Compassionate Care Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 3, 2026
Bottom line
The Compassionate Care Act aims to improve the quality and accessibility of end-of-life care by enhancing public and provider education, standardizing training, leveraging telehealth, and exploring national policy solutions for advance directives.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a national public education campaign on advance care planning, creates a provider website for end-of-life care resources, and mandates a pilot program for end-of-life care curricula in health professional schools. It also requires the development of core end-of-life care quality measures, permanently extends telehealth authorization for hospice recertification, and removes geographic restrictions for telehealth-based advance care planning services under Medicare. Furthermore, it directs studies on a national uniform policy for advance directives and the feasibility of a national advance directive registry.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill will empower individuals to make informed decisions about their end-of-life care, ensuring their wishes are honored and reducing stress for families. They contend that improved education and provider training will lead to higher quality, more compassionate care, while telehealth expansions will increase access, especially for underserved populations. Proponents also believe that standardizing advance directives nationally will reduce confusion and improve care coordination.
Opponents contend
Specific organized opposition to this bill is not readily apparent from the text, as its provisions generally aim to improve patient care and autonomy. However, potential concerns could be raised by those wary of federal mandates influencing state-level advance directive laws, the administrative burden on healthcare providers for new reporting requirements and training, or the overall cost of establishing and maintaining new federal programs and studies.
The bill is moderately complex but well-structured, allowing an informed reader to understand its provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 102
National Public Education Campaign on Advance Care Planning
This section directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the CDC, to develop and implement a national public education campaign by January 1, 2027. The campaign will inform the public about the importance of advance care planning, including the availability and benefits of hospice and palliative care, using various media and culturally appropriate information. It aims to encourage individuals to discuss their health care choices with family, proxies, and providers.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a national campaign is crucial to overcome societal reluctance to discuss end-of-life care, leading to more individuals having their wishes documented and respected. They believe it will improve patient autonomy and reduce family distress during critical times.
Critics contend
Critics might express concerns about the cost of a continuous national campaign and question its effectiveness in genuinely changing deeply personal attitudes and behaviors. Some may also be wary of federal messaging influencing private medical decisions.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for widespread public awareness with the potential for significant federal expenditure and the challenge of effectively communicating sensitive topics across diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
Sec. 111
Public Provider Advance Care Planning Website
This section requires the Secretary, through CMS and AHRQ, to establish or expand an internet website by January 1, 2028, for healthcare providers. The website will offer resources on advance care planning, including legal requirements, quality improvement activities, assistance for integrating ACP documents into electronic health records (EHRs), and best practices for discussing end-of-life care with patients.
Sec. 112
Advance Care Curricula Pilot Program
This section establishes a pilot program where the Secretary awards grants to eligible entities, such as medical, nursing, and social work schools, to integrate end-of-life training requirements into their degree programs. The training must cover topics like discussing ACP, pediatric considerations, palliative care, legal issues, and cultural competency, with a longitudinal component for graduate medical education.
Sec. 113
Development of Core End-of-Life Care Quality Measures
This section directs the Secretary, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), to develop specific, patient-oriented end-of-life quality measures for various healthcare provider settings. These measures, which can be structure, process, or outcome-oriented, must be disseminated by January 1, 2027, with initial reporting by providers beginning January 1, 2029. Reporting requirements will include demographic information.
Sec. 121
Permanent Telehealth for Hospice Recertification
This section amends the Social Security Act to permanently authorize the use of telehealth for face-to-face encounters required prior to the recertification of eligibility for hospice care under Medicare. This extends a flexibility that was previously temporary during emergency periods.
Sec. 122
Telehealth for Advance Care Planning Without Geographic Restrictions
This section amends the Social Security Act to remove geographic requirements for telehealth services furnished for advance care planning under Medicare, effective January 1, 2027. This means patients can receive advance care planning services via telehealth regardless of their location, expanding access beyond rural areas.
Sec. 201
Study on National Uniform Policy on Advance Directives
This section mandates the Secretary, through the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, to conduct a study within two years on the barriers to establishing and implementing a national uniform policy on advance directives. The study will examine issues like family satisfaction, usability, accessibility, interoperability, portability of directives, and the feasibility of an optional national form valid across states, considering state law variations.
Sec. 202
GAO and ONC Studies on Advance Directive Registry and EHR Integration
This section directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the feasibility of a national advance directive registry, considering HIPAA privacy constraints, and report within 18 months. It also directs the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) to study the impact of requiring EHR vendors to have a prominent field for ACP documents for certification, and to initiate two demonstration programs for improving the usability, portability, and interoperability of electronic advance directives and their electronic execution.
The definition of 'qualified health care provider' includes a broad range of professionals beyond traditional medical doctors and nurses, specifically mentioning 'social worker, home health aide, palliative care professional, community health worker, community health educator, or individual in a similar position, as designated by the Secretary.'
Sec. 2(12)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms used throughout the bill, rather than an attempt to obscure the provision.
Case for: Supporters argue that broadening the definition of qualified providers acknowledges the diverse team involved in patient care and allows for more accessible and culturally competent advance care planning discussions, especially in community settings where these professionals are trusted.
Case against: Critics might raise concerns about ensuring adequate training and qualifications for non-medical professionals to engage in complex and sensitive advance care planning discussions, potentially leading to inconsistent quality or inappropriate advice without clear guidelines.
Estimated impact: This provision has a potentially significant impact by expanding the workforce capable of facilitating advance care planning, thereby increasing access to these services across various care settings and communities.
This subsection repeals Section 4751(d) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508), which mandated a study and report by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the effectiveness of advance directives.
Sec. 102(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for repealing outdated or redundant statutory language, rather than an attempt to hide a controversial provision.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this repeal removes an outdated or completed mandate, streamlining federal statutes and allowing new, more relevant studies (like those in Title II of this bill) to take precedence without redundancy.
Case against: No specific opposition is likely, as it's an administrative cleanup. However, if the original study was still considered valuable or incomplete, critics might argue against its repeal without a clear replacement.
Estimated impact: The impact is likely minor, primarily administrative, by removing an old study mandate. It clears the way for the new studies proposed in Title II of this bill.