Accountable Produce is Medicine Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN]
- Committees
- Finance Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 5, 2026
Bottom line
The bill mandates a new CMMI model to integrate "food-is-medicine" interventions with comprehensive health services to combat chronic diseases among eligible Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiaries in underserved areas.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to establish an "Accountable Produce is Medicine Bundled Payment Model" within 180 days of enactment. This model will provide bundled payments under Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP for comprehensive services, including healthy foods, personalized health assessments, care coordination, telehealth, remote monitoring, and lifestyle modification programs, to eligible individuals with chronic diseases in underserved areas.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that diet-related chronic diseases are a leading driver of healthcare costs in the United States, and evidence-based "food-is-medicine" interventions, such as produce prescriptions and nutrition counseling, have the potential to significantly improve health outcomes and reduce expenditures. They contend that this model will enhance quality of care, lower costs, and support chronic disease prevention and management by addressing critical social determinants of health.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that mandating a specific model limits CMMI's inherent flexibility to innovate and test a broad range of models, potentially diverting resources from other promising initiatives. Concerns could also be raised regarding the administrative complexity and cost of implementing such a comprehensive program, the potential for fraud or abuse, and the effectiveness of a bundled payment model for food-related interventions.
The bill is concise and its core provisions are clearly articulated, making it accessible for a quick and informed review.
Section 3, amending Section 1115A(b)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act
Mandate for Accountable Produce is Medicine Bundled Payment Model
This provision requires the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to establish the "Accountable Produce is Medicine Bundled Payment Model" no later than 180 days after the bill's enactment. This makes the implementation of this specific model mandatory for CMMI, rather than leaving it to the agency's discretion to choose which models to test.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a mandate ensures timely action on an evidence-based approach to chronic disease prevention and management, preventing potential delays that might occur if the model's implementation were left solely to CMMI's discretionary prioritization.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that mandating specific models restricts CMMI's flexibility to prioritize and test the most promising innovations, potentially diverting resources from other valuable initiatives or limiting its ability to adapt to new evidence.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for immediate, targeted action on a specific health intervention against CMMI's foundational role as an innovation incubator with broad discretion to explore various models.
Section 3, adding Section 1115A(h)(3)(B) to the Social Security Act
Definition and Scope of Accountable Produce is Medicine Services
This section defines the core "Accountable Produce is Medicine services" (APIM services) that selected programs must provide to eligible individuals for a 1-year period. These services include personalized health risk assessments, care coordination, telehealth for chronic disease monitoring, remote patient monitoring, lifestyle modification programs (including nutrition counseling), and healthy, nutrient-dense foods, with a preference for locally grown or regeneratively farmed produce.
Section 3, adding Section 1115A(h)(6)(A) and (B) to the Social Security Act
Eligibility Criteria for Individuals and Programs
This provision defines who can participate in the APIM model. An "eligible individual" must be enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP; reside in a medically underserved, rural, or health professional shortage area; have specific chronic diseases (e.g., diabetes, obesity); be clinically judged to benefit; be prepared to participate; and not already receiving similar duplicative services. An "eligible program" is a provider or supplier enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP.
When providing healthy, nutrient-dense foods, selected programs are given preference for produce grown within 250 miles or through the use of regenerative agriculture. "Regenerative agriculture" is defined as a conservation management approach emphasizing natural resources through improved soil health, water management, and natural vitality.
Section 3, adding Section 1115A(h)(3)(B)(vi) and (h)(6)(C)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice for including specific preferences or definitions that support broader policy goals, such as local economies and environmental sustainability, within a bill primarily focused on health.
Case for: Supporters argue this preference promotes local economies, reduces the carbon footprint associated with food transportation, and encourages sustainable farming practices, thereby aligning health goals with environmental and economic benefits.
Case against: Critics might argue that this preference could limit food sourcing options for programs, potentially increasing costs or reducing the variety of available produce, especially in certain regions or seasons, which could impact participant access or program efficiency.
Estimated impact: Could shift procurement practices for participating programs, potentially boosting local and regenerative agriculture sectors and influencing regional food systems.
Selected programs can terminate an individual's participation in the model before the 1-year period ends if the individual is not adequately engaging with the program or adhering to program requirements, as determined by standards established by the Secretary.
Section 3, adding Section 1115A(h)(3)(D)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure program efficiency and accountability, preventing resources from being expended on individuals who are not actively participating or benefiting from the intervention.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures resources are effectively utilized for engaged participants, maximizing the model's impact and cost-effectiveness by focusing on those committed to improving their health outcomes.
Case against: Critics might argue that such disenrollment could disproportionately affect vulnerable individuals facing significant barriers to engagement, potentially excluding those who need support the most but struggle with consistent adherence due to complex life circumstances.
Estimated impact: Ensures program efficiency and participant accountability, but could create a barrier for some of the most vulnerable individuals.