Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to (1) allow specified licensed mental health providers, not just physicians, to perform initial World Trade Center (WTC) mental health evaluations and certifications; (2) revise credentialing language for providers in the nationwide WTC network; (3) exclude deceased individuals from enrollment counts; (4) extend certain agency review deadlines from 90 to 180 days; (5) modify the WTC Health Program funding formula and introduce near-term funding minimums; and (6) require a Secretary-level report projecting Program budget needs through fiscal year 2090.
Progressives emphasize increased access and strengthened funding.
Sympathetic constituency and technical framing lower opposition, but long-term funding growth may attract budget scrutiny.
This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to (1) allow specified licensed mental health providers, not just physicians, to perform initial World Trade Center (WTC) mental health evaluations and certifications; (2) revise credentialing language for providers in the nationwide WTC network; (3) exclude deceased individuals from enrollment counts; (4) extend certain agency review deadlines from 90 to 180 days; (5) modify the WTC Health Program funding formula and introduce near-term funding minimums; and (6) require a Secretary-level report projecting Program budget needs through fiscal year 2090.
Technocratic, targeted bill benefiting a sympathetic group increases chances, but multi-decade funding increases raise budgetary scrutiny and potential friction.
How solid the drafting looks.
Progressives emphasize increased access and strengthened funding.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize increased access and strengthened funding.
Generally supportive.
Expands mental-health provider access, strengthens funding protections, and mandates long-term fiscal study.
Views changes as improving care access for responders and survivors.
Cautiously supportive.
Appreciates access and transparency gains but worries about fiscal implications and credentialing clarity.
Sees the report requirement as prudent for long-term planning.
Skeptical.
Concerned the bill expands federal obligations and spending through an extended funding formula and funding floors, and broadens non-physician certification authority.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic, targeted bill benefiting a sympathetic group increases chances, but multi-decade funding increases raise budgetary scrutiny and potential friction.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize increased access and strengthened funding.
Technocratic, targeted bill benefiting a sympathetic group increases chances, but multi-decade funding increases raise budgetary scrutiny a…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for 9/11 Responder and Survivor Health Funding Correction Act of 2…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.