PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 28 - 19.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 10, 2016
Common Sense Savings Act of 2016
This bill amends title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security Act (SSAct) to specify how a state must treat qualified lottery winnings and lump sum income for purposes of determining an individual's income-based eligibility for a state Medicaid program. Specifically, a state shall include such winnings or income as income received: (1) in the month in which it was received, if the amount is less than $60,000; (2) over a period of two months, if the amount is at least $60,000 but less than $70,000; (3) over a period of three months, if the amount is at least $70,000 but less than $80,000; and (4) over an additional one-month period for each increment of $10,000 received, not to exceed 120 months.
Qualified lump sum income includes: (1) monetary winnings from gambling; (2) damages received in lump sums or periodic payments, excluding monthly payments, on account of causes of action other than those arising from personal physical injuries or sickness; and (3) income received as liquid assets from the estate of a deceased individual.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
In addition, the bill eliminates the enhanced Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) with respect to the coverage of individuals who are inmates in public institutions. Under current law, the enhanced FMAP applies to coverage of individuals who are newly eligible for Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
The bill also amends title XXI (Children's Health Insurance Program [CHIP]) of the SSAct to terminate increases to the enhanced FMAP as established by the PPACA with respect to CHIP.
Under current law, federal Medicaid reimbursement to states is reduced in proportion to any impermissible state taxes collected from health care providers. The bill lowers a percentage threshold used to determine whether such taxes are impermissible.
The bill terminates the Prevention and Public Health Fund.
People & committees
Rep. Pitts, Joseph R. [R-PA-16] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 28 - 19.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.4725 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.4725 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.4725 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.4725 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.