HB6721, the Medicare Advance Planning for Care Act or “MAP for Care Act,” would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create a Medicare Advance Directive Certification Program. The program is designed to encourage Medicare beneficiaries to voluntarily create, store, update, and maintain certified advance directives—such as living wills or durable powers of attorney for health care—that can guide medical treatment if a beneficiary becomes incapacitated. The bill contemplates an electronic, secure, and interoperable system for registration and access, including online enrollment, near real-time retrieval, and the ability to share directives with designated family members, proxies, and health care providers.
The legislation also requires CMS to post links to state statutory advance directive forms and alternative forms on its website, provide a state-by-state index, and include educational material explaining why beneficiaries may want to consider advance directives. It would require annual notifications to eligible beneficiaries during Medicare’s election period and add advance-directive resources to Medicare enrollment materials. The bill explicitly states that it does not preempt state or local laws governing advance directives, and it requires participating vendors or entities to ensure that directives comply with the law of the applicable state.
If enacted, the bill would amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act and add a new section to Medicare Part B establishing federal standards for accreditation, privacy, security, quality review, and beneficiary access related to advance directive vendors and electronic directive systems. It would affect Medicare beneficiaries, CMS, health care providers, and third-party vendors that offer advance directive storage or management services. The bill also creates a framework for public access to alternative forms, subject to state-law compliance review and possible judicial review of CMS decisions.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of advance care planning and beneficiary autonomy. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented opposition or bipartisan debate in the available materials. The bill’s tone is strongly pro-access and pro-education, emphasizing voluntary participation, privacy protections, and practical access to directives in emergencies.
The main points of potential contention are likely to involve federal involvement in a traditionally state-governed area, the role of CMS in accrediting vendors and posting alternative forms, and privacy/security concerns around storing sensitive end-of-life instructions electronically. The bill tries to address those issues by preserving state law, requiring compliance with HIPAA-related privacy rules, and allowing beneficiaries to opt out or terminate participation at any time.
The bill would amend the Social Security Act by adding a new Medicare Advance Directive Certification Program under Part B and related outreach requirements in Medicare enrollment materials. It would create new federal duties for the Secretary of Health and Human Services and CMS to accredit vendors, maintain a website with state forms and educational resources, and establish standards for electronic storage, access, privacy, and quality review of certified advance directives. Although it creates a federal framework, it expressly preserves state and local authority over advance directives and requires compliance with applicable state law.
The available materials suggest a generally favorable, pro-planning sentiment. The bill is framed as a voluntary consumer-education and access measure intended to help Medicare beneficiaries document medical wishes in advance and make those wishes available when needed. No committee discussion or vote record is provided, so there is no evidence in the supplied context of organized opposition, amendments, or partisan division.
Likely areas of contention include whether the federal government should establish a Medicare-linked advance directive infrastructure in an area traditionally governed by state law, and whether CMS should be responsible for accrediting vendors and hosting alternative forms that may reflect different legal or policy perspectives. Privacy, cybersecurity, and the reliability of electronic access in emergencies are also likely concerns, especially because the bill requires near real-time access and sharing with family members, proxies, and providers. Supporters would likely emphasize voluntary participation, portability, and improved access to care preferences, while skeptics may focus on federal overreach, implementation complexity, and data-security risks.