Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
Saving Lives and Reducing Health Care Waste by Improving Diagnosis in Medicine 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 aims to improve the quality and effectiveness of medical diagnoses to reduce patient harm and health care waste. It establishes a research and quality improvement program, including the creation of research centers of diagnostic excellence. The act directs the government to create a system for patients and families to voluntarily report diagnostic errors. It also focuses on standardizing data, providing fellowships and training grants, and creating an Interagency Council on Improving Diagnosis in Health Care.
Yes· 3 of 30
- Scored +8
Does this put more money into medical research?
Authorizes significant funding for diagnostic excellence centers, fellowships, and quality improvement research.
- Scored +8
Does this put more money into scientific research?
Provides direct appropriations for diagnostic research and the establishment of research centers.
- Scored +5
Would people over 65 be better off under this?
Higher likelihood of complex diagnoses makes the focus on diagnostic quality highly beneficial for seniors.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
Reports submitted to the voluntary system are inadmissible in civil or criminal proceedings, potentially limiting evidence for patients.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Reduction of Patient Harm: The bill seeks to understand and eliminate common diagnostic failures and delays that lead to significant patient harm (Section 3(a)).
-
Patient Involvement: It establishes an advisory committee that includes patients and family members with lived experience to ensure research remains patient-centered (Section 3(b)(4)).
-
Patient Reporting System: The bill requires a strategic plan to create mechanisms for patients, families, and caregivers to voluntarily report diagnostic errors and near misses (Section 4(a)).
-
Improved Technology: The bill promotes the use of artificial intelligence and data science to empower patients and improve the detection of safety signals from reported data (Section 3(b)(4)(B)(i) and Section 4(c)(1)(C)).
-
Increased Research Funding: It authorizes specific funding for research programs (Section 3(c)), patient safety reporting (Section 4(e)), and the interagency council (Section 8(e)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Limited Legal Use of Reports: Reports submitted through the new voluntary reporting system cannot be used as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings (Section 4(b)(1)).
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? — Reducing waste and diagnostic errors improves outcomes for those with limited resources to manage chronic illness. Would retired people be better off under this? — Seniors are more likely to suffer from diagnostic delays and errors. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Higher likelihood of complex diagnoses makes the focus on diagnostic quality highly beneficial for seniors. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Directly includes VA in the interagency efforts to improve diagnostic safety. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Aims to reduce diagnostic disparities through the inclusion of the Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Aims to reduce diagnostic disparities through the inclusion of the Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Would children be better off under this? — Includes the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in the council. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Improves the quality of care and reduces health care waste. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Aims to reduce diagnostic disparities through the inclusion of the Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Reduces risk of diagnostic errors across the population. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Improves the quality of care and reduces health care waste. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Aims to reduce diagnostic disparities through the inclusion of the Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Improves diagnostic accuracy for complex cases often associated with disabilities. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Improves general diagnostic quality and safety. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Reduces risk of diagnostic errors across the population. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Requires research centers to be in geographically diverse locations throughout the US. Would students be better off under this? — Creates new fellowships and training grants for medical researchers.
- Healthcare
- Does this put more money into medical research? — Authorizes significant funding for diagnostic excellence centers, fellowships, and quality improvement research. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Improves the overall quality and effectiveness of the diagnostic process for all patients. Does this help veterans get medical care? — Includes the Department of Veterans Affairs in the interagency council to improve diagnostic quality. Does this lower what a hospital stay costs? — Reducing diagnostic errors can lower costs associated with unnecessary tests and prolonged hospital stays.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Provides direct appropriations for diagnostic research and the establishment of research centers. Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Requires strategic plans to safeguard patient privacy in the new reporting system.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Mandates that the strategic plan for patient reporting must safeguard patient privacy. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires public availability of strategic plans and progress reports on diagnostic improvement. Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes new federal reporting mechanisms and an interagency council. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Reports submitted to the voluntary system are inadmissible in civil or criminal proceedings, potentially limiting evidence for patients.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Enhances patient safety by improving the accuracy and quality of medical diagnoses. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Aims to reduce health care waste resulting from diagnostic errors and delays.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this increase the pay, pensions or support veterans receive? — Focuses on improving diagnostic outcomes for patients, including those served by the VA.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Includes the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities in the council to address diagnostic gaps.
- 7/15/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 1 Cosponsor 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.
Ben LujánDemocrat · New Mexico