InformedCitizen.usBeta
Stalled in the SenateOverturns a ruleHealth care

Medicare payment model in six states

S.J.Res. 198 · Resolution · Introduced June 24, 2026

This bill would stop Medicare from testing a payment model in six states that uses contractors and technology to review coverage requests.

At a glance

Who it affects

  • Medicare patients in the six participating states
  • Companies reviewing Medicare coverage requests
  • Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Where it stands

A Senate vote to start debate failed 46 to 50 on July 16.

How South Carolina voted

Every member voted no.

Among South Carolina members who cast a vote.

See each vote ↓

Lobbying and money

6 groups lobbied on it: labor union, advocacy group or nonprofit.

No matched campaign money to members who voted.

See who gave to whom ↓

What it would do

Written with AI from the official summary by Congress's research office.

How South Carolina voted

Groups that lobbied on it and gave to SC's members

PAC, lobbyist campaign and qualifying employee money this election, shown separately and never added together. Lobbying reports name the bills a group worked on, not which side it took.

No campaign money matched to SC members who voted on this bill.

See all groups, by member

Members without a final recorded vote are grayed out and excluded from totals. Events and honors are not campaign money and aren't included. Matches use exact organization names.

OrganizationDarline GrahamNoLindsey GrahamNo voteTim ScottNoJim ClyburnNo voteJoe WilsonNo voteNancy MaceNo voteRalph NormanNo voteRussell FryNo voteSheri BiggsNo voteWilliam TimmonsNo voteMembers

Official record

Official title, sponsor and status
Official title
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".
Sponsor
Sen. Wyden, Ron (D-OR)
Introduced
June 24, 2026
Cosponsors
21
Committees
Senate Finance Committee
Latest action
July 16, 2026 · Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 46 - 50. Record Vote Number: 199.
Congress.gov ↗
Official summary from the Congressional Research Service

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.

Summary on Congress.gov ↗
Everyone who lobbied on this bill (6 groups)

7 reports. Fees cover each report's whole lobbying effort, not just this bill.

Businesses and trade groups (0)

None.

Labor unions (3)

Advocacy groups and nonprofits (3)

Not classified (0)

None.

Lobbying firms (5)

We sorted these groups by name and industry. The labels are ours, not legal categories.