PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 5, 2017
Strengthening Medicare Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation Programs Act of 2017
This bill amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to revise requirements related the approval of intensive cardiac rehabilitation programs by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for purposes of Medicare coverage.
To be approved by CMS as an intensive cardiac rehabilitation program under current law, a program must show that it: (1) positively affected the progression of coronary heart disease or reduced the need for either coronary bypass surgery or percutaneous coronary interventions, and (2) accomplished a significant reduction in other specified health measures. The bill instead requires a program to show that it: (1) reversed the progression of coronary heart disease or reduced the need for coronary bypass surgery; and (2) accomplished, in addition to a significant reduction in other specified health measures, a significant increase in the measure of blood flow to the heart. The bill further requires a program to show, using research of its own program, that these measures were accomplished by lifestyle changes alone.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill removes the specific requirement that such a program be "physician-supervised" but retains other existing requirements for program supervision.
A program that was approved by CMS as an intensive cardiac rehabilitation program prior to August 1, 2015, shall be deemed to have met these requirements.
To be eligible for an intensive cardiac rehabilitation program under current law, an individual must have had one of several specified conditions or interventions. The bill adds to the list of qualifying conditions: (1) stable, chronic heart failure; and (2) any additional condition that CMS determines shall be covered under such a program.
People & committees
Sen. Heller, Dean [R-NV] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 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.46 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.46 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.46 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.46 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.