HB1875, titled the Medicaid Provider Screening Accountability Act, would amend the Social Security Act to require states to perform additional screening of Medicaid providers and suppliers. Beginning January 1, 2028, states would have to check a federal or multi-state database at enrollment, reenrollment, and revalidation, and then at least monthly while the provider remains enrolled. The purpose is to determine whether the provider has been terminated from Medicare by the Secretary of Health and Human Services or terminated by another state’s Medicaid or CHIP program.
The bill is aimed at strengthening Medicaid program integrity by helping states identify providers who have been excluded or removed elsewhere before they can continue billing Medicaid. It would add a new federal requirement to state Medicaid plans, making provider screening more continuous and more uniform across states. The bill was introduced in the House on March 5, 2025, and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend Section 1902 of the Social Security Act and impose a new Medicaid state-plan requirement for ongoing provider screening. States would need to build or use database checks tied to the Affordable Care Act’s provider screening infrastructure and perform those checks not only at enrollment but monthly thereafter. The practical effect would be to increase administrative oversight of Medicaid providers and suppliers and potentially reduce participation by providers previously terminated from Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP in other jurisdictions.
Sentiment
Based on the available record, the bill appears to have a generally positive, bipartisan-leaning policy intent focused on fraud prevention and program integrity. The sponsors include members from different parties, suggesting some cross-party support for the concept of tighter provider screening. No committee debate or recorded votes are available in the provided materials, so there is no documented opposition or formal sentiment beyond the bill’s stated anti-fraud purpose.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or votes. Potential areas of debate, based on the bill text, would likely include the administrative burden on states and providers, the cost of implementing monthly database checks, and whether the added screening could delay enrollment or reenrollment for legitimate providers. Another possible issue is the reliance on inter-state and federal termination data, which may raise questions about data accuracy, timeliness, and due process for providers who have been terminated elsewhere.