PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 4, 2026
Indian Health Service Emergency Claims Parity Act
This bill extends from 72 hours to not less than 15 days the time period to notify the Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) program of emergency medical care received from a non-Indian Health Service (IHS) medical provider or at a non-IHS medical facility. This bill does not apply to individuals who are elderly or disabled, who continue to have a 30-day notification requirement for emergency services.
The IHS provides medical and dental services directly to American Indian and Alaska Native patients whenever possible. The PRC program pays for medical or dental care that is provided away from an IHS or tribal health care facility. The PRC program must be notified of requests for authorization of payment for health care services from a non-IHS provider.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Currently in emergency cases, the patient, an individual on behalf of the patient, or the medical care provider must, within 72 hours after the beginning of treatment for the condition or after admission to a health care facility, notify a PRC authorizing official of the need for the emergency medical care. This bill instead allows the patient, other individual, or provider to notify PRC not less than 15 days of the treatment or admission.
People & committees
Rep. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5576)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5576)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 8658.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5576-5578)
Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 679.
Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged.
Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-778, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-778, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs Discharged
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, 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 Natural Resources, 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: Oct 31, 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.8658 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.8658 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.8658 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.8658 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.