A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (text: CR S4998-5003)
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, known as the CARE for Moms Act, aims to improve federal efforts to prevent maternal mortality and address disparities in maternal health. It establishes grant programs to support state perinatal quality collaboratives and regional centers of excellence focused on implicit bias and cultural competency. The legislation expands Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) coverage to include oral health services and guarantees 12-month continuous postpartum coverage. It also creates a pilot program for rural obstetric mobile health units, requires advance notification for hospital obstetric unit closures, and increases excise taxes on various tobacco products.
Yes· 3 of 35
- Scored +9
Would women be better off under this?
The legislation comprehensively addresses maternal mortality, expands postpartum health and dental coverage, and increases nutritional support.
- Scored +8
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
The bill directly targets stark racial disparities in maternal mortality and funds implicit bias training for healthcare providers.
- Scored +8
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Rural residents benefit directly from grants for mobile obstetric health units, enhanced FMAP for rural hospitals, and improved local care access.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Would business owners be better off under this?
Tobacco product manufacturers and sellers face significantly higher excise taxes and increased regulatory costs.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The legislation authorizes substantial new federal appropriations and grants for maternal healthcare programs and mobile units.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 3(a) creates the State-Based Perinatal Quality Collaborative Grant Program to fund networks that work to measurably improve perinatal care and health outcomes for pregnant and postpartum women and their infants. This is a positive step because it provides resources to optimize clinical practices and care coordination.
-
Section 3(b)(1) amends Medicaid and CHIP to require coverage of oral health services for pregnant and postpartum women for up to one year after pregnancy. This is beneficial because reducing oral bacteria and treating dental conditions during pregnancy helps prevent poor birth outcomes like pre-term birth and low birth weight.
-
Section 3(b)(2) mandates 12-month continuous coverage of full benefits for pregnant and postpartum individuals under Medicaid and CHIP. This is positive because it ensures that healthcare coverage does not lapse at 60 days postpartum, protecting access to care during the critical period when over half of maternal deaths occur.
-
Section 3(d) allows states to certify a postpartum woman for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) for a period of up to 2 years. This is beneficial for families as it extends access to vital nutritional support during the postpartum period.
-
Section 5 establishes a 5-year pilot program for rural obstetric mobile health units to provide pre-conception, pregnancy, postpartum, and emergency services in rural and underserved communities. This helps address access barriers by bringing necessary care directly to populations in need.
-
Section 6 requires hospitals to submit a 90-day advance notification to the Secretary before closing any obstetric unit, along with an impact report and steps to address service gaps. This is positive for communities because it prevents sudden closures and gives people time to find alternative care providers.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 8 significantly increases excise taxes on a wide range of tobacco products, including cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, pipe tobacco, smokeless tobacco, small and large cigars, and other tobacco products determined by the Food and Drug Administration. While intended to discourage tobacco use, this provision places a direct financial burden on individuals who purchase these products.
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 comprehensively addresses maternal mortality, expands postpartum health and dental coverage, and increases nutritional support. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The bill directly targets stark racial disparities in maternal mortality and funds implicit bias training for healthcare providers. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents benefit directly from grants for mobile obstetric health units, enhanced FMAP for rural hospitals, and improved local care access. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The expansion of Medicaid, CHIP, and WIC programs directly improves healthcare and nutritional access for lower-income families. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Native American and Alaska Native women, who experience high maternal mortality rates, benefit from targeted mobile health units and tribal grant programs. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults of childbearing age directly benefit from expanded postpartum Medicaid, dental coverage, and mobile health units. Would children be better off under this? — Infants and children benefit from improved perinatal care, extended WIC nutrition, and better maternal health outcomes. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Hispanic women, who face significant maternal health risks and barriers, benefit from expanded Medicaid and culturally competent care. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Asian American birthing individuals benefit from general improvements in maternal health standards, data tracking, and language-disaggregated reports. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Immigrant families benefit from expanded healthcare coverage and privacy protections that bar sharing personal health data with law enforcement. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class families benefit from broader health insurance standards for continuous postpartum care and preserved local hospital obstetric services. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill includes disability status in its reporting categories and ensures equitable access to maternal healthcare services. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban residents benefit from perinatal quality collaboratives, regional centers of excellence, and mandated hospital closure advance notices. Would white Americans be better off under this? — White birthing individuals benefit broadly from improved perinatal care quality, extended postpartum coverage, and better hospital emergency protocols. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — The bill explicitly ensures nonbinary and transgender birthing people are included in its protections, guidance, and healthcare programs. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Individuals in middle age who give birth or support family members benefit from improved maternal healthcare access and quality standards. Would business owners be better off under this? — Tobacco product manufacturers and sellers face significantly higher excise taxes and increased regulatory costs.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill funds rural obstetric mobile units, perinatal collaboratives, and extends postpartum Medicaid and CHIP coverage. Does this put more money into Medicaid, the health coverage for people on low incomes? — The bill significantly increases federal medical assistance percentages and expands Medicaid coverage of oral health and continuous postpartum care. Does this make mental health care easier to get? — The bill expands healthcare services and screening support for postpartum individuals, which includes mental health evaluations. Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — The legislation provides grants and screening initiatives for substance use disorder among pregnant and postpartum individuals. Does this put more money into medical research? — The bill supports data collection, evaluation, and reporting programs regarding maternal mortality needs and regional centers of excellence.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The legislation explicitly targets racial disparities in maternal mortality and funds implicit bias and cultural competency training for providers. Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — The bill directly addresses maternal health disparities and expands healthcare support specifically tailored to pregnant and postpartum women. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — The bill extends WIC certification for postpartum women to two years, enhancing nutritional support for low-income families. Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people? — The bill explicitly includes nonbinary, transgender, and gender-expansive individuals within its definitions and protections for birthing people.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires comprehensive reporting, data disaggregation, and public internet disclosures regarding maternal health programs and needs. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — The bill protects the privacy of pregnant individuals by explicitly barring the sharing of their personal information with law enforcement. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill imposes new federal requirements on state Medicaid plans and mandates hospital notifications regarding unit closures.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this raise the taxes companies pay? — The bill raises excise taxes on various tobacco products manufactured or imported by corporations and businesses. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The bill requires advance notification before hospital obstetric unit closures, protecting consumer access to essential healthcare. Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill funds grants to establish regional centers, mobile health units, and expand the doula workforce, creating healthcare jobs. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill increases federal revenue by raising excise taxes on tobacco products, which can help reduce the national deficit. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Improving maternal health outcomes and workforce participation can yield modest positive impacts on long-term economic productivity. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The legislation authorizes substantial new federal appropriations and grants for maternal healthcare programs and mobile units.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill establishes rural obstetric mobile health units and provides enhanced FMAP for rural hospital obstetric and gynecological services.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — The bill establishes strict protections prohibiting the sharing of personally identifiable health information with law enforcement agencies.
- 9/24/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. (text: CR S4998-5003)
- 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.