H.R. 9126 (119th)Bill Overview

HCBS Anti-Fraud Reporting Act of 2026

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Jun 3, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

The bill amends section 1915(c) of the Social Security Act to require States, beginning in 2026 and each year thereafter, to report to the HHS Secretary any waste, fraud, or abuse detected relating to services furnished under HCBS 1915(c) waivers and to describe efforts taken to prevent such waste, fraud, and abuse. The change adds an annual reporting obligation but does not specify enforcement, funding, or reporting format in the text provided.

Why people may split

Accountability vs administrative burden for states and providers

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, narrowly focused reporting obligation by adding an annual State report requirement to section 1915(c)(2) concerning detected waste, fraud, and abuse and prevention efforts for home and community-based services, but it leaves substantial implementation details unspecified.

The bill amends section 1915(c) of the Social Security Act to require States, beginning in 2026 and each year thereafter, to report to the HHS Secretary any waste, fraud, or abuse detected relating to services furnished under HCBS 1915(c) waivers and to describe efforts taken to prevent such waste, fraud, and abuse.

The change adds an annual reporting obligation but does not specify enforcement, funding, or reporting format in the text provided.

Passage50/100

Modest, bipartisan-leaning reporting requirement gives reasonable chance, especially if included in a broader legislative vehicle; standalone passage less certain.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, narrowly focused reporting obligation by adding an annual State report requirement to section 1915(c)(2) concerning detected waste, fraud, and abuse and prevention efforts for home and community-based services, but it leaves substantial implementation details unspecified.

Contention30/100

Accountability vs administrative burden for states and providers

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agenciesStates

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesCreates a regular federal data stream on detected HCBS waste, fraud, and abuse for oversight.
  • Potential benefitMay deter fraudulent activity by increasing reporting and visibility of enforcement actions.
  • Federal agenciesProvides information that could help target federal and state enforcement resources more effectively.
Likely burdened
  • StatesCreates additional administrative reporting burdens and likely costs for State agencies.
  • Potential burdenMay require providers and case managers to produce more documentation, increasing workload.
  • StatesLack of standardized reporting formats could yield inconsistent data across States.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Accountability vs administrative burden for states and providers
Progressive65%

Generally supportive of measures that protect public funds and beneficiaries, but cautious about added administrative burdens and potential chilling effects on access.

Will want safeguards for beneficiary privacy, clarity on definitions, and funding to avoid diverting resources from services.

Split reaction
Centrist75%

Favors accountability for taxpayer-funded programs while seeking clarity on implementation.

Will press for standardized reporting formats, cost analyses, and measures that minimize duplication and preserve access to services.

Leans supportive
Conservative90%

Likely strongly supportive because the bill increases transparency and targets Medicaid fraud.

May nevertheless seek concrete enforcement mechanisms and streamlined reporting to avoid duplicative state work.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood50/100

Modest, bipartisan-leaning reporting requirement gives reasonable chance, especially if included in a broader legislative vehicle; standalone passage less certain.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • No congressional cost estimate or CMS implementation cost shown
  • States' administrative capacity to compile and report is unspecified
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Accountability vs administrative burden for states and providers

Modest, bipartisan-leaning reporting requirement gives reasonable chance, especially if included in a broader legislative vehicle; standalo…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, narrowly focused reporting obligation by adding an annual State report requirement to section 1915(c)(2) concerning detected waste, fraud, and ab…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis