The bill amends 42 U.S.C. 1396d(i) to change the federal definition of “institution for mental diseases” (IMD) so that hospitals, nursing homes, or other institutions with 36 beds or fewer are not treated as IMDs if they satisfy nationally recognized, evidence‑based standards approved by the Secretary of HHS. For facilities that provide substance use disorder treatment, the statute explicitly references standards such as those from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM).
Why it matters: by excising small, accredited residential programs from the IMD categorization, the measure removes a legal barrier that has prevented many small residential treatment providers from billing Medicaid for adult services. That could open federal matching funds to small community-based residential mental health and SUD programs, shift where Medicaid dollars flow, and create new compliance and oversight responsibilities for states and providers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill revises the Social Security Act’s IMD definition to exclude institutions with 36 beds or fewer provided they meet nationally recognized, evidence‑based standards approved by the HHS Secretary. The Secretary may require standards on services, clinical hours, and staffing credentials and may approve ASAM or similar standards for SUD programs.
Who It Affects
State Medicaid programs, small residential behavioral health providers (36 beds or fewer), adults seeking residential mental health or SUD care, and CMS/HHS as the approver and monitor of the required standards and program eligibility.
Why It Matters
This is a definitional fix designed to permit federal Medicaid reimbursement where it was previously barred, potentially expanding funding for small community residential programs and changing incentives around where states and providers locate and credential residential behavioral health services.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill rewrites the statutory definition of an “institution for mental diseases” used in Medicaid law. Under current federal practice, IMD status triggers limits on Medicaid payment for certain residential settings; this bill carves out a categorical exclusion for smaller facilities.
Specifically, any hospital, nursing facility, or other institution that otherwise would be an IMD is excluded from that definition if it operates 36 beds or fewer and meets nationally recognized, evidence‑based standards that the Secretary of HHS approves. For programs treating substance use disorders, the statute cites ASAM or comparable standards as examples.
Operationally, the Secretary’s approval role is central. The statute requires that the approved standards set minimum expectations for the kinds of services offered, the hours of clinical care, and staff credentials; it also permits the Secretary to add other requirements.
The text does not itself define the detailed standards, inspection protocols, or the process for certifying compliance—those functions are left to federal rulemaking and CMS practice. The bill takes effect 180 days after enactment and applies to state Medicaid plans beginning on that date.Because this is a definitional amendment rather than a line-item benefit expansion, the provision does not automatically create new entitlement spending.
States would need to include these newly excluded small facilities in their Medicaid benefit designs or submit plan amendments to claim federal matching funds for services delivered in eligible facilities. Providers likewise must meet whatever standards the Secretary approves to be treated as non‑IMDs for Medicaid payment purposes.Practically, the change targets small, community‑scale residential programs—including those focused on addiction treatment—that have been locked out of Medicaid reimbursements by the IMD label.
If implemented and adopted by states, it could increase Medicaid‑funded residential capacity and change financing flows from larger institutional settings to smaller, standards‑based programs. The exact impact will depend on the standards the Secretary adopts, state uptake, and how CMS enforces compliance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 42 U.S.C. 1396d(i) so that a hospital, nursing facility, or other institution is not an IMD if it has 36 beds or fewer and satisfies nationally recognized, evidence‑based standards approved by the HHS Secretary.
For institutions providing substance use disorder treatment, the statute explicitly contemplates acceptance of standards such as the American Society of Addiction Medicine’s (ASAM) criteria.
The Secretary’s approved standards must address the types of services offered, hours of clinical care, and staff credentials; the Secretary may add other requirements as needed.
The amendments take effect 180 days after enactment and apply to state Medicaid plans beginning on that effective date.
The change is a definitional exclusion—not an automatic coverage expansion—so states must elect to cover services in qualifying small facilities and seek federal matching funds to realize new reimbursement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the bill as the “Michelle Alyssa Go Act.” This is purely titular and has no substantive effect on program implementation or eligibility.
Rewrites the IMD definition to exclude small, standards‑based facilities
Replaces the current statutory language defining an 'institution for mental diseases' with a new formulation that excludes hospitals, nursing facilities, or other institutions that (A) have 36 beds or fewer and (B) meet nationally recognized, evidence‑based standards approved by the HHS Secretary. The replacement text lists examples of what the Secretary‑approved standards should cover—services, clinical hours, staffing credentials—and explicitly references ASAM for SUD programs. Practically, Congress leaves the substantive criteria and certification details to the Secretary rather than imposing a federal checklist in statute.
Effective date and applicability to state plans
Makes the change effective 180 days after enactment and states that the amendment applies to state Medicaid plans beginning on that date. That timing both gives HHS an interval to set approval processes and gives states a clear start date for any plan amendments seeking federal matching funds for qualifying small facilities.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Small residential behavioral health providers (36 beds or fewer): They become eligible to be excluded from the IMD designation if they meet Secretary‑approved standards, opening the possibility of Medicaid reimbursement for adult residential mental health and SUD services.
- Adults needing residential mental health or SUD treatment: If states adopt coverage, more community‑scale residential options could receive Medicaid funding, increasing access to local inpatient or intensive residential care.
- State Medicaid programs: States can expand provider networks and potentially draw federal matching dollars for small residential programs that were previously ineligible, helping meet local capacity gaps.
- Evidence‑based SUD programs following ASAM standards: Programs that already meet ASAM criteria may qualify quickly for non‑IMD status and reimbursement pathways, accelerating Medicaid payment for addiction treatment.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Medicaid agencies: States that expand coverage to include qualifying small facilities will face net program cost increases even if part offset by federal matching, plus administrative costs for plan amendments and oversight.
- Small providers: Facilities must meet and document compliance with the Secretary’s standards—potentially incurring staffing, documentation, and capital costs to reach credentialing and service‑hour requirements.
- CMS/HHS: The department must develop approval and oversight procedures, review compliance claims, and may face an increased regulatory workload to certify standards, monitor quality, and adjudicate disputes.
- Larger residential institutions (>36 beds) and some current inpatient providers: They may face competitive pressure if states and payers steer Medicaid‑funded patients toward smaller, standards‑based programs that become reimbursable.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expanding Medicaid‑funded access to smaller, community‑based residential mental health and SUD treatment and guarding federal and state budgets and patient safety from an uncontrolled expansion of Medicaid payments to low‑quality or institutionally organized care. The statute leans toward access by carving out small, standards‑based programs, but it places the burden on HHS and states to craft and enforce standards that prevent circumvention and ensure clinical quality.
The bill leaves several implementation details to HHS, creating both flexibility and uncertainty. It instructs the Secretary to approve 'nationally recognized, evidence‑based standards' but does not set a process, timeline, or minimum content for that approval.
That gap means the earliest practical effect depends on how quickly HHS defines acceptable standards, establishes certification mechanics, and publishes guidance for states and providers.
There is a meaningful risk of regulatory or operational gaming. A 36‑bed threshold creates an incentive for facility owners to split or redesign operations to fall below the cutoff; the statute provides no anti‑avoidance language (for example, an attribution rule aggregating beds across related facilities).
States and CMS will need to anticipate and guard against structures that formally meet the bed limit but functionally replicate larger institutions without commensurate quality controls. Finally, the change is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee access: states must choose to cover services, and many rural or underfunded areas may still lack providers willing or able to make the upfront investments required by Secretary‑approved standards.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.