PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 18, 2014
ACO Improvement Act of 2014 - Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act with respect to the shared savings program under which groups of service providers and suppliers meeting specified criteria may work together to manage and coordinate care for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries through an accountable care organization (ACO).
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to permit an ACO that has elected a two-sided risk model to: (1) reduce or eliminate cost-sharing under Medicare part B (Supplementary Medical Insurance) for some or all primary care services furnished by health care professionals within the ACO network; and (2) develop additional incentive programs to encourage patient engagement and participation in their own wellness.
Prescribes requirements for fostering stronger patient-provider ties. Directs the Secretary to require a primary care ACO professional to provide the beneficiary with information concerning the ACO program as part of the initial preventive physical examination of the beneficiary.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to form a stakeholder group including representatives of ACOs, health care providers, Medicare beneficiaries, and ACO experts. Requires such parties to advise the Secretary with recommendations to improve the process of ACO-to-beneficiary communication.
Prescribes requirements for regulatory relief for an ACO that has elected a two-sided risk model and for improving care coordinatiion through access to telehealth.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) conduct a demonstration project to test the use of payment benchmarks that take into account geographic area differences, (2) study the feasibility of establishing a system of electronic access of service providers and suppliers to in-process and complete patient claims data, (3) establish one or more demonstration programs to test the global capitation payment model, and (4) develop a mechanism to make permanent those ACO-related pilot programs that have been successful.
People & committees
Rep. Black, Diane [R-TN-6] · R–TN
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 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: 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.5558 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.5558 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.5558 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.5558 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.