A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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
This bill is known as the National Diabetes Project Act and establishes the National Diabetes Project within the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The main purpose of the project is to create and maintain an integrated national plan to overcome diabetes, coordinate research and services across federal agencies, and accelerate the development of treatments. It also aims to improve early diagnosis, care coordination, and the inclusion of higher-risk ethnic and racial populations to decrease health disparities. Additionally, the bill establishes an Advisory Council on Diabetes Research, Care, and Services to provide advice and submit annual evaluations and recommendations to the Secretary and Congress. The project is required to submit annual reports and will expire on December 31, 2036.
Yes· 3 of 28
- Scored +7
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The bill establishes the National Diabetes Project to improve early diagnosis, care coordination, and treatment.
- Scored +6
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Benefits seniors who experience disproportionately high rates of diabetes and utilize Medicare services.
- Scored +6
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
Directly addresses ethnic and racial populations at higher risk for diabetes to decrease health disparities.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Under Section 2(b)(3) and Section 2(b)(4), the bill works to accelerate the development of treatments that can prevent, halt, or reverse diabetes while improving early diagnosis and care coordination for citizens, which could directly benefit individuals dealing with the disease.
-
According to Section 2(b)(5), the project ensures the inclusion of ethnic and racial populations at higher risk for diabetes or least likely to receive care in clinical, research, and service efforts, which aims to decrease health disparities for vulnerable groups.
-
Described in Section 2(d)(5)(C), the Advisory Council must provide recommendations to reduce the financial impact of diabetes on families living with the disease and to improve health outcomes, which may offer economic and health relief to households.
-
Under Section 2(d)(3), the Advisory Council is required to hold quarterly meetings that are open to the public, ensuring transparency and accountability for the officials and experts running the project.
-
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- The provided text does not explicitly mention any specific negative consequences, burdens, or sections that would cause harm to individuals or groups of people in the United States.
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 Black Americans be better off under this? — Directly addresses ethnic and racial populations at higher risk for diabetes to decrease health disparities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Ensures the inclusion of high-risk Hispanic populations in clinical, research, and service efforts. Would retired people be better off under this? — Aids retirees by seeking to reduce the financial impact of diabetes on Medicare and health programs. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Benefits seniors who experience disproportionately high rates of diabetes and utilize Medicare services. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Focuses on reducing health disparities for vulnerable populations who often face barriers to care. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Aids middle-aged individuals who are at higher risk for developing or managing diabetes. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Includes a designee of the Indian Health Service on the Advisory Council to better coordinate care. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Supports high-risk minority populations through targeted inclusion in national health disparities reduction efforts. Would children be better off under this? — Early diagnosis and treatment improvements benefit children and families dealing with juvenile diabetes. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Aims to reduce the financial impact of diabetes on families living with the disease. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Supports individuals with chronic, disabling health conditions resulting from advanced diabetes. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Improves care coordination and health services that can benefit underserved rural communities. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Includes VA representation on the advisory council, improving diabetes care for former service members. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Improves long-term health outcomes and care coordination for young adults with diabetes. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Inclusivity mandates help vulnerable or underserved immigrant populations facing higher health risks. Would men be better off under this? — Provides general health benefits and care coordination that supports men managing diabetes. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Improves healthcare access and early diagnosis initiatives across urban populations. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Broadly benefits all citizens with diabetes through national plan improvements. Would women be better off under this? — Provides general health benefits and care coordination that supports women managing diabetes.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill establishes the National Diabetes Project to improve early diagnosis, care coordination, and treatment. Does this put more money into medical research? — The legislation aims to accelerate the development of treatments and coordinate diabetes research across federal agencies. Does this help veterans get medical care? — Veterans Affairs is included in the Advisory Council, promoting coordinated diabetes care for veterans.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires quarterly public meetings for the Advisory Council and regular reports to Congress. Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes a new federal project and advisory council within the Department of Health and Human Services.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Facilitates data sharing and research coordination across multiple federal agencies for diabetes treatments.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill specifically mandates the inclusion of ethnic and racial populations at higher risk for diabetes to decrease health disparities.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — Includes representation from the Department of Veterans Affairs on the advisory council to improve care for veterans.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill encourages better coordination and evaluation of federal programs to reduce the financial impact of diabetes.
- 6/4/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Introduced in House