Health Desk
Health Bills
17 bills in the Health desk, ordered for current relevance and readability.
HealthHR-237-119Latest action: Jan 7, 20254 readersIn Committee
Paws Off Act of 2025
Sponsored by David Schweikert
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates food labeling to protect public health. Currently, foods containing xylitol—a sugar substitute commonly used in sugar-free gum, candy, baked goods, and peanut butter—are not required to carry warnings about the ingredient's effects on animals. Xylitol is toxic to dogs and can cause serious health problems including liver damage and hypoglycemia when ingested, yet consumers may be unaware of this risk when purchasing products for their homes. The Paws Off Act of 2025 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require the FDA to deem any food containing xylitol as misbranded if it lacks a warning label specifying xylitol's toxic effects on dogs. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the FDA Commissioner, must issue an interim final rule within six months of enactment and a final rule within one year. The warning requirement applies to all foods containing xylitol sold in the United States, establishing a uniform labeling standard across the food industry. Manufacturers will need to update product labels and packaging to include the required warning before the final rule takes effect. The FDA will enforce compliance through its existing authority to remove misbranded foods from commerce. Food companies have a one-year transition period to reformulate labels or face enforcement action. The change affects the sugar-free food market, particularly manufacturers of gum, candy, and spreads, but imposes no direct federal spending since the FDA uses existing resources to implement and enforce the rule.
Health
Latest updateJan 7, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Health
HealthHR-215-119Latest action: Jan 6, 20250 readersIn Committee
Adoption Information Act
Sponsored by Robert Wittman
Under current law, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provides federal grants and contracts to family planning service projects and programs through Title V of the Social Security Act. These programs offer a range of reproductive health services, including contraception, cancer screenings, and abortion services. While states and providers have discretion in how they structure their services, there is no federal requirement that these programs inform patients about adoption as an alternative option when individuals inquire about family planning or abortion services. The Adoption Information Act amends Title V of the Social Security Act by requiring HHS to establish new conditions for federal funding. Under the bill, any family planning service project or program receiving federal grants or contracts must provide patients with a pamphlet containing comprehensive contact information for adoption centers in their region whenever a person inquires about medical or abortion services. The Secretary of HHS must prepare and annually update these pamphlets and distribute them to all funded programs. Providers must also give patients an opportunity to read the materials. Implementation would begin upon enactment, with HHS responsible for compiling adoption center information by region and producing the required pamphlets. The bill specifies that no additional appropriations are needed—existing Title V funding must cover these costs. Family planning providers would need to integrate pamphlet distribution into their intake and counseling procedures. Programs that fail to comply with the assurance requirement would become ineligible for federal funding. The change affects hundreds of federally funded family planning clinics nationwide, potentially redirecting patient conversations and decision-making processes at the point of service.
Health
Latest updateJan 6, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Health
HealthHR-120-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20257 readersIn Committee
No Mandates Act
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal agencies issued guidance and regulations requiring vaccination against the virus as a condition of employment, access to federal facilities, and receipt of services. Many entities receiving federal pandemic relief funds—including hospitals, schools, and other institutions—implemented their own vaccination requirements. These mandates remain in effect in some form across federal agencies and federally funded organizations, though enforcement has varied since the emergency declarations ended. The No Mandates Act prohibits federal agencies from issuing rules, regulations, or guidance that require any individual to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. It also bars vaccination requirements for access to federal property, federal services, or congressional grounds. Additionally, the bill restricts any entity receiving federal funds—whether through pandemic relief packages or ongoing appropriations—from requiring vaccination as a condition of providing services. Entities that violate this restriction must repay all federal funds they have received. The prohibition takes effect upon enactment and applies prospectively to any future federal funding. Agencies must rescind existing vaccine mandate policies. Entities currently receiving federal funds face a choice: drop vaccination requirements or forfeit all federal support. The bill covers funds distributed under six major pandemic relief laws, from the CARES Act through the American Rescue Plan. This creates immediate compliance pressure on hospitals, universities, contractors, and other institutions dependent on federal dollars, potentially disrupting workforce policies and service delivery models that have been in place for years.
Health
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Health
HealthHR-124-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20254 readersIn Committee
Byron Nash Renal Medullary Carcinoma Awareness Act of 2023
Sponsored by Al Green
Under current Medicaid law, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) provides enhanced federal matching funds to states for preventive health services delivered without cost-sharing to beneficiaries. These enhanced payments apply to a defined list of evidence-based preventive services, including screenings and counseling for conditions like hypertension and stroke. However, renal medullary carcinoma—a rare but aggressive kidney cancer that disproportionately affects individuals with sickle cell disease—is not currently included in this list of covered preventive services eligible for enhanced federal funding. This bill amends Section 1903(a)(3)(E)(ii) of the Social Security Act to add renal medullary carcinoma to the list of conditions for which Medicaid must provide enhanced federal matching payments when states deliver preventive education and screening services. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will now treat patient education and risk counseling about renal medullary carcinoma the same way it treats education about stroke and other covered preventive conditions—states receive a higher federal reimbursement rate when they furnish these services to Medicaid beneficiaries with sickle cell disease without charging patients out-of-pocket costs. The change takes effect immediately upon enactment. States will begin receiving enhanced federal matching funds for renal medullary carcinoma prevention services furnished to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries going forward. Because the bill leverages the existing Medicaid matching fund structure rather than appropriating new money, implementation requires no separate budget authority. The effect is to create financial incentives for state Medicaid programs to expand awareness and early detection efforts for this cancer among sickle cell patients, potentially improving outcomes through earlier intervention.
Health
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Health
HealthHR-127-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20254 readersIn Committee
Protection from Obamacare Mandates and Congressional Equity Act
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
Under current law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most Americans to maintain health insurance coverage or pay a penalty through the tax code. The ACA does provide certain exemptions—for example, individuals experiencing financial hardship or those with religious objections. However, no exemption currently exists for people living in areas where the health insurance marketplace has limited competition. In some rural and underserved counties, only one insurance company or none at all offers plans through the ACA Exchange, leaving residents with few or no options despite the coverage mandate. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to create a new exemption from the individual mandate for people residing in counties with fewer than two health insurance issuers offering plans on an Exchange. The exemption applies for any month during which that limited-issuer condition exists in the person's county. The bill also modifies how the ACA treats Members of Congress, congressional staff, and executive branch political appointees. It requires these groups to purchase health insurance through the ACA Exchange rather than through separate federal employee health benefit programs, and prohibits them from receiving government contributions or tax credits that exceed what similarly situated private citizens would receive. The exemption for limited-issuer counties takes effect for months beginning after the bill's enactment, with no additional funding required since it reduces tax obligations rather than creating new spending. The congressional and political appointee provisions also take effect immediately upon enactment. These changes eliminate the preferential treatment that Members of Congress and certain executive officials currently receive under federal employee health programs, requiring them to participate in the same marketplace and under the same subsidy rules as other Americans. The downstream effect is that federal employees in those categories will face higher out-of-pocket costs if their income exceeds subsidy thresholds.
Health
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, House Administration, and Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Health
HealthHR-44-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20253 readersIn Committee
Rural 340B Access Act of 2025
Sponsored by Jack Bergman
The 340B drug discount program, established under the Public Health Service Act, allows certain health care facilities to purchase medications at significantly reduced prices from pharmaceutical manufacturers. These discounted drugs help covered entities stretch limited budgets and serve uninsured and low-income patients. Currently, the program defines "covered entities" to include hospitals, federally qualified health centers, and other safety-net providers, but rural emergency hospitals—a newer category of facility created to serve remote communities—are not explicitly included in this definition, leaving them unable to access the program's cost savings. The Rural 340B Access Act amends Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act to add rural emergency hospitals to the list of covered entities eligible for the drug discount program. The bill specifies that rural emergency hospitals qualify if they are owned or operated by a unit of state or local government, are public or private nonprofit corporations formally granted governmental powers by a state or local government, or are private nonprofit rural emergency hospitals with a contract with a state or local government to provide health care services to low-income individuals without Medicare coverage or state Medicaid eligibility. Once enacted, rural emergency hospitals meeting these criteria will immediately become eligible to register with the 340B program and begin purchasing discounted medications from participating pharmaceutical manufacturers. The change requires no new federal funding, as it simply extends existing program infrastructure to a new category of provider. Rural emergency hospitals will gain access to the same drug pricing discounts available to other covered entities, potentially reducing their medication costs and allowing them to reinvest savings into patient care and community health services in underserved areas.
Health
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Health
HealthHR-114-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20252 readersIn Committee
Responsible Path to Full Obamacare Repeal Act
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, enacted in 2010, established a comprehensive system of health insurance regulations, subsidies, and coverage requirements that has governed the U.S. health insurance market for the past 15 years. This law created insurance marketplaces, expanded Medicaid eligibility in participating states, required most Americans to maintain health coverage, prohibited insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and provided federal subsidies to help lower-income individuals purchase insurance. The law also modified tax provisions and education programs through the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. This bill repeals both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 in their entirety, effective October 1, 2025. The repeal restores all provisions of law that were amended or repealed by these acts to their status before the Affordable Care Act's enactment. This means the federal government would no longer operate insurance marketplaces, enforce the individual mandate requiring health coverage, provide premium subsidies to consumers, or maintain the expanded Medicaid eligibility standards established by the law. The repeal takes effect nine months after enactment, providing a transition period before the changes take hold. During this time, individuals currently enrolled in Affordable Care Act marketplace plans or Medicaid expansion programs would need to secure alternative coverage or lose their insurance. The federal government would cease collecting the individual mandate penalty, and states would no longer receive federal funding for Medicaid expansion populations. Insurers would regain the ability to impose pre-existing condition exclusions and other underwriting practices that the law had prohibited, fundamentally restructuring the health insurance market and coverage landscape.
Health
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and Workforce, Natural Resources, the Judiciary, House Administration, Rules, and Appropriations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Health
HealthHR-119-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20252 readersIn Committee
To prohibit any entity that receives Federal funds from the COVID relief packages from mandating employees receive a COVID-19 vaccine, and for other purposes.
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress enacted six major relief packages between 2020 and 2021—including the CARES Act, the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, and the American Rescue Plan—that distributed hundreds of billions of dollars to businesses, hospitals, schools, and other entities. Some of these recipients subsequently implemented vaccine mandates for their employees, requiring workers to receive COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment. This bill addresses the tension between federal funding conditions and employer vaccine policies by establishing a new restriction on how recipients of pandemic relief money may manage their workforce health requirements. The bill prohibits any entity that received federal funds from any of the six specified COVID relief packages from mandating that employees receive a COVID-19 vaccine. The restriction applies broadly to all recipients regardless of sector—hospitals, schools, businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies. If an entity violates this prohibition by implementing or maintaining a vaccine mandate, it must return all funds it received from the relevant COVID relief package to the federal government. The bill does not specify which federal agency enforces this requirement or investigates violations, nor does it establish a process for entities to demonstrate compliance or appeal determinations. The bill takes effect upon enactment and applies retroactively to any vaccine mandates already in place at entities receiving COVID relief funds. No new funding is appropriated to implement or enforce the restriction. The practical effect would be to force entities that imposed vaccine mandates to choose between rescinding those policies or repaying federal funds—potentially millions or billions of dollars depending on the recipient. This could affect hospitals that used CARES Act funding, schools that received American Rescue Plan money, and businesses that obtained Paycheck Protection Program loans. The bill does not address how repayment would be calculated, collected, or prioritized if multiple violations occur.
Health
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Health
HealthHRES-7-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20252 readersIn Committee
Recognizing the importance of access to comprehensive, high-quality, life-affirming medical care for women of all ages.
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
Women in the United States currently access reproductive and preventive health care through a variety of providers, including federally qualified health centers, private clinics, and hospital systems. The landscape of women's health services varies significantly by region and provider type, with different organizations emphasizing different aspects of care—from clinical efficiency to holistic wellness approaches. Currently, no single national standard defines what constitutes comprehensive women's health care or establishes uniform expectations for the breadth of services available to women across all ages. This resolution expresses the House of Representatives' support for women to have access to comprehensive, convenient, compassionate, and high-quality health care nationwide. The resolution recognizes Pro Women's Healthcare Centers, a consortium of certified clinics, as an example of the standards worth implementing across the country. The resolution does not create new law, establish federal requirements, or direct any agency to take action. Instead, it serves as a statement of congressional support for the principles of comprehensive women's health care and acknowledges the Pro Women's Healthcare Centers model as a reference point for quality standards that emphasize whole-woman care, including physical, mental, and spiritual wellness, along with social services and material support. As a resolution rather than legislation, this measure carries no binding authority, does not require implementation by federal agencies, and does not allocate funding or create new programs. It functions as an expression of congressional sentiment that may inform future policy discussions or legislative efforts but does not directly change existing law or government operations. The resolution's practical effect is limited to establishing a congressional position on women's health care principles and recognizing a particular provider model as exemplary, which may influence future legislative proposals or grant-making priorities within existing health care programs.
Health
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Submitted in House
Health
HealthHR-48-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20252 readersIn Committee
Ultrasound Informed Consent Act
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
Currently, federal law does not establish a uniform requirement for abortion providers to perform ultrasounds or ensure that women review ultrasound images before consenting to abortion procedures. While some states have enacted their own ultrasound disclosure laws with varying requirements, there is no federal standard governing what information abortion providers must convey or what images patients must see. This creates inconsistency across state lines and leaves decisions about ultrasound protocols largely to individual providers and state regulations. This bill amends the Public Health Service Act by adding a new Title XXXIV that requires abortion providers engaged in interstate commerce to perform an obstetric ultrasound before a woman gives informed consent to an abortion. The provider or a supervised agent must perform the ultrasound, explain what it depicts in real time, display the images so the woman can view them, and provide a complete medical description including fetal dimensions, cardiac activity if visible, and the presence of external members and internal organs. The bill specifies that women retain the right to look away from displayed images without penalty. The bill takes effect upon enactment and applies to all abortion providers in or affecting interstate commerce. The Attorney General gains authority to pursue civil penalties of up to $100,000 for a first violation and $250,000 for subsequent violations, with notification to state medical licensing boards. Additionally, women may file private lawsuits against providers for actual and punitive damages. The bill includes an exception for medical emergencies where abortion is necessary to save the mother's life, requiring providers to document the specific medical circumstances. States may maintain or enact more stringent ultrasound requirements without triggering federal preemption.
Health
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Health
HealthHR-88-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20252 readersIn Committee
Medical Innovation Acceleration Act of 2025
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
Under current federal law, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates most medical devices—including diagnostic devices that detect disease or health conditions—under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This regulatory framework requires manufacturers to demonstrate safety and effectiveness before marketing devices to consumers. The FDA classifies devices into categories based on risk level, with higher-risk devices facing more stringent approval pathways. Diagnostic devices that analyze blood, tissue, or other bodily samples, or that use imaging or sensors to detect conditions, typically require FDA clearance or approval before reaching the market. The Medical Innovation Acceleration Act of 2025 amends Section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to exempt non-invasive diagnostic devices from FDA regulation as medical devices. The bill defines "non-invasive" to mean devices that do not penetrate the skin or body membranes, are not inserted or implanted into the body, cause only temporary compression or temperature changes to tissues, and do not expose tissues to ionizing radiation. This exemption removes the requirement for FDA clearance or approval for devices meeting this definition, allowing manufacturers to bring them to market without the agency's pre-market review. The exemption takes effect upon enactment, with no specified transition period or grandfathering provisions for currently regulated devices. The bill contains no new funding requirements, as it eliminates rather than creates regulatory obligations. The change could accelerate market entry for diagnostic devices like wearable sensors, optical scanners, and temperature-based diagnostic tools. However, it may reduce FDA oversight of these products and could affect the agency's ability to monitor device safety and performance once on the market. Existing FDA authority over invasive diagnostic devices and other medical device categories remains unchanged.
Health
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Health
HealthHR-90-119Latest action: Jan 3, 20252 readersIn Committee
Health Coverage Choice Act
Sponsored by Andy Biggs
Under current federal law, short-term health insurance plans occupy a gray area in the regulatory landscape. The Public Health Service Act defines various types of health coverage but does not explicitly specify what qualifies as short-term limited duration insurance. This ambiguity has allowed insurers and regulators to interpret the boundaries differently, creating inconsistency in how these plans are classified, what protections they must provide, and how they interact with the broader health insurance market. The lack of a clear federal definition has led to disputes over whether certain plans fall under the Affordable Care Act's consumer protections or operate outside that framework. The Health Coverage Choice Act amends Section 2791(b) of the Public Health Service Act to establish a precise federal definition of short-term limited duration insurance. Under this bill, such coverage is defined as health insurance provided under a contract with an expiration date less than 12 months after the original effective date, with a maximum total duration of not more than 3 years when accounting for renewals or extensions. This definition creates a clear regulatory boundary that distinguishes short-term plans from other coverage types and establishes the outer limits of how long these products can remain in force. Once enacted, this definition will immediately apply to all health insurers offering short-term plans, providing regulatory clarity for both the insurance industry and state insurance commissioners. The definition does not require new appropriations or create new administrative structures. By establishing explicit parameters, the bill will likely affect how insurers design and market these products and may influence state-level regulation of short-term plans. Existing short-term plans will need to comply with the new definition going forward, potentially requiring some plans to be restructured or reclassified depending on their current terms and renewal provisions.
Health
Latest updateJan 3, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Health