The bill
Medicare Advantage Improvement Act of 2026
HR. 8375, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.
Sponsored by
Rep. Joyce, John [R-PA-13]
ID: J000302
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 8375, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Health and Human Services" section, p. 497-499 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H3095)
April 26, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Medicare Advantage Improvement Act of 2026 is a laughable attempt to reform the Medicare Advantage program. Its primary objective is to reduce the timeframes for Medicare Advantage organizations to respond to authorization requests, because, apparently, they've been taking too long to deny claims. How noble.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 1852(g) of the Social Security Act to require Medicare Advantage organizations to respond to certain authorization requests within 72 hours, with possible extensions up to 7 calendar days. Because, you know, that's exactly what's been missing from our healthcare system – more bureaucratic red tape. Oh, and let's not forget the "expedited organization determinations" provision, which is just a fancy way of saying "we're going to make it slightly less painful for patients to get the care they need, but only if it's convenient for us."
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: Medicare Advantage organizations, healthcare providers, patients, and, of course, the pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies that will inevitably benefit from this "reform." Don't worry, they'll find ways to game the system and increase their profits.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It won't address the underlying issues plaguing our healthcare system, such as lack of transparency, conflicts of interest, and good old-fashioned greed. Patients will still be stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare, and healthcare providers will continue to waste time navigating the labyrinthine authorization process. The only winners here are the Medicare Advantage organizations, which will get to maintain their profit margins while pretending to care about patient outcomes.
In conclusion, this bill is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a cynical attempt to appease voters with empty promises of "improvement" while perpetuating the status quo. The real disease here is the corrupting influence of money in politics, and this bill is just another symptom of that disease. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch our elected officials pretend to care about the welfare of their constituents.
Rep. Joyce, John [R-PA-13]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: S001216
Top Contributors
45
ID: M001210
Top Contributors
20
ID: P000613
Top Contributors
28
ID: M001215
Top Contributors
25
ID: B001287
Top Contributors
23
ID: V000134
Top Contributors
23
ID: D000230
Top Contributors
26
ID: M000871
Top Contributors
22
ID: N000147
Top Contributors
20
ID: L000599
Top Contributors
21
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 51 nodes and 53 connections
Total contributions: $53
Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 5 helped, 1 harmed.
Section 2(a)(1)(C)(i) requires Medicare Advantage organizations to provide authorization determinations within 72 hours (or up to 7-day extensions) for specified authorizations, reducing administrative delays and improving timely access to care for enrollees, which benefits hospitals and health systems by reducing bottlenecks in service delivery.
Section 5(b)(1)(B)(ii) requires Medicare Advantage organizations to apply coverage criteria for long-term care hospital services that are not more restrictive than standards under Part A/B, including section 1861(ccc) which covers certain inpatient hospital services, potentially increasing access to pharmaceuticals administered in those settings.
Section 7 adds a network adequacy standard requiring MA organizations to provide adequate access to long-term care hospitals and inpatient rehabilitation facilities for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2028, directly increasing demand and access for long-term care providers.
Section 5(b)(1)(A) prohibits MA organizations from applying medical necessity criteria more restrictive than Original Medicare's reasonable and necessary standards under section 1862(a)(1), which could improve coverage for innovative biotech therapies and gene treatments that often face prior authorization hurdles.
Section 2 imposes new operational requirements on Medicare Advantage organizations (private health insurers), including faster authorization timelines (72-hour/24-hour rules), real-time decision mechanisms, transparency reporting, and compliance scoring with potential payment reductions (Section 3(a)), increasing administrative costs and financial risk.
Section 2(a)(1)(C)(iii) defines 'specified authorization' to include concurrent determinations for items/services, and Section 2(b) mandates real-time authorization decisions for identified services via certified EHR technology, which could increase utilization of certain medical devices by reducing prior authorization delays.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Joyce, John [R-PA-13])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of improving Medicare Advantage by reducing bureaucratic delays and enhancing responsiveness, supporting the objective to remove burdensome policies that micromanage MA plans and strengthen the program through competitive, beneficiary-focused reforms."
— 464 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l The Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) rule; l The Medicare Advantage Qualifying Payment Arrangement Incentive (MAQI) demonstration; and l The Global and Professional Direct Contracting (GPDC, rebranded as the Accountable Care Organization Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health or ACO REACH) model. Additionally, regulations should advance site neutrality by eliminating the inpa- tient-only list and expanding the ambulatory surgical center covered procedures list. Medicare generally pays more for inpatient hospital procedures and less for the same procedures performed in an outpatient setting. Whether a medical ser- vice is delivered in a physician’s office, a clinic, or a hospital setting, the Medicare payment for that service should be the same. CMS should expand the application of site-neutral payment options to more settings. Such a policy would level the playing field among providers and remove the financial disabilities for medical professionals who would compete with hospital systems.23 Finally, HHS needs to restore and enhance conscience protection regulations that allow medical practitioners to participate in federal health care programs without being compelled to provide sex changes or similar services. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS l Remove restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. The Affordable Care Act (ACA)24 imposed restrictions prohibiting Medicare from reimbursing physician-owned and specialty hospitals. The current restrictions do little more than serve the special interests of large hospital systems and undercut consumer choice of high-quality, specialty care. These restrictions should be removed so that physician-owned hospitals can compete with other hospitals in serving Medicare patients.25 l Encourage more direct competition between Medicare Advantage and private plans. Medicare Advantage (MA), a system of competing private health plans, is the major alternative to traditional Medicare for America’s large and growing cohort of seniors. The program provides beneficiaries with a wide range of competitive health plan choices—a richer set of benefits than traditional Medicare provides and at a reasonable cost. Equally as important, the MA program has been registering consistently high marks for superior performance in delivering high-quality care. Critical reforms are still needed to strengthen and improve the program for the future. Specifically: — 465 — Department of Health and Human Services 1. Make Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option. 2. Give beneficiaries direct control of how they spend Medicare dollars. 3. Remove burdensome policies that micromanage MA plans. 4. Replace the complex formula-based payment model with a competitive bidding model. 5. Reconfigure the current risk adjustment model. 6. Remove restrictions on key benefits and services, including those related to prescription drugs, hospice care, and medical savings account plans.26 Legacy Medicare Reform. Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should: l Base payments on the health status of the patient or intensity of the service rather than where the patient happens to receive that service. l Replace the bureaucrat-driven fee-for-service system with value- based payments to empower patients to find the care that best serves their needs. l Codify price transparency regulations. l Restructure 340B drug subsidies27 toward beneficiaries rather than hospitals. l Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program28 and Inflation Reduction Act.29 Medicare Part D Reform. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) created a drug price negotiation program in Medicare that replaced the existing private-sector negotiations in Part D with government price controls for prescription drugs. These government price controls will limit access to medications and reduce patient access to new medication. This “negotiation” program should be repealed, and reforms in Part D that will have meaningful impact for seniors should be pursued. Other reforms should include eliminating the coverage gap in Part D, reducing the government share in
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on improving authorization timelines in Medicare Advantage, which aligns with Project 2025's goal of removing burdensome policies that micromanage MA plans (point 3) and enhancing responsiveness. However, it does not address broader structural reforms like making MA the default option, changing payment models, or revising risk adjustment, resulting in moderate rather than strong alignment."
— 465 — Department of Health and Human Services 1. Make Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option. 2. Give beneficiaries direct control of how they spend Medicare dollars. 3. Remove burdensome policies that micromanage MA plans. 4. Replace the complex formula-based payment model with a competitive bidding model. 5. Reconfigure the current risk adjustment model. 6. Remove restrictions on key benefits and services, including those related to prescription drugs, hospice care, and medical savings account plans.26 Legacy Medicare Reform. Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should: l Base payments on the health status of the patient or intensity of the service rather than where the patient happens to receive that service. l Replace the bureaucrat-driven fee-for-service system with value- based payments to empower patients to find the care that best serves their needs. l Codify price transparency regulations. l Restructure 340B drug subsidies27 toward beneficiaries rather than hospitals. l Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program28 and Inflation Reduction Act.29 Medicare Part D Reform. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) created a drug price negotiation program in Medicare that replaced the existing private-sector negotiations in Part D with government price controls for prescription drugs. These government price controls will limit access to medications and reduce patient access to new medication. This “negotiation” program should be repealed, and reforms in Part D that will have meaningful impact for seniors should be pursued. Other reforms should include eliminating the coverage gap in Part D, reducing the government share in — 466 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the catastrophic tier, and requiring manufacturers to bear a larger share. Until the IRA is repealed, an Administration that is required to implement it must do so in a way that is prudent with its authority, minimizing the harmful effects of the law’s policies and avoiding even worse unintended consequences.30 Medicaid. Over the past 45 years, Medicaid and the health safety net have evolved into a cumbersome, complicated, and unaffordable burden on nearly every state. The program is failing some of the most vulnerable patients; is a prime target for waste, fraud, and abuse; and is consuming more of state and federal budgets. The dramatic increase in Medicaid expenditures is due in large part to the ACA (Obamacare), which mandates that states must expand their Medicaid eligibility standards to include all individuals at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), and the public health emergency, which has prohibited states from performing basic eligibility reviews. The overlap of available benefits among the various health agencies has led to a complex, confusing system that is nearly impossible to navigate—even for recipients. Recipients are often faced with a “welfare cliff” of benefit losses as they earn above a certain amount, which is contrary to the fundamental purpose of empowering individuals to achieve economic independence. Benefits increasingly involve nonmedical services such as air conditioning and housing, many of which are already handled by departments other than HHS. Improper payments within Medicaid are higher than those of any other federal program. These payments are evidence of the inappropriateness of Medicaid’s expansion, which, stemming largely from public health emergency maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements and the Affordable Care Act, has crowded out the primary targets of these programs: those who are most in need. True health care reform cannot be accomplished in a bureaucratic silo or only through Medicaid and health safety net programs. Reform of the tax code is also essential to genuine, effective reform of our health care system. All components of the health care system should be part of the reform efforts, and it is imperative that the system be modified to assist states with their current programs. Therefore, the next Administration should: l Reform financing. Allow states to have a more flexible, accountable, predictable, transparent, and efficient financing mechanism to deliver medical services. This system should include a more balanced or blended match rate, block grants, aggregate caps, or per capita caps. Any financial system should be designed to encourage and incentivize innovation and the efficient delivery of health care services. Federal and state financial participation in the Medicaid program should be rational, predictable, and reasonable. It should also incentivize states to save money and improve the quality of health care.
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on improving Medicare Advantage authorization timelines, which aligns with Project 2025's goal of strengthening and improving the Medicare Advantage program for better performance and beneficiary access, though it does not directly address the specific proposals like RADV, MAQI, or ACO REACH mentioned in the policy."
— 464 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l The Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) rule; l The Medicare Advantage Qualifying Payment Arrangement Incentive (MAQI) demonstration; and l The Global and Professional Direct Contracting (GPDC, rebranded as the Accountable Care Organization Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health or ACO REACH) model. Additionally, regulations should advance site neutrality by eliminating the inpa- tient-only list and expanding the ambulatory surgical center covered procedures list. Medicare generally pays more for inpatient hospital procedures and less for the same procedures performed in an outpatient setting. Whether a medical ser- vice is delivered in a physician’s office, a clinic, or a hospital setting, the Medicare payment for that service should be the same. CMS should expand the application of site-neutral payment options to more settings. Such a policy would level the playing field among providers and remove the financial disabilities for medical professionals who would compete with hospital systems.23 Finally, HHS needs to restore and enhance conscience protection regulations that allow medical practitioners to participate in federal health care programs without being compelled to provide sex changes or similar services. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS l Remove restrictions on physician-owned hospitals. The Affordable Care Act (ACA)24 imposed restrictions prohibiting Medicare from reimbursing physician-owned and specialty hospitals. The current restrictions do little more than serve the special interests of large hospital systems and undercut consumer choice of high-quality, specialty care. These restrictions should be removed so that physician-owned hospitals can compete with other hospitals in serving Medicare patients.25 l Encourage more direct competition between Medicare Advantage and private plans. Medicare Advantage (MA), a system of competing private health plans, is the major alternative to traditional Medicare for America’s large and growing cohort of seniors. The program provides beneficiaries with a wide range of competitive health plan choices—a richer set of benefits than traditional Medicare provides and at a reasonable cost. Equally as important, the MA program has been registering consistently high marks for superior performance in delivering high-quality care. Critical reforms are still needed to strengthen and improve the program for the future. Specifically:
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.