Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to seek an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to study how to establish and maintain a national, confidential, and secure system to store and retrieve "last wish" documents (including advance directives, organ donor registrations, healthcare proxies, powers of attorney, and living wills) at no cost to individuals. The National Academies would report a status update to the Secretary and Congress within 2 years of enactment and deliver final study results within 4 years.
Role of federal government versus state control: conservatives emphasize federalism and potential overreach; liberals and centrists are more comfortable with a federal-led study.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and simply directs a study by the National Academies on creating a national system for storing and retrieving last wish documents, provides definitions and concrete reporting deadlines, but omits key execution details such as funding, detailed study scope and methodology, and explicit integration with existing legal frameworks.
This bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to seek an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to study how to establish and maintain a national, confidential, and secure system to store and retrieve "last wish" documents (including advance directives, organ donor registrations, healthcare proxies, powers of attorney, and living wills) at no cost to individuals.
The National Academies would report a status update to the Secretary and Congress within 2 years of enactment and deliver final study results within 4 years.
Definitions of the covered documents and of the agencies involved are included.
Based solely on content and common legislative patterns, the bill is a low-stakes, technical study request that is unlikely to provoke ideological opposition. Such study/report bills often attract bipartisan support and can be enacted, especially if sponsors secure committee time and minimal funding for the contract. The absence of authorization language for funding and the routine nature of the subject reduce friction, though procedural calendar and competing legislative priorities remain practical obstacles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and simply directs a study by the National Academies on creating a national system for storing and retrieving last wish documents, provides definitions and concrete reporting deadlines, but omits key execution details such as funding, detailed study scope and methodology, and explicit integration with existing legal frameworks.
Role of federal government versus state control: conservatives emphasize federalism and potential overreach; liberals and centrists are more comfortable with a federal-led study.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Role of federal government versus state control: conservatives emphasize federalism and potential overreach; liberals and centrists are more comfortable with a federal-led study.
Progressives are likely to view the bill positively as a modest federal step toward increasing equitable access to end-of-life planning and ensuring underserved populations can store legally important documents without cost.
They will appreciate that the study is to be conducted by the National Academies and includes a concrete timeline for reporting.
Concerns would center on ensuring strong privacy and anti-discrimination safeguards, meaningful accessibility for low-income and non-English speakers, and that the study leads to implementation that protects civil rights.
A moderate would likely view this bill as a low-cost, evidence-seeking step that could address a practical problem without immediately expanding federal programs.
They will welcome the National Academies' independent study and the two-stage reporting timeline as sensible.
Key centrist concerns will be clarity about costs, how a national system would interact with state laws and existing registries, and how privacy and liability are handled.
Mainstream conservatives would likely view the bill as low-stakes because it only commissions a study rather than creating a federal program, but they may be cautious about the prospect of a national, centralized repository controlled or influenced by the federal government.
Concerns will focus on federal overreach, state sovereignty over legal instruments like powers of attorney and advance directives, data privacy, and eventual costs and mandates.
Some conservatives might accept the study as a reasonable fact-finding step if it explicitly defers to state law and limits federal authority; others could be skeptical of creating the expectation of a permanent federal database.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Based solely on content and common legislative patterns, the bill is a low-stakes, technical study request that is unlikely to provoke ideological opposition. Such study/report bills often attract bipartisan support and can be enacted, especially if sponsors secure committee time and minimal funding for the contract. The absence of authorization language for funding and the routine nature of the subject reduce friction, though procedural calendar and competing legislative priorities remain practical obstacles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Role of federal government versus state control: conservatives emphasize federalism and potential overreach; liberals and centrists are mor…
Based solely on content and common legislative patterns, the bill is a low-stakes, technical study request that is unlikely to provoke ideo…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and simply directs a study by the National Academies on creating a national system for storing and retrieving last wish documents, provides definitions and co…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.