A Democratic 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 Expanding Opportunities for Recovery Act of 2026. It allows the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use to award grants to states. These grants are meant to expand access to clinically appropriate services for opioid abuse, dependence, or addiction. The services must be evidence-based and recommended by a physician or clinician. They are meant exclusively for individuals who lack health insurance or whose insurance does not cover the services or places barriers on them. The grants cannot pay or subsidize the cost of more than 60 consecutive days of treatment for any individual.
Yes· 3 of 13
- Scored +8
Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths?
The legislation establishes grants specifically dedicated to improving state-level responses to opioid abuse and addiction.
- Scored +7
Does this make mental health care easier to get?
The legislation awards grants to states to expand access to clinically appropriate, evidence-based services for opioid abuse, dependence, and addiction.
- Scored +7
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The bill specifically targets individuals who lack health insurance or face prohibitive insurance barriers, providing crucial support for low-income households.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(b)(4) helps individuals who lack health insurance, or whose insurance does not cover addiction services or places barriers on them, by ensuring they can receive these needed services through the grant.
-
Section 2(b)(2) and Section 2(b)(3) ensure that the services provided are evidence-based, such as medication-assisted treatment, and are provided according to a physician or clinician's recommendation for the medically necessary amount of time.
-
Section 2(c) allows states to provide lawfully marketed medications in conjunction with other treatment, as long as they are clinically indicated and offered consistent with consumer choice.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(b)(5) sets a strict limit by stating that the grant will not be used to pay or subsidize the cost of more than 60 consecutive days of opioid abuse, dependence, or addiction treatment for any individual, which could cut off funding for people who need longer care.
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.
- Healthcare
- Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — The legislation establishes grants specifically dedicated to improving state-level responses to opioid abuse and addiction. Does this make mental health care easier to get? — The legislation awards grants to states to expand access to clinically appropriate, evidence-based services for opioid abuse, dependence, and addiction. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill increases healthcare access specifically for individuals lacking insurance or facing insurance barriers regarding substance use treatment. Does this put more money into Medicaid, the health coverage for people on low incomes? — The bill provides federal grant funding to states to expand access to opioid addiction treatment services for uninsured or underinsured individuals.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill specifically targets individuals who lack health insurance or face prohibitive insurance barriers, providing crucial support for low-income households. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Substance use disorders are often recognized under health frameworks, and expanding treatment access aids individuals managing these conditions. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged adults struggling with opioid addiction will benefit from increased availability of evidence-based recovery services. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans struggling with substance abuse and lacking adequate insurance coverage can benefit from the expanded treatment grants. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults experience significant rates of opioid use disorder and will benefit from expanded access to treatment grants.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The legislation requires states to report outcome measures and mandates that evaluation results be made publicly available online. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The bill provides discretionary grant funding to states to administer their own programs addressing opioid addiction according to local needs.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Providing vital medical treatment to low-income or uninsured individuals struggling with addiction helps alleviate one of the drivers of poverty. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Addressing severe substance use disorders can help stabilize individuals and reduce the risk of homelessness.
- 7/14/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Introduced in House