PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 107-540, Part I.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 19, 2002
Title III: Rural Health Care Improvements (sic) - Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to provide that starting for discharges on or after October 1, 2002, hospitals (other than urban hospitals with a 100 or more beds or certain public hospitals) will receive payments based on a blend of their current disproportionate share (DSH) adjustment and the current DSH adjustment for large urban hospitals. Limits such new DSH adjustment.Provides that for discharges occurring: (1) during FY 2003, the average standardized amount for hospitals located other than in a large urban area shall be increased by half the difference between the average standardized amount for hospitals located in large urban areas for such fiscal year and such amount determined for other hospitals for such fiscal year; and (2) during FY 2004 and afterwards, the Secretary shall compute one standardized amount for all hospitals increased by the applicable percentage increase, and use this amount to pay all hospitals.Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, after revising the market basket cost weights to reflect the most current data available, to establish a frequency for revising such weights in such market basket to reflect the most current data available more frequently than once every five years.Revises the critical access hospital program.Amends the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 to extend the ten percent additional payment for home health care furnished to beneficiaries residing in rural areas.Directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study for a report to Congress on differences in payment amounts under the physician fee schedule for physicians' services in different geographic areas.Amends SSA title XI to provide that any remuneration in the form of a contract, lease, grant, loan, or other agreement between a public or non-profit private health center and any individual or entity providing goods or services to the health center is not a violation of the anti-kickback statute if such agreement contributes to the ability of the health center to maintain or increase the availability or quality of services provided to a medically underserved population served by the health center.
People & committees
Rep. Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) [R-LA-3] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 107-540, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 107-540, Part I.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1107)
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: Apr 7, 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.4962 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.4962 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.4962 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.4962 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.