The Connected Maternal Online Monitoring (Connected MOM) Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to produce a report for Congress—within 18 months—identifying authorities, State practices, and barriers to Medicaid coverage of remote physiologic monitoring devices for pregnant and postpartum women, and to include recommendations to address those barriers. The bill names examples of covered devices (pulse oximeters, blood pressure cuffs, scales, blood glucose monitors) and requires the report to assess impacts on maternal and child health outcomes.
Six months after delivering the report, HHS must update State Medicaid resources—such as telehealth toolkits—to align with the report's recommendations. The bill does not itself change coverage rules or appropriate funding; it creates a federal information and guidance effort aimed at reducing coverage obstacles and informing State Medicaid policy choices that affect maternal monitoring services.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs HHS to report to Congress within 18 months on Medicaid coverage authorities, state practices, limitations, barriers, and the impact on maternal health related to remote physiologic monitoring devices, and to offer recommendations. Requires HHS to revise State-facing Medicaid resources within six months after the report to reflect those recommendations.
Who It Affects
State Medicaid agencies, Medicaid-enrolled pregnant and postpartum women, clinicians who manage perinatal care, and makers of remote physiologic monitoring devices such as blood pressure cuffs and pulse oximeters. CMS staff responsible for State technical assistance will also be engaged in implementing the toolkit updates.
Why It Matters
The bill targets a narrow but consequential leverage point: coverage policy for at-home monitoring devices frequently used in high-risk pregnancy management. By collecting and publishing state practices and barriers and then updating guidance for states, the law can shape how Medicaid programs adopt remote monitoring without changing statutory benefits or creating new federal entitlements.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
S.141 instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to map how State Medicaid programs currently handle coverage of remote physiologic monitoring devices for pregnant and postpartum women and to surface the legal, administrative, and operational barriers that limit access. The statute explicitly asks for information on both authorities (the legal basis states use to cover or not cover devices) and practices (how states actually implement coverage), together with an assessment of how coverage or lack thereof affects maternal and child health outcomes.
The report must include recommendations on how to address the limitations or barriers HHS identifies. The bill lists common remote monitoring devices—pulse oximeters, blood pressure cuffs, scales, and blood glucose monitors—as examples HHS should consider, but it does not limit the review to only those devices.
Preparing the report will require HHS to compile evidence from State plan language, waivers, managed care arrangements, reimbursement policies, and relevant clinical outcome data to link coverage practices to maternal health indicators.After the report arrives to Congress, HHS has a second, time-bound duty: within six months it must update State Medicaid resources—telehealth toolkits are given as an example—to align with its own recommendations. That update is a technical-assistance step, intended to translate the report's findings into actionable guidance for State Medicaid agencies, rather than to mandate specific coverage changes.
The bill stops short of changing Medicaid statute or prescribing reimbursement rates; its lever is information, analysis, and revised federal guidance aimed at reducing administrative and policy barriers to remote monitoring access for Medicaid-enrolled birthing people.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires HHS to submit a report to Congress within 18 months identifying authorities, State practices, limitations, and barriers to Medicaid coverage of remote physiologic monitoring devices for pregnant and postpartum women.
The statutory list of example devices includes pulse oximeters, blood pressure cuffs, scales, and blood glucose monitors, though the report can consider other relevant devices.
HHS must assess the impact of coverage practices on maternal and child health outcomes and provide recommendations to address coverage barriers.
Within six months after delivering the report, HHS must update State Medicaid resources—such as telehealth toolkits—to be consistent with the report's recommendations.
The bill creates reporting and technical-assistance obligations for HHS but does not itself change Medicaid benefit entitlements, reimbursement rules, or appropriate additional funding.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Assigns the act the names 'Connected Maternal Online Monitoring Act' and 'Connected MOM Act.' This is purely titular and establishes how the law should be cited in subsequent references and administrative materials.
Congressional report on coverage and barriers
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit a report to Congress within 18 months that identifies the legal authorities and state practices for covering remote physiologic monitoring devices under Medicaid, documents limitations and barriers to coverage, and evaluates effects on maternal and child health outcomes. The provision requires recommendations 'to the extent appropriate'—giving HHS discretion over the scope and specificity of suggested remedies. Practically, CMS will need to assemble program data, review state plan language and waivers, and correlate coverage approaches with available clinical and utilization outcomes to meet the statutory mandate.
Update to State Medicaid resources and toolkits
Requires HHS to update resources for State Medicaid programs, such as telehealth toolkits, within six months after submitting the report, to make them consistent with the report's recommendations. This creates a short implementation timeline for federal technical assistance: HHS must translate findings into practical guidance for states, but the statute does not require states to adopt the updated materials or prescribe enforcement or funding mechanisms for adoption.
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
- Pregnant and postpartum Medicaid enrollees — Improved clarity and potential expansion of coverage for at-home monitoring devices could increase access to remote monitoring that supports earlier detection and management of hypertensive disorders, diabetes, and other perinatal conditions.
- State Medicaid agencies — The bill supplies federal analysis and updated toolkits that can streamline state decision-making and lower the transaction costs of adopting or expanding remote monitoring policies.
- Maternal health clinicians and care teams — Better state guidance and clearer coverage pathways could simplify billing, support integration of remote-monitoring data into clinical workflows, and facilitate care models that use home-measured vitals.
- Public health researchers and quality improvement organizations — The required report and its data compilation create a centralized source of information linking coverage practices to maternal outcomes, enabling subsequent evaluation and program design.
- Manufacturers and vendors of remote physiologic devices — Greater attention to Medicaid coverage practices could open market opportunities if states adopt reimbursement-friendly policies or incorporate device-based monitoring into covered services.
Who Bears the Cost
- HHS/CMS — Administrative and analytic costs of producing the report and updating toolkits within the statutory timelines; this is an unfunded federal requirement to produce substantive technical assistance.
- State Medicaid programs — If states act on the recommendations, they may incur costs to expand coverage, update provider contracts, modify claims systems, train staff, or integrate device data into electronic health records.
- Providers and managed care plans — Implementing expanded monitoring programs would require workflow changes, potential upfront investment in devices or patient education, and administrative work to manage remote-monitoring billing and data flows.
- Device suppliers — To meet Medicaid program requirements or state-preferred procurement terms, manufacturers may need to invest in regulatory documentation, interoperability features, or pricing adjustments.
- Data and analytics vendors — States and HHS may demand more rigorous outcome and utilization data; vendors providing analytics or integration services could face new performance expectations and contractual obligations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits the urgent clinical goal of expanding access to at-home physiologic monitoring for pregnant and postpartum Medicaid enrollees against the realities of federalism and limited budgets: HHS can research and recommend, but states must choose to act, often at cost, and the report alone cannot resolve gaps in data quality, device standards, or the financing needed to scale monitoring programs equitably.
The bill centralizes analysis and guidance but does not impose coverage mandates or provide funding. That creates an important tension: the statute can move knowledge and federal technical assistance forward quickly, but whether states change coverage practices will still depend on state policy choices and budgetary constraints.
The report's utility therefore hinges on the quality of evidence HHS can assemble—linking coverage rules to measurable maternal outcomes—which may be limited by heterogenous state data systems, privacy constraints, and inconsistent clinical coding of remote-monitoring services.
Implementation challenges also loom. 'Updating resources' for states is a soft-power lever; adoption is voluntary and states vary in administrative capacity. Recommendations that imply reimbursement changes could require state plan amendments or waivers and budget trade-offs.
Additionally, the bill focuses on a set of physiologic devices but does not address standards for device accuracy, data interoperability with electronic health records, patient training, or privacy safeguards—each of which materially affects whether coverage translates into effective, equitable care.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.