Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill amends section 1003 of the 21st Century Cures Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop and implement a standardized system for collecting quarterly data from States that receive opioid use disorder grants. States would have to report how grant funds were spent, descriptions of activities, the number of individuals served, and information about ultimate recipients and subrecipients (including name, location, and taxpayer identification number), plus any other data the Secretary deems appropriate.
Scope and scale of administrative burden: liberals and centrists want implementation funding and safeguards; conservatives emphasize limiting new federal mandates.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a focused administrative objective—standardized data collection and enhanced reporting for opioid use disorder grants—and makes concrete statutory amendments that assign responsibility and require specific data elements and quarterly submissions.
This bill amends section 1003 of the 21st Century Cures Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop and implement a standardized system for collecting quarterly data from States that receive opioid use disorder grants.
States would have to report how grant funds were spent, descriptions of activities, the number of individuals served, and information about ultimate recipients and subrecipients (including name, location, and taxpayer identification number), plus any other data the Secretary deems appropriate.
The Secretary is directed, to the extent feasible, to make use of other Federal grant-tracking systems to avoid duplication.
On content alone the bill is a modest, technocratic change to improve oversight of opioid grant funds—an area that historically sees bipartisan interest. It does not create new entitlement spending, contains clear, limited requirements, and has a short implementation timeline. Factors that lower its score include potential pushback from states or grant recipients over data disclosure (taxpayer IDs), the administrative cost/need for HHS to build or adapt systems, and the lack of an explicit appropriation to support implementation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a focused administrative objective—standardized data collection and enhanced reporting for opioid use disorder grants—and makes concrete statutory amendments that assign responsibility and require specific data elements and quarterly submissions. It establishes a statutory basis for greater transparency by requiring identification of recipients and subrecipients and funding levels.
Scope and scale of administrative burden: liberals and centrists want implementation funding and safeguards; conservatives emphasize limiting new federal mandates.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope and scale of administrative burden: liberals and centrists want implementation funding and safeguards; conservatives emphasize limiting new federal mandates.
Progressives would likely view this bill largely positively because it increases transparency and accountability for federal opioid grant dollars and could help ensure funds reach treatment and harm-reduction services.
They would welcome quarterly reporting and subrecipient disclosure as tools to detect waste, diversion, or funds flowing to entities that do not provide evidence-based care.
They may be concerned that the bill does not explicitly require tracking of equity-related metrics (race, income, geography) or mandate that funds be spent on evidence-based treatments, so they would want follow-on requirements.
A pragmatic centrist would generally support stronger oversight of federal opioid grant spending while stressing the need to balance transparency with administrative feasibility.
They would view standardized quarterly reporting and consolidation with existing systems as sensible steps to improve accountability, provided the implementation is adequately funded and does not impede service delivery.
Centrists would look for clarity about data privacy, how reports will be used, and whether Congress or HHS will provide resources for IT and compliance.
Mainstream conservatives would generally welcome increased transparency about federal grant spending and may see the bill as a reasonable measure to ensure taxpayer dollars for opioid programs are tracked.
However, they may be wary of expanding federal administrative requirements that could impose new costs on states and recipients, and concerned about federal micromanagement.
Some conservatives will want assurances that the data collection will not become a vehicle for mission creep, that it minimizes burdens, and that reported information does not inappropriately expose private business data.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone the bill is a modest, technocratic change to improve oversight of opioid grant funds—an area that historically sees bipartisan interest. It does not create new entitlement spending, contains clear, limited requirements, and has a short implementation timeline. Factors that lower its score include potential pushback from states or grant recipients over data disclosure (taxpayer IDs), the administrative cost/need for HHS to build or adapt systems, and the lack of an explicit appropriation to support implementation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope and scale of administrative burden: liberals and centrists want implementation funding and safeguards; conservatives emphasize limiti…
On content alone the bill is a modest, technocratic change to improve oversight of opioid grant funds—an area that historically sees bipart…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill sets a focused administrative objective—standardized data collection and enhanced reporting for opioid use disorder grants—and makes concrete statutory amendments tha…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.