PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 353.
Congressional Research Service
Version 18 · Reported to House amended, Part I · Dec 21, 2017
Special Needs Plans Reauthorization Act of 2017 or the SNP Reauthorization Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill allows a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, until 2024, to restrict plan enrollment to certain special-needs individuals, provided that the plan meets specified applicable requirements. Current law allows an MA plan to do so until 2019.
The Federal Coordinated Health Care Office within the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) shall serve as a dedicated point of contact for states with regard to special-needs MA plans for individuals who are dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. The CMS shall establish a unified process for grievances and appeals for individuals enrolled in such plans.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The CMS must, with respect to special-needs MA plans for individuals with chronic conditions, convene a panel of clinical advisors to establish and update the list of chronic conditions that make an individual eligible for participation in such a plan.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) must study and report to Congress on health outcomes of individuals enrolled in specialized MA plans.
The CMS shall, with respect to special-needs MA plans, consider applying certain quality measures at the plan level rather than at the contract level.
The GAO must report to Congress on state-level integration between the Medicaid program and special-needs MA plans for individuals who are dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare.
(Sec. 3) Beginning in plan year 2020, an MA plan may provide certain supplemental benefits to chronically ill enrollees.
The GAO must report to Congress on the provision of such supplemental benefits to MA enrollees.
People & committees
Rep. Tiberi, Patrick J. [R-OH-12] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 353.
Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged.
Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 115-478, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 115-478, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.
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.3168 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.3168 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.3168 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.3168 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.