PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 27, 2000
Medicare Fairness in Reimbursement Act of 2000 - Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act with regard to payments to Medicare+Choice organizations concerning the calculation of annual Medicare+Choice capitation rates.Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promptly conduct a new survey of levels of wages and wage-related costs for different occupational categories of hospital employees and to use the survey data in computing a certain hospital wage index for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2001.Provides that, in applying any wage-related geographic area adjustment to a portion of a payment amount or rate under Medicare, the portion to which the adjustment is applied shall be 75 percent of the portion otherwise computed, and 25 percent of such portion shall not be subject to any such geographic area adjustment. Applies such provision to geographic adjustments made under specified Medicare provisions, including those with regard to home health and clinical laboratory services.Amends part C (Medicare+Choice) of title XVIII to permanently remove application of the budget neutrality factor under the Medicare+Choice program beginning in 2002.Allows a Medicare+Choice organization to elect to apply an area-specific percentage of 50 percent and a national percentage of 50 percent for 2002 rather than the rate currently applicable for that year in determining the blended capitation rate used in determining the calculation of annual Medicare+Choice capitation rates.Amends SSA title XVIII to require the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to review the extent to which the adjustments made in payment rates on a geographical basis for variations in costs accurately reflect the actual costs of items and services in low reimbursement areas and the impact of such adjustments on the health infrastructure in such areas.
People & committees
Rep. Minge, David [D-MN-2] · D–MN
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.
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.
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.5070 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.5070 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.5070 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.5070 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.