PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 10, 2015
Establishing Beneficiary Equity in the Hospital Readmission Program Act of 2015
This bill amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSAct) with respect to the hospital readmissions reduction program under the inpatient (hospital) prospective payment system (IPPS).
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in determining a hospital's excess readmission ratio for purposes of making payments for discharges occurring during FY2016-FY2017, is required to make a risk adjustment to the ratio that takes into account both: (1) a hospital's proportion of inpatients who are full-benefit dual eligible individuals (eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid under SSAct title XIX), and (2) the socioeconomic status of patients served by the hospital.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The Secretary must base the risk adjustment under the readmission program for subsequent fiscal years on specified reports required by the Improving Medicare Post Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014 as well as a report the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission shall submit on the appropriateness of using a threshold of 30 days for readmissions under the program. The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services must then incorporate report recommendations in carrying out risk adjustments for discharges occurring in such fiscal years in order to ensure that the most vulnerable populations are not unfairly penalized by the program.
The Secretary shall consider the use of V or other International Classification of Diseases-related codes for potential exclusion of noncompliant patient cases when promulgating related regulations for FY2017.
The Secretary must: (1) assess whether to exclude from the calculation of excess readmissions any patients whose clinical conditions or diagnoses may require frequent hospitalizations; then (2) exclude, starting in FY2018, any relevant clinical conditions identified in the assessment recommendations when determining a hospital's publicly reported readmission rate and excess readmissions ratio.
The Secretary is directed to make a payment adjustment to subsection (d) hospitals necessary to ensure that the implementation of this Act does not result in any increase in aggregate expenditures under the IPPS.
(Generally, a subsection (d) hospital is an acute care hospital, particularly one that receives payment under the IPPS when providing covered inpatient services to eligible beneficiaries.)
People & committees
Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV] · D–WV
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: Dec 3, 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.688 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.688 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.688 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.688 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.