Supporting Our Seniors Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/2762
Last Updated: April 15, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

ID: R000608

Follow the money

The bill

Supporting Our Seniors Act

S. 2762, 119th Congress — read as touching Long-Term Care & Nursing Homes.

The sponsor

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$127,000 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Health and Human Services" section, p. 500-502 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.

March 18, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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!

Bill Summary

Joy, another meaningless exercise in bureaucratic posturing. Let's dissect this farce.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The "Supporting Our Seniors Act" (S 2762) claims to establish a commission on long-term care. How noble. The real purpose is to create a new layer of government bureaucracy, providing a platform for politicians to pretend they care about seniors while doing nothing substantial.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill establishes a 12-member commission with a laundry list of qualifications that read like a who's who of special interest groups. The commission will submit policy recommendations on long-term care coverage, aging in place, financing options, and caregiver supports. Wow, how original. These are the same tired ideas that have been floating around for decades.

The bill also requires the commission to consult with various stakeholder groups, because God forbid they actually listen to experts or people who know what they're talking about. The Federal agencies affected by these recommendations will respond with their own reports, which will inevitably be ignored.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Seniors, caregivers, and families affected by long-term care needs are the supposed beneficiaries of this bill. In reality, they'll be lucky if they see any tangible benefits. The real stakeholders are the politicians who get to grandstand about their "commitment" to seniors, the special interest groups that will lobby for their own agendas, and the bureaucrats who will staff this new commission.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic example of legislative theater. It creates a new bureaucracy, provides a platform for politicians to pretend they're doing something, and accomplishes nothing meaningful. The real impact will be on taxpayers, who'll foot the bill for this exercise in futility.

In medical terms, this bill is like prescribing a placebo to a patient with a terminal illness. It might make the patient feel better temporarily, but it won't address the underlying disease. In this case, the disease is a broken healthcare system that prioritizes profits over people. This bill is just a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

In conclusion, S 2762 is a cynical exercise in bureaucratic posturing, designed to create the illusion of action while accomplishing nothing meaningful. It's a waste of time and resources, and it will only serve to further disillusion the public with the political process. Bravo, Congress.

Related Topics

Healthcare & Insurance ReformMilitary & Veterans AffairsFederal Budget & Appropriations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$127,000
17 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$49,800
Committees
$0
Individuals
$77,200

No PAC contributions found

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
3 transactions
$8,600
2
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
3 transactions
$7,000
3
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
2 transactions
$6,600
4
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
2 transactions
$6,600
5
CHEROKEE NATION
2 transactions
$5,300
6
SYUCAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
7
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
8
CHICKASAW NATION
3 transactions
$3,100
9
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
1 transaction
$2,500
10
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
11
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
12
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$1,000
13
TAHOE LAND AND DEVELOPMENT
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
SECUNDA, TOM
4 transactions
$50,800
2
MERRIN, SETH
2 transactions
$13,200
3
JONES, J.
1 transaction
$6,600
4
JONES, J. RANDALL
1 transaction
$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]

ID: B001236

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Oct 3, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDEKEWAKANTON COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Nov 7, 2023
3
SHAKOPEE MDEKEWAKANTON COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Jun 27, 2024
4
BJERKE, TYLER
HERITAGE INSURANCE SERVICES • SALES
IndividualFARGO, ND
$5,000
Mar 22, 2023
5
LEPRINO, TERRY
LEPRINO FARMS • BOARD DIRECTOR
IndividualDENVER, CO
$3,300
Dec 6, 2024
6
POWELL, JESSE
PAYWARD INC. • CEO
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
7
POWELL, JESSE
PAYWARD INC. • CEO
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
8
STEPHENS, WARREN MR.
STEPHENS INC • PRESIDENT
IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR
$3,300
Jul 7, 2023
9
STEPHENS, WARREN MR.
STEPHENS INC • PRESIDENT
IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR
$3,300
Jul 7, 2023
10
WALTON, ALICE L.. MS.
SELF-EMPLOYED • PHILANTHROPIST
IndividualBENTONVILLE, AR
$3,300
Aug 11, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 56 nodes and 33 connections (76 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $136,900

Top Donors - Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

13 Orgs4 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

  • Section 2 establishes a Commission on Long-Term Care to study and make recommendations on long-term care coverage, financing, workforce, and related issues, which could lead to policies benefiting long-term care providers.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV])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.

Industries this bill HELPS

  • from 20 contributions
    • PARKINSON, MARK$3,300
    • CONGDON, VICTORIA$1,000
    • GIRARD, DEBORAH$390
    • RUBEL, KAREN$250
    • MCDERMOTT, KAREN$62

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Health and Human Services

Moderate
Vector: 62%
Pages: 500-502AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving long-term care access, affordability, and caregiver support through a commission-based approach, which aligns with Project 2025’s goal of reforming Medicaid long-term care to serve the truly needy and increase flexibility in service delivery. However, the bill does not explicitly address work requirements, personal responsibility mandates, or financing reforms like ending state loopholes or adjusting match rates, which are central to the Project 2025 policy."

Key themes:long-term care reformMedicaid financingprogram integrityflexible benefit designserving the truly needy

— 467 — Department of Health and Human Services l Direct dollars to beneficiaries more effectively and responsibly. The current funding structure for the Medicaid program rewards expansions, lacks transparency, and promotes financing gimmicks. CMS should: 1. End state financing loopholes. 2. Reform payments to hospitals for uncompensated care. 3. Replace the enhanced match rate with a fairer and more rational match rate. 4. Restructure basic financing and put the program on a more fiscally predictable budget (which should include reform of Disproportionate Share Hospital payments to hospitals).31 l Strengthen program integrity. Make program integrity a top priority and the responsibility of the states. To protect the taxpayers’ investment: 1. Incentivize states. An enhanced contingency fee should be paid to states that successfully increase their efforts to decrease waste, fraud, and abuse. The current system’s IT development 90/10 matching rate should be allowed for improvements in states’ current fraud and abuse and eligibility systems. Innovative programs that show a positive return on investment for both the state and federal governments should be allowed without the onerous waiver process. 2. Improve Medicaid eligibility standards to protect those in need. As Medicaid enrollment continues to climb, it is imperative that there are appropriate and accurate eligibility standards to ensure that the program remains focused on serving those who are in need. To this end, CMS should: a. Hold states accountable for improper eligibility determinations. b. Require more robust eligibility determinations. c. Strengthen asset test determinations within Medicaid.32 3. Conduct oversight and reform of managed care.33 l Incentivize personal responsibility. CMS should allow states to ensure that Medicaid recipients have a stake in their personal health care and a say in decisions related to the Medicaid program. Personal responsibility — 468 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and consumer choice for Medicaid recipients must go together as standard components of the safety net, especially for able-bodied recipients. Medicaid recipients, like the rest of Americans, should be given both the freedom to choose their health plans and the responsibility to contribute to their health care costs at a level that is appropriate to protect the taxpayer. l Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups. For example, CMS should launch a robust “personal option” to allow families to use Medicaid dollars to secure coverage outside of the Medicaid program. CMS should also: 1. Clarify that states have the ability to adopt work incentives for able- bodied individuals (similar to what is required in other welfare programs) and the ability to broaden the application of targeted premiums and cost sharing to higher-income enrollees. 2. Add targeted time limits or lifetime caps on benefits to disincentivize permanent dependence.34 l Allow private health insurance. Congress should allow states the option of contributing to a private insurance benefit for all members of the family in a flexible account that rewards healthy behaviors. This reform should also allow catastrophic coverage combined with an account similar to a health savings account (HSA) for the direct purchase of health care and payment of cost sharing for most of the population. l Increase flexible benefit redesign without waivers. CMS should add flexibility to eliminate obsolete mandatory and optional benefit requirements and, for able-bodied recipients, eliminate benefit mandates that exceed those in the private market. This should include flexibility to redesign eligibility, financing, and service delivery of long-term care to serve the most vulnerable and truly needy and eliminate middle-income to upper- income Medicaid recipients. l Eliminate current waiver and state plan processes. CMS should allow providers to make payment reforms without cumbersome waivers or state plan amendment processes where possible. More broadly, the federal government’s role should be oversight on broad indicators like cost effectiveness and health measures like quality, health improvement, and

Department of Health and Human Services

Moderate
Vector: 62%
Pages: 500-502AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving long-term care access, affordability, and caregiver support through a federal commission, which aligns with Project 2025’s goal of reforming Medicaid long-term care to serve the truly needy and increase flexibility. However, the bill emphasizes expanding access and support, while Project 2025 prioritizes work requirements, benefit redesign to exclude middle- and upper-income recipients, and state flexibility—creating partial thematic overlap but divergent approaches"

Key themes:long-term care reformMedicaid flexibilityaffordabilitycaregiver supportservice delivery redesign

— 468 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and consumer choice for Medicaid recipients must go together as standard components of the safety net, especially for able-bodied recipients. Medicaid recipients, like the rest of Americans, should be given both the freedom to choose their health plans and the responsibility to contribute to their health care costs at a level that is appropriate to protect the taxpayer. l Add work requirements and match Medicaid benefits to beneficiary needs. Because Medicaid serves a broad and diverse group of individuals, it should be flexible enough to accommodate different designs for different groups. For example, CMS should launch a robust “personal option” to allow families to use Medicaid dollars to secure coverage outside of the Medicaid program. CMS should also: 1. Clarify that states have the ability to adopt work incentives for able- bodied individuals (similar to what is required in other welfare programs) and the ability to broaden the application of targeted premiums and cost sharing to higher-income enrollees. 2. Add targeted time limits or lifetime caps on benefits to disincentivize permanent dependence.34 l Allow private health insurance. Congress should allow states the option of contributing to a private insurance benefit for all members of the family in a flexible account that rewards healthy behaviors. This reform should also allow catastrophic coverage combined with an account similar to a health savings account (HSA) for the direct purchase of health care and payment of cost sharing for most of the population. l Increase flexible benefit redesign without waivers. CMS should add flexibility to eliminate obsolete mandatory and optional benefit requirements and, for able-bodied recipients, eliminate benefit mandates that exceed those in the private market. This should include flexibility to redesign eligibility, financing, and service delivery of long-term care to serve the most vulnerable and truly needy and eliminate middle-income to upper- income Medicaid recipients. l Eliminate current waiver and state plan processes. CMS should allow providers to make payment reforms without cumbersome waivers or state plan amendment processes where possible. More broadly, the federal government’s role should be oversight on broad indicators like cost effectiveness and health measures like quality, health improvement, and — 469 — Department of Health and Human Services wellness and should give the balance of responsibility for Medicaid program management to states. This reform would include adding Section 111535 waiver requirements in some cases (such as imposing work requirements for able-bodied adults) while rescinding requirements in others (such as non–health care benefits and services related to climate change). AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE l Remove barriers to direct primary care. Direct primary care (DPC) is an innovative health care delivery model in which doctors contract directly with patients for their care on a subscription basis regardless of how or where the care is provided. The DPC model is improving patient access, driving higher quality and lower cost, and strengthening the doctor– patient relationship. DPC has faced many challenges from government policymakers, including overly exuberant attempts at regulation and misclassification. Changes should clarify that DPC’s fixed fee for care does not constitute insurance in the context of health savings accounts.36 l Revisit the No Surprises Act on surprise medical billing. The No Surprises Act37 protected consumers against balance bills, but it also established a deeply flawed system for resolving payment disputes between insurers and providers. This government-mandated dispute resolution process has sown confusion among arbiters and regulators as judges have sought to ascertain its meaning. The No Surprises Act should scrap the dispute resolution process in favor of a truth-in-advertising approach that will protect consumers and free doctors, insurers, and arbiters from confused and conflicting standards for resolving disputes that the disputing parties can best resolve themselves.38 l Facilitate the development of shared savings and reference pricing plan options. Under traditional insurance, patients who choose lower- cost care do not benefit financially from that choice. Barriers to rewarding patients for cost-saving decisions should be removed. CMS should ensure that shared savings and reference pricing models that reward consumers are permitted. l Separate the subsidized ACA exchange market from the non- subsidized insurance market. The Affordable Care Act has made insurance more expensive and less competitive, and the ACA subsidy scheme simply masks these impacts. To make health insurance coverage more affordable for those who are without government subsidies, CMS should develop a plan to separate the non-subsidized insurance market

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak
Vector: 62%
Pages: 497-499AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on establishing a commission to study long-term care improvements, while Project 2025's HHS section centers on Medicare Advantage expansion, Medicaid reform, and Part D changes—there is minimal thematic overlap beyond general senior care concerns."

Key themes:seniorshealthcare accessMedicare

— 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.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills