PSA Screening for HIM Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/297
Last Updated: March 19, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]

ID: B001236

Follow the money

The bill

PSA Screening for HIM Act

S. 297, 119th Congress — read as touching Health Insurance.

The sponsor

Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$77,600 raised

23 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Health and Human Services" section, p. 515-517 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.

March 18, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

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!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of Senators Boozman and Booker. The "PSA Screening for HIM Act" - because what's a more compelling title than one that sounds like a bad infomercial?

Let's dissect this bill, shall we? It's a regulatory Frankenstein, stitched together from spare parts of good intentions, lobbying dollars, and cynical politics.

**New regulations being created or modified:**

The bill amends the Public Health Service Act to require group health plans and insurance issuers to cover prostate cancer screenings without cost-sharing requirements for men aged 40 and above who are at high risk (African-American men and those with a family history). Because, of course, we need more unfunded mandates to drive up healthcare costs.

**Affected industries and sectors:**

Healthcare providers, insurers, and pharmaceutical companies will be impacted. Expect a windfall for screening manufacturers and urologists, as well as increased premiums for consumers.

**Compliance requirements and timelines:**

The amendments take effect... whenever the bill passes, because who needs a specific timeline when you're trying to curry favor with special interest groups? Insurers and healthcare providers will need to scramble to update their policies and procedures, all while navigating the Byzantine world of federal regulations.

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:**

The usual suspects: fines, lawsuits, and reputational damage for non-compliant entities. Because what's a regulatory bill without a healthy dose of fear-mongering?

**Economic and operational impacts:**

Increased costs for insurers, which will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. More screenings mean more false positives, unnecessary treatments, and iatrogenic harm (because we all know how well our healthcare system handles over-testing). And let's not forget the added administrative burden on already-strained healthcare providers.

In conclusion, this bill is a textbook example of regulatory capture, where special interest groups (in this case, urologists and screening manufacturers) manipulate lawmakers to create new revenue streams at the expense of consumers. It's a cynical exercise in feel-good politics, designed to generate headlines rather than meaningful reform.

As I always say: "Everybody lies." In this case, it's not just the politicians; it's also the voters who think they're getting something for nothing. Newsflash: you're not. You're just paying more for the privilege of being screened into oblivion.

Related Topics

Healthcare & Insurance Reform
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$77,600
19 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$9,900
Committees
$0
Individuals
$67,700

No PAC contributions found

1
SHAKOPEE MDEKEWAKANTON COMMUNITY
2 transactions
$6,600
2
CHEROKEE NATION
1 transaction
$3,300

No committee contributions found

1
POWELL, JESSE
2 transactions
$6,600
2
STEPHENS, WARREN MR.
2 transactions
$6,600
3
BUKOWSKY, BROCK
2 transactions
$6,600
4
BJERKE, TYLER
1 transaction
$5,000
5
LEPRINO, TERRY
1 transaction
$3,300
6
WALTON, ALICE L.. MS.
1 transaction
$3,300
7
WALTON, JIM C. MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
8
WALTON, ROB
1 transaction
$3,300
9
WALTON, STEUART
1 transaction
$3,300
10
WALTON, THOMAS
1 transaction
$3,300
11
ARNOLD, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,300
12
BUKOWSKY, BRANT
1 transaction
$3,300
13
SMITH, FRED J.
1 transaction
$3,300
14
TURNER THORP, KAY
1 transaction
$3,300
15
BROWNE, TODD
1 transaction
$3,300
16
HITT, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,300
17
NUCCI, STEVE
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]

ID: B001288

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$2,500
Dec 6, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Sep 13, 2023
3
ISEMAN, HENRY
PENTA MEDICAL RECYCLING • PRESIDENT
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$8,300
Apr 18, 2023
4
GELBWACHS, CHANA
BIG STILL LIQUORS • PARTNER
IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ
$6,600
Mar 26, 2024
5
LEIDER, YECHEZKEL
LEIDER ENTERPRISES INC • DIRECTOR
IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ
$6,600
Mar 26, 2024
6
GELBWACHS, CHANA
IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ
$6,600
Mar 26, 2024
7
LEIDER, YECHEZKEL
IndividualLAKEWOOD, NJ
$6,600
Mar 29, 2024
8
WAGNER, KAREN E.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL • ATTORNEY
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Sep 13, 2023
9
WAGNER, KAREN E.
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Sep 26, 2023
10
ISEMAN, HENRY
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Apr 19, 2023

Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]

ID: P000145

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$5,000
Dec 24, 2024
2
MOORETOWN RANCHERIA
OrganizationOROVILLE, CA
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024
3
TOLOWA DEE-NI' NATION
OrganizationSMITH RIVER, CA
$3,300
May 7, 2024
4
TULE RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL
OrganizationPORTERVILLE, CA
$3,300
Aug 12, 2024
5
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$2,500
Nov 22, 2023
6
ONEIDA NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$1,000
Oct 3, 2023
7
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 5, 2023
8
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, WI
$1,000
Jun 21, 2024
9
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
May 16, 2024
10
KIMBER, SHELDON
INTERSECT POWER • CEO
IndividualTRUCKEE, CA
$5,000
Apr 27, 2023

Sen. Warnock, Raphael G. [D-GA]

ID: W000790

Top Contributors

10

1
JME GROUP
OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA
$2,900
Jun 30, 2023
2
JME GROUP
OrganizationSTONE MOUNTAIN, GA
$2,900
Jul 18, 2024
3
PORTFOLIO ONE
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$1,250
Mar 17, 2023
4
MCKENNEY HOUSE LLC
OrganizationFORT WASHINGTON, MD
$1,000
Jun 30, 2023
5
WATKINS WATKINS & WATKINS LLC
OrganizationCARROLLTON, GA
$1,000
Feb 17, 2023
6
SCR CONSULTING LLC
OrganizationATLANTA, GA
$500
Feb 17, 2023
7
GIBSON, DAVID H.
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$26,750
Mar 31, 2023
8
ROBBINS, BONNIE
IndividualSEATTLE, WA
$12,118
Mar 31, 2023
9
ROBBINS, BONNIE
IndividualSEATTLE, WA
$12,118
Jul 18, 2024
10
KERR, WILLIAM G.
IndividualOKLAHOMA CITY, OK
$9,625
Mar 31, 2023

Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA]

ID: C000127

Top Contributors

10

1
SAC FOX TRIBE
OrganizationTAMA, IA
$5,000
Oct 29, 2024
2
LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE
OrganizationPORT ANGELES, WA
$3,360
Mar 31, 2023
3
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA
$3,300
Oct 28, 2023
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
5
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,300
Nov 16, 2023
6
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,300
Nov 16, 2023
7
SAULT STE MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS
OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023
8
SENECA NATION OF INDIANS
OrganizationSALAMANCA, NY
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023
9
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationAUBURN, WA
$3,300
May 12, 2023
10
NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationOLYMPIA, WA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023

Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]

ID: S001181

Top Contributors

10

1
TILT LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE LLC
OrganizationPLYMOUTH, MI
$250
Feb 6, 2024
2
HAWASH, NOUR
BLINK TECH INC. • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$6,600
Dec 12, 2024
3
HAWASH, NOUR
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$6,600
Dec 23, 2024
4
HAWASH, NOUR
BLINK TECH INC. • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$3,300
Dec 12, 2024
5
HAWASH, NOUR
BLINK TECH INC. • VICE PRESIDENT
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$3,300
Dec 12, 2024
6
HAWASH, SAFA
ACCLIVITY LLC • BUSINESS CONSULTANT
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$3,300
Dec 11, 2024
7
HAWASH, SAFA
ACCLIVITY LLC • BUSINESS CONSULTANT
IndividualDUNN LORING, VA
$3,300
Dec 11, 2024
8
JONDY, JENAN
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualFLUSHING, MI
$3,300
Dec 16, 2024
9
KANDIL, MARIAM
SELF-EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualGREAT FALLS, VA
$3,300
Dec 16, 2024
10
KANDIL, MARIAM
SELF-EMPLOYED • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualGREAT FALLS, VA
$3,300
Dec 16, 2024

Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]

ID: C001088

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 27, 2023
2
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,700
Dec 27, 2023
3
CHEN, YU
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
4
MIRZAIE, REZA
RUSS AUGUST & KABAT LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024
5
CHEN, YU
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
6
WASSERMAN, CASEY
WASSERMAN • CEO
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
7
ZHAO, PENG
CITADEL SECURITIES • CEO
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
8
WASSERMAN, CASEY
WASSERMAN • CEO
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
9
ZHAO, PENG
CITADEL SECURITIES • CEO
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
10
MIRZAIE, REZA
RUSS AUGUST & KABAT LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 55 nodes and 38 connections (39 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $133,160

Top Donors - Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]

Showing top 19 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 1 harmed.

  • −Health Insuranceconfidence 0.90

    Section 3(a) amends the Public Health Service Act to require group health plans and health insurance issuers to provide coverage for prostate cancer screenings without cost-sharing, imposing a cost on insurers by eliminating patient cost-sharing for this service.

  • Section 3(a) requires coverage for prostate cancer screenings without cost-sharing, likely increasing utilization of screening services provided by hospitals and health systems, representing a benefit through increased demand.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Health and Human Services

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 515-517AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding prostate cancer screening coverage for high-risk men, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt emphasizes caregiver strategy reform, telehealth licensure, and contraceptive mandate changes under HRSA and CMS. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address caregiving, telehealth licensing, or reproductive health policies central to the cited Project 2025 section."

Key themes:Department of Health and Human Servicespreventive serviceshealthcare coverage

— 483 — Department of Health and Human Services l Readdress the National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers. While in theory the strategy aims to support family members with duties to care for older family members, the plan is overly focused on racial and “LGBTQ+ equity.” The strategy should be examined to establish an efficient plan to support caregivers and their families. There should also be a review of its COVID-19 policies. HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA) l Congress should allow CMS to use the 340B data that HRSA collects rather than having CMS conduct its own survey, especially in view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s American Hospital Association v. Becerra decision.69 The legislation should also create penalties for those who do not respond to HRSA’s data collection. l Legally define the locus of service as where the provider is located during the telehealth visit rather than where the patient is. With such a definition, states could continue to reserve their powers to establish the standards for licensure and scope of practice. The providers could ensure continuity and consistency of care no matter where their patients might move while maintaining the licenses that make the most sense for them. Americans are far more mobile and technologically advanced today than they were when most health care laws were written. Telehealth has become increasingly important, particularly during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also has great potential in rural and other areas where there are shortages of health care providers. HRSA’s Office for the Advancement of Telehealth includes a program known as the Licensure Portability Grant Program, which bolsters state efforts to reform licensing laws to maximize telehealth flexibility. HRSA does not have the authority through this office to dictate licensure laws; that power has typically been reserved to the states. However, telehealth across state lines, when permitted, is interstate commerce, which can be regulated by the federal government according to the Constitution. l Restore Trump religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate (also a CMS rule). HHS should rescind, if finalized, the regulation titled “Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act,” proposed jointly by HHS, Treasury, and Labor.70 This rule proposes to amend Trump-era final rules regarding religious and moral exemptions and accommodations for coverage of certain preventive services under the ACA. Preventive services include contraception, and — 484 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise it appears the proposed rule would change the existing regulations for religious and moral exemptions to the ACA’s contraception mandate. There is no need for further rulemaking that curtails existing exemptions and accommodations. l Require HRSA to use rulemaking to update the women’s preventive services mandate. The contraceptive mandate issued under Obamacare has been the source of years of egregious attacks on many Americans’ religious and moral beliefs. The mandate was issued as part of the women’s preventive services guidelines, which were issued without any rulemaking that involved public notice and an opportunity to comment. Instead, HRSA issued and changed the mandate by simply posting changes to its website. HRSA also started off not requiring coverage of fertility awareness–based methods of family planning, then requiring them, and then removing the requirement without notifying the public. A federal judge recently ruled that this failure to undergo notice and comment in issuing the mandate is unlawful. HRSA should be required to repromulgate any women’s preventive services mandates through the notice and comment process that is compliant with the Administrative Procedures Act. Moreover, since the Obama Administration HRSA entered into long- term contracts with the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and related entities to serve as an exclusive adviser with respect to the content of this mandate, HRSA has used this arrangement to ignore comments that members of the public were sometimes able to submit in the process, and ACOG has abused its position to attack HHS’s allowance of religious and moral exemptions to the contraceptive mandate. HHS should rescind these contracts and establish an advisory committee that is compliant with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and has members that are committed to women’s preventive services and are not pro-abortion ideologues. l Expand inclusion of fertility awareness–based methods and supplies to family planning in the women’s preventive services mandate. The ACA requires coverage of and prevents insurance plans from imposing any cost-sharing requirements on women who obtain preventive care and screenings as defined by HRSA. In 2016, HHS included “instruction in fertility awareness-based methods” as part of this requirement. However, in December 2021, HHS removed that language from its list without using the notice-and-comment process or giving any rationale, both of which are mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act. In August

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal
Vector: 62%
Pages: 518-520AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding prostate cancer screening coverage for high-risk men, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt centers on restricting reproductive health services, particularly fertility awareness-based methods, emergency contraception, and gender-affirming care under HHS programs. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 485 — Department of Health and Human Services 2022, a federal court blocked this attempt to eliminate health insurance coverage for fertility awareness–based methods of family planning from requirements that cover at least 58 million women, and the judge made his ruling permanent in December 2022. HRSA should promulgate regulations consistent with this order. HHS should more thoroughly ensure that fertility awareness–based methods of family planning are part of women’s preventive services under the ACA. FABMs often involve costs for materials and supplies, and HHS should make clear that coverage of those items is also required. FABMs are highly effective and allow women to make family planning choices in a manner that meets their needs and reflects their values. l Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms after claiming for years that it had no authority to do so because Congress explicitly limited the mandate to “women’s” preventive care and screenings. HRSA should not incorporate exclusively male contraceptive methods into guidelines that specify they encompass only women’s services. l Eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. One of the emergency contraceptives covered under the HRSA preventive services guidelines is Ella (ulipristal acetate). Like its close cousin, the abortion pill mifepristone, Ella is a progesterone blocker and can prevent a recently fertilized embryo from implanting in a woman’s uterus. HRSA should eliminate this potential abortifacient from the contraceptive mandate. l Withdraw Ryan White guidance allowing funds to pay for cross-sex transition support. HRSA should withdraw all guidance encouraging Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program service providers to provide controversial “gender transition” procedures or “gender-affirming care,” which cause irreversible physical and mental harm to those who receive them. l Ensure that training for medical professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) and doulas is not being used for abortion training. HHS should ensure that training programs for medical professionals—including doctors, nurses, and doulas—are in full compliance with restrictions on abortion funding and conscience-protection laws. In addition, HHS should:

Department of Health and Human Services

Minimal
Vector: 62%
Pages: 518-520AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on expanding preventive healthcare coverage for prostate cancer screenings in high-risk men, while the Project 2025 policy excerpt centers on restricting reproductive health services, particularly fertility awareness-based methods, emergency contraception, and gender-affirming care under HHS programs. There is no thematic or policy overlap between the two."

— 485 — Department of Health and Human Services 2022, a federal court blocked this attempt to eliminate health insurance coverage for fertility awareness–based methods of family planning from requirements that cover at least 58 million women, and the judge made his ruling permanent in December 2022. HRSA should promulgate regulations consistent with this order. HHS should more thoroughly ensure that fertility awareness–based methods of family planning are part of women’s preventive services under the ACA. FABMs often involve costs for materials and supplies, and HHS should make clear that coverage of those items is also required. FABMs are highly effective and allow women to make family planning choices in a manner that meets their needs and reflects their values. l Eliminate men’s preventive services from the women’s preventive services mandate. In December 2021, HRSA updated its women’s preventive services guidelines to include male condoms after claiming for years that it had no authority to do so because Congress explicitly limited the mandate to “women’s” preventive care and screenings. HRSA should not incorporate exclusively male contraceptive methods into guidelines that specify they encompass only women’s services. l Eliminate the week-after-pill from the contraceptive mandate as a potential abortifacient. One of the emergency contraceptives covered under the HRSA preventive services guidelines is Ella (ulipristal acetate). Like its close cousin, the abortion pill mifepristone, Ella is a progesterone blocker and can prevent a recently fertilized embryo from implanting in a woman’s uterus. HRSA should eliminate this potential abortifacient from the contraceptive mandate. l Withdraw Ryan White guidance allowing funds to pay for cross-sex transition support. HRSA should withdraw all guidance encouraging Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program service providers to provide controversial “gender transition” procedures or “gender-affirming care,” which cause irreversible physical and mental harm to those who receive them. l Ensure that training for medical professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) and doulas is not being used for abortion training. HHS should ensure that training programs for medical professionals—including doctors, nurses, and doulas—are in full compliance with restrictions on abortion funding and conscience-protection laws. In addition, HHS should: — 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

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills