SB 2829, the Preventive Home Visit Act, would amend Medicare law to add a new covered benefit for preventive home visits. The bill defines a preventive home visit as a home visit by a qualified professional or team, no more than once every two years, to assess the home environment, identify health risks, and make referrals for interventions or home modifications that could improve physical function, balance, strength, mobility, nutrition, and reduce fall risks. The visit could be provided in person, remotely, or through a combination of both.
The bill would require Medicare to pay 100 percent of the lesser of the actual charge or a bundled payment amount set by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. That bundled payment would include any referrals made in connection with the visit. The bill also adds a coverage limitation so that visits furnished more frequently than allowed would not be covered. The amendments would take effect for services furnished on or after January 1, 2027.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to create a new Medicare-covered service and payment category for preventive home visits. It would affect Medicare beneficiaries, providers furnishing home-based assessments, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which would need to establish the bundled payment methodology and define who qualifies as a professional or team of professionals. It would also add a new statutory exclusion for visits provided more often than the coverage limit.
Sentiment
The available legislative history shows a neutral, introductory stage of consideration: the bill was introduced and read twice before being referred to the Senate Committee on Finance, with no recorded votes or committee debate in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to reflect a policy interest in preventive care, aging in place, and fall-risk reduction for Medicare beneficiaries.
Contention
No specific opposition or support is documented in the provided transcripts or voting history. The main potential points of contention inherent in the bill are administrative and fiscal: how CMS would define qualified professionals, how the bundled payment would be set, whether remote visits should qualify equally with in-person visits, and the cost implications of adding a new Medicare benefit. Another possible issue is the two-year frequency limit, which may be seen as either a safeguard against overuse or too restrictive for higher-risk beneficiaries.