Compassionate Care Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 3, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to standardize and improve access to advance care planning and end-of-life care information and services across various healthcare settings and federal programs, empowering individuals to make informed decisions about their care.
What it actually does
This bill aims to improve end-of-life care by enhancing advance care planning through a national public education campaign, establishing a provider education website, and creating a pilot program for end-of-life care curricula in health professions schools. It mandates the development of end-of-life care quality measures, permanently extends telehealth coverage for hospice recertification, and removes geographic restrictions for telehealth advance care planning services under Medicare. Additionally, it requires several studies on national advance directive policies and registries.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill will empower individuals to make informed decisions about their end-of-life care, reduce family burden, ensure patient wishes are honored, and improve the quality of care through better provider education and standardized measures. They emphasize the importance of early discussions and access to palliative and hospice care to enhance patient dignity and comfort.
Opponents contend
No specific organized opposition is immediately apparent from the bill's general goals of improving end-of-life care and patient autonomy. Potential concerns might arise regarding federal overreach into state-regulated advance directives or the administrative burden on healthcare providers, though these are not explicitly stated as opposition in the provided context.
The bill is moderately detailed but structured logically, allowing an informed reader to understand its core 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 (HHS), through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to develop and implement a national public education campaign by January 1, 2026. The campaign will inform the public about the importance of advance care planning, individual rights in healthcare decisions, and the availability of hospice and palliative care. It must use various media, be culturally and linguistically appropriate, and run for at least 5 years.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that public awareness is crucial for individuals to exercise their rights and make informed decisions about end-of-life care, leading to better patient outcomes and reduced family stress.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against public health education campaigns, though some might question the cost-effectiveness or potential for misinterpretation without proper guidance.
Tradeoffs
Balancing broad public messaging with the need for nuanced, individualized discussions about end-of-life care.
Sec. 111
Public Provider Advance Care Planning Website
This section requires the Secretary of HHS, through the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), to establish or expand an internet website by January 1, 2027. This website will serve as a resource for healthcare providers under Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and the Indian Health Service, offering information on advance care planning requirements, quality improvement activities, integration of documents into electronic health records (EHRs), continuing education, and best practices for discussing end-of-life care.
Sec. 112
Advance Care Curricula Pilot Program for Health Professions Schools
This section establishes a pilot program where the Secretary awards grants to eligible health professions schools (e.g., medicine, osteopathic medicine, physician assistant, allied health, nursing, social work, graduate medical education programs) to support the establishment of end-of-life training requirements in their degree programs. The training must cover advance care planning discussions, specialized pediatric training where applicable, the continuum of end-of-life services, discussions with dying patients, medical and legal issues, and linguistic and cultural competency.
Sec. 113
Development of End-of-Life Care Quality Measures
This section requires the Secretary, through AHRQ, to develop specific, patient-oriented end-of-life quality measures for relevant qualified health care provider settings by January 1, 2026. These measures can be structure-oriented, process-oriented, or outcome-oriented, and must include demographic information. Initial reporting by providers based on these measures is to begin by January 1, 2028.
Sec. 114
Continuing Education Curricula for End-of-Life Care
This section directs the Secretary, through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), to develop or enhance continuing education curricula on advance care planning and end-of-life care for qualified health care providers by January 1, 2026. The curriculum must cover the meaning and importance of advance care planning, types of documents (e.g., living wills, durable powers of attorney), counseling skills for engaging patients and loved ones, palliative care principles, and the continuum of end-of-life services, including hospice.
Sec. 121
Permanent Telehealth for Hospice Recertification
This section permanently extends the authorization for using telehealth to conduct face-to-face encounters required before recertification of eligibility for hospice care under Medicare. Previously, this was a temporary measure during the COVID-19 emergency period, set to expire on March 31, 2025.
Sec. 122
Telehealth for Advance Care Planning Services
This section amends Medicare law to remove geographic requirements for telehealth services furnished on or after January 1, 2026, specifically for advance care planning services. This means Medicare beneficiaries can receive advance care planning services via telehealth regardless of their physical location (e.g., rural vs. urban), expanding access to these crucial discussions.
Sec. 201
Study on National Uniform Advance Directive Policy
This section mandates the Secretary of HHS to conduct a study, through the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, on the barriers to establishing a national uniform policy on advance directives. The study must cover family satisfaction, usability, accessibility, interoperability, and portability of directives, the feasibility of an optional national form, and state law variations. A report with recommendations is due to Congress within two years.
Sec. 202
Studies on National 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, with a report due in 18 months. It also requires the National Coordinator of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) to study the feasibility and impact of requiring EHR vendors to have a prominent field for advance care planning documents for certification. Additionally, ONC is to initiate two demonstration programs for best practices in usability, portability, and interoperability of electronic advance directives, including electronic signatures and notarization. Finally, GAO is to conduct a study on unwanted healthcare services provided to patients.
These sections amend existing Medicare law (Social Security Act) to permanently extend telehealth authorization for hospice recertification and remove geographic restrictions for telehealth advance care planning services.
Sec. 121, 122 (Medicare Amendments)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing law, rather than an attempt to obscure the provisions.
Case for: Supporters argue that making these telehealth flexibilities permanent ensures continuity of care, reduces barriers for vulnerable patients, and improves operational efficiency for providers, building on successful pandemic-era policies.
Case against: Some might raise concerns about the quality of care or potential for fraud when sensitive encounters are conducted via telehealth, though these concerns have largely been addressed by experience during the public health emergency.
Estimated impact: These changes will permanently alter how hospice recertification and advance care planning services are delivered and reimbursed under Medicare, potentially increasing access and utilization nationwide.
This subsection mandates the Comptroller General of the United States (GAO) to conduct a study and submit a report to Congress on the incidence of healthcare services (tests, surgeries, drugs, etc.) paid for by the Federal Government or the patient that were not the preference of the patient or their authorized health care agent.
Sec. 202(d)
Why it matters:This placement is likely due to its nature as an 'additional study' rather than a core programmatic change, but its potential findings are highly consequential.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this study is crucial for identifying systemic failures in honoring patient wishes, potentially leading to significant cost savings and improved patient-centered care by reducing unwanted medical interventions.
Case against: No direct opposition to studying unwanted care is expected, but concerns might arise regarding the methodology, data collection challenges, and the potential for misinterpretation of findings, especially given the subjective nature of patient preferences.
Estimated impact: The study could reveal substantial instances of unwanted care, potentially highlighting significant healthcare expenditures that do not align with patient autonomy and informing future policy to address this issue.