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 · Jun 17, 2015
Senior's Health Care Plan Protection Act of 2015
(Sec. 2) It is the intent of Congress to: (1) continue to study and request input on the effects of socioeconomic status and dual-eligible populations on the five-star quality rating system for Medicare Advantage (MA) plans before reforming it, and, pending study and input results, (2) delay Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) authority to terminate MA plan contracts solely on the basis of performance under the five-star rating system.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may not, through the end of plan year 2018, terminate a contract with respect to the offering of an MA plan by an MA organization solely because the plan has failed to achieve a minimum quality rating under the five-star rating system.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 3) This bill amends part C (Medicare+Choice) of title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSAct) to direct HHS (in effect, CMS) to revise for 2017, and periodically afterwards, the system for risk adjustments to payments to Medicare+Choice organizations so that an individual's risk score takes into account the number of chronic conditions with which the individual has been diagnosed.
HHS must, including an actuarial opinion of the CMS Chief Actuary, evaluate the impacts of:
including two years of data to compare the models used to determine the risk scores for 2013 and 2014, removing the diagnosis codes related to chronic kidney disease in the 2014 risk adjustment model, and including 10% of encounter data in computing payment for 2016 and CMS readiness to incorporate encounter data in risk scores.
HHS shall also analyze the best practices of MA plans to slow disease progression related to chronic kidney disease.
HHS shall then, if appropriate, make revisions to the risk adjustment system, based on such an evaluation or analysis, to better reflect and appropriately weight for the population served.
(Sec. 4) Congress declares that:
the five-star quality rating system for MA plans lacks proper accounting for the socioeconomic status of plan enrollees and the extent to which those plans serve individuals also eligible for medical assistance under SSAct title XIX (Medicaid); and
Congress will work with CMS and stakeholders, including beneficiary groups and managed care organizations, to ensure that the five-star quality rating system for MA plans properly accounts for the socioeconomic status of plan enrollees and the extent to which plans serve them.
(Sec. 5) It is also the sense of Congress that HHS should:
periodically monitor and improve the risk adjustment model for payments to MA organizations to ensure that it accurately accounts for beneficiary risk;
closely examine and adjust as necessary the current MA risk adjustment methodology to ensure that plans enrolling beneficiaries with the greatest health care needs receive adequate reimbursement to deliver high-quality care and other services to help beneficiaries avoid costly complications and further progression of chronic conditions; and
reconsider the implementation of changes in the MA risk adjustment methodology finalized for 2016 and, to the extent appropriate, use the risk methodology finalized in 2015 for one additional year.
People & committees
Rep. Buchanan, Vern [R-FL-16] · R–FL
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.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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 H4485-4486)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H4485-4486)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2582.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4485-4487)
Mr. Brady (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
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.
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.2582 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.2582 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.2582 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.2582 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.