PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 8, 2009
Medicare Specialty Care Improvement and Protection Act of 2009 - Amends part C (Medicare+Choice) of title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to extend through December 31, 2013, the authority to restrict enrollment for specialized Medicare Advantage (MA) plans for special needs individuals (SNPs).
Extends such authority through December 31, 2015, in the case of a SNP designated as a Fully Integrated Dual Eligible Special Needs Plan..
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to evaluate the MA and the health status risk adjustment payment mechanisms in order to resolve plan payment inequities relative to Medicare fee-for-service payments for high-risk, high cost beneficiaries. Directs the Secretary, using the results of the evaluation, to refine the risk adjustment payment mechanism for such beneficiaries.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to provide bonus payments to account for added SNP costs associated with additional benefit, care management, reporting, and other requirements established by Congress and the Secretary in excess of other MA plans.
Requires the Secretary to take into account specified factors, including dual eligibility (for both Medicare and SSA title XIX [Medicaid] benefits) and geographic cost differences, with respect to the bid structure for SNPs.
Requires the Secretary to have in place a process under which the Secretary designates dual eligible SNPs as Fully Integrated Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans for the purpose of advancing fully integrated Medicare and Medicaid benefits and services for dual eligible beneficiaries, including state-designated Dual subsets.
Directs the Secretary to establish or designate an Office on Medicare/Medicaid Integration.
Requires the Medicaid plan to provide that an individual who has attained age 65, and has been determined for 12 consecutive months to be a full-benefit dual eligible individual, to be presumed to remain eligible for benefits under the plan without any need for further redetermination or recertification.
People & committees
Rep. Kind, Ron [D-WI-3] · D–WI
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 House Ways and Means
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 House Energy and Commerce
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.2758 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.2758 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.2758 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.2758 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.