HB3399, titled the Care for Military Kids Act of 2025, would amend Medicaid law under title XIX of the Social Security Act to create special residency and coverage rules for certain military families. Beginning January 1, 2028, an “active duty relocated individual” would generally be treated as a resident of the state to which they were relocated for purposes of Medicaid eligibility, unless they choose not to be treated that way. The bill covers active-duty service members, certain recently retired service members within 12 months of leaving service, and their dependents, so long as they were already receiving home and community-based services or were on a waiting list for those services at the time of relocation.
The bill also addresses continuity of care for people on home and community-based services waiting lists. If a covered individual relocates while on a waiting list, they would remain on that list until the state completes an assessment and makes an eligibility decision when a slot becomes available, and any denial would have to go through the fair hearing process before removal. For covered individuals already receiving services, the bill directs payment for Medicaid services in the new state to the extent those services are available there, subject to guidance from the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
In addition to the Medicaid policy changes, the bill provides $1 million per year for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 to HHS to implement the new requirements. It also includes an effective-date provision that generally makes the amendments effective upon enactment, but allows delayed compliance for states that need new legislation to conform their Medicaid plans.
The bill’s impact would be to amend state Medicaid plan requirements nationwide and create a uniform federal rule for military-related relocations, affecting state Medicaid agencies, military families, and providers of home and community-based services. States with waiting lists or restrictive residency rules would need to adjust eligibility and enrollment procedures for covered military families, and the federal government would oversee implementation through HHS guidance and funding.
Overall sentiment appears favorable and supportive, though the available record is limited: the bill was introduced by bipartisan sponsors and referred to committee without recorded opposition, amendments, or votes. The main policy issue implicit in the text is balancing portability and continuity of Medicaid coverage for military families against state administrative control over residency determinations, waiting lists, and service availability. No specific committee objections or contested points are available in the provided materials.
HB3399 would amend section 1902 of the Social Security Act to require state Medicaid plans to treat certain relocated military families as residents of the new state for eligibility purposes, preserve their place on home and community-based services waiting lists after relocation, and allow payment for covered services in the relocation state when available. It would create a new federal definition of “active duty relocated individual” and require state plan compliance, with delayed implementation allowed only where state legislation is needed. The bill would also appropriate $1 million annually from FY 2026 through FY 2030 to HHS for implementation.
The available context suggests generally positive or supportive sentiment. The bill’s title and text indicate a pro-military-family policy goal, and it was introduced with bipartisan sponsorship by Representatives Kiggans and Kaptur. There are no recorded votes, committee hearings, or transcript excerpts showing opposition or debate, so no formal sentiment beyond introduction and referral can be identified from the provided materials.
The principal points of potential contention are administrative and federalism-related: whether states should be required to treat relocated service members and dependents as residents for Medicaid purposes, how waiting-list priority and fair-hearing rights should work across state lines, and whether states can cover services in the relocation state when those services may differ by state. Another possible issue is the cost and operational burden on state Medicaid agencies, although the bill includes a modest federal implementation appropriation and a delayed-compliance provision for states needing legislation. No specific objections were recorded in the provided context.