The bill amends the Social Security Act to add genetic counseling to the list of services recognized under Medicare Part B and to define who qualifies as a genetic counselor for purposes of coverage. It treats genetic counseling as a distinct, billable service furnished by licensed or board‑certified counselors and permits supplies incident to those services to be covered when legally authorized by State law.
This change matters because it formally brings an emerging clinical specialty into the Medicare payment system, creating a direct reimbursement path for genetic counselors and expanding access to hereditary risk assessment and testing guidance for Medicare beneficiaries. It also forces near‑term administrative choices at CMS on payment rates, billing rules, and how to handle states with and without counselor licensure.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new definition of “covered genetic counseling services” to section 1861 of the Social Security Act and explicitly recognizes genetic counselors as eligible furnishing providers. It amends Medicare payment and billing provisions so those services are reimbursable under Part B and sets a formula for the government’s payment amount relative to the physician fee schedule.
Who It Affects
Directly affects Medicare Part B beneficiaries who need genetic counseling, genetic counselors (licensed or board‑certified), physician practices and health systems that refer or employ counselors, and CMS administrators responsible for implementing coverage and payment rules. Laboratories and diagnostic companies are likely to see referral pattern changes.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a durable, statutory pathway for counselors to be paid by Medicare rather than relying on incidental or physician‑supervised billing. That recognition can change care delivery models for hereditary risk assessment, affect provider revenue mixes, and trigger CMS rulemaking with operational and fiscal consequences for the Medicare program.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new definition into the Social Security Act to identify “covered genetic counseling services” and to specify who counts as a genetic counselor for Medicare purposes. It ties coverage to services furnished on or after January 1, 2027, and authorizes coverage not only for the counseling itself but also for supplies provided as incident to the counselor’s service where state law permits.
For provider qualification, the bill requires either state licensure or, in states without licensure, certification by the American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) plus any additional CMS criteria the Secretary may set.
On payment, the statute directs a specific federal payment approach: Medicare’s share will be calculated as a percentage of either the actual charge or an adjusted physician fee schedule amount that would have applied if a physician had furnished the service. The bill also amends the statute that limits balance billing and inserts genetic counselors into the relevant list, changing how counselor billing interacts with beneficiary protections and assignment rules.The text preserves the ability of physicians and other providers to bill for genetic counseling services when they do so, rather than creating an exclusive reimbursement channel for counselors.
Finally, the bill gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services authority to implement the changes by interim final rule with a comment period, enabling CMS to issue operational guidance and billing instructions quickly rather than waiting for a standard notice‑and‑comment rulemaking cycle.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute makes coverage effective for services furnished on or after January 1, 2027.
A practitioner qualifies as a ‘genetic counselor’ if licensed by the State where they practice, or if practicing in a non‑licensing State, if certified by the American Board of Genetic Counseling and meeting any additional Secretary criteria.
Medicare’s payment for covered genetic counseling is set as 80% of the lesser of the provider’s actual charge or 85% of the physician fee schedule amount that would have applied had a physician furnished the service.
The bill amends the balance‑billing/assignment provision to add genetic counselors to the statutory list that governs provider billing relationships under Medicare.
CMS may implement the statutory changes through an interim final rule with a comment period, allowing faster operational rollout.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s official name, the “Access to Genetic Counselor Services Act of 2026.” This is purely formal but signals the bill’s narrow focus on establishing coverage and related payment and administrative provisions for genetic counselors under Medicare Part B.
Defines covered genetic counseling services and genetic counselor
Adds a new subsection (nnn) to 42 U.S.C. 1395x. Paragraph (1) defines covered genetic counseling services as counseling furnished by a genetic counselor and incident‑to supplies legally authorized under State law. Paragraph (2) sets the provider standard: either State licensure or ABGC certification for counselors in States without licensure, with a backstop permitting the Secretary to set additional criteria. Practically, this creates a statutory eligibility test CMS will use to decide who may enroll and bill as a Part B provider.
Adds counselors to Medicare billing protections and assignment rules
By inserting genetic counselors into the statutory clause that governs balance billing and assignment, the bill changes how counselors interact with beneficiary assignment protections, participation status, and the ability to collect amounts above Medicare‑approved charges. CMS will need to interpret whether counselors are treated like physicians, nonphysician practitioners, or a unique category for assignment and direct‑billing rules, which affects beneficiary out‑of‑pocket exposure and provider contracting.
Establishes a specific payment formula for counselor services
Amends the general payment provision to add a new payment rule: Medicare will pay 80% of the lesser of the actual charge or 85% of the physician fee schedule amount that would have applied if a physician performed the service. This is a two‑layered adjustment: first scaling down the physician fee schedule to 85%, then applying Medicare’s standard 80% payment share, with beneficiary coinsurance applying to the balance. That structure fixes a statutory benchmark but leaves open fee schedule coding, RVU assignment, and whether CMS will create distinct HCPCS/CPT codes for counselors.
Conforming amendment and implementation authority
A conforming insertion adds covered genetic counseling services to a list in section 1862(a)(14). The bill clarifies it does not prevent physicians or other providers from billing for genetic counseling when appropriate. Critically, it authorizes the HHS Secretary to implement the law by interim final rule, which allows CMS to issue billing instructions, enrollment guidance, and other operational policies rapidly but may compress stakeholder input into the post‑promulgation comment period.
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 with hereditary risk concerns — seniors and disabled beneficiaries gain direct access to reimbursable genetic counseling services that can inform testing and management decisions without relying solely on physician mediation.
- Genetic counselors — licensed or ABGC‑certified counselors gain a statutory reimbursement pathway under Part B, improving business viability for independent counseling practices and hospitals that employ counselors.
- Clinical teams and health systems — practices that integrate genetic counseling can bill directly for counseling services, improving workflow and potentially reducing physician time spent on specialized counseling, which may improve throughput and care coordination.
- Diagnostic laboratories and test manufacturers — increased, reimbursable counseling can translate to more appropriate test ordering and downstream utilization of genetic tests and panels, altering referral volumes and revenue streams.
Who Bears the Cost
- The Medicare program and taxpayers — covering a new set of services increases utilization risk and program spending; the statutory payment formula mitigates cost but does not eliminate fiscal impact.
- Beneficiaries — Medicare’s coinsurance rules remain in force, and by setting Medicare’s payment at 80% of an adjusted benchmark, the patient is responsible for 20% of the Medicare‑allowed amount, potentially increasing out‑of‑pocket costs for those who need multiple counseling sessions.
- Physician practices and other providers — potential revenue competition if counseling shifts from physician‑billed models to counselor‑billed services; additionally, practices will face administrative burdens to integrate new billing codes and compliance procedures.
- CMS and HHS — agency workload will increase to define codes, establish enrollment and scope‑of‑practice standards, audit compliance, and issue guidance under an accelerated rulemaking timetable.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expanding beneficiary access and formally recognizing a growing clinical workforce on one hand, and the risk that a statutory, formulaic payment and uneven licensure landscape will either undercut provider participation or expose beneficiaries to new out‑of‑pocket costs — a trade‑off between access/recognition and adequacy/affordability that has no simple fix.
The bill solves a recognition and access problem by putting genetic counselors on the statutory roster of Medicare‑covered providers, but it creates several implementation and policy tradeoffs. First, the payment formula that ties counselor reimbursement to 85% of a physician fee schedule benchmark plus the standard 80% payment share risks underpaying a distinct profession that uses different time‑and‑skill resources than physicians.
Undercompensation could blunt the bill’s access goals if counselors decline to accept Medicare assignment or limit the number of Medicare patients.
Second, the dual pathway for qualifying counselors—state licensure or ABGC certification—puts pressure on state regulatory regimes. In States without licensure, ABGC certification suffices, but CMS discretion to set “other criteria” introduces uncertainty about what additional documentation or education CMS will require.
That uncertainty, combined with variations in state scope‑of‑practice rules, could create uneven access and compliance complexity for multi‑state practices. Finally, allowing implementation by interim final rule accelerates operational rollout but concentrates risk: CMS may issue guidance that stakeholders view as underdeveloped, and retroactive adjustments to billing codes or payment rates could trigger provider disruption and contested audits.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.