PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 27 - 16.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 19, 2026
Protecting Seniors and Stopping Fraudsters Act
This bill establishes additional requirements for hospice programs and home health agencies under Medicare, particularly in relation to oversight and transparency.
Specifically, the bill subjects hospice programs to revalidation within one year if the program (1) is located in a state in which new hospice programs are subject to enhanced oversight, as determined by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS); and (2) has not been subject to revalidation over the previous 18 months.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Additionally, hospice programs and home health agencies that are newly enrolled, have undergone a change in ownership, or have had billing privileges reactivated must undergo surveys at least once every 12 months over the 36-month period following their change in status. The bill also requires hospice programs and home health agencies that do not submit required data to the CMS or that have an unusual rate of admissions or discharges to undergo additional surveys. The bill also subjects hospice programs and home health agencies that fail to submit required data to the CMS to larger payment reductions beginning in FY2029.
The CMS must identify hospice programs and home health agencies that are located in a state or county for which the total number of such programs and agencies significantly exceeds the totals for the previous year. The CMS must flag these programs and agencies as being at extreme risk of fraud and institute additional screening requirements, including fingerprinting requirements for certain personnel.
People & committees
Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 27 - 16.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
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: Sep 19, 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.8883 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.8883 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.8883 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.8883 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.