A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
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 is known as the Women Expansion of Learning and Labor Safety Act or the WELLS Act. It requires hospitals, critical access hospitals, and rural emergency hospitals participating in Medicare to develop discharge plans for pregnant individuals who are expected to be discharged before delivery. These discharge plans must meet specific standards, including clinical justification, travel distance assessments, reliable transportation verification, and identification of a secondary facility. The bill also establishes minimum performance milestones for rural maternal and obstetric care training demonstration grants. Additionally, the legislation requires annual reports to Congress regarding these grants. Finally, the bill establishes a multi-center implementation science initiative for maternal health and an interagency maternal health dashboard.
Yes· 3 of 22
- Scored +8
Would women be better off under this?
The legislation directly safeguards pregnant individuals, ensures clinical justifications for discharge, and improves maternal health training.
- Scored +7
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The bill specifically targets critical access and rural emergency hospitals, improving rural obstetric care and travel assessments.
- Scored +7
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The bill enhances maternal healthcare access and safety by requiring structured discharge plans and improving obstetric care training grants.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Would business owners be better off under this?
Hospitals and healthcare facilities face new compliance burdens and administrative requirements.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Discharge Planning Protections: Under Section 2 (amending 42 U.S.C. 1395cc), hospitals must develop discharge plans for pregnant individuals experiencing signs or symptoms of labor who are expected to be discharged prior to delivery. This is positive because it ensures patients receive a clinical justification, travel distance assessments, verified reliable transportation, and the identification of a secondary facility for labor and delivery services.
-
Language Accessibility and Understanding: Under Section 2 (specifically paragraph (2)(F) of the new subsection), hospitals must provide discharge plan information in the primary language of the individual or their representative and confirm their understanding. This is a positive benefit for individuals who may face language barriers during medical care.
-
Public Transparency and Reporting: Under Section 3 and Section 4, the government is required to submit annual reports to Congress, make grant information publicly available, and develop a public interagency maternal health dashboard. This provides positive accountability and visibility regarding maternal health metrics, training formats, and grant recipients.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Burdens on Discharged Pregnant Patients: Under Section 2 (amending 42 U.S.C. 1395cc), hospitals are permitted to discharge pregnant individuals who are experiencing signs or symptoms of labor prior to delivery, provided a discharge plan is created. This could place a burden or negative consequence on pregnant individuals who are sent home while experiencing labor symptoms.
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 women be better off under this? — The legislation directly safeguards pregnant individuals, ensures clinical justifications for discharge, and improves maternal health training. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill specifically targets critical access and rural emergency hospitals, improving rural obstetric care and travel assessments. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill addresses racial disparities in maternal health through targeted training and outcome tracking. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Language accessibility requirements and disparity tracking benefit Hispanic and other non-English speaking communities. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income individuals often face higher maternal health risks and will benefit from mandated transportation verification and language accessibility. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults of childbearing age benefit directly from improved maternal health and discharge protections. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Mandatory provisions requiring information in the primary language of the individual help protect immigrant patients. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Individuals of childbearing age benefit from enhanced maternal care standards. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households benefit from improved safety standards during labor and pregnancy care. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Rural maternal health provisions benefit Native American populations living in underserved areas. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Language accessibility standards help protect patients facing language barriers. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban hospital patients benefit from standardized discharge safety protocols. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General improvements to maternal safety standards apply broadly across demographics. Would business owners be better off under this? — Hospitals and healthcare facilities face new compliance burdens and administrative requirements.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill enhances maternal healthcare access and safety by requiring structured discharge plans and improving obstetric care training grants. Does this put more money into medical research? — The bill establishes a multi-center implementation science initiative to evaluate maternal health training models. Does this put more money into Medicare, the health coverage for people over 65? — The bill imposes new discharge planning requirements on Medicare-participating hospitals for pregnant individuals.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — The legislation directly protects and supports maternal health and safety for pregnant individuals. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The initiative and reporting requirements explicitly track and aim to address racial disparities in maternal health outcomes.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The legislation mandates public reporting, congressional updates, and the creation of an interagency maternal health dashboard. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill establishes new federal conditions of participation for hospitals and federal reporting requirements.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill includes provisions specifically focused on improving rural maternal and obstetric care training grants.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The implementation science initiative supports research into training models and maternal health outcomes.
- 5/11/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
- Introduced in Senate
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.