This bill requires each State to adopt a simplified enrollment process that lets certain out‑of‑state providers enroll in the State’s Medicaid plan or waiver to furnish or order services for children under 21. The statute limits state screening to the minimum information needed for payment (for example, a provider’s name and NPI) and directs states to treat such enrollments as active for a multi‑year period unless the provider is terminated or excluded.
The change aims to ease cross‑state delivery of pediatric care—especially telehealth and specialty services—by reducing administrative barriers while preserving core exclusion and fraud safeguards. The bill also makes small, technical edits to insert “enrollment” into existing Medicaid screening provisions and delays implementation for a limited period after enactment.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends section 1902(kk) of the Social Security Act to require states to implement a streamlined process allowing eligible out‑of‑state providers to enroll under a state Medicaid plan or waiver with only the minimum screening necessary to establish payment eligibility (examples cited include the provider’s name and National Provider Identifier). It also provides that enrollments under this process remain in effect for a five‑year term unless the provider is terminated or excluded.
Who It Affects
State Medicaid agencies, out‑of‑state providers already enrolled in Medicare or another State’s Medicaid program, and pediatric care networks that rely on cross‑state referrals or telehealth. It also implicates Medicaid program integrity offices, state licensing authorities, and managed care plans that maintain provider directories and network adequacy obligations.
Why It Matters
The bill lowers administrative friction that currently delays or blocks cross‑state pediatric care, potentially expanding access in rural and border communities. At the same time it changes where risk and verification responsibilities sit—placing more onus on states to trust other states’ or CMS screening determinations and to police cross‑state billing and exclusions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute adds a new paragraph to the Medicaid statutory subsection that governs screening and enrollment. Under the new language, a state must adopt a specific enrollment path for providers located in another state when those providers meet the bill’s eligibility tests.
The statute frames the streamlined option as a payment‑oriented enrollment: the state should collect only the minimum information needed to pay the provider and may rely on prior screening performed under Medicare rules or by another state’s Medicaid agency.
The bill defines an “eligible out‑of‑state provider” narrowly. To qualify, a provider must be physically located in a different state and must have been previously determined to present limited fraud risk either through CMS’s Medicare screening framework (the statute cites the screening level under the Medicare enrollment statute) or through an originating state’s Medicaid screening.
The provider must already be enrolled in Medicare or in the other state’s Medicaid program, and the provider cannot be subject to Federal exclusions (sections 1128/1128A), certain regulatory exclusions under part 1002 of title 42 of the CFR, or prior termination for specified causes.The streamlined process applies to enrollments under a state plan or an approved waiver; the law contemplates narrow data collection (the text cites name, National Provider Identifier, and any other Secretary‑specified elements). The provision also sets an enrollment term and leaves in place standard termination and exclusion mechanics so a state may remove a provider that later becomes ineligible.
Finally, the bill adds “enrollment” into existing statutory headings and cross‑references to align plain language with the new process and delays the statute’s operative effect by a fixed period after enactment to give states time to implement systems and policies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts a new paragraph (10) into section 1902(kk) of the Social Security Act to establish a streamlined enrollment path for eligible out‑of‑state providers.
States may limit screening under the streamlined path to minimal payment information—examples in the statute include the provider’s name and National Provider Identifier, plus any additional elements the Secretary specifies.
An eligible out‑of‑state provider must have been screened as low risk under Medicare’s screening rules or screened as low risk by another State’s Medicaid agency and be enrolled in Medicare or that other State’s Medicaid.
Providers who are excluded under sections 1128 or 1128A of the Social Security Act, excluded under part 1002 of title 42 CFR (or comparable State law), or terminated for reasons enumerated in the statute are ineligible for streamlined enrollment.
The bill makes conforming edits to add “enrollment” language to related statutory provisions (including 1902(a)(77) and 2107(e)(1)(G)) and phases in the change with a three‑year delay before the rule becomes effective.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the measure the public name “Accelerating Kids’ Access to Care Act.” This is purely nominal but signals the legislative intent to focus the enrollment change on pediatric access (the operative text later defines qualifying individuals as under age 21).
State obligation to adopt a streamlined enrollment process
Requires each State to adopt and implement a process that permits an eligible out‑of‑state provider to enroll under the State plan or a waiver to furnish or order items and services for qualifying individuals without state screening or enrollment requirements that exceed what is minimally necessary for payment. Practically, this forces states to create a discrete enrollment workflow that can accept credentials already vetted elsewhere rather than duplicating full background screening for low‑risk providers.
Eligibility tests and disqualifiers for out‑of‑state providers
Defines key terms: qualifying individuals (under 21) and eligible out‑of‑state provider (located in another state, low fraud‑risk based on Medicare or other‑state screening, and not subject to Federal exclusions or certain state regulatory exclusions or prior terminations). The cross‑references to Medicare screening levels and to Federal exclusion provisions matter: the statute narrows the pool to providers with an established low‑risk posture rather than opening the system to any out‑of‑state applicant.
Textual edits and delayed implementation
Adds the word “enrollment” into several existing Medicaid provisions so the law’s language consistently recognizes enrollment as a discrete process alongside screening, and sets the amendments to take effect three years after enactment. The delay creates a fixed implementation window for states and CMS to adapt systems, but it also defers access gains for children until the implementation period passes.
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
- Children and adolescents (under age 21) in states with pediatric provider shortages, because the bill reduces administrative barriers that have delayed cross‑state specialty and telehealth access.
- Out‑of‑state pediatric specialists and telehealth providers who are already enrolled in Medicare or another State’s Medicaid program, because they can enroll in additional State Medicaid programs without duplicative low‑risk screening.
- Rural and border communities where the nearest pediatric specialty or behavioral health provider sits across a state line; these communities gain faster access to existing, credentialed clinicians.
- State Medicaid agencies that want a faster path to meet network adequacy or access metrics; the streamlined path can be a tool for states to fill gaps when recruiting in‑state providers has proven difficult.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Medicaid agencies, which must design, implement, and operate the new streamlined enrollment process and maintain oversight of cross‑state claims and compliance.
- Medicaid program integrity units and state auditors, which will shoulder increased verification and monitoring responsibilities to detect fraud and improper billing originating from out‑of‑state enrollments.
- In‑state providers who compete with newly enrolled out‑of‑state clinicians; states may see pushback from local provider groups concerned about patient loss and reimbursement pressure.
- Managed care organizations and other payors that must reconcile provider directories, credentialing reciprocity, and network adequacy policies with providers whose primary credentials were verified by other jurisdictions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is access versus control: the bill speeds pediatric access by trusting prior vetting, but in doing so it shifts verification and fraud‑management burdens away from duplicative screening and onto states’ monitoring systems and intergovernmental trust—trading immediate access for potential increases in oversight complexity and uneven risk tolerance across states.
The bill tackles access by lowering enrollment friction, but implementation raises several knotty operational questions. The statute relies on prior screening determinations (CMS Medicare screening or another state’s Medicaid screening), yet it does not create a mandatory national registry or standardized data exchange for those determinations.
That means states will need to build or contract for mechanisms to verify that an out‑of‑state provider actually underwent the referenced screening level and remains in good standing, increasing technical and administrative costs.
Licensure and scope‑of‑practice issues remain unresolved. The bill authorizes payment eligibility under a recipient state’s Medicaid plan but does not change state licensure laws; providers may be enrolled for payment purposes while still constrained by licensing or prescribing rules in the state where care is delivered or ordered.
Additionally, the statute narrows eligibility to providers with a documented low risk of fraud—but providers can obtain Medicare enrollment or another state’s Medicaid enrollment through processes that vary in rigor, creating asymmetric trust. Finally, the three‑year delay gives states time to prepare but also postpones access gains and may create uneven implementation timelines across states, producing short‑term geographic disparities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.