Edward Markey (D-MA)
Asal Sayas National Strategy on Young Adult Cancers Act
A Democratic bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
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
This bill is known as the Asal Sayas National Strategy on Young Adult Cancers Act. It requires the Director of the National Institutes of Health to develop a national strategy to address cancers in young adults between the ages of 18 and 49. The bill mandates the creation of a national education campaign for the public and healthcare professionals regarding symptoms and risk factors. It also requires the identification of strategic research priorities across biomedical, behavioral, and environmental areas. Additionally, the legislation establishes a Federal Coordinating Committee on Young Adult Cancers to consult on the strategy and report progress to Congress every two years. Finally, it directs the creation of an online Federal clearinghouse to provide resources and information to the public, patients, caregivers, and researchers.
Yes· 3 of 29
- Scored +9
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
The entire bill is specifically designed to address, research, and improve outcomes for cancer patients and individuals aged 18 to 49.
- Scored +8
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The bill mandates national education campaigns, early detection guidelines, and online clearinghouses specifically targeted at improving young adult cancer diagnosis and care.
- Scored +8
Does this put more money into medical research?
The bill directs the NIH to establish strategic research priorities and programs specifically for biomedical, behavioral, and environmental young adult cancer research.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Public and Professional Education Campaigns: Under section 3 adding Section 402(p)(2)(B) of the Public Health Service Act, the bill mandates a national education campaign to teach the general public and healthcare professionals about the symptoms and risk factors of young adult cancers, which could help address delays in diagnosis and treatment.
-
Expanded Research and Early Detection: Under section 3 adding Section 402(p)(2)(C) and Section 402(p)(2)(E), the legislation identifies strategic research priorities and provides recommendations for improving early detection, screening guidance, and new diagnostics specifically tailored to young adults.
-
Support for Specific Needs and Caregivers: Under section 3 adding Section 402(p)(2)(D)(v) and Section 402(p)(2)(E)(xiv) and (xv), the bill reviews and provides recommendations for addressing non-pediatric young adult needs such as fertility preservation, mental health, employment, and the needs of caregivers.
-
Accessible Online Information Clearinghouse: Under section 3 adding Section 402(p)(2)(G), the bill establishes an online Federal clearinghouse to provide patients, caregivers, and researchers with direct access to information on risk factors, symptoms, clinical trials, and clinical practice guidelines.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Burdens and Administrative Costs: The provided text does not explicitly outline specific negative consequences, burdens, or penalties for individuals or groups of people in the United States resulting from this bill.
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 people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — The entire bill is specifically designed to address, research, and improve outcomes for cancer patients and individuals aged 18 to 49. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Since the young adult definition covers individuals up to age 49, older middle-aged adults within this bracket directly benefit from the expanded screening guidelines. Would women be better off under this? — The bill explicitly highlights that young adult female cancer rates are significantly higher and rising, and targets gynecological and breast cancers. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill emphasizes outreach and support for medically underserved and vulnerable populations who face higher barriers to early cancer diagnosis. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill explicitly calls for strategies to reach rural populations and medically underserved areas. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans and members of the Armed Forces are specifically included in the assessment and coordination requirements of the bill. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill requires tracking and addressing cancer disparities among sociodemographic groups, including racial and ethnic minorities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The legislation requires analysis and culturally relevant strategies across diverse sociodemographic groups. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The bill mandates addressing disparities among sociodemographic groups, including racial and ethnic minority populations. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households benefit from improved public education campaigns and earlier detection resources for young adult cancers. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill explicitly mandates the inclusion of Tribal populations in its review of young adult cancer disparities. Would students be better off under this? — College-aged and young adult students fall directly into the 18 to 49 age bracket targeted by the legislation. Would men be better off under this? — The legislation addresses male-specific young adult cancers such as testicular and prostate cancers. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill requires consideration of disability status within its demographic and sociodemographic assessments. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban residents benefit broadly from national education campaigns and expanded research centers of excellence. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General public education and research initiatives benefit all demographics equally.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill mandates national education campaigns, early detection guidelines, and online clearinghouses specifically targeted at improving young adult cancer diagnosis and care. Does this put more money into medical research? — The bill directs the NIH to establish strategic research priorities and programs specifically for biomedical, behavioral, and environmental young adult cancer research. Does this make mental health care easier to get? — The legislation specifically evaluates and supports psychosocial and mental health needs for young adult cancer patients. Does this help veterans get medical care? — The bill explicitly mandates the inclusion of veterans and military health perspectives in addressing young adult cancer strategies.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The legislation advances biomedical, behavioral, and environmental research priorities specifically targeting cancers in young adults. Does this get reliable internet to more people? — The bill mandates the creation of an online Federal clearinghouse to improve access to cancer resources and information.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires regular progress reports to relevant congressional committees and an online clearinghouse of information. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill creates a new federal coordinating committee and national strategy managed by the NIH.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — The bill explicitly reviews differences in young adult cancers by sex, recognizing significantly higher rates among young adult women. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The legislation instructs the strategy to address differences in cancer incidence and outcomes among sociodemographic groups, including race and ethnicity.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — Veterans and members of the Armed Forces are explicitly included in the demographic reviews and committee structures of the national strategy.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — By addressing young adult cancers and reducing lost productivity and medical costs, the bill could yield long-term economic benefits.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill explicitly calls for attention to rural populations and medically underserved populations in its cancer strategy.
- 6/9/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
Amy KlobucharDemocrat · Minnesota