The bill
IHS Provider Expansion Act
HR. 3670, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.
Sponsored by
Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1]
ID: S001218
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 3670, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Health and Human Services" section, p. 521-523 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Subcommittee Hearings Held
June 10, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another bill, another exercise in bureaucratic flatulence. Let's dissect this mess.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The IHS Provider Expansion Act (HR 3670) claims to address the shortage of healthcare professionals in Indian Health Service (IHS) facilities by establishing an Office of Graduate Medical Education Programs within the IHS. How original. Because what's needed is another layer of bureaucracy, not actual solutions.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill creates a new office, which will oversee residency and fellowship programs, facilitate the establishment of additional programs, and serve as a central hub for these initiatives. Oh, and it also establishes an interagency working group because, you know, more committees are always better. The bill authorizes $4 million in annual appropriations to fund this boondoggle.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The IHS, academic institutions, healthcare professionals, paraprofessionals, and other health-related professionals (whatever that means) will be affected by this bill. But let's be real, the only stakeholders who truly matter are the politicians and bureaucrats who get to pad their resumes with this "accomplishment."
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of treating symptoms rather than the disease. The IHS has been plagued by chronic underfunding, mismanagement, and poor working conditions for healthcare professionals. Instead of addressing these systemic issues, Congress is creating another bureaucratic entity to paper over the problems.
The real motivation behind this bill? To give politicians like Ms. Stansbury and Ms. Leger Fernandez something to crow about during election season. "Look, we're doing something about Native American healthcare!" Meanwhile, the actual problems persist, and the IHS continues to hemorrhage talent due to its toxic work environment.
In medical terms, this bill is akin to prescribing a Band-Aid for a patient with stage IV cancer. It's a cosmetic solution that ignores the underlying disease. The only thing it will accomplish is to further entrench bureaucratic inefficiencies and waste taxpayer dollars on more administrative overhead.
Diagnosis: Legislative placebo effect. Prognosis: Continued dysfunction in the IHS, with politicians taking credit for "trying" while actual problems persist.
Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
No individual contributions found
This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: L000273
Top Contributors
70
ID: G000606
Top Contributors
70
ID: C001112
Top Contributors
38
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 66 nodes and 87 connections
Total contributions: $87
Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.
Section 2 establishes an Office of Graduate Medical Education Programs within the Indian Health Service to create pipelines, oversee residency programs, and coordinate with academic institutions, which will benefit hospitals and health systems by increasing trained healthcare professionals.
By expanding graduate medical education programs and residency/fellowship opportunities (Section 2(b)(1)-(2)), the bill may increase demand for medical devices used in training and patient care, benefiting manufacturers.
The Office's coordination with academic institutions (Section 2(b)(4)) and medical student rotational programs (Section 2(b)(5)) could support biotech research opportunities, though the connection is indirect.
For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill aligns with Project 2025's goal of increasing the supply of healthcare providers, particularly in underserved areas, by expanding graduate medical education within IHS facilities. However, it does not emphasize deregulation, telehealth, or private-sector innovation as prioritized in the Project 2025 HHS section."
— 488 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise limited or no Internet access, which restricts their access to telehealth services (especially video visits). To improve its health care policies that affect rural regions, HHS should: l Reduce the regulatory burden and unleash private innovation that can discover solutions to unique, local needs. l Implement or encourage policies that increase the supply of health care providers, such as increased telehealth access and interstate licensure (a historically state matter), including for volunteers wishing to provide temporary, charitable services across state lines. l Encourage flexibility in modes of health care delivery, including less expensive alternatives to hospitals and telehealth independent of expensive air ambulances. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Office of the Secretary necessarily set the tone for the entire department. The Secretary is the most accountable individual within HHS and, along with his or her immediate staff, should therefore be responsible for setting the policies that govern the depart- ment’s operations instead of allowing the operational divisions to assume the leading role in policymaking, thereby diffusing responsibility. Practical reforms to enhance the Secretary’s accountability should include the following: l Restrict HHS’s ability to declare indefinite public health emergencies (PHEs). Currently, HHS is merely required to notify Congress of such a declaration within 48 hours. Congress should establish a set time frame for any PHE, placing on the Secretary the burden of proof as to why an extension of the PHE is necessary. l Reinstate the HHS SUNSET (Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely) rule.75 Congress should codify the now- reversed Trump Administration rule that required all HHS agencies to review regulations retrospectively and publish results; without such a review, regulations expire. l Investigate, expose, and remediate any instances in which HHS violated people’s rights by: — 489 — Department of Health and Human Services 1. Colluding with Big Tech to censor dissenting opinions during COVID. 2. Colluding with abortion advocates and LGBT advocates to violate conscience-protection laws and the Hyde Amendment. The Life Agenda. The Office of the Secretary should eliminate the HHS Repro- ductive Healthcare Access Task Force and install a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children. Additionally, HHS should return to being known as the Department of Life by explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care and by restoring its mission statement under the Strategic Plan and elsewhere to include furthering the health and well-being of all Americans “from conception to natural death.” The next Administration should create a dedicated Special Representative for Domestic Women’s Health. In the Trump Administration, there was a Special Representative for Global Women’s Health that focused on international issues, but this position lacked authority to be the lead on international policies because of overlapping issues with the U.S. Department of State and USAID (and at times a lack of clarity as to the lead point of contact and policy decisions at the White House). The new Special Representative would serve as the lead on all matters of federal domestic policy development related to life and family with support from the DPC for implementation and coordination among agencies. In the post-Dobbs era, advancing support for mothers will include coordination among agencies out- side of HHS, and the Special Representative would provide a clear focal point for all issues related to protecting life and serving families. The Family Agenda. The Secretary’s antidiscrimination policy statements should never conflate sex with gender identity or sexual orientation. Rather, the Secretary should proudly state that men and women are biological realities that are crucial to the advancement of life sciences and medical care and that married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH (OASH) / OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL (OSG) The Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH) is the four-star admiral for the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (USPHS), and the Surgeon Gen- eral (SG) is the three-star admiral. The ASH is tasked with overseeing not only the USPHS, but also 10 regional health offices, multiple presidential and secretarial advisory committees, and other offices such as the Offices of Minority Health, Women’s Health, and Population Affairs. The Secretary can further expand the ASH’s responsibilities (for example, by
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on expanding graduate medical education and healthcare workforce capacity within the Indian Health Service, which aligns with Project 2025's broader goal of improving IHS services and access to care for Native American populations. While the bill does not address abortion training policies or conscience protections emphasized in the Project 2025 HHS section, it shares thematic overlap in strengthening IHS infrastructure and healthcare delivery."
— 486 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 1. Investigate state medical school compliance with the Coats–Snowe Amendment,71 which prohibits discrimination against health care entities that do not provide or undergo training for abortion. 2. Ensure that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) complies with all relevant conscience statutes and regulations and that states have taken the affirmative steps (for example, by issuing regulations) to assure compliance with Coats–Snowe. 3. Communicate to medical schools that any abortion-related training must be on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis. 4. Require states that receive HHS funds to issue regulations or enter into arrangements with accrediting bodies to comply with the Coats–Snowe Amendment’s prohibition of mandatory abortion training by individuals or institutions. The Coats–Snowe Amendment specifically requires such state regulations or arrangements. l Prioritize funding for home-based childcare, not universal day care. As HRSA’s Early Childhood Health page outlines, “Currently, only about half of U.S. preschoolers are on-track with their development and ready for school. And more than one in four of children (28%) who experience abuse or neglect are under 3 years old.”72 Concurrently, children who spend significant time in day care experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and neglect as well as poor educational and developmental outcomes. Instead of providing universal day care, funding should go to parents either to offset the cost of staying home with a child or to pay for familial, in-home childcare. l Provide education and resources on early childhood health. By partnering with new organizations like the Center on Child and Family Poverty, HRSA should provide resources and information on the importance of the mother–child relationship in child well-being. This should include relationship education curricula that equip mothers and caregivers to connect with and improve their understanding of their infants, toddlers, and young children. Maternal and Child Health. Currently, the HRSA Maternal and Child Health program is collecting data on the benefits of doulas in improving the health, safety, and emotional well-being of mothers at birth. Doulas provide a patient-focused, nonmedical support system for single or married mothers that “decreases the — 487 — Department of Health and Human Services overall cesarean rate by 50%, the length of labor by 25%, the use of oxytocin by 40%, and requests for an epidural by 60%. Doulas often use the power of touch and massage to reduce stress and anxiety during labor.”73 Given concerns about maternal mortality or postpartum depression that is worsened by poor birth experiences, doulas should be an active option for all women whether they are giving birth in a traditional hospital, through midwifery, or at home. Additionally, since most Doulas’ services are not covered by traditional insurance programs, the Maternal and Child Health program should work to pro- vide funding for low-income mothers. INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE (IHS) The Indian Health Service serves our American Indian and Alaska Native popu- lations. Reforms are needed to improve America’s ability to deliver on its promises to these important populations and must take account of cultural preferences and lifestyles, limitations due to geography (such as challenging terrain), and limited Internet access. For example, contacting individuals within some of these com- munities and tribes during the COVID-19 pandemic proved to be difficult because many had transient addresses and unreliable cell service. During the transition to the Biden Administration, IHS abandoned tribes as their sources of COVID-19 tests and vaccine supplies disappeared. It is important to guard against such situations in order to preserve these tribes’ access to health resources during public health emergencies (PHEs). Even before the pandemic, services available to these populations through federal resources and personnel (such as vision care) were often scarce or nonexistent. Patients in these populations should be empowered to rely on alternatives to IHS through better access to private health care providers. Exploring positive reforms contained in the VA MISSION Act74 could reveal similar opportunities for increased options and access for American Indians and Alaska Natives. RURAL HEALTH A growing concern is the decreasing access to health care services for Americans living in rural, less populated areas. Many find themselves in regions that were not previously as rural as industries move away, taking with them economic prosperity and often medical providers. Others are in essential professions such as farming that by nature necessitate living in regions with fewer city accommodations and economic opportunities. Seeking space for one’s family and cultivating the land are valued goals that are deeply rooted in America’s fabric. Both Congress and an Administration must continually keep in mind how health care policies uniquely affect these regions because their market trends and populations are different from those of more populous regions. Often, rural patients face an hour’s drive to the nearest medical provider or facility or have
AI Analysis:
"The bill focuses on expanding healthcare provider training within the Indian Health Service, while the Project 2025 VA policy emphasizes restructuring VA healthcare delivery, improving efficiency, and reforming infrastructure and personnel systems. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address veterans' healthcare, VA operations, or the specific reforms outlined in the VA section of Project 2025."
— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo, — 647 — Department of Veterans Affairs reimagine the health care footprint in some locales, and spur a realignment of capacity through budgetary allocations. Specifically: 1. Embrace the expansion of Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) as an avenue to maintain a VA footprint in challenging medical markets without investing further in obsolete and unaffordable VA health care campuses. 2. Explore the potential to pilot facility-sharing partnerships between the VA and strained local health care systems to reduce costs by leveraging limited talent and resources. Personnel l Extend the term of the Under Secretary for Health (USH) to five years. Additionally, authority should be given to reappoint this individual for a second five-year term both to allow for continuity and to protect the USH from political transition. l Establish a Senior Executive Service (SES) position of VHA Care System Chief Information Officer (CIO), selected by and reporting to the chief of the VHA Care System with a dotted line to the VA CIO. l Identify a workflow process to bring wait times in compliance with VA MISSION Act–required time frames wherever possible. 1. Assess the daily clinical appointment load for physicians and clinical staff in medical facilities where wait times for care are well outside of the time frames required by the VA MISSION Act. 2. Require VHA facilities to increase the number of patients seen each day to equal the number seen by DOD medical facilities: approximately 19 patients per provider per day. Currently, VA facilities may be seeing as few as six patients per provider per day. 3. Consider a pilot program to extend weekday appointment hours and offer Saturday appointment options to veterans if a facility continues to demonstrate that it has excess capacity and is experiencing delays in the delivery of care for veterans. 4. Identify clinical services that are consistently in high demand but require cost-prohibitive compensation to recruit and retain talent, and examine exceptions for higher competitive pay.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.