119-HR-5347 Journalist Public Summary
119 · HR 5347 Health Care Efficiency Through Flexibility Act
A bipartisan House bill would let Medicare ACOs keep multiple options for reporting quality data through 2029 while CMS pilots a fully digital approach, aiming to cut red tape without lowering standards; it has advanced out of committee with unanimous votes. [1]House Ways & Means Committee — H.R. 5347 — Bill Text (PDF) | House Ways & Means
Public Summary — H.R. 5347: Health Care Efficiency Through Flexibility Act
Headline Summary: A bipartisan bill to give Medicare Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) more flexibility in how they report quality measures now, while testing an all‑digital reporting model for the future.
What It Does: The bill keeps three reporting options available to ACOs for performance years 2025–2029 (electronic CQMs, MIPS CQMs, and Medicare CQMs) and clarifies that an ACO’s data won’t be judged “unrepresentative” just because some participating clinics can’t use the ACO’s chosen method if overall completeness rules are met. It also launches a CMS pilot in 2028–2032 to report a small set of measures using a digital method; pilot data for those measures wouldn’t affect an ACO’s quality score during the test, and CMS must publish an analysis and timeline by December 31, 2032. [1]House Ways & Means Committee — H.R. 5347 — Bill Text (PDF) | House Ways & Means
Why it matters: Supporters say this reduces administrative burden—especially for smaller or rural practices still upgrading EHR systems—while letting CMS test digital quality reporting before making it mandatory nationwide. CMS has been moving the Shared Savings Program toward eCQM/digital reporting as the long‑term “gold standard,” so this bill effectively slows the shift to allow a more managed transition. [2]Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) — CY 2025 Medicare Physician Fee…
Who’s For It:
- Lead sponsors: Reps. Vern Buchanan (R‑FL), Jimmy Panetta (D‑CA), Dan Crenshaw (R‑TX), and Darin LaHood (R‑IL), highlighting the bill’s bipartisan framing. [3]Congress.gov — All Info (Except Text) for H.R. 5347 | Congress.gov
- Provider groups: The National Association of ACOs (NAACOS) backs the bill as burden‑reducing while still advancing digital measurement through a pilot. [4]NAACOS — NAACOS applauds committee advancement of H.R. 5347
- Senior‑advocacy group AMAC Action supports keeping multiple reporting paths and warns against a premature eCQM mandate. [5]AMAC Action — AMAC Action letter supporting H.R. 5347
- House committees: The Energy & Commerce Committee advanced the bill to the full House by a 44–0 vote on May 21, 2026; the Ways & Means Committee previously ordered it reported 43–0 on September 17, 2025—signals of broad bipartisan support. [6]House Energy & Commerce Committee (Republicans) — E&C Advances 16 Bills to Full…
Who’s Against It (or concerned):
- There’s little formal, public opposition on the record so far. But some quality‑measurement and health‑tech voices favor a faster move to fully digital (eCQM/dQM) reporting for cleaner, more comparable data; CMS has explicitly prioritized eCQMs/digital as the program’s direction. [2]Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) — CY 2025 Medicare Physician Fee…
What’s Next: As of May 29, 2026, H.R. 5347 has been reported favorably by both committees of referral—Energy & Commerce (44–0 on May 21, 2026) and Ways & Means (43–0 on September 17, 2025). The next step is potential consideration by the full House; floor timing is set by House leadership. [6]House Energy & Commerce Committee (Republicans) — E&C Advances 16 Bills to Full…
- [1] H.R. 5347 — Bill Text (PDF) | House Ways & Means House Ways & Means Committee
- [2] CY 2025 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule — MSSP Provisions Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
- [3] All Info (Except Text) for H.R. 5347 | Congress.gov Congress.gov
- [4] NAACOS applauds committee advancement of H.R. 5347 NAACOS
- [5] AMAC Action letter supporting H.R. 5347 AMAC Action
- [6] E&C Advances 16 Bills to Full House (includes H.R. 5347 vote 44–0) House Energy & Commerce Committee (Republicans)
Discussion