PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 317. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S8496-8497)
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Dec 8, 2015
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Audit & Appeals Fairness, Integrity, and Reforms in Medicare Act of 2015 or the AFIRM Act
(Sec. 2) This bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide for the annual transfer, from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Insurance Trust Fund, of specified additional funding for Medicare hearings and appeals.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) shall study whether the availability of such funds led to any improvements in the Medicare appeals program.
(Sec. 3) The bill amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to require HHS to establish, within the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals, decision-making officials to be known as Medicare magistrates.
(Sec. 4) With specified exceptions, Medicare appeals shall be remanded to the redetermination level when a party to the appeal introduces new evidence.
(Sec. 5) HHS shall establish by regulation and implement processes authorizing an administrative law judge (ALJ) to, in specified cases: (1) issue a decision on the record, or (2) certify an appeal for expedited process to judicial review.
(Sec. 6) If specified requirements are met, the adjudicator of a Medicaid appeal may consolidate pending requests for review into a single action and may issue either a single decision or separate decisions.
With the consent of the appellant, an adjudicator may use statistical sampling and extrapolation in reaching a decision with respect to a Medicare appeal.
(Sec. 7) HHS shall establish and implement a process for the referral of cases in which there is a credible suspicion of fraudulent activity to relevant specified agencies.
(Sec. 8) HHS must study the feasibility of increasing the participation of specified entities in Medicare appeals hearings.
(Sec. 9) The bill extends training requirements for ALJs to Medicare magistrates and establishes additional training for both types of adjudicator.
HHS shall: (1) annually publish on its website specified data regarding Medicare appeals, (2) establish and implement a process for identifying inconsistent interpretations of policies in Medicare appeals, and (3) study whether the specialization of ALJs would lead to more consistent decisions.
GAO must study the consistency of Medicare appeals decisions.
HHS shall establish one or more optional alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process for redeterminations and reconsiderations. There shall be no judicial review of an ADR settlement.
(Sec. 10) HHS must: (1) establish guidelines for reviewing claims for payment submitted by providers; (2) designate a point of contact to oversee and undertake several Medicare program integrity initiatives; and (3) establish a secure system through which a provider may track the status of a claim for payment that is being audited or processed as an appeal.
(Sec. 11) HHS shall appoint a Medicare Reviews and Appeals Ombudsman.
(Sec. 12) The bill limits the audit and recovery period for reviews of an individual's classification as an inpatient or an outpatient for purposes of hospital claims for payment. HHS shall study the impact of shortening such period with respect to different types of reviews.
(Sec. 13) HHS shall establish a compliance incentive program consisting of: (1) a system through which a provider that has achieved a low rate of payment claim denials shall, for one year, be exempt from a post-payment review of payment claims; and (2) an established process for conditioning the number of medical records that a review contractor may request from a provider on the quality of that review contractor's performance over a specified period.
People & committees
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 317. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S8496-8497)
Committee on Finance. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Hatch. With written report No. 114-177.
Committee on Finance. Original measure reported to Senate by Senator Hatch. With written report No. 114-177.
Introduced in Senate
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: Apr 7, 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 S.2368 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 S.2368 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 S.2368 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 S.2368 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.