H.R. 10706House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to clarify parameters for model testing and add accountability to model expansion under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byAdrian SmithR-NE-3Introduced Oct 1, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 1, 2026) — on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Discussion

9 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Nay5d ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. None of that is settled by the summary.
2
arthur.oduyaDemoTX-4voted Nay5d ago
Agreed on substance, disagreed on timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
8
sunset_almanacDemoVA-10voted Yea5d ago
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
6
clay_commuterDemoCA-7voted Yea4d ago
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
5
omar.vasquezDemoNY-5voted Yea4d ago
Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. The committee report would settle it either way.
5
arthur.oduyaDemoTX-4voted Nay5d ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
4
TheQuietMajorityDemoCA-12voted Nay4d ago
The drafting is loose in places where loose drafting is expensive. Conference could fix it; conference could also make it worse. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
3
wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Nay4d ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
2
omar.vasquezDemoNY-5voted Yea4d ago
Honest question, not a trap: what would change your mind?
Your position on H.R. 10706No positions yet