PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 26, 2017
Dialysis Patient Access to Integrated-care, Empowerment, Nephrologists, Treatment, and Services Demonstration Act of 2017 or the Dialysis PATIENTS Demonstration Act of 2017
This bill establishes a demonstration program for the provision of integrated care to Medicare beneficiaries with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).
Under the voluntary program, eligible participating providers may form organizations to offer ESRD integrated care models and serve as medical homes for program-eligible beneficiaries. Such a model: (1) shall cover medical and hospital services, other than hospice care, under Medicare; (2) must include benefits for transition into transplantation, palliative care, or hospice; and (3) may cover prescription drug benefits. An organization must offer at least one open network model but may also offer one or more preferred network models.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
An organization shall return savings achieved under the models to program-eligible beneficiaries.
A beneficiary shall have the opportunity to: (1) opt out of the program, (2) make an assignment change into an open network model offered by a different organization, or (3) elect a preferred network model.
The bill establishes requirements regarding: (1) benefits for program-eligible beneficiaries who are also eligible for Medicaid benefits, (2) program quality and reporting, (2) ESRD integrated care strategy, (3) program operation and scope, (4) beneficiary notification, and (5) payment.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission must, before 2025, submit to Congress an interim report on the program.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Jason [R-MO-8] · R–MO
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 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 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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 21, 2026. 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.4143 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.4143 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.4143 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.4143 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.