HR-10246-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Nanette Barragán (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would create a new grant program under the Public Health Service Act allowing HHS to award capital grants to community health centers and mental health crisis facilities for construction, renovation, and expansion projects. It would authorize $1 billion, available until spent, to fund facilities such as crisis stabilization centers, mobile crisis teams, and mental health urgent care clinics.
Who benefits
Community health centers and crisis facilities seeking construction funding, patients experiencing mental health or substance use crises who would gain access to new or improved facilities, Tribes and Tribal organizations operating health centers, law enforcement and emergency medical personnel who refer individuals in crisis, and local mental health and substance use care providers with facility partnerships.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers bear the $1 billion cost. Facilities or regions not designated as eligible entities under the bill's definitions would not receive funding, potentially leaving gaps in areas without qualifying crisis infrastructure. Other health programs competing for the same discretionary appropriations pool may see relatively reduced funding priority.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the country faces a severe shortage of crisis mental health infrastructure, forcing many people in crisis into emergency rooms or jails rather than specialized care, and that capital investment in facilities is a necessary complement to the existing 988 crisis hotline. They contend that dedicated construction funding addresses a specific, well-documented bottleneck that ongoing service grants alone cannot fix, since facilities cannot expand capacity without physical space.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a $1 billion authorization for capital projects adds to federal spending without a clear mechanism ensuring funds reach the areas of greatest need, and that construction grants may favor entities with existing grant-writing capacity over underserved communities. They contend that federal dollars might be better directed toward operating costs and workforce shortages, which many providers cite as a bigger barrier than facility space.