Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Screening for Communities to Receive Early and Equitable Needed Services for Cancer Act of 2025
A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize and improve the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program for fiscal years 2026 through 2030, and for other purposes.
A Democratic bill with 3 Republican cosponsors · See all 8 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
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 SCREENS for Cancer Act of 2025 reauthorizes the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) for fiscal years 2026 through 2030. The bill updates the Public Health Service Act to include the prevention of these cancers alongside detection and control. It aims to improve equitable access to screenings and reduce health disparities. Additionally, it provides $235,000,000 for each of those fiscal years. The bill also requires a GAO study by September 30, 2027, to analyze program trends and barriers to access.
Yes· 3 of 25
- Scored +10
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Directly targets low-income, uninsured, and underinsured women for lifesaving services.
- Scored +10
Would women be better off under this?
The entire bill is dedicated to improving breast and cervical cancer detection and prevention for women.
- Scored +9
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The bill expands access to cancer screenings, diagnostics, and prevention for low-income and uninsured populations.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill allocates $235 million annually through 2030, increasing government spending.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill authorizes additional funding for the NBCCEDP program.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Expanded Program Scope: The bill adds "prevention" to the goals of the program for the detection and control of breast and cervical cancer (Section 3, (1)(A)(ii)-(iii)).
-
Increased Support Activities: It enhances support for people to get screened through health care navigation, evidence-based strategies, and facilitating access to health care settings (Section 3, (1)(A)(vi)).
-
Focus on Equity: The bill specifically targets the reduction of disparities in cancer deaths and incidents for populations with higher-than-average rates and works to reduce barriers to equitable access (Section 3, (1)(A)(vii)-(viii)).
-
Guaranteed Funding: The bill provides $235,000,000 for each fiscal year from 2026 through 2030, ensuring the program's continued existence (Section 3, (4)(B)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for people were explicitly stated in the provided text.
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 households on low incomes be better off under this? — Directly targets low-income, uninsured, and underinsured women for lifesaving services. Would women be better off under this? — The entire bill is dedicated to improving breast and cervical cancer detection and prevention for women. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Targets populations with higher-than-average rates of cancer deaths and incidents to reduce disparities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Targets populations with higher-than-average rates of cancer deaths and incidents to reduce disparities. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — High impact for middle-aged women who are primary targets for breast and cervical cancer screenings. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Explicitly includes Tribal organizations in the program's service reach. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Specifically emphasizes outreach to geographically isolated women. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Provides services to uninsured and underinsured populations who may include immigrants. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Provides essential diagnostic and screening services for senior women. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Improves equitable access to screenings for underserved populations. Would retired people be better off under this? — Provides critical screening services for elderly women who are underinsured. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Improves access for low-income urban populations. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increases access to preventive screenings for young adult women. Would farmers be better off under this? — Helps women in geographically isolated rural areas. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Improves access for underinsured and marginalized populations who may face health disparities. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Aims to reduce barriers to equitable access for populations with negative health outcomes. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General benefit for low-income women of all races. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — General improvement in public health infrastructure, though primarily targets low-income groups.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill specifically aims to reduce disparities in cancer deaths and incidents in populations with higher-than-average rates. Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — The bill focuses specifically on improving health outcomes for women through breast and cervical cancer screenings. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Providing free or low-cost healthcare screenings reduces the financial burden on low-income households.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill expands access to cancer screenings, diagnostics, and prevention for low-income and uninsured populations.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill focuses on outreach to geographically isolated women, benefiting rural health infrastructure.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires a GAO study to analyze program trends and barriers to access. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill increases federal funding and mandates for public health program goals.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill authorizes additional funding for the NBCCEDP program. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill allocates $235 million annually through 2030, increasing government spending.
- 9/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/10/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/29/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/15/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/22/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Angela AlsobrooksDemocrat · Maryland
John BoozmanRepublican · Arkansas
Susan CollinsRepublican · Maine
Catherine Cortez MastoDemocrat · Nevada
Amy KlobucharDemocrat · Minnesota
Jon OssoffDemocrat · Georgia
John ReedDemocrat · Rhode Island
Mike RoundsRepublican · South Dakota