Home  /  Recent Bills  /  LIVE Beneficiaries Act
HOUSE · HR 1403 119 CONGRESS

LIVE Beneficiaries Act

INTRODUCED
February 18, 2025
POLICY AREA
Health
STATUS
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
SOURCE
Congress.gov ↗

Bill Summary

H.R. 1403, the Leveraging Integrity and Verification of Eligibility for Beneficiaries Act (LIVE Beneficiaries Act), makes a targeted change to Medicaid program integrity rules to ensure that deceased individuals do not remain enrolled and that payments do not continue after a beneficiary’s death. It amends section 1902 of the Social Security Act to require every state (limited to the 50 states and the District of Columbia) to follow new eligibility verification procedures laid out in a newly added subsection (uu). The bill’s core requirement is straightforward: beginning January 1, 2027, states must check the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File (DMF) at least quarterly against their Medicaid enrollment files to verify whether any current enrollees are listed as deceased.

If a state identifies, through the DMF, that an enrollee is deceased, the bill instructs the state to treat that DMF information as sufficient factual confirmation of death for purposes of federal Medicaid regulations that allow termination of coverage without advance notice when a beneficiary has died (referencing 42 C.F.R. 431.213(a)). With that confirmation, the state must promptly disenroll the deceased person and stop making any Medicaid payments on their behalf. Payments for services provided prior to the date of death would still be allowed and paid, but ongoing fee-for-service payments or managed care capitation payments after death must cease.

Recognizing that no data system is perfect, the bill includes an explicit safeguard for erroneous matches. If a state later determines that a living enrollee was misidentified as deceased due to an error in the DMF or in the data matching process, the state must immediately reinstate that person’s Medicaid coverage and make the reinstatement retroactive to the date coverage was erroneously ended. This aims to ensure that any care the individual received during the gap is covered and that financial harm to providers or beneficiaries is minimized.

The measure also clarifies that nothing prevents a state from using other electronic data sources to detect deaths more quickly or comprehensively. States may, for example, use state vital records, interstate data exchanges, or other federal databases to flag potentially deceased beneficiaries. However, the quarterly DMF check remains a minimum federal requirement that all states must meet starting in 2027, alongside all other existing eligibility determination and redetermination rules.

Functionally, the bill creates a uniform national floor for death-data screening frequency in Medicaid. Many states already perform periodic death matches, but practices vary, and some may not check as frequently as quarterly. By standardizing a minimum cadence and explicitly authorizing use of DMF data as sufficient proof for immediate termination in death cases, the bill seeks to reduce improper payments—such as ongoing capitation to managed care plans for enrollees who have died—and strengthen program integrity.

The bill is narrowly tailored: it addresses only verification related to death status and does not expand into other eligibility criteria (like residency, income, or immigration status). It does not alter who qualifies for Medicaid or the scope of covered benefits. Nor does it impose reporting requirements or penalties specified in the text; enforcement would be through the existing Medicaid state plan compliance framework administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The effective date of January 1, 2027, provides states time to ensure access to the DMF, update their IT systems, and adjust processes with managed care plans and providers to recoup or prevent payments after death.

While the bill’s focus is program integrity and taxpayer savings, it raises practical considerations. State agencies will need to maintain accurate identifiers to avoid mismatches, establish rapid reinstatement workflows for false positives, and coordinate with managed care organizations to stop capitation promptly and reconcile partial-month payments. The reference to the no-advance-notice rule in death cases accelerates disenrollment when a DMF match occurs, which helps prevent waste but could heighten due-process concerns if the match is wrong. The retroactive reinstatement requirement is intended to mitigate that risk. Finally, the bill applies only to the 50 states and the District of Columbia, not to U.S. territories, and it does not include direct federal funding for states’ implementation costs. Overall, it is a targeted, bipartisan program-integrity measure focused on preventing Medicaid payments after a beneficiary’s death while providing a remedy for errors.

Ask This Bill

Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.

Read the full analysis on Congress.gov →

Where Each Party Stands

Democrats

MIGHT SUPPORT
+Targets a clear and limited program-integrity problem—payments after death—without changing eligibility rules for living beneficiaries.
+Creates a national floor (quarterly checks) that can reduce variation among states and improve consistency and fairness.
+Includes an explicit safeguard requiring immediate, retroactive reinstatement when a living person is mistakenly flagged as deceased.
+Allows states to use additional electronic data sources beyond the DMF, promoting accuracy and timely detection.
+Protects Medicaid’s reputation by addressing a type of improper payment that draws public scrutiny, helping preserve political support for the program.
+Narrow scope minimizes risk of unintended coverage losses unrelated to death status.
+Implementation date (2027) gives states time to adapt systems and processes to minimize errors.
+Could reduce capitation overpayments and redirect funds to services for living enrollees.
MIGHT OPPOSE
Reliance on the DMF, which can contain inaccuracies, risks false positives and temporary loss of coverage for living people, disproportionately affecting those with common names or data-entry inconsistencies.
By treating a DMF match as sufficient proof for termination without advance notice, the bill may weaken due process and heighten equity concerns if errors occur.
Imposes administrative and IT costs on state agencies without dedicated federal funding, potentially diverting resources from enrollment assistance and care management.
May contribute to administrative churn if erroneous terminations are not quickly identified and reversed, disrupting continuity of care.
Excludes U.S. territories, leaving gaps in program integrity expectations and potentially inequitable treatment across jurisdictions.
No requirements for consumer notices or outreach in the event of misidentification, placing the burden on beneficiaries to correct mistakes.
Lacks transparency measures (like reporting on false-positive rates or timeliness of reinstatement) that could drive improvements and oversight.
Could set a precedent for more frequent or broader eligibility checks that, if poorly implemented, might increase wrongful terminations beyond death verification.

Republicans

MIGHT SUPPORT
+Directly addresses waste, fraud, and abuse by stopping payments for deceased enrollees, protecting taxpayer dollars.
+Establishes a clear, uniform minimum standard (quarterly DMF matching) that states can implement with existing federal data.
+Provides states flexibility to use other data sources in addition to the DMF, encouraging innovation and speed.
+Codifies that a DMF match is sufficient to terminate without advance notice in death cases, enabling swift action to prevent improper payments.
+Includes a remedy for errors—immediate, retroactive reinstatement—balancing integrity with fairness.
+Narrow, targeted fix that avoids broader policy fights over eligibility or benefits and can attract bipartisan support.
+Helps curb capitation overpayments to managed care plans, improving fiscal stewardship.
+Gives states time (until 2027) to prepare systems, reducing the risk of implementation failures.
MIGHT OPPOSE
Implementation is delayed until 2027, postponing potential savings; some may prefer an earlier start date or phased-in monthly checks.
Quarterly checks may be viewed as too infrequent; monthly or real-time verification could prevent more improper payments.
No explicit enforcement mechanism, penalties, or savings targets to ensure strong compliance and measurable results.
Creates a new federal mandate on states without additional funding, which some may consider an unfunded mandate.
By limiting application to states and D.C., the bill does not address similar improper payments that could occur in territories.
Does not tackle other categories of improper payments or eligibility errors beyond death, leaving broader integrity concerns unaddressed.
Retroactive reinstatement for errors could still impose administrative burdens and may not fully deter identity mismatches in the first place.
Managed care contract complexities (e.g., partial-month capitation) may require additional guidance not included in the bill, leaving room for inefficiencies.

History

Feb 18, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Feb 18, 2025
Introduced in House
Feb 18, 2025
Introduced in House
SPONSOR
Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]
Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]
FL District 12 · R
SUBJECTS
Health care coverage and access Medicaid State and local government operations