A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
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, known as the Faster Clinical Trials Act, aims to advance the clinical development of novel medical treatments and cures. It sets up initiatives to embed clinical studies into routine health care and modernizes preclinical and early-stage clinical trial oversight. The legislation establishes a Food and Drug Administration Rare Disease Innovation Hub and an Oncology Center of Excellence to improve disease-specific medical product reviews. It also modifies Food and Drug Administration regulations regarding generic therapies, biosimilars, and patent information. Finally, it transitions the All of Us Research Program into the American Frontier Biobank to expand biomedical research and data sharing.
Yes· 3 of 50
- Scored +9
Does this put more money into scientific research?
The bill transitions the All of Us program into the American Frontier Biobank and authorizes extensive grants for clinical trials and scientific research.
- Scored +8
Does this put more money into medical research?
The bill authorizes substantial new funding for biomedical research, the American Frontier Biobank, and advanced clinical trial initiatives.
- Scored +7
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The legislation expands clinical trial networks to prioritize less-resourced settings, such as rural clinics and federally qualified health centers.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
The legislation authorizes substantial new federal spending and appropriations totaling hundreds of millions of dollars annually for multiple new initiatives.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Improved Access for Less-Resourced Areas: Section 101 mandates that clinical trial networks prioritize the participation of less-resourced clinical trial settings, such as Federally qualified health centers and rural clinics. This is positive because it helps bring cutting-edge medical trials closer to underserved communities.
-
Lower Costs and Faster Results: Section 101 establishes implementation goals to reduce clinical trial costs per patient by 30 to 50 percent and to ensure that 90 percent of participating patients receive timely, independently reviewed results. This helps patients save money and get answers faster.
-
Fairer Participant Compensation: Section 107 requires rules to ensure that clinical trial participants receive compensation that is commensurate with the risks and burdens associated with the research. This is a positive outcome for everyday citizens who volunteer their time and bodies to advance science.
-
Support for Rare Disease Patients: Section 205 establishes the Food and Drug Administration Rare Disease Innovation Hub to advance regulatory science and provide technical assistance for rare disease medical products. This brings much-needed focus and resources to patients suffering from rare conditions.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Data Privacy and Sharing Burdens: Section 501 transitions the All of Us Research Program into the American Frontier Biobank to collect multi-modal data and share deidentified data with all registered researchers. While privacy laws apply, individuals may have concerns regarding the broad collection and sharing of their sensitive biological and electronic health records.
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 business owners be better off under this? — Emerging biotechnology and medical product companies receive significant regulatory streamlining, technical assistance, and grant support. Would children be better off under this? — The bill specifically directs oncology and clinical trial centers to address cancers and medical product development for infants, children, and adolescents. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Prioritizing less-resourced clinical trial settings like FQHCs and rural clinics expands cutting-edge healthcare access for low-income populations. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Explicit prioritization of rural health clinics and less-resourced settings brings advanced clinical trials directly to rural populations. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Mandates for broader demographic representation and community-based trial networks improve healthcare equity for minority populations. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Expanded access through community health centers and diverse clinical trial recruitment benefits Hispanic communities. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The legislation explicitly includes Indian Health Service facilities and Tribal consultation processes for biobank and trial participation. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors benefit from Medicare coverage clarifications for point-of-care trials and accelerated drug reviews for age-related conditions. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The bill incorporates datasets like the VA Million Veterans Program and encourages collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Broadened clinical trial inclusion and multi-regional trial alignments ensure better representation and access for Asian Americans. Would farmers be better off under this? — The inclusion of rural health clinics in clinical trial networks brings advanced medical studies directly to agricultural and rural communities. Would men be better off under this? — Men benefit from broader clinical trial availability and accelerated reviews for oncology and chronic conditions. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged individuals benefit from improved access to chronic disease trials and precision medicine advancements. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households benefit from lower healthcare development costs, generic therapy pathways, and broader trial access. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees benefit from Medicare coverage updates for point-of-care trials and accelerated development of treatments for age-related conditions. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban health centers and academic medical institutions benefit from lead network grants and decentralized trial infrastructures. Would white Americans be better off under this? — White Americans benefit generally from accelerated medical treatments, rare disease hubs, and precision oncology advancements. Would women be better off under this? — The bill enhances clinical trial access and representation, benefiting women as both patients and healthcare participants. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults benefit from accelerated development of novel treatments, precision oncology, and modernized clinical trials. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Expanded community-based trial settings and health center participation help improve healthcare access for immigrant populations. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — General improvements in healthcare access and clinical trial diversity positively affect all demographic groups, including LGBTQ individuals. Would students be better off under this? — Students in biomedical, clinical research, and scientific disciplines benefit from increased research funding and biobank data sharing. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Biopharmaceutical industry leaders and major investors benefit from enhanced regulatory efficiency and market exclusivity provisions. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income households generally benefit from overall economic growth and faster access to advanced medical innovations. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Investors in biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors benefit from streamlined approval pathways and research incentives. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — The bill fosters innovation and market expansion in the life sciences sector, benefiting industry stakeholders and investors.
- Healthcare
- Does this put more money into medical research? — The bill authorizes substantial new funding for biomedical research, the American Frontier Biobank, and advanced clinical trial initiatives. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The legislation expands clinical trial networks to prioritize less-resourced settings, such as rural clinics and federally qualified health centers. Does this put more money into Medicare, the health coverage for people over 65? — The bill clarifies and expands Medicare coverage pathways for routine costs in point-of-care clinical trials and related digital health services. Does this lower the price of prescription medicines? — The bill streamlines pathways for competitive generic therapies and biosimilars to foster market competition and lower drug prices. Does this strengthen the Affordable Care Act? — The bill includes provisions and amendments affecting biological product and biosimilar regulations that support broader market access. Does this lower what people pay for private health insurance? — Streamlining clinical trials and supporting biosimilar competition can help reduce overall healthcare development and delivery costs.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The bill transitions the All of Us program into the American Frontier Biobank and authorizes extensive grants for clinical trials and scientific research. Does this give people more control over their personal data? — The legislation establishes privacy-preserving data sharing rules, tokenization capabilities, and compliance with HIPAA for biobank data. Does this get reliable internet to more people? — The expansion of decentralized clinical trials and digital-first health modalities encourages better remote health connectivity. Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — The bill introduces strict data standards, interoperability requirements, and oversight for digital health tools and artificial intelligence platforms.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The legislation increases public disclosure of IRB deliberations, registry maintenance for updated drug labels, and annual progress reporting. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — The bill mandates strict adherence to privacy laws and informed consent safeguards regarding biological specimens and electronic health records. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill expands federal authority through new FDA hubs, biobank administration, and centralized institutional review board mandates.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The bill specifically establishes targeted technical assistance, grants, and dedicated contacts for emerging biotechnology companies and less-resourced trial settings. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The legislation enhances clinical trial safety oversight, transparency, and data integrity protections for participants and consumers. Is this likely to grow the economy? — The bill provides significant funding and modernized regulatory frameworks to accelerate biomedical research, clinical trials, and the medical product industry. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The legislation authorizes substantial new federal spending and appropriations totaling hundreds of millions of dollars annually for multiple new initiatives.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this strengthen ties with allied countries? — The legislation fosters global regulatory alignment, mutual recognition of standards, and international collaboration with agencies like the ICH. Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — The bill institutes robust data security protocols and data-sharing standards for biobanks and clinical research platforms. Does this make trade with other countries easier? — Mutual recognition of good manufacturing practices and inspection reports facilitates smoother international trade in medical products.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill mandates broader geographic and demographic representation in clinical trials, including underserved communities and minority populations. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — By expanding clinical research access and rare disease initiatives, the bill benefits individuals with chronic and disabling conditions. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Fairer participant compensation rules and increased clinical trial presence in medically underserved areas provide financial and health benefits to low-income participants.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The Cures in Care Initiative specifically mandates the inclusion and support of rural health clinics and less-resourced settings in clinical trial networks. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — The promotion of new approach methodologies and in silico technologies helps reduce animal testing and resource-intensive laboratory footprints.
- 10/22/2026
- 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.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
H. GriffithRepublican · Virginia