CHARTS Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 22, 2026
Bottom line
This bill establishes a grant program to incentivize long-term and post-acute care facilities to modernize their health information technology, aiming to improve patient care coordination and potentially reduce federal healthcare expenditures.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a grant program for long-term care and post-acute care providers. These grants are intended to help providers develop and adopt health information technology to improve communication, coordination, and electronic data exchange among healthcare entities, ultimately enhancing patient care transitions and preventing duplicative services.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill addresses a critical gap in health information technology adoption within long-term and post-acute care settings, which often lag behind acute care hospitals. Modernizing this sector will lead to improved patient outcomes, reduced rehospitalizations, and more efficient care transitions, ultimately generating cost savings for federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that a grant program is not the most efficient mechanism for driving widespread IT adoption, suggesting that alternative market-based incentives or regulatory approaches could be more effective. Concerns could also be raised regarding the administrative burden of the grant application and oversight process, the potential for inefficient use of funds, or whether the authorized appropriation is sufficient to achieve a significant, lasting impact across a diverse and extensive sector.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick but thorough review by an informed reader.
Section 2(a)
Establishment of Health IT Grants for Long-Term and Post-Acute Care Providers
This section mandates the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a grant program within two years of the bill's enactment. These grants are specifically for long-term care and post-acute care providers to help them develop and adopt health information technology. The overarching goal is to modernize these facilities' IT infrastructure to improve patient care and data exchange.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that direct funding is crucial for a sector that often lacks the capital for significant IT investments, ensuring these providers can catch up with acute care settings and improve overall healthcare system interoperability and patient safety.
Critics contend
Some might argue that direct grants can create dependency and may not foster sustainable market-driven solutions for IT adoption, potentially leading to temporary improvements rather than systemic, long-term change.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the immediate need for financial support to modernize a lagging healthcare sector with concerns about fostering long-term market sustainability and ensuring efficient allocation of federal resources.
Section 2(d)
Permitted Uses of Health Information Technology Grant Funds
This section outlines the specific purposes for which grant funds must be used. These include facilitating electronic data exchange among various healthcare entities, improving care quality through tools like clinical decision support and interoperability (including the United States Core Data for Interoperability), and implementing systems to enhance care transitions, prevent duplicative services, enable real-time data exchange, and address patient needs.
Section 2(e) and 2(f)
Grant Recipient Selection Priorities and Congressional Reporting
Subsection (e) directs the Secretary to prioritize grant awards to providers that are more likely to improve health outcomes for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, and to ensure a diverse and nationally representative sample of recipients based on geography, demographics (income, race, ethnicity), and insurance status. Subsection (f) mandates preliminary and final reports to Congress, detailing the technology adopted, improvements in care coordination, cost-benefit analysis, impact on patient outcomes (e.g., falls, rehospitalizations), and recommendations for future program expansion.
Requires grant recipients to use health information technology that improves effectiveness, efficiency, and quality of care through the use of, among other things, the 'United States Core Data for Interoperability published by the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.'
Section 2(d)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure adherence to existing, established technical standards without re-writing them in every bill. It is not intended to be evasive but rather to leverage existing frameworks for interoperability.
Case for: Supporters argue that explicitly requiring the use of USCDI ensures that the health IT developed is truly interoperable and aligns with national standards, maximizing its utility and preventing the creation of new, isolated data systems.
Case against: Critics might contend that mandating a specific standard could limit flexibility for providers to adopt newer or alternative technologies that might emerge or be better suited to their specific needs, potentially stifling innovation in the rapidly evolving health IT landscape.
Estimated impact: Ensures consistency and interoperability across different health IT systems, facilitating seamless and standardized data exchange for millions of patients and providers across the healthcare continuum.