PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 8, 2009
SCHIP Plus Act of 2009 - Amends title XXI (State Children's Health Insurance) (SCHIP) of the Social Security Act to require a state child health plan to provide for the offering of any qualified alternative coverage that a qualified entity seeks to offer targeted low-income children through the plan.
Revises requirements with respect to authority for payments to a state for the purchase of family coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan that includes coverage of targeted low-income children.
Prohibits a state child health plan from requiring a targeted low-income child to enroll in such coverage in order to obtain child health assistance under this Act. (Thus requires enrollment to be voluntary.)
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires a state health plan to provide at least one opportunity per fiscal year for beneficiaries to switch SCHIP coverage from an employer-sponsored plan to the coverage otherwise available under SCHIP. Requires such plan also to permit beneficiaries to switch coverage under other circumstances, such as change in employment, birth of a child, or change in households, as the Secretary specifies.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and the Public Health Service Act to require employers that maintain a group health plan in a state that provides child health assistance under SCHIP in the form of premium assistance to give each employee written notice of potential opportunities for such premium assistance for health coverage of the employee's dependents.
People & committees
Rep. Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE-1] · R–NE
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 Education and Labor
Referred to House Ways and Means
Referred to House Energy and Commerce
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Education and Labor, 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.321 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.321 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.321 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.321 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.