A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 529.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the EMPOWER for Health Act. It updates and extends various health workforce programs under title VII of the Public Health Service Act through fiscal year 2031. The legislation focuses heavily on supporting the pediatric health care workforce, including pediatric subspecialties and mental or behavioral health disciplines. It also expands area health education center programs to reach younger students and provides specific support for nursing workforce analysis and technical assistance. Overall, the bill directs funding and resources toward training and placing medical professionals where they are needed most.
Yes· 3 of 34
- Scored +9
Would children be better off under this?
Strongly expands pediatric care access and funding for underserved children.
- Scored +7
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
Increases funding for health professions and targets underserved populations.
- Scored +6
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Targets Medicaid populations and underserved pediatric populations.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
It increases funding levels across several title VII programs through 2031.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill increases authorized spending for multiple health workforce programs.
- Scored -1
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Increases spending without identifying specific offsets.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2 reauthorizes and increases funding for multiple health professions workforce programs, such as increasing authorizations for health professions programs under section 740 and faculty loan repayment programs under section 748, which helps support the training and education of medical professionals across the country.
-
Section 3 updates pediatric workforce programs to explicitly target underserved pediatric populations and children enrolled in Medicaid, helping to ensure that vulnerable children have better access to needed specialized medical and behavioral health care.
-
Section 4 expands area health education center programs under section 751(c)(1)(G) to include middle schools alongside high schools, introducing younger students to pre-collegiate health career opportunities earlier.
-
Section 5 adds specific support for nursing workforce analysis under section 761, providing grants and technical assistance focused on advancing the nursing workforce, developing strategies to alleviate shortages, and sharing best practices.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 3 establishes rules regarding breach of contract and allows the Secretary to use a liquidated damages formula for individuals who fail to complete their obligated service terms, which could impose financial burdens on health professionals who are unable to finish their commitments.
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 children be better off under this? — Strongly expands pediatric care access and funding for underserved children. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Targets Medicaid populations and underserved pediatric populations. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Targets shortage areas and underserved populations. Would students be better off under this? — Expands education programs to middle school and increases training funding. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Focuses on medically underserved populations who are disproportionately minorities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Focuses on medically underserved populations who are disproportionately minorities. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Focuses on medically underserved populations. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Increases access for underserved populations regardless of specific status. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Expands pediatric behavioral and mental health disciplines. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Increases urban health workforce funding. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Provides funding for health professional training and education. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — General improvement in healthcare access. Would farmers be better off under this? — Improves rural health workforce availability. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — General improvement in healthcare access. Would men be better off under this? — General improvement in healthcare access. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Improves general availability of healthcare specialists. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General improvement in healthcare access. Would women be better off under this? — General improvement in healthcare access. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Generally improves health system capacity. Would retired people be better off under this? — General healthcare system improvements. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Generally improves health system capacity. Would high-income households be better off under this? — General health system improvements benefit all, but the focus is on underserved.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Increases funding for health professions and targets underserved populations. Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Expands eligibility for pediatric mental and behavioral health disciplines. Does this put more money into medical research? — Reauthorizes and funds multiple health profession training and research programs. Does this put more money into Medicaid, the health coverage for people on low incomes? — Specifically targets underserved pediatric populations including those enrolled in Medicaid.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Funds health workforce analysis and research programs. Does this make college cost less? — Increases funding for health profession training programs.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Directs resources toward medically underserved populations. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Increases healthcare access for underserved and low-income pediatric populations.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Health workforce programs often target rural shortage areas to improve care access.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases the Secretary of HHS's authority over workforce requirements and contracts.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Funding for health workforce programs supports the training and employment of medical professionals. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Investing in the healthcare workforce can improve long-term economic productivity and public health. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — It increases funding levels across several title VII programs through 2031. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill increases authorized spending for multiple health workforce programs. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Increases spending without identifying specific offsets.
- 7/28/2026
- Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Reported by Senator Cassidy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 529.
- 7/22/2026
- Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
- 3/17/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S1093)
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
Lisa MurkowskiRepublican · Alaska