The bill
Due Process Continuity of Care Act
HR. 1510, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.
Sponsored by
Rep. Turner, Sylvester [D-TX-18]
ID: T000489
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 1510, 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
21 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
ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Ms. Dexter asked unanimous consent that she may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 1510, a bill originally introduced by Representative Turner (TX), for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
September 7, 2025
📍 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 esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce and expose the underlying disease.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Due Process Continuity of Care Act (HR 1510) claims to remove the Medicaid coverage exclusion for inmates in custody pending disposition of charges. In other words, it aims to provide medical assistance to individuals who are awaiting trial or sentencing while incarcerated. How noble. But let's not be fooled – this bill is merely a symptom of a larger disease: the perpetual need for politicians to appear compassionate and concerned about social justice.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends title XIX of the Social Security Act to include inmates in custody pending disposition of charges as eligible for Medicaid coverage. It also establishes planning grants for states to support providing medical assistance to this population. Oh, joy – more bureaucratic red tape and opportunities for graft.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:
* Inmates awaiting trial or sentencing (the supposed beneficiaries) * States administering Medicaid programs * Healthcare providers (who will likely profit from the increased demand for services) * Law enforcement personnel (who might be forced to deal with the administrative headaches caused by this bill) * Lobbyists and special interest groups (who will undoubtedly find ways to exploit this legislation for their own gain)
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic example of "feel-good" legislation, designed to appease the bleeding hearts in Congress while ignoring the underlying issues. The real impact will be:
* Increased costs for Medicaid programs, which will likely lead to further strain on an already overburdened system * More bureaucratic hurdles and administrative costs for states and healthcare providers * Potential opportunities for corruption and abuse, as with any government program involving large sums of money * A negligible improvement in the actual health outcomes for inmates, who will still face significant barriers to accessing quality care
In conclusion, HR 1510 is a prime example of legislative malpractice. It's a Band-Aid solution that ignores the root causes of the problem and instead focuses on creating more bureaucracy and opportunities for special interests to profit. The politicians behind this bill are either incompetent or complicit in perpetuating the cycle of waste and inefficiency that plagues our healthcare system.
Rep. Turner, Sylvester [D-TX-18]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: T000463
Top Contributors
10
ID: R000609
Top Contributors
10
ID: T000469
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001298
Top Contributors
10
ID: V000133
Top Contributors
10
ID: F000475
Top Contributors
10
ID: O000019
Top Contributors
10
ID: D000399
Top Contributors
10
ID: N000147
Top Contributors
10
ID: S001205
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 48 nodes and 36 connections (33 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $130,949
Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 1 harmed.
Section 2(a) removes Medicaid coverage exclusion for inmates pending disposition of charges, expanding Medicaid eligibility and increasing demand for hospital and health system services for this population. Section 3 provides planning grants to states to support medical assistance under Medicaid for this population, including developing provider networks and infrastructure, directly benefiting hospitals and health systems that will treat these patients.
Section 3(c)(1)(A) includes planning for physical health treatment and behavioral health treatment, including substance use disorder treatment and recovery services, which may involve long-term care providers. The expansion of Medicaid coverage to inmates pending disposition of charges could increase demand for long-term care services, particularly for those with chronic conditions or needing post-acute care.
By removing the Medicaid exclusion for inmates pending disposition of charges, the bill increases healthcare costs for correctional facilities, as they may now be responsible for coordinating or providing Medicaid-covered services. This could increase operational costs for private prison operators, representing a potential financial burden.
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 Medicaid reform goals by promoting state flexibility and aiming to improve efficiency and continuity of care, though it expands coverage for a specific population whereas Project 2025 emphasizes constraining overall Medicaid growth."
— 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 expanding Medicaid coverage to incarcerated individuals, while Project 2025 emphasizes work requirements, cost-sharing, benefit redesign, and reducing federal oversight—goals that are not addressed or supported by the bill’s provisions."
— 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
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on expanding Medicaid access to incarcerated individuals, while Project 2025 emphasizes Medicaid reform through fiscal responsibility, program integrity, work requirements, and reduced federal involvement—objectives that are largely misaligned with expanding coverage to new populations."
— 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
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.