PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 29, 2015
Medicare Post-Acute Care Value-Based Purchasing Act of 2015
This bill amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to: (1) modify market basket percentages for post-acute care (PAC) providers, and (2) establish a PAC value-based purchasing program under which PAC providers receive value-based incentive payments. PAC providers are skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, home health agencies, and long-term care hospitals.
A market basket is an index that reflects inflation and is used to update payments and cost limits. Under current law, market basket percentage increases for PAC providers are generally based on the application of a formula based on costs from the preceding fiscal year, but for FY2018 these increases are fixed at 1%. The bill repeals these fixed increases, leaving FY2018 increases to instead be determined according to the existing formula.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
With respect to the PAC value-based purchasing program, the bill: (1) requires the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) to establish performance standards and scores by which to rank PAC providers; (2) specifies how CMS must calculate value-based incentive payments for each type of PAC provider in accordance with such ranking; (3) requires CMS to make specified annual adjustments to how incentive payments are calculated; and (4) establishes limits on administrative and judicial review.
Under current law, a value-based purchasing program for skilled nursing facilities has been established to begin in FY2019. The bill maintains this program but specifies that it must terminate in FY2025.
People & committees
Rep. Brady, Kevin [R-TX-8] · R–TX
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 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.3298 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.3298 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.3298 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.3298 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.