S.J.Res. 198Senate joint resolution · 119th CongressIn progress3 votes from flippingHealth

A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Services relating to "Medicare Program; Implementation of Prior Authorization for Select Services for the Wasteful and Inappropriate Services Reduction (WISeR) Model".

Sponsored byRon WydenD-ORIntroduced Jun 24, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jul 16, 2026) to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 46 - 50. Record Vote Number: 199.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jun 24, 2026

This joint resolution prohibits the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) from testing a new Medicare payment model in certain states that involves a prior authorization process and the use of enhanced technology by third-party contractors to determine whether certain claims should be paid.

Specifically, the joint resolution nullifies a notice issued by the CMS on July 1, 2025, titled Medicare Program; Implementation of Prior Authorization for Select Services for the Wasteful and Inappropriate Services Reduction (WISeR) Model. (On May 12, 2026, the Government Accountability Office issued a letter of opinion stating that this notice constituted an agency rule and is therefore subject to the Congressional Review Act.)

The CMS selected six states to participate in this model over a six-year period: New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, and Washington. Under the model, contracted companies must process prior authorization requests (i.e., requests for coverage determinations before a service is furnished) for certain services using enhanced technology (e.g., artificial intelligence). Contracted companies are paid based on the share of resulting savings. The CMS aims to test the model's ability to produce accurate results while streamlining the prior authorization process for Medicare claims. The model is based in part on similar processes used for Medicare Advantage claims.

CMS began implementing the model on January 1, 2026. This joint resolution prohibits the CMS from continuing to do so.

Face Value

as placed on the calendar
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

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • On the decisive vote

    Senate · Jul 16, 2026

    Whether to start debating it at all. Not a vote on the bill itself.

    4650

    Motion to Proceed Rejected

    Every vote →

Discussion

10 comments

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

Sort
22
sam_whitfieldDemoMD-7voted Yea17d ago
Yes from me. The cost looks modest relative to what we already spend on the same problem indirectly.
20
lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Yea20d ago
Reading the summary, this looks like it mostly codifies what agencies are already doing informally. That's worth doing — informal practice evaporates when administrations change.
15
district_watcherDemoTX-27voted Yea23d ago
I'd vote yes, but not enthusiastically. It solves a narrow version of a broad problem, and I'd rather have the narrow fix now than nothing for another two years.
5
NorthWoodsNinaDemoNY-12voted Yea24d ago
Counterpoint: the reporting requirement is the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
7
cascade_kaiDemoIN-6voted Nay28d ago
My objection is scope creep. The title describes something narrow; the text is considerably broader than the title suggests.
3
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Yea18d ago
This is the kind of unglamorous plumbing that never makes the news and matters more than the stuff that does.
5
cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Nay25d ago
That's the part I can't get past either. The authority is broad and the guardrails are thin.
8
cascade_kaiDemoIN-6voted Nay18d ago
Same conclusion, different reasoning. I'm less worried about scope and more about who administers it.
0
cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Nay25d ago
Agreed on the substance, disagree on the timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
0
BudgetHawk88DemoUT-3voted Nay17d ago
Honest question, not a gotcha: what would change your mind on this?
Your position on S.J.Res. 19861% Yea · 18 VoteWire users