Medicare Advantage Integrity Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/6031
Last Updated: November 19, 2025

Sponsored by

Rescom. Hernández, Pablo Jose [D-PR-At Large]

ID: H001103

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

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

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 Medicare Advantage Integrity Act of 2025 is a cleverly crafted bill that claims to address disparities in Medicare Advantage benchmark levels based on penetration rates. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to funnel more money into the pockets of insurance companies and their lobbyists. The main objective is to establish a floor for Medicare Advantage benchmark rates in regions with low Medicare fee-for-service penetration, ensuring that insurers receive a minimum payment amount.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends Section 1853(n) of the Social Security Act by introducing an "average geographic adjustment floor" of 0.70 for calculating base payment amounts. This means that even if the actual costs are lower, insurers will still receive a minimum payment amount. The bill also adds a provision to ensure that at least 50% of increased payments support basic benefits. How noble.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:

* Insurance companies: They'll reap the benefits of guaranteed minimum payments, regardless of actual costs. * Lobbyists: They've likely written this bill and will continue to influence its implementation. * Medicare Advantage beneficiaries: They might see some increased benefits, but at what cost? * Taxpayers: As always, they'll foot the bill for this legislative largesse.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "follow the money." Insurers will receive more funding, which will likely lead to increased profits and executive bonuses. Beneficiaries might see some short-term benefits, but the long-term consequences will be higher costs and reduced Medicare solvency. Taxpayers will bear the brunt of this fiscal irresponsibility.

Diagnosis: This bill is suffering from a severe case of "Insurer-itis," a disease characterized by an excessive focus on lining the pockets of insurance companies at the expense of taxpayers and beneficiaries. The symptoms include:

* A guaranteed minimum payment amount, regardless of actual costs * Increased profits for insurers * Higher costs for Medicare and taxpayers * Reduced transparency and accountability

Treatment: Apply a healthy dose of skepticism and scrutiny to this bill. Expose the underlying motivations and interests driving its creation. Demand greater transparency and accountability from lawmakers and lobbyists. And, for goodness' sake, stop electing politicians who prioritize corporate profits over people's well-being.

Prognosis: Bleak. This bill will likely pass, and the disease of Insurer-itis will continue to plague our healthcare system.

Related Topics

Civil Rights & Liberties Small Business & Entrepreneurship Federal Budget & Appropriations Congressional Rules & Procedures State & Local Government Affairs National Security & Intelligence Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement Transportation & Infrastructure Government Operations & Accountability
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (house personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

No campaign finance data available for Rescom. Hernández, Pablo Jose [D-PR-At Large]

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.

Introduction

Moderate 61.3%
Pages: 497-499

— 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.

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.