S. 1055Senate bill · 119th CongressIn the SenateNative Americans

Indian Health Service Emergency Claims Parity Act

Sponsored byMike RoundsR-SDIntroduced Mar 13, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 5, 2026) — Held at the desk.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Mar 13, 2025

This bill extends from 72 hours to 15 days the time period to notify the Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) program of emergency medical care received from a non-Indian Health Service (IHS) medical provider or at a non-IHS medical facility. This bill does not apply to individuals who are elderly or disabled, who continue to have a 30-day notification requirement for emergency services.

The IHS provides medical and dental services directly to American Indian and Alaska Native patients whenever possible. The PRC program pays for medical or dental care that is provided away from an IHS or tribal health care facility. The PRC program must be notified of requests for authorization of payment for health care services from a non-IHS provider.

Currently in emergency cases, the patient, an individual on behalf of the patient, or the medical care provider must, within 72 hours after the beginning of treatment for the condition or after admission to a health care facility, notify a PRC authorizing official of the need for the emergency medical care. This bill instead allows the patient, other individual, or provider to notify PRC within 15 days of the treatment or admission.

Face Value

as introduced
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

4 comments

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

Sort
5
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Yea1d ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
5
pine_machinistDemoAZ-5voted Nay2d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
4
nadia.hartleyDemoNV-2voted Yea2d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
4
back_cartographerDemoNC-102d ago
The reporting requirement *is* the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
Your position on S. 1055No positions yet