Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
This bill (Measuring Availability of Providers (MAP) for Veterans Act) requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a feasibility study on establishing a full-service Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in each of three States: Alaska, Hawaii, and New Hampshire. The Secretary must publish the study results on a publicly available VA website within one year of enactment.
Extent of federal expansion: liberals are more willing to see a study lead to new VA hospitals to improve access; conservatives are wary of new federal facilities and long-term costs.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, limited reporting requirement (a feasibility study on establishing VA full-service hospitals in three States) and assigns responsibility and a publication deadline, but it provides minimal procedural, methodological, fiscal, or oversight detail.
This bill (Measuring Availability of Providers (MAP) for Veterans Act) requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a feasibility study on establishing a full-service Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in each of three States: Alaska, Hawaii, and New Hampshire.
The Secretary must publish the study results on a publicly available VA website within one year of enactment.
The bill also amends 38 U.S.C. 1703(d)(1)(B) by inserting the phrase "as of the date of the enactment of the Measuring Availability of Providers (MAP) for Veterans Act," which ties the statutory provision regarding continued access to care under the Veterans Community Care Program to that enactment date.
Based solely on text and typical legislative behavior, the bill is a low‑risk, incremental measure: it mandates a feasibility study and publication without authorizing expensive programs or creating contentious policy changes. Such focused, veterans‑oriented administrative actions historically have a relatively high probability of enactment compared with sweeping or costly proposals.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, limited reporting requirement (a feasibility study on establishing VA full-service hospitals in three States) and assigns responsibility and a publication deadline, but it provides minimal procedural, methodological, fiscal, or oversight detail.
Extent of federal expansion: liberals are more willing to see a study lead to new VA hospitals to improve access; conservatives are wary of new federal facilities and long-term costs.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Extent of federal expansion: liberals are more willing to see a study lead to new VA hospitals to improve access; conservatives are wary of new federal facilities and long-term costs.
This persona would generally view the bill positively as a step toward improving veterans' access to VA-delivered health care, especially for geographically isolated or underserved populations in Alaska and Hawaii and for a State (New Hampshire) without a full-service VA hospital.
They will welcome the public study and transparency requirement but will see the measure as preliminary—useful only if followed by concrete funding and commitments.
They will want the study to address equity issues (including tribal and indigenous veterans in Alaska), behavioral health, women's health, workforce recruitment, and climate/resilience considerations for facility siting.
This persona will likely view the bill as a reasonable, low-risk step to gather information about legitimate access gaps before making expensive infrastructure decisions.
They appreciate the one-year deadline and public posting requirement, which promote accountability.
Centrists will be attentive to cost-benefit tradeoffs and want the study to consider alternatives (expanded community care, clinics, telehealth) and clear cost estimates.
This persona will approach the bill cautiously.
They are likely to accept a study in principle as it gathers information, but they will be skeptical of authorizing new VA hospitals because of recurring federal cost and expanding federal footprint in health care.
They will want strict fiscal controls, clear demonstration that new VA hospitals are more cost-effective than private/community care, and that the study does not become an automatic path to expensive construction.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Based solely on text and typical legislative behavior, the bill is a low‑risk, incremental measure: it mandates a feasibility study and publication without authorizing expensive programs or creating contentious policy changes. Such focused, veterans‑oriented administrative actions historically have a relatively high probability of enactment compared with sweeping or costly proposals.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Extent of federal expansion: liberals are more willing to see a study lead to new VA hospitals to improve access; conservatives are wary of…
Based solely on text and typical legislative behavior, the bill is a low‑risk, incremental measure: it mandates a feasibility study and pub…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear, limited reporting requirement (a feasibility study on establishing VA full-service hospitals in three States) and assigns responsibility and a pu…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.