The Healthy Moms and Babies Act (S.2289) amends titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act to push state Medicaid and CHIP programs toward more standardized maternal quality measurement, new care coordination options, and targeted investments in workforce and community-based supports. The bill requires expanded reporting on maternal and perinatal measures, creates a voluntary state option to implement ‘maternity health homes’ that bundle or adjust payments for coordinated pregnancy and postpartum care, and funds demonstrations and guidance to increase access to doulas, telehealth, and remote monitoring.
Why it matters: the bill is a package of measurement, payment flexibility, workforce development, and technical assistance designed to give states tools and data to lower avoidable cesarean rates, address racial and geographic disparities, and extend care through the first year postpartum. If implemented at scale, it changes what state Medicaid programs must report, how some maternity care gets paid and coordinated, and what data and audits federal agencies will run to evaluate impact.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires states to report adult maternal and perinatal quality measures; mandates hospital reporting of the NTSV (Nulliparous, Term, Singleton, Vertex) C‑section rate to Medicare; creates a State plan option for maternity health homes that deliver coordinated pregnancy and 365‑day postpartum care with alternative payment approaches; sponsors grants, studies, and guidance on doulas, telehealth, workforce reskilling, remote monitoring, and SDOH data collection.
Who It Affects
State Medicaid and CHIP programs, hospitals participating in Medicare and Medicaid, obstetric clinicians and birthing facilities, Medicaid managed care plans, community doulas and community health workers, and pregnant and postpartum Medicaid/CHIP beneficiaries (including clinicians and administrators responsible for reporting and care coordination).
Why It Matters
The bill moves federal policy from optional pilot programs toward mandatory maternal quality transparency and a sustained federal push for Medicaid payment and delivery reforms. It couples data collection and audits with funding and technical assistance — increasing both accountability and compliance costs for providers and states while aiming to reduce avoidable surgical births and improve outcomes for high‑risk groups.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core of S.2289 is measurement plus leverage. It amends existing quality reporting statutes so state Medicaid programs must include adult maternal and perinatal measures in the sets they report; separately, Medicare‑participating hospitals must submit NTSV C‑section data and the Secretary must fold that measure into hospital maternity quality reporting.
Those two strands create public visibility on cesarean rates and allow federal and state actors to benchmark performance.
On delivery and payment, the bill gives states a voluntary State plan option to set up a maternity health home model. Eligible women (pregnant or within 365 days postpartum) can enroll with a designated provider, a clinical team, or a health team; states must describe how they will pay (per‑member per‑month, prospective payments for FQHCs/RHCs, or another approved model) and may adjust payment for clinical risk or intensity of coordination.
The option requires provider qualification standards, hospital notification protocols for emergency department encounters, mandatory data reporting from providers, and state reporting to CMS, including demographic and outcome breakdowns.The Act layers support around the option: it authorizes planning grants to states, directs the GAO and MACPAC to study payment rates and the role of doulas/community health workers, requires CMS to issue guidance on doula reimbursement and care coordination, and creates telehealth demonstration grants for states to expand remote maternity services. It also directs HHS to study remote physiologic monitoring coverage and to issue guidance and learning collaboratives on addressing social determinants of health for pregnant/postpartum women.
Finally, the bill increases enforcement and oversight: biennial PERM audits, required state mitigation plans when error rates exceed a threshold, and new data standards for collecting SDOH using T‑MSIS (or successor) reporting, with specific direction on ICD‑10 social risk codes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
States must publicly report the rate of low‑risk cesarean deliveries and describe quality improvement activities annually (first required report no later than January 1, 2027, and annually through January 1, 2037).
Medicare will require hospitals to submit NTSV C‑section data and the Secretary must adopt an NTSV measure for hospital maternity quality reporting effective for payments beginning fiscal year 2027.
A new optional State plan benefit—'maternity health homes'—may begin April 1, 2028, and allows states to pay designated providers/teams using PMPM, prospective payments for FQHCs/RHCs, or other approved models; states must track outcomes and report to CMS.
The bill authorizes $50 million in planning grants (fiscal 2026–2028) to help states develop maternity health home State plan amendments and allows telehealth demonstration grants of up to $10 million per state for 4‑year projects.
S.2289 requires standardized collection of social determinants of health data via T‑MSIS or other mechanisms, phases implementation with a 4‑year lead time, and appropriates $1 million annually to support that work.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandatory maternal and perinatal quality reporting by Medicaid
This provision amends the adult quality reporting requirements to expressly include maternal and perinatal health measures for Medicaid‑eligible adults. Practically, states must incorporate maternal metrics into the adult core set they submit; CMS will use those measures to compare performance across states. The practical implication is that states must select, collect, and report maternal measures—creating a data foundation for monitoring disparities and improvement efforts and enabling federal technical assistance and comparisons.
C‑section transparency and GAO studies on payment and disparities
The bill requires states to report low‑risk cesarean rates in their State plan (with narrative on QI activities) and directs the GAO to study Medicaid payment differentials for cesarean versus vaginal births and racial disparities in C‑section frequency. Separately, Medicare hospitals must report NTSV C‑section rates and CMS must add an NTSV measure into hospital quality reporting by FY2027. Together, these moves create aligned federal reporting across payers and fund studies meant to inform whether payment policy, hospital practices, or other factors drive C‑section use and racial gaps.
State option to create 'maternity health homes' for coordinated pregnancy and postpartum care
This is a voluntary State plan amendment that lets states pay qualified 'maternity health homes'—a designated provider, an interdisciplinary clinical team, or other health teams—to provide coordinated prenatal through 365‑day postpartum services. States must define qualification standards, payment methodology, care coordination protocols (including ED notification and education), and monitoring metrics. The section mandates provider and state reporting, requires confidentiality protections, and establishes $50 million in planning grants to support State plan amendments. For compliance officers and state program designers, the clause sets clear structural requirements (eligibility, reporting cadence, data elements) while leaving payment rate design to states subject to CMS approval.
Guidance, workforce and community supports: doulas, telehealth, remote monitoring
These sections direct HHS and CMS to produce guidance and to run programs designed to expand supportive services. Notable items: MACPAC must study doula and community health worker coverage; CMS must issue guidance on reimbursing doulas and integrating community workers; HHS will convene a national expert group to develop maternity reskilling recommendations; the Secretary must fund telehealth demonstration grants that target rural or underserved areas; and CMS will study remote physiologic monitoring device coverage. The practical effect is a mix of research, technical guidance, and targeted grant funding designed to lower access barriers and produce operational models states can replicate.
Guidance to reduce maternal mortality and support perinatal quality collaboratives
HHS must publish guidance for hospitals, freestanding birth centers, and other maternal providers on screening, risk stratification, and mitigation strategies to reduce maternal mortality and severe morbidity, and it will stand up a National Advisory Committee with federal and non‑federal members to advise on those resources. The bill also expands grant authority for perinatal quality collaboratives focused on lowering C‑section rates and increasing VBAC rates, emphasizing data disaggregation and clinician training.
Standardized collection of social determinants of health (SDOH) data
CMS is instructed to develop methods for states to collect standardized SDOH information—via T‑MSIS fields, beneficiary questionnaires/surveys, or scorecard forms—using standard definitions (including ICD‑10 Z55–Z65 codes or successors). The statute contemplates guidance on privacy, implementation timeframes, an action plan if current systems can't collect the data, and appropriations to support federal and state activities. This establishes a multi‑year process to operationalize SDOH capture in Medicaid/CHIP data pipelines.
Payment transfer reporting and PERM audit tightening
The Secretary must report on Medicaid payment methodologies for transferring pregnant women between facilities (antepartum, intrapartum, postpartum) and identify possible disincentives. Separately, PERM audits move to a biennial cadence beginning FY2027; states with PERM error rates over 15% must publish and implement improvement plans approved by CMS. The net effect: more frequent federal auditing, public mitigation plans for states with high error rates, and heightened CMS oversight of program integrity.
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/CHIP beneficiaries — gain expanded care coordination options, stronger data collection on outcomes and SDOH, and improved access to community supports (doulas, CHWs), telehealth, and remote monitoring that the bill explicitly promotes.
- States that adopt maternity health homes and use CMS planning grants — receive federal funds and technical guidance to design integrated maternal care delivery models that can reduce inpatient days and coordinate postpartum care.
- Community‑based doulas and community health worker programs — stand to gain from explicit federal study, CMS guidance, and State plan pathways that legitimize reimbursement and funding mechanisms.
- Perinatal quality collaboratives and hospital quality programs — benefit from new federal attention, GAO/MACPAC studies, and grants that will broaden adoption of evidence‑based protocols and data tools to reduce avoidable C‑sections.
- Policy and public health researchers — receive standardized, longitudinal data (including SDOH and disaggregated demographic reporting) and GAO/MACPAC studies that enable rigorous evaluation of payment and care models.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Medicaid agencies — responsible for new reporting, data collection, building or modifying T‑MSIS submissions, approving and monitoring maternity health homes, and implementing PERM mitigation plans, which will require staff time and likely IT investment.
- Hospitals and obstetric providers — must collect and report NTSV and related quality data to Medicare and may face public scrutiny and administrative burden; they will also need to participate in QI collaboratives and possibly adapt clinical protocols.
- Small or independent doula programs and community providers — while eligible for reimbursement pathways, they will need to meet state qualification, billing, and documentation requirements, which can be a fixed administrative cost.
- Medicaid managed care organizations and health plans — must integrate maternity health home referral pathways, data sharing, and care coordination, which can increase upfront contract and IT work and change rate‑setting assumptions.
- Federal agencies and contractors — the bill expands studies, demonstrations, and audit cadence (GAO, MACPAC, CMS PERM contractor), increasing operational workload and requiring appropriated funds to execute effectively.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill's central dilemma is balancing stronger measurement, transparency, and coordinated care against the administrative, financial, and clinical risks of imposing new reporting and payment requirements: better data and accountability can drive equity and quality improvements, but if definitions, risk adjustment, funding, and privacy protections are not nailed down, the same measures and mandates can produce perverse incentives, misdirected penalties, and uneven uptake that may worsen access for the very populations the law aims to help.
The bill composes a mix of hard mandates (reporting and hospital data submission) and soft options (a voluntary State plan benefit, guidance, and demonstration grants). That hybrid design creates key implementation puzzles: states will be pushed to collect richer maternal and SDOH data but will carry most of the compliance costs; federal funds are seed money but may not fully cover long‑term state IT, analytics, and staffing needs.
Another thorny issue is measurement: the statute requires states to report 'low‑risk cesarean' rates and the NTSV measure, but actual comparability depends on consistent clinical definitions, case‑mix adjustment, and coding practices across hospitals and payers. Without rigorous risk‑adjustment and contextual data, raw rate comparisons could mislead and penalize hospitals serving higher‑risk populations.
There are also incentive trade‑offs. Pressing to reduce C‑section rates is a legitimate quality goal, but poorly designed incentives or public comparisons could encourage underuse of appropriate surgical delivery or deter clinicians from caring for high‑risk patients.
Likewise, expanding reimbursement to doulas and CHWs is promising, but states will need clear pathways for certification, scope, and integration with clinical teams; otherwise, uptake will be patchy and administrative complexity could disincentivize small community programs. Finally, the SDOH data directive raises privacy, interoperability, and consent questions: implementing standardized SDOH capture through claims systems and beneficiary surveys will require careful design to protect confidentiality and to ensure the information actually informs care rather than becoming an unfunded reporting obligation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.