The House resolution expresses the sense that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should halt the pilot program that contracts with for-profit firms to use enhanced technologies, including artificial intelligence, to assess whether specific services should be covered by Medicare. It emphasizes that CMS should not rely on AI to decide coverage for patients’ procedures.
The measure foregrounds the protection of seniors’ access to care and highlights the role of congressional oversight, noting the referral of the bill to the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees. It is a non-binding statement of opinion, not a change in law or funding.
At a Glance
What It Does
This resolution states that CMS should halt the AI-based pilot and should not use artificial intelligence to determine Medicare coverage decisions within that pilot.
Who It Affects
Directly affects CMS and its contractors, Medicare beneficiaries and the healthcare providers who bill for Medicare services, as well as AI vendors involved in the pilot.
Why It Matters
It signals congressional concern about using AI to make coverage determinations and seeks to preserve human oversight and patient access while the issue is examined.
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 formal expression of the House’s view that CMS should pause its pilot program that uses artificial intelligence to decide whether Medicare-covered services should be provided. The pilot, announced by CMS on June 27, 2025, involves contracts with for-profit firms to deploy AI-enabled tools to guide coverage decisions.
The resolution asserts that AI should not be used to determine whether a patient’s procedure will be covered by Medicare. It underscores the protection of seniors’ access to care and indicates that the measure was introduced in the 119th Congress by Rep.
Landsman and referred to two committees for potential consideration within their jurisdictions. As a resolution, it does not create new law or funding but represents a legislative checkpoint and a call for oversight.
The text emphasizes the importance of careful evaluation before adopting AI tools in Medicare coverage decisions and invites ongoing scrutiny from Congress. The bill therefore functions as a policy signal rather than a regulatory directive.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution halts the CMS pilot that uses AI to influence Medicare coverage decisions.
CMS is asked not to use AI to determine coverage for patients’ procedures within the pilot.
The pilot was announced by CMS on June 27, 2025 and involves for-profit contractors.
The measure is a non-binding sense of the House and does not amend law or authorize funding.
Rep. Landsman introduced the resolution in the 119th Congress and it was referred to Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Background on the CMS AI pilot
The bill references CMS’s June 27, 2025 announcement of a pilot that would contract with for-profit firms to use enhanced technologies—such as artificial intelligence—to help determine whether Medicare-covered services will be provided. This section grounds the resolution in the factual premise that AI would play a role in coverage determinations and the associated policy concerns about seniors’ access to care.
Sense of the House
The core directive states that CMS should not utilize artificial intelligence to determine whether patients’ procedures will be covered by Medicare. The resolution frames this as a viewpoint of the House rather than a directive that changes statutory authority or funding.
Committee referrals
The resolution notes it has been referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and to the Committee on Energy and Commerce for consideration of provisions within their jurisdiction, signaling potential future discussion or amendments within those committees.
Non-binding nature and scope
As a resolution expressing the sense of the House, the measure does not impose legal requirements on CMS, alter existing law, or authorize funding. It serves as a formal statement of congressional sentiment and oversight interest regarding the pilot.
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
- Medicare beneficiaries (seniors) and their families, who would be protected from AI-driven, potentially opaque coverage decisions.
- Patient advocacy groups focused on seniors, who push for safety, transparency, and human review in coverage determinations.
- CMS oversight bodies and congressional committees that gain a clearer signal about legislative concerns and potential governance around AI pilots.
- Healthcare providers who want predictable, human-centered coverage criteria and avoid sudden shifts caused by algorithmic decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- For-profit AI vendors contracted for the pilot may lose revenue or face disruptions during halted or reassessed procurement.
- CMS and federal staff may incur administrative costs and workload associated with pausing, reevaluating, or altering the pilot program.
- Organizations planning to participate in the pilot could face delays or uncertainty in implementing AI-based coverage assessments.
- Costs associated with maintaining additional oversight and potential alternative pilots or safeguards to protect patient access while AI tools are re-evaluated.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to accelerate AI-enabled efficiency in coverage decisions or to protect seniors from potential miscoverage and opaque automation, balancing innovation with rigorous safeguards and oversight.
The resolution clusters around a policy tension: it seeks to prioritize patient access and human oversight over rapid deployment of AI in Medicare coverage decisions. This creates a policy pause that delays the broader modernization of CMS decision-making while concerns about AI bias, data quality, transparency, and accountability are weighed.
The language does not specify criteria for resuming AI pilots, does not authorize new funding, and leaves open how CMS might report back to Congress about safety and efficacy. The absence of a statutory mandate means the practical impact depends on CMS leadership and congressional interest in follow-up actions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.