- Federal agenciesProvides the first consistent, comparable federal data on substance use and mental health in Puerto Rico, enabling bett…
- Local governmentsImproves ability to target federal and local treatment and prevention resources, inform needs assessments, and support…
- Local governmentsGenerates new opportunities for local survey administration, data collection, and analytic work in Puerto Rico (tempora…
Puerto Rico Substance Use and Health Data Collection Act
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill amends section 505(d) of the Public Health Service Act to require that annual surveys carried out under that section include Puerto Rico beginning in fiscal year 2026. In practice, it directs that Puerto Rico be added to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) annual data collection.
Magnitude of concern about fiscal impact and whether Congress must appropriate new funds (centrist and conservative more worried; liberal less so).
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped statutory amendment that clearly and directly requires inclusion of Puerto Rico in the annual surveys governed by 42 U.S.C. 290aa–4(d) beginning in FY2026.
This bill amends section 505(d) of the Public Health Service Act to require that annual surveys carried out under that section include Puerto Rico beginning in fiscal year 2026.
In practice, it directs that Puerto Rico be added to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) annual data collection.
The statutory change is limited to inclusion in the survey and does not specify additional funding, survey methodology details, or data use.
On content alone, the bill is a small, non-ideological technical change that addresses a data gap and is the type of measure that commonly succeeds. Its lack of controversial policy content and modest fiscal implications increase its chances. However, it depends on committee prioritization, potential objections about costs or implementation, and whether implementing funds or technical adjustments are later required, which reduces certainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped statutory amendment that clearly and directly requires inclusion of Puerto Rico in the annual surveys governed by 42 U.S.C. 290aa–4(d) beginning in FY2026.
Magnitude of concern about fiscal impact and whether Congress must appropriate new funds (centrist and conservative more worried; liberal less so).
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
- Federal agenciesIncreases federal program costs to expand survey coverage (sampling, translation, fieldwork and analysis); the overall…
- Local governmentsRaises data-privacy and confidentiality concerns among respondents and local stakeholders about collection, storage, an…
- Potential burdenIntroduces logistical and methodological challenges (language translation, cultural adaptation, sampling frame coverage…
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Magnitude of concern about fiscal impact and whether Congress must appropriate new funds (centrist and conservative more worried; liberal less so).
Supportive.
This persona will view the bill as a necessary step toward data equity and better public-health planning for Puerto Rico.
Including Puerto Rico in the NSDUH fills a long-standing information gap that can reveal unmet treatment needs, support federal program eligibility decisions, and guide targeted prevention and harm-reduction efforts.
Generally favorable but pragmatic.
This persona will see the bill as a reasonable, narrowly tailored statutory fix to close a data gap, but will want clarity on costs, operational feasibility, and expected benefits.
They will look for evidence that adding Puerto Rico can be done without undermining the quality of the national survey and will expect a cost estimate and implementation plan.
Cautious / mixed.
This persona may not oppose the principle of including Puerto Rico in a national health survey but will be attentive to costs, federal overreach, and whether the measure requires new appropriations.
Some conservatives could view this as a modest, administratively straightforward change; others will request assurance that this will not be a backdoor expansion of federal programs without clear benefits.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill is a small, non-ideological technical change that addresses a data gap and is the type of measure that commonly succeeds. Its lack of controversial policy content and modest fiscal implications increase its chances. However, it depends on committee prioritization, potential objections about costs or implementation, and whether implementing funds or technical adjustments are later required, which reduces certainty.
- The bill contains no authorization of appropriations or cost estimate; the availability of funds or whether the administering agency can absorb the incremental cost is unclear.
- Operational details (sampling design, bilingual instruments, field operations in Puerto Rico, timing) are not specified and could require additional rulemaking, contracts, or intergovernmental coordination.
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Magnitude of concern about fiscal impact and whether Congress must appropriate new funds (centrist and conservative more worried; liberal l…
On content alone, the bill is a small, non-ideological technical change that addresses a data gap and is the type of measure that commonly…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped statutory amendment that clearly and directly requires inclusion of Puerto Rico in the annual surveys governed by 42 U.S.C. 290aa–4(d) beginning…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.