PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 20, 2001
Medicare+Choice Improvement and Stabilization Act of 2001 - Amends part C (Medicare+Choice) of title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to make each annual Medicare+Choice capitation rate for a Medicare+Choice payment area for a contract year equal to the largest of the amounts specified under current law or, for 2003, 100 percent of the fee-for-service costs for the Medicare+Choice payment area for services covered under Medicare parts A (Hospital Insurance) or B (Supplementary Medical Insurance) for individuals entitled to benefits under part A and enrolled under part B who are not enrolled in a Medicare+Choice plan under this part for the year.Revises the calculation of the national standardized annual Medicare+Choice capitation rate used in determining the input-price-adjusted annual national Medicare+Choice capitation rate for a Medicare+Choice payment area for calculation of annual Medicare+Choice capitation rates for 2003.Eliminates budget neutrality in such calculation for a year other than 2003. Modifies requirements for establishment of standards (other than solvency standards) for provider-sponsored organizations for Medicare+Choice organizations and plans in relation to State laws to avoid duplicative State regulation.Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a demonstration program under which payment rules for Medicare+Choice organizations are modified in order to promote: (1) the offering of Medicare+Choice plans by preferred provider organizations, of Medicare+Choice plans that provide point-of-sale coverage for other than participating providers, and of MSA plans: and (2) the use of disease management programs by Medicare+Choice plans.Amends SSA title XVII part C to: (1) suspend the limitation for program reentry for Medicare+Choice organizations for 2003 and 2004; and (2) set forth rules governing specialized Medicare+Choice plans for special needs beneficiaries.Amends the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 to provide for extension of municipal health service demonstration projects.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Nancy L. [R-CT-6] · R–CT
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, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
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 19, 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.3584 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.3584 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.3584 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.3584 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.