PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 16, 2008
Rural Hospital Assistance Act of 2008 - Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act with respect to the additional inpatient hospital service payment (payment adjustment) for low-volume hospitals (usually meaning a "subsection (d) hospital" located more than 25 road miles from another subsection (d) hospital and having less than 800 discharges during the fiscal year.)
Redefines low-volume hospital, for discharges occurring during FY2009 only, as a "subsection (d) hospital" located more than 15 (instead of 25) road miles from another "subsection (d) hospital" and having less than 1,500 (instead of 800) discharges of individuals entitled to, or enrolled for, Medicare part A (Hospital Insurance) benefits ("tweeners,'' or hospitals too large to be critical access hospitals, but too small to be financially viable under the Medicare hospital prospective payment system (PPS)).
Revises, for FY2009 only, the temporary applicable percentage in the formula for determining the payment adjustment for such hospitals.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the use of the non-wage adjusted prospective payment rate (PPS) rate during FY2009 under the Medicare-dependent hospital (MDH) program.
Prescribes requirements for hospitals to qualify for a Medicare hospital exception to the prohibition on certain physician referrals to hospitals in which such physicians have an ownership or investment interest in the entity. (Eliminates the Medicare hospital exception for physician-owned hospitals, but provides a limited exception for existing facilities.)
People & committees
Rep. Boswell, Leonard L. [D-IA-3] · D–IA
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.
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.
Source last updated: Jan 10, 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.6912 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.6912 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.6912 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.6912 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.