Bipartisan Efforts Renewed: MATCH IT Act of 2025 and the Push to Solve Patient Identity Matching Challenges

Two Congressmen, Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) and Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), are taking another bipartisan step toward addressing the long-standing and dangerous problem of patient identity mismatching in healthcare. By reintroducing the Patient Matching and Transparency in Certified Health IT Act of 2025 (MATCH IT Act), they aim to reduce errors that compromise patient privacy and safety while advocating for better standards in healthcare technology.

This renewed legislative push follows a similar bill introduced in February 2024, which stalled in the House subcommittee on health. However, with growing support from healthcare stakeholders and mounting pressure to improve patient safety, advocates hope this version of the MATCH IT Act will gain traction in both chambers of Congress.

The Problem: Patient Identification Errors

Patient identity mismatching is a widespread issue that poses significant risks to both patient care and the financial stability of healthcare organizations. Mistakes in identifying or linking patient records can lead to:

• Medical errors: Incorrect or missing patient records may result in harmful treatments, missed allergies, or wrong prescriptions.
• Duplication of care: Duplicate records lead to unnecessary medical procedures, costing U.S. healthcare systems over $6.7 billion annually, according to Black Book Research.
• Denied insurance claims: About 35% of claim denials are linked to identity errors, costing the average hospital $2.5 million each year.

For patients, the stakes are life and death. As Terri Ripley, CIO of OrthoVirginia, points out, “High-quality patient care depends on a complete medical history—having patient previous X-rays, surgical history, and active medication is critical.”

Legislative Details of MATCH IT Act

The MATCH IT Act of 2025 proposes several forward-thinking solutions to address patient mismatching. Specifically, it calls for:

• The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to consult with healthcare providers, health IT vendors, and patient groups to define standards for accurate and precise patient matching.
• The tracking and documentation of patient match rates, along with efforts to improve matching over time.
• Improved interoperability between systems to ensure patient data is accurately shared across healthcare networks.

A key provision of the act is the exclusion of a national patient identifier, which avoids concerns about centralizing personal health information. Instead, the bill promotes standards that modernize data collection and certification requirements for electronic health record (EHR) systems. Cassie Ballard, director of congressional affairs for the College of Healthcare Information Management Executives (CHIME), emphasizes this: “The MATCH IT Act would improve patient matching without the creation of a national identifier.”

Historical Roadblocks: Privacy Concerns and Policy Stagnation

Efforts to improve patient identity matching have repeatedly collided with privacy concerns and legislative gridlock. The origins of this debate trace back to 1996’s Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which initially mandated the creation of unique patient identifiers to improve healthcare record reliability. However, due to fears of potential misuse and breaches of privacy, Congress abandoned this requirement and enacted a ban in 1999 preventing HHS from working on national identifiers—a ban that remains in place under Section 510 of the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill.

Kelly and Foster have long advocated lifting this ban to allow HHS to explore innovative solutions. Despite the House passing related amendments multiple times, Senate approval has been elusive, reflecting the broader challenge of navigating privacy concerns alongside the need for systemic reform.

Industry Support for MATCH IT Act

The 2025 iteration of the MATCH IT Act has garnered support from over 25 healthcare organizations, ranging from IT professional groups to hospital systems. David Gray, government relations director for HIMSS, expressed cautious optimism: “Congress traditionally defaults to the status quo, but we’ve achieved traction in the Senate. Advocacy efforts must continue to educate lawmakers on the downstream impacts of Section 510.”

Additionally, Ripley and other CIOs have highlighted practical benefits, such as reducing duplicative medical procedures and improving operational efficiency. From an economic perspective, tackling patient mismatching is an urgent priority, given its financial impact on both healthcare providers and the broader economy.

Cybersecurity and Ethical Implications

While the MATCH IT Act represents an essential step forward, the question remains whether current proposals adequately address the complexity of patient identity management. Cybersecurity is a pressing concern. As Russell Teague, CISO of Fortified Health Security, warns, “A national patient identifier could improve care coordination but also presents a massive target for cyberthreats.” He advocates for hybrid strategies, including decentralized identity systems and AI-driven matching algorithms, to balance accuracy and security.

The emphasis on avoiding a centralized identifier reflects ongoing fears about misuse. Patient advocacy groups are rightly concerned about the potential for such systems to create digital vulnerabilities or misuse in an era of growing cybersecurity threats.

Progress with Bipartisan Collaboration

The MATCH IT Act of 2025 underscores the urgent need for bipartisan solutions to one of healthcare’s most entrenched challenges. By focusing on interoperability, transparent standards, and stakeholder collaboration, the legislation aims to reduce the risk of deadly and costly patient mismatching errors. However, overcoming historical roadblocks and balancing innovation with privacy concerns will require sustained advocacy and political will.

As the debate unfolds, lawmakers must consider not just the technical feasibility of proposed solutions but also their broader implications for security, equity, and trust in the healthcare system. Whether the MATCH IT Act becomes the turning point remains to be seen, but its introduction is undeniably a step toward addressing a long-neglected issue.