This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act to disapprove the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ CY 2025 Home Health Prospective Payment System (HH PPS) rule, including related Quality Reporting Program requirements and the Value-Based Purchasing expanded model. If enacted, the rule would have no force or effect.
The move targets the CMS update to home-health payments and associated Medicare policies, illustrating Congress’s tool to block agency rulemaking. The measure is sponsored by Rep.
Andrew Clyde and referred to the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill disapproves CMS’s CY 2025 HH PPS rule under the Congressional Review Act, rendering the rule void, including the rate update, QRP changes, VB-P requirements, IVIG rate updates, and other related Medicare provisions.
Who It Affects
Directly affects CMS administration of HH PPS and related Medicare policies; indirectly impacts home health providers, Medicare beneficiaries, and states administering home health program oversight.
Why It Matters
It demonstrates Congress’s use of CRA to block agency updates and preserves the status quo in home health payments and policy regimes, with potential downstream effects on provider finances and patient access.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is a straightforward exercise of congressional oversight: it targets the CMS CY 2025 Home Health Prospective Payment System rule and uses the Congressional Review Act to block it. The rule in question updates how home health payments are calculated for CY 2025 and includes changes to quality reporting, a value-based purchasing model, and updates to Home IVIG rates among other Medicare policies.
By law, when Congress disapproves such a rule, it has no force or effect. The resolution’s passage would leave the current policy framework in place rather than letting the CMS updates take effect.
This kind of disapproval is a check on federal rulemaking and demonstrates how Congress can halt agency actions even as agencies pursue modernization of payment systems and program requirements. The bill is anchored in the 89 Fed.
Reg. 88354 rule published November 7, 2024, which this measure seeks to nullify.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove the CMS CY 2025 HH PPS rule.
If enacted, the CMS rule shall have no force or effect.
The disapproved rule covers CY 2025 HH PPS rate update, QRP requirements, VB-P expanded model, IVIG rate updates, and related Medicare policies.
Introduced by Rep. Andrew Clyde and referred to Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce.
Current stage is Introduced in the 119th Congress (February 12, 2025).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Disapproval under CRA
Section 1 states Congress disapproves the CMS CY 2025 Home Health PPS rule under the Congressional Review Act. This frames the statutory authority for nullifying the agency rule and sets the procedural basis for the disapproval without altering other agency activities outside the rule.
Effect of disapproval
Section 2 provides that the CMS CY 2025 HH PPS rule shall have no force or effect upon enactment. It creates the legal effect of reverting or maintaining the status quo ante for the home health payment and related Medicare policies specified in the disapproved rule.
Rule scope addressed by disapproval
Section 3 enumerates the components of the CMS rule targeted by disapproval: the CY 2025 HH PPS rate update, HH Quality Reporting Program requirements, the Value-Based Purchasing Expanded Model, Home IVIG items and services rate update, and other Medicare policies cited in the Federal Register notice (89 Fed. Reg. 88354). This clarifies the scope of what Congress intends to block.
Procedural mechanics
Section 4 outlines that the resolution, once adopted by both houses and presented to the President, becomes law, immediately blocking the rule’s implementation. It also clarifies that this action operates under the statutory CRA framework, without prescribing alternate policy replacements within the resolution.
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 and rural home health agencies seeking policy stability and predictable revenue streams.
- Home health provider associations that prefer maintaining the current payment and administrative framework.
- Members of Congress who champion oversight of agency rulemaking under the Congressional Review Act.
Who Bears the Cost
- CMS/HHS administrative and implementation costs associated with withdrawing or rolling back the rule.
- Home health providers that would have benefited from the updated rates or new model requirements but now face uncertainty or continued current policies.
- Medicare beneficiaries who could experience unchanged or uncertain access and service delivery depending on how the status quo affects future policy momentum.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is between Congress exercising oversight to block agency rulemaking and the CMS goal of updating home health payments and accompanying program requirements to reflect current care delivery costs and quality objectives. Blocking the rule preserves the status quo but may foreclose improvements and flexibility in Medicare home health policy, forcing readers to weigh the value of oversight against timely policy modernization.
The central policy tension is the use of a disapproval mechanism to block an agency rule that was designed to modernize payments and quality programs for home health. On one hand, CRA disapproval reinforces legislative oversight and ensures that major changes to Medicare policy receive direct congressional scrutiny.
On the other hand, blocking an agency update can slow the adoption of potentially improved payment adequacy, efficiency gains, and quality initiatives. The rollback risk is that ongoing program modernization and alignment with current costs and care delivery realities may be delayed, creating uncertainty for providers and beneficiaries alike.
Implementation complexity—such as how to manage transitions, prior authorizations, and quality program reporting under the blocked rule—remains unresolved in the resolution itself.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.