This bill increases Medicare cost-based reimbursement for critical access hospitals (CAHs) that are physically located in noncontiguous states to improve the financial stability of isolated rural providers. It does so by amending existing payment rules for multiple service categories to shift a larger share of reasonable costs back to Medicare.
The change is narrowly targeted at CAHs in geographically isolated states and also extends to ambulance providers owned or operated by those CAHs and certain skilled nursing facility (SNF) arrangements. For hospital leaders, state rural health officials, and Medicare program managers, the bill alters revenue expectations for a small set of facilities and creates implementation work for CMS and cost-reporting teams.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends Medicare’s cost-based payment rules to increase the percent-of-reasonable-cost multiplier applied to certain CAH services furnished by CAHs located in noncontiguous states from the current statutory multiplier to a higher rate, and applies the same higher multiplier to affiliated ambulance services and SNF services furnished under CAH agreements. The change takes effect January 1, 2026.
Who It Affects
Critical access hospitals physically located in noncontiguous states (principally Alaska and Hawaii), ambulance entities owned and operated by those CAHs, skilled nursing facilities that have agreements under the CAH SNF provision, CMS claims processors, and Medicare actuaries tracking Part A/Part B outlays.
Why It Matters
This is a geographically targeted, payment-rate adjustment rather than a structural overhaul: it raises the ceiling on Medicare-supported cost recovery for certain rural providers, which can improve cash flow and access in remote states but also nudges Medicare spending and requires CMS to change claims and cost-reporting guidance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 552 amends multiple provisions of title XVIII to apply a higher cost-based reimbursement multiplier to services furnished by a critical access hospital located in a noncontiguous State. The bill addresses four service buckets: inpatient CAH services, outpatient CAH services, ambulance services connected to a CAH, and covered skilled nursing facility services furnished under a CAH agreement.
The change is prospective and explicitly tied to services furnished on or after January 1, 2026.
Practically, the bill modifies the statutory language that currently directs Medicare to pay CAHs a fixed percentage over reasonable costs for these categories and replaces that percentage with a higher figure for CAHs in noncontiguous states. For ambulance services the bill also reaches entities owned and operated by a qualifying CAH, which captures EMS operations that are legally separate but financially linked to the hospital.
For SNF services the bill reaches arrangements made under the existing CAH-SNF agreement authority, so CAHs that contract for post-acute SNF care will see the altered payment formula flow to those covered services as specified.Implementation will be an operational project for CMS and CAH finance teams. CMS will need to revise claims-processing logic, adjust provider cost-report instructions, and issue guidance clarifying which providers meet the “located in a noncontiguous State” test.
CAHs must update budgeting, billing, and internal accounting to reflect higher reimbursement assumptions beginning with cost-report periods and claims on or after the statutory effective date. Medicare actuaries and budget analysts will treat the change as an upward pressure on Part A/Part B outlays concentrated in a small number of facilities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 42 U.S.C. § 1395f(l)(1) (section 1814(l)(1) of the Social Security Act) to change the inpatient CAH payment multiplier for CAHs in noncontiguous states.
It amends 42 U.S.C. § 1395m(g)(1) (section 1834(g)(1)) to change the outpatient CAH payment multiplier for CAHs in noncontiguous states.
It amends 42 U.S.C. § 1395m(l)(8) (section 1834(l)(8)) so ambulance services furnished by, or by an entity owned and operated by, a qualifying CAH are paid under the higher multiplier.
It amends 42 U.S.C. § 1395tt(a)(3) (section 1883(a)(3)) to apply the higher multiplier to covered SNF services furnished under a CAH agreement.
All changes apply to services furnished on or after January 1, 2026, and are limited to CAHs located in a noncontiguous State (the statutory term that distinguishes states that are not part of the contiguous U.S.).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Inpatient CAH services: higher cost-based multiplier for noncontiguous-state CAHs
This provision revises the inpatient CAH payment rule to increase the statutory multiplier applied to reasonable costs for inpatient services furnished by CAHs located in a noncontiguous State. Operationally, CMS will need to ensure that its inpatient claims processing recognizes provider addresses or enrollment data that establish location and then applies the higher multiplier on affected claims and in subsequent cost settlements.
Outpatient CAH services: parallel increase for facility outpatient payments
The bill inserts the higher multiplier into the outpatient CAH payment provision. That means outpatient Part B claims that are paid on a cost-related basis by CAHs in noncontiguous states will be subject to the revised percentage. Practical implications include changes to Part B claim pricing tables for those providers and updates to outpatient cost-reporting instructions used in annual reconciliation.
Ambulance services: extends the higher rate to CAH-owned/operated EMS entities
This subsection explicitly brings ambulance services into the enhanced-pay framework and clarifies coverage for ambulance providers that are owned and operated by a qualifying CAH. CMS will need to map ambulance organization provider numbers to the parent CAH and verify ownership/operation relationships so that ambulance claims are routed to the correct payment multiplier during adjudication.
SNF services under CAH agreements: higher multiplier for post-acute services
The amendment extends the payment increase to covered skilled nursing facility services furnished under agreements made under the CAH authority. For CAHs that rely on SNF arrangements for post-acute care, this will alter the reimbursement expectation for those services and may affect CAH negotiations with SNF partners. Administratively, CMS must reconcile how those SNF services are billed and reported to ensure the CAH-related multiplier is applied where statute intends.
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
- Critical access hospitals located in noncontiguous states (e.g., Alaska, Hawaii): The higher cost-based multiplier raises allowable Medicare reimbursement for inpatient and outpatient services, improving margins and cash flow for facilities that face higher operational costs and geographic isolation.
- Ambulance providers owned and operated by qualifying CAHs: These EMS entities gain higher Medicare payments for covered ambulance transports when they are legally linked to a qualifying CAH, supporting local emergency response capacity.
- Skilled nursing facilities that furnish services under CAH agreements: When SNF services are covered under a CAH agreement, the higher multiplier increases Medicare reimbursement for those covered post-acute services, which can influence care continuity and contracting decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Medicare trust funds and federal payers: Concentrated upward adjustments to cost-based reimbursement increase Part A/Part B outlays for the affected services and will be picked up in CMS actuarial estimates and budget tables.
- CMS operational units and contractors: Claims processing systems, cost-reporting instructions, and provider enrollment/relationship databases will require changes; CMS or its contractors will absorb implementation and oversight workload.
- Compliance and finance teams at CAHs and affiliated EMS/SNF partners: Providers must update billing practices, cost reports, and forecasts, which creates administrative and accounting work and potential audit exposure as CMS reallocates reimbursement rules.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades targeted financial support for geographically isolated CAHs to preserve access against the goals of equitable, administrable Medicare policy and fiscal restraint: improving payments for a few remote providers helps local care availability but raises questions about fairness to other rural providers and creates administrative burdens and potential for uneven budgetary impacts.
The bill is narrowly targeted: it helps CAHs in noncontiguous states but leaves CAHs in contiguous rural areas and U.S. territories outside the same treatment. That geographic targeting addresses genuine cost differences from remoteness but creates equity questions for similarly situated rural providers that fall just outside the statutory category.
The statute’s reliance on the phrase “located in a noncontiguous State” introduces implementation questions — for example, whether satellite campuses, multi-campus systems, or CAHs with billing addresses in different jurisdictions qualify. CMS will need to issue clarifying guidance to avoid inconsistent application.
Another practical tension is administrative complexity versus program simplicity. The payment boost is modest in percentage terms, but reconciling it across inpatient, outpatient, ambulance, and SNF claims plus cost reports increases claims-processing complexity and creates new audit touchpoints.
There’s also an open budgeting question: because the increase is cost-based, higher payments could flow disproportionately to facilities with higher reported costs rather than to those with the tightest access problems. Finally, the bill excludes territories that also face geographic and cost challenges; stakeholders will press on whether the statutory geography reflects policy priorities or an arbitrary drafting line.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.