CARE Act

Bill Number

H.R. 1961

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Health

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Last Updated

2025-05-06T08:05:33Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The Coordinated Agency Response Enhancement Act (CARE Act), H.R. 1961, aims to strengthen the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) response to public health emergencies. It requires HHS to create a department-wide program to review and improve past emergency responses (known as an "after-action" program) and a strategy for clear, targeted communication about health risks, drawing lessons from events like pandemics to enhance future preparedness and public trust.

Key Provisions

• After-Action Program (Section 2):
• HHS must establish and implement a program within 2 years to analyze responses to public health emergencies (declared under section 319(a) of the Public Health Service Act, which allows the HHS Secretary to declare emergencies for rapid action).
• The program identifies problems from past responses, proposes solutions, and promotes collaboration across HHS agencies by integrating their existing after-action efforts.
• It requires coordination with external stakeholders, including other federal agencies, state and local health departments, Indian Tribes, U.S. territories, municipalities, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
• The HHS Inspector General (an independent watchdog office) will periodically evaluate the program's effectiveness and report to Congress, focusing on risk assessments and emerging needs.
• Reports from the program must include detailed elements, such as:
• Reviews of emergency plans (e.g., operations, continuity, and business plans) for updates and efficiency.
• Protocols for information sharing and situational awareness (real-time understanding of the crisis) among healthcare partners, including joint systems.
• Coordination strategies with coalitions, IT solutions for emergencies, and patient load balancing during surges.
• Incident management structures (e.g., command systems for organizing responses).
• Communications frameworks, staff/space management, logistics/supply chains (e.g., for protective gear and drugs), resource allocation during crises, infection prevention, treatment protocols (including telehealth), case management, medical countermeasures (e.g., vaccines and tests), and recovery plans addressing equity and finances.
• Authorizes $3.5 million for initial setup and first four reports, plus additional funds for Inspector General oversight.

• Risk Communication Strategy (Section 3):
• HHS must develop and implement a strategy within 1 year to ensure communications about infectious diseases and public health risks—from HHS agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—are clear, accurate, and focused on high-risk groups.
• The strategy identifies at-risk populations (e.g., vulnerable communities) and makes messages targeted, easy to understand, and accessible (e.g., in multiple languages or formats).

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Amends Part P of Title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g et seq.) by adding two new sections (399V-8 for the after-action program and 399V-9 for risk communication).
• Integrates and expands on existing agency-level after-action reviews, creating a unified, department-wide approach rather than siloed efforts.
• Introduces mandatory stakeholder input, Inspector General oversight, and standardized report elements, which were not previously required at this scale.
• No changes to emergency declaration powers but adds post-response accountability mechanisms.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Improves coordination within HHS and with federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial partners, potentially reducing inefficiencies in future emergencies. Inspector General evaluations could lead to more transparent and effective operations, with funding supporting initial implementation.
• On Citizens: Enhances public health outcomes by addressing past issues (e.g., supply shortages or communication gaps), prioritizing at-risk groups for better information and equitable recovery. Could build public confidence through clearer messaging and faster problem-solving.
• On International Relations: Indirect benefits, as stronger U.S. public health responses could improve global collaboration on pandemics (e.g., via WHO partnerships), though the bill focuses domestically.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• HHS and Sub-Agencies: Primary implementers, including CDC, facing new duties for program development and reporting.
• Other Government Entities: Federal agencies (e.g., FEMA for emergencies), state/local health departments, Indian Tribes, U.S. territories, and municipalities, involved in coordination and input.
• Nongovernmental Partners: NGOs, healthcare facilities, and coalitions providing feedback and participating in responses.
• Citizens and Communities: Especially at-risk populations (e.g., elderly, low-income, or minority groups) benefiting from targeted communications and improved emergency care.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: Strengthens accountability under the Public Health Service Act without altering core emergency powers; emphasizes compliance with disclosure laws (e.g., privacy rules like HIPAA) for information sharing. Inspector General oversight adds independent review, potentially enabling congressional scrutiny.
• Constitutional: Aligns with federal authority over public health (interstate commerce clause), promoting equity in recovery without raising separation-of-powers issues.
• Political: Responds to lessons from recent crises (e.g., COVID-19), fostering bipartisanship on preparedness. Could influence budget debates due to authorizations, highlighting priorities for resilience and equity in public health policy.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]

Cosponsors (5)

Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Evans, Dwight [D-PA-3], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42]

Recent Actions

• 2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
• 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
• 2025-03-06: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Coordinated Agency Response Enhancement Act — issued 2025-03-06 — PDF (9 pages)