PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 25, 2021
Protecting Rural Access to Care Act
This bill limits the scope of guidance issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) regarding the secondary road criteria for Medicare critical access hospitals (CAHs).
Currently, in order to qualify as a CAH under Medicare, a hospital must either (1) be located more than 35 miles (15 miles in mountainous regions or areas with only secondary roads) from another hospital, or (2) have been certified prior to January 1, 2006, by the state as a necessary provider of services in the area.
The CMS issued guidance on July 31, 2015, that provided more detail as to the differences between primary and secondary roads for purposes of CAH certification. The bill specifies that this guidance does not apply to CAHs that were certified prior to July 31, 2015, and that these CAHs are instead subject to the standards that were in place before the guidance was issued. Ongoing CAH certifications are also subject to pre-guidance standards until the CMS issues new guidance after a specified public comment period.
People & committees
Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21] · R–NY
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 House Committee on Ways and Means.
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 3, 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.489 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.489 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.489 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.489 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.