with respect to selected quality measures, for the performance period for a calendar year is eligible for shared savings in the form of a payment increase determined according to a specified formula.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Revises requirements for the composition of the expert outside advisory panel the Secretary is required to consult during the annual review of the clinical integrity of the groups and payment weights in the PPS for hospital OPD services. Requires the panel to include suppliers subject to the PPS as well as at least one ASC representative.
Requires the Secretary, when excluding from a final rule updating ASC lists a procedure whose inclusion was requested during the public comment period, to cite in the final rule specific criteria based on which the procedure was excluded. Requires the Secretary also to identify the peer reviewed research or the evidence upon which the exclusion is based if certain of those criteria are cited for it. Prohibits the Secretary from using or citing as a criterion or a basis for an exclusion that the procedure can only be reported using a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) unlisted surgical procedure code.
People & committees
Rep. Nunes, Devin [R-CA-22] · R–CA
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 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: Dec 5, 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.2500 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.2500 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.2500 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.2500 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.