PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 2, 1999
Medicare+Choice Program Improvement Act of 1999 - Amends parts C (Medicare+Choice) and D (Miscellaneous Provisions) of title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act concerning the Medicare+Choice and Medigap programs to, among other things: (1) allow enrollment in alternative Medicare+Choice plans of Medicare beneficiaries whose Medicare+Choice organizations or group health plans under which they are enrolled have provided notice of intended coverage termination; (2) guarantee access for certain Medicare beneficiaries to Medigap policies in case of involuntary termination of coverage under a Medicare+Choice plan; (3) apply Medicare+Choice and Medigap consumer protections to disabled and end-stage renal disease Medicare beneficiaries; (4) prohibit attained-age rating of premiums for Medigap policies; (5) provide for non-preemption of State prescription drug coverage mandates in case of approved State Medigap waivers; (6) prohibit "cold-call" marketing of Medicare+Choice plans; (7) grant flexibility in the definition of the term "service area" under the Medicare+Choice program; (8) provide for a three-year phase-in of risk adjustment of Medicare+Choice plan payments; (9) allow delays in certain deadlines under the Medicare+Choice program, such as delay in the rate promulgation deadline; (10) account for costs of Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense military facility services to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries in calculating Medicare+Choice plan payment rates; (11) increase civil monetary penalties for failure to meet Medigap open enrollment requirements; and (12) provide for National Association of Insurance Commissioners, at the request of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, review, and, along with the Secretary, update of benefit packages for Medigap policies.
People & committees
Rep. Stark, Fortney Pete [D-CA-13] · D–CA
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 and Environment, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on 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 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 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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E97-98)
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: Jun 3, 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.491 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.491 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.491 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.491 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.