A Democratic bill with 14 Democratic cosponsors · See all 14 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The bill establishes the Urban Health Transformation Program under the Social Security Act to provide federal funding to states and territories for urban health improvements. It appropriates $10,000,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2027 through 2031 for allotments to eligible states and territories with approved plans. States must submit an urban health transformation plan by December 31, 2026, to be eligible for these funds. The program allows funds to be used for activities such as improving chronic disease management, recruiting health care clinicians, and supporting mental health services. Additionally, the legislation provides $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2026 to the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for program implementation.
Yes· 3 of 37
- Scored +8
Would people in cities be better off under this?
The entire bill is specifically designed to transform and improve healthcare access, facilities, and outcomes for residents of urban areas.
- Scored +8
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The bill establishes a major grant program to improve access to hospitals, providers, and care outcomes for urban residents.
- Scored +7
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The bill prioritizes urban facilities serving large numbers of low-income, uninsured, and Medicaid-dependent residents.
The opposite
- Scored -4
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill appropriates $50 billion over five years plus implementation funding for urban health programs.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Improved Access and Care: Under section 1150D(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii), states must create a plan to improve access to hospitals and health care providers and to improve health care outcomes for urban residents. This could directly benefit people living in cities by making it easier to see a doctor and receive better medical care.
-
Support for Mental Health and Addiction Services: Section 1150F(8) allows states to use funds to support access to opioid use disorder treatment, other substance use disorder treatment services, and mental health services. This directly benefits individuals struggling with addiction or mental health challenges by expanding the availability of these crucial services.
-
No State Matching Requirement: Section 1150D(d) explicitly states that approved states are not required to provide any matching funds to receive their allotment. This ensures that states can participate and benefit their residents without having to scrape together local matching dollars.
-
Advanced Technology and Chronic Disease Management: Section 1150F(1), (3), and (4) allow funds to be used for evidence-based interventions for chronic disease management, consumer-facing technology solutions, and technology-enabled care delivery like remote monitoring and artificial intelligence. This can help everyday people better manage chronic conditions from home.
-
Recruitment of Health Care Workers: Section 1150F(5) permits states to use funds to recruit and retain clinical workforce talent in urban areas with a commitment to serve for at least five years. This can help ensure that urban communities have enough doctors and nurses to care for patients.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Risk of Misuse and Withheld Funds: Section 1150D(a)(2)(D) notes that if the Administrator determines a state is not using the funds consistently with its approved application, payments can be withheld, reduced, or recovered. If a state mismanages the money, the local health programs relying on those funds could face sudden financial disruptions, negatively impacting the patients who depend on them.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in cities be better off under this? — The entire bill is specifically designed to transform and improve healthcare access, facilities, and outcomes for residents of urban areas. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill prioritizes urban facilities serving large numbers of low-income, uninsured, and Medicaid-dependent residents. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Targeted investments in urban health infrastructure disproportionately benefit minority communities with higher concentrations in major metropolitan areas. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Hispanic Americans residing in urban areas will benefit from expanded access to community health centers and urban health programs. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Individuals with chronic conditions and disabilities benefit from expanded remote monitoring, technology-enabled care, and urban health access. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees living in urban environments benefit from improved stability and care delivery across urban hospitals and clinics. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors living in urban areas benefit significantly from enhanced hospital stability, chronic care management, and dually eligible health facility support. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Asian Americans living in major metropolitan statistical areas benefit from improved urban health resources and care delivery. Would children be better off under this? — Children in urban areas benefit from improved local hospital access and pediatric healthcare resources. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Immigrant populations concentrated in urban centers will benefit from increased funding for safety-net hospitals and federally qualified health centers. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Chronic disease management and prevention initiatives directly assist middle-aged urban residents. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans living in metropolitan areas will see improved local healthcare infrastructure and support services. Would women be better off under this? — Women in urban areas benefit from enhanced access to comprehensive health services, preventative care, and maternal health support. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults gain better access to urban health services, mental health care, and technology-enabled care models. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — LGBTQ individuals residing in urban centers benefit from strengthened community health centers and mental health programs. Would men be better off under this? — Men living in urban areas benefit from improved local hospital access and expanded mental health and addiction services. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-income urban residents benefit from improved local healthcare access and strengthened community health facilities. Would union members be better off under this? — Unionized healthcare workers in urban hospitals benefit from workforce recruitment, retention, and hospital financial stability initiatives. Would white Americans be better off under this? — White Americans residing in urban areas benefit generally from enhanced local healthcare access and hospital stability. Would business owners be better off under this? — Urban healthcare providers and business owners in the medical sector benefit from new funding streams and technical assistance. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Urban Native Americans living within covered metropolitan statistical areas may benefit from expanded urban health clinic resources. Would students be better off under this? — Students in health professions benefit from increased clinical training, recruitment, and educational support opportunities.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill establishes a major grant program to improve access to hospitals, providers, and care outcomes for urban residents. Does this make mental health care easier to get? — The legislation explicitly permits funds to be used to support access to mental health services and substance use disorder treatments. Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — Funds may be directly utilized to support access to opioid use disorder treatment and substance use disorder services in urban areas. Does this put more money into Medicaid, the health coverage for people on low incomes? — The Urban Health Transformation Program provides significant federal funding to support health care access for low-income and vulnerable urban residents. Does this help veterans get medical care? — Enhanced urban health infrastructure and access to local providers will benefit veterans living in metropolitan areas. Does this put more money into medical research? — The program supports technology-enabled care delivery, chronic disease management interventions, and data-driven healthcare solutions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Targeted health investments in densely populated urban areas help address health disparities affecting minority and low-income populations. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Improved urban health facility access and chronic disease management benefit individuals with chronic illnesses and disabilities. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Alleviating healthcare burdens and preventing hospital closures in low-income urban neighborhoods supports community stability and poverty alleviation.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill funds the recruitment and retention of clinical workforce talent in urban areas. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Substantial federal investment in urban healthcare systems and technology infrastructure supports local economic activity. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Funding for community health facilities and urban health providers helps stabilize smaller independent urban healthcare practices. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill appropriates $50 billion over five years plus implementation funding for urban health programs.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — States are required to submit detailed transformation plans, annual reports, and metrics on fund utilization. Does this give the federal government more power? — The legislation creates a new federally funded grant program administered by CMS with specific state application and oversight requirements.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — The bill permits the use of funds for information technology advances designed to enhance cybersecurity capability development for urban health providers.
- 11/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/10/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/1/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
- 12 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Wesley BellDemocrat · Missouri
Jim CostaDemocrat · California
Yvette ClarkeDemocrat · New York
André CarsonDemocrat · Indiana
J. CorreaDemocrat · California
Danny DavisDemocrat · Illinois
Sylvia GarciaDemocrat · Texas
Jahana HayesDemocrat · Connecticut
Jonathan JacksonDemocrat · Illinois
Robin KellyDemocrat · Illinois
Stephen LynchDemocrat · Massachusetts
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Ilhan OmarDemocrat · Minnesota
Delia RamirezDemocrat · Illinois