Loading…
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exclude coverage of advance care planning services under the Medicare program.
Legislative Progress
Momentum (last 30 days)
0
score
0 actions · 0 new cosponsors · 0 votes
Speed vs cohort
45pct
8d open
vs 6,526 other HR bills in the 114th — cohort avg 56d
This bill amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to exclude from Medicare coverage advanced planning services, with the exception of certain hospice-related services that may include advising on end-of-life or advanced care planning.
These links require the bill number to appear in the filing's source-reported specific issue text. Client expenses and lobbying-firm income are separate disclosure fields.
Filing registrants (1)
2016 · fourth_quarter · Health Issues
Contacts in support of repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, because repeal would 1) eliminate the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage which would discourage businesses from offering plans less likely to deny lifesaving medical treatment, 2) eliminate the Independent Payment Advisory Boards duty to make recommendations to limit growth in private, nongovernmental spending on health to below the rate of medical inflation, 3) eliminate the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services to implement those recommendations by imposing "quality and efficiency" measures on health care providers, limiting the circumstances in which treatments can be given to their patients, and 4) eliminate the requirement that state health insurance exchanges administrators exclude from their exchanges insurance plans offered by any insurers the administrators believe allow their policyholders inside or outside the exchange to spend what the administrators consider an "excessive or unjustified" amount on their own health care, thereby restricting the medical treatment. Contacts in response to inquiries regarding implementation of certain elements of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, related to the denial of life-saving medical treatments. Contacts regarding S. 1549, the Care Planning Act of 2015 because 1) it fails to contain proper safeguards against dissuading patients to reject life-saving treatment they would otherwise want both to cut costs, and also due to a pervasive quality of life ethic 2) it authorizes health care providers to deny life-preserving treatment against the express will of a patient or surrogate invalidating several state protective laws and 3) advance planning documents that may have been filled out in other states are to be implemented removing state power over informed consent requirements surrounding choosing life-saving measures, food and fluids. Contacts in the U.S. Senate in support of S.2297, the Medicare Choices Empowerment and Protection Act, which would give Medicare beneficiaries and others online access to a website with state-specific model advance directives that choose life-saving treatment, food and fluids equally with those that reject them. Contacts in the U.S. House in support of H.R. 4059, the Medicare Choices Empowerment and Protection Act, which would give Medicare beneficiaries and others online access to a website with state-specific model advance directives that choose life-saving treatment, food and fluids equally with those that reject them. Contacts regarding advance care planning legislation (not introduced) 1) ensure the legislation provides for adequate oversight regarding the creation of advance planning materials, websites, etc. in order to protect against the materials being crafted in a way that persuades patients to reject treatment they might otherwise choose, 2) ensure that there are not Federally funded unmonitored practitioner consultations could lead to patients forgoing treatment they would otherwise have wanted, 3) ensure that there are not adverse changes to the Assisted Suicide Funding and Restriction Act 4) include oversight for grant approval for physician orders for lifesustaining treatment and 5) protect the right of states to ensure informed consent in choosing and rejecting treatment. Contacts regarding legislation (not introduced) regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, provision related to the excise tax on employer-paid health insurance premiums above a governmentally imposed limit that does not allow for medical inflation because the excess benefits tax will have its intended result of effectively imposing a price control on health insurance premiums. Contacts in the U.S. House in support of H.R. 3251 which would prohibit the coverage of advance care planning services under the Medicare Program because unmonitored advance care planning services can in practice be used to nudge patients to agree to forego life-saving treatment and even assisted feeding through the use of unbalanced, distorted, and even inaccurate information. Contacts regarding H.R. 3119, the "Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act" as to whether provisions of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act would be revoked. Contacts regarding legislation (not introduced) regarding potential legislation related to strengthening Federal policy against physician assisted suicide. Contacts regarding legislation (not introduced) regarding potential legislation related to the actions of the D.C. council pertaining to the "Death with Dignity Act" (B21-0038) and associated violations of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-12. National Right to Life opposes the "Death with Dignity Act" and favors congressional nullification thereof. Contacts in the U.S. House regarding potential CMS action in regards to the advance care planning services that have been added to the list of services in the Physician Fee Schedule payment rule.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
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.
Congress.gov source codes: H11100, H11100-A
Introduced in House
Congress.gov source codes: 1000, Intro-H
Bills with similar content found using semantic analysis.
Sources: Congress.gov
Client expense: $70,000 · Firm income: Not reported
Government targets: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SENATE
2016 · third_quarter · Health Issues
Contacts in support of repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, because repeal would 1) eliminate the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage which would discourage businesses from offering plans less likely to deny life-saving medical treatment, 2) eliminate the Independent Payment Advisory Boards duty to make recommendations to limit growth in private, nongovernmental spending on health to below the rate of medical inflation, 3) eliminate the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services to implement those recommendations by imposing quality and efficiency measures on health care providers, limiting the circumstances in which treatments can be given to their patients, 4) eliminate the requirement that state health insurance exchanges administrators exclude from their exchanges insurance plans offered by any insurers the administrators believe allow their policyholders inside or outside the exchange to spend what the administrators consider an excessive or unjustified amount on their own health care, thereby restricting the medical treatment, and 5) eliminate the provisions related to shared decisionmaking because they are likely to be used, on balance, to dissuade patients from choosing life-saving treatment. Contacts in response to inquiries regarding implementation of certain elements of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, related to the denial of life-saving medical treatments. Contacts regarding S. 1549, the Care Planning Act of 2015 because 1) it fails to contain proper safeguards against dissuading patients to reject life-saving treatment they would otherwise want both to cut costs, and also due to a pervasive quality of life ethic 2) it authorizes health care providers to deny life-preserving treatment against the express will of a patient or surrogate invalidating several state protective laws and 3) advance planning documents that may have been filled out in other states are to be implemented removing state power over informed consent requirements surrounding choosing life-saving measures, food and fluids. Contacts in the U.S. Senate in support of S.2297, the Medicare Choices Empowerment and Protection Act, which would give Medicare beneficiaries and others online access to a website with state-specific model advance directives that choose life-saving treatment, food and fluids equally with those that reject them. Contacts in the U.S. House in support of H.R. 4059, the Medicare Choices Empowerment and Protection Act, which would give Medicare beneficiaries and others online access to a website with state-specific model advance directives that choose life-saving treatment, food and fluids equally with those that reject them. Contacts regarding advance care planning legislation (not introduced) 1) ensure the legislation provides for adequate oversight regarding the creation of advance planning materials, websites, etc. in order to protect against the materials being crafted in a way that persuades patients to reject treatment they might otherwise choose, 2) ensure that there are not Federally funded unmonitored practitioner consultations could lead to patients forgoing treatment they would otherwise have wanted, 3) ensure that there are not adverse changes to the Assisted Suicide Funding and Restriction Act 4) include oversight for grant approval for physician orders for life-sustaining treatment and 5) protect the right of states to ensure informed consent in choosing and rejecting treatment. Contacts regarding legislation (not introduced) regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, provision related to the excise tax on employer-paid health insurance premiums above a governmentally-imposed limit that does not allow for medical inflation because the excess benefits tax will have its intended result of effectively imposing a price control on health insurance premiums. Contacts in the U.S. House in support of H.R. 3251 which would prohibit the coverage of advance care planning services under the Medicare Program because unmonitored advance care planning services can in practice be used to nudge patients to agree to forego life-saving treatment and even assisted feeding through the use of unbalanced, distorted, and even inaccurate information. Contacts regarding H.R. 3119, the "Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act" as to whether provisions of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act would be revoked. Contacts regarding legislation (not introduced) regarding potential legislation related to strengthening Federal policy against physician assisted suicide. Contacts in the U.S. House regarding potential CMS action in regards to the advance care planning services that have been recently added to the list of services in the Physician Fee Schedule payment rule.
Client expense: $60,000 · Firm income: Not reported
Government targets: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SENATE
2016 · second_quarter · Health Issues
Contacts in support of repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, because repeal would 1) eliminate the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage which would discourage businesses from offering plans less likely to deny life-saving medical treatment, 2) eliminate the Independent Payment Advisory Boards duty to make recommendations to limit growth in private, nongovernmental spending on health to below the rate of medical inflation, 3) eliminate the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services to implement those recommendations by imposing quality and efficiency measures on health care providers, limiting the circumstances in which treatments can be given to their patients, 4) eliminate the authority of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services effectively to limit the amount of funds senior citizens may voluntarily add on top of the government contribution in order to obtain Medicare Advantage private-fee-for-service health insurance less likely to deny care and more likely to offer health care providers reimbursement rates high enough to induce them to accept Medicare patients, 5) eliminate the requirement that state health insurance exchanges administrators exclude from their exchanges insurance plans offered by any insurers the administrators believe allow their policyholders inside or outside the exchange to spend what the administrators consider an "excessive or unjustified" amount on their own health care, thereby restricting the medical treatment, and 6) eliminate the provisions related to "shared decisionmaking" because they are likely to be used, on balance, to dissuade patients from choosing life-saving treatment. Contacts in response to inquiries regarding implementation of certain elements of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, related to the denial of life-saving medical treatments. Contacts regarding S. 1549, the Care Planning Act of 2015 because 1) it fails to contain proper safeguards against dissuading patients to reject life-saving treatment they would otherwise want both to cut costs, and also due to a pervasive quality of life ethic 2) it authorizes health care providers to deny life-preserving treatment against the express will of a patient or surrogate invalidating several state protective laws and 3) advance planning documents that may have been filled out in other states are to be implemented removing state power over informed consent requirements surrounding choosing life-saving measures, food and fluids. Contacts in the U.S. Senate in support of S.2297, the Medicare Choices Empowerment and Protection Act, which would Give Medicare beneficiaries and others online access to a website with state-specific model advance directives that choose life-saving treatment, food and fluids equally with those that reject them. Contacts in the U.S. House in support of H.R. 4059, the Medicare Choices Empowerment and Protection Act, which would Give Medicare beneficiaries and others online access to a website with state-specific model advance directives that choose life-saving treatment, food and fluids equally with those that reject them. Contacts regarding advance care planning legislation (not introduced) 1) ensure the legislation provides for adequate oversight regarding the creation of advance planning materials, websites, etc. in order to protect against the materials being crafted in a way that persuades patients to reject treatment they might otherwise choose, 2) ensure that there are not Federally funded unmonitored practitioner consultations could lead to patients forgoing treatment they would otherwise have wanted, 3) ensure that there are not adverse changes to the Assisted Suicide Funding and Restriction Act 4) include oversight for grant approval for physician orders for life-sustaining treatment and 5) protect the right of states to ensure informed consent in choosing and rejecting treatment. Contacts regarding legislation (not introduced) regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, provision related to the excise tax on employer-paid health insurance premiums above a governmentally imposed limit that does not allow for medical inflation because the excess benefits tax will have its intended result of effectively imposing a price control on health insurance premiums. Contacts in the U.S. House in support of H.R. 3251 which would prohibit the coverage of advance care planning services under the Medicare Program because unmonitored advance care planning services can in practice be used to nudge patients to agree to forego life-saving treatment and even assisted feeding through the use of unbalanced, distorted, and even inaccurate information. Contacts regarding H.R. 3119, the "Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act" as to whether provisions of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act would be revoked.
Client expense: $60,000 · Firm income: Not reported
Government targets: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SENATE
2016 · first_quarter · Health Issues
Contacts in support of repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, because repeal would 1) eliminate the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage which would discourage businesses from offering plans less likely to deny life-saving medical treatment, 2) eliminate the Independent Payment Advisory Boards duty to make recommendations to limit growth in private, nongovernmental spending on health to below the rate of medical inflation, 3) eliminate the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services to implement those recommendations by imposing quality and efficiency measures on health care providers, limiting the circumstances in which treatments can be given to their patients, 4) eliminate the authority of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services effectively to limit the amount of funds senior citizens may voluntarily add on top of the government contribution in order to obtain Medicare Advantage private-fee-for-service health insurance less likely to deny care and more likely to offer health care providers reimbursement rates high enough to induce them to accept Medicare patients, 5) eliminate the requirement that state health insurance exchanges administrators exclude from their exchanges insurance plans offered by any insurers the administrators believe allow their policyholders inside or outside the exchange to spend what the administrators consider an excessive or unjustified amount on their own health care, thereby restricting the medical treatment, and 6) eliminate the provisions related to shared decisionmaking because they are likely to be used, on balance, to dissuade patients from choosing life-saving treatment. Contacts in response to inquiries regarding implementation of certain elements of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, related to the denial of life-saving medical treatments. Contacts regarding S. 1549, the Care Planning Act of 2015 because 1) it fails to contain proper safeguards against dissuading patients to reject life-saving treatment they would otherwise want both to cut costs, and also due to a pervasive quality of life ethic 2) it authorizes health care providers to deny life-preserving treatment against the express will of a patient or surrogate invalidating several state protective laws and 3) advance planning documents that may have been filled out in other states are to be implemented removing state power over informed consent requirements surrounding choosing life-saving measures, food and fluids. Contacts in the U.S. Senate in support of S.2297, the Medicare Choices Empowerment and Protection Act, which would Give Medicare beneficiaries and others online access to a website with state-specific model advance directives that choose life-saving treatment, food and fluids equally with those that reject them. Contacts in the U.S. House in support of H.R. 4059, the Medicare Choices Empowerment and Protection Act, which would give Medicare beneficiaries and others online access to a website with state-specific model advance directives that choose life-saving treatment, food and fluids equally with those that reject them. Contacts regarding advance care planning legislation (not introduced) 1) ensure the legislation provides for adequate oversight regarding the creation of advance planning materials, websites, etc. in order to protect against the materials being crafted in a way that persuades patients to reject treatment they might otherwise choose, 2) ensure that there are not Federally funded unmonitored practitioner consultations could lead to patients forgoing treatment they would otherwise have wanted, 3) ensure that there are not adverse changes to the Assisted Suicide Funding and Restriction Act 4) include oversight for grant approval for physician orders for life-sustaining treatment and 5) protect the right of states to ensure informed consent in choosing and rejecting treatment. Contacts regarding legislation (not introduced) regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, provision related to the excise tax on employer-paid health insurance premiums above a governmentally imposed limit that does not allow for medical inflation because the excess benefits tax will have its intended result of effectively imposing a price control on health insurance premiums. Contacts in the U.S. House in support of H.R. 3251 which would prohibit the coverage of advance care planning services under the Medicare Program because unmonitored advance care planning services can in practice be used to nudge patients to agree to forego life-saving treatment and even assisted feeding through the use of unbalanced, distorted, and even inaccurate information. Contacts regarding H.R. 3119, the "Palliative Care and Hospice Education and Training Act" as to whether provisions of the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act would be revoked.
Client expense: $60,000 · Firm income: Not reported
Government targets: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SENATE
2015 · fourth_quarter · Health Issues
Contacts in support of repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, because repeal would 1) eliminate the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage which would discourage businesses from offering plans less likely to deny life-saving medical treatment, 2) eliminate the Independent Payment Advisory Boards duty to make recommendations to limit growth in private, nongovernmental spending on health to below the rate of medical inflation, 3) eliminate the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services to implement those recommendations by imposing quality and efficiency measures on health care providers, limiting the circumstances in which treatments can be given to their patients, 4) eliminate the authority of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services effectively to limit the amount of funds senior citizens may voluntarily add on top of the government contribution in order to obtain Medicare Advantage private-fee-for-service health insurance less likely to deny care and more likely to offer health care providers reimbursement rates high enough to induce them to accept Medicare patients, 5) eliminate the requirement that state health insurance exchanges administrators exclude from their exchanges insurance plans offered by any insurers the administrators believe allow their policyholders inside or outside the exchange to spend what the administrators consider an excessive or unjustified amount on their own health care, thereby restricting the medical treatment, and 6) eliminate the provisions related to shared decisionmaking because they are likely to be used, on balance, to dissuade patients from choosing life-saving treatment. Contacts in response to inquiries regarding implementation of certain elements of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, related to the denial of life-saving medical treatments. Contacts regarding S. 1549, the Care Planning Act of 2015 because 1)it fails to contain proper safeguards against dissuading patients to reject life-saving treatment they would otherwise want both to cut costs, and also due to a pervasive quality of life ethic 2) it authorizes health care providers to deny life-preserving treatment against the express will of a patient or surrogate invalidating several state protective laws and 3) advance planning documents that may have been filled out in other states are to be implemented removing state power over informed consent requirements surrounding choosing life-saving measures, food and fluids. Contacts in the U.S. Senate in support of S.2297, the Medicare Choices Empowerment and Protection Act, which would Give Medicare beneficiaries and others online access to a website with state-specific model advance directives that choose life-saving treatment, food and fluids equally with those that reject them. Contacts in the U.S. House in support of H.R. 4059, the Medicare Choices Empowerment and Protection Act, which would Give Medicare beneficiaries and others online access to a website with state-specific model advance directives that choose life-saving treatment, food and fluids equally with those that reject them. Contacts regarding advance care planning legislation (not introduced) 1) ensure the legislation provides for adequate oversight regarding the creation of advance planning materials, websites, etc. in order to protect against the materials being crafted in a way that persuades patients to reject treatment they might otherwise choose, 2) ensure that there are not Federally funded unmonitored practitioner consultations could lead to patients forgoing treatment they would otherwise have wanted, 3) ensure that there are not adverse changes to the Assisted Suicide Funding and Restriction Act 4) include oversight for grant approval for physician orders for life-sustaining treatment and 5) protect the right of states to ensure informed consent in choosing and rejecting treatment. Contacts regarding legislation (not introduced) regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, provision related to the excise tax on employer-paid health insurance premiums above a governmentally-imposed limit that does not allow for medical inflation because the excess benefits tax will have its intended result of effectively imposing a price control on health insurance premiums. Contacts in the U.S. House in support of H.R. 3251 which would prohibit the coverage of advance care planning services under the Medicare Program because unmonitored advance care planning services can in practice be used to nudge patients to agree to forego life-saving treatment and even assisted feeding through the use of unbalanced, distorted, and even inaccurate information.
Client expense: $70,000 · Firm income: Not reported
Government targets: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SENATE
2015 · third_quarter · Health Issues
Contacts in support of repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, because repeal would 1) eliminate the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage which would discourage businesses from offering plans less likely to deny life-saving medical treatment, 2) eliminate the Independent Payment Advisory Boards duty to make recommendations to limit growth in private, nongovernmental spending on health to below the rate of medical inflation, 3) eliminate the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services to implement those recommendations by imposing quality and efficiency measures on health care providers, limiting the circumstances in which treatments can be given to their patients, 4) eliminate the authority of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services effectively to limit the amount of funds senior citizens may voluntarily add on top of the government contribution in order to obtain Medicare Advantage private-fee-for-service health insurance less likely to deny care and more likely to offer health care providers reimbursement rates high enough to induce them to accept Medicare patients, 5) eliminate the requirement that state health insurance exchanges administrators exclude from their exchanges insurance plans offered by any insurers the administrators believe allow their policyholders inside or outside the exchange to spend what the administrators consider an excessive or unjustified amount on their own health care, thereby restricting the medical treatment, and 6) eliminate the provisions related to shared decisionmaking because they are likely to be used, on balance, to dissuade patients from choosing life-saving treatment. Contacts in response to inquiries regarding implementation of certain elements of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, related to the denial of life-saving medical treatments. Contacts regarding S. 1549, the Care Planning Act of 2015 because 1)it fails to contain proper safeguards against dissuading patients to reject life-saving treatment they would otherwise want both to cut costs, and also due to a pervasive quality of life ethic 2) it authorizes health care providers to deny life-preserving treatment against the express will of a patient or surrogate invalidating several state protective laws and 3) advance planning documents that may have been filled out in other states are to be implemented removing state power over informed consent requirements surrounding choosing life-saving measures, food and fluids. Contacts regarding advance care planning legislation (not introduced) 1) ensure the legislation provides for adequate oversight regarding the creation of advance planning materials, websites, etc. in order to protect against the materials being crafted in a way that persuades patients to reject treatment they might otherwise choose, 2) ensure that there are not Federally funded unmonitored practitioner consultations could lead to patients forgoing treatment they would otherwise have wanted, 3) ensure that there are not adverse changes to the Assisted Suicide Funding and Restriction Act 4) include oversight for grant approval for physician orders for life-sustaining treatment and 5) protect the right of states to ensure informed consent in choosing and rejecting treatment. Contacts regarding legislation (not introduced) regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, provision related to the excise tax on employer-paid health insurance premiums above a governmentally imposed limit that does not allow for medical inflation because the excess benefits tax will have its intended result of effectively imposing a price control on health insurance premiums. Contacts in the U.S. House in support of H.R. 3251 which would prohibit the coverage of advance care planning services under the Medicare Program because unmonitored advance care planning services can in practice be used to nudge patients to agree to forego life-saving treatment and even assisted feeding through the use of unbalanced, distorted, and even inaccurate information.
Client expense: $85,770 · Firm income: Not reported
Government targets: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SENATE