HR-8794-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Julie Johnson (D-TX)
What it does
This bill would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct an interagency review of federal programs related to bleeding disorders in women and girls, covering the state of the science, provider training, access to treatment, and inclusion in clinical research. Within two years, HHS would submit a public report with findings and recommendations to Congress. The bill would also authorize $10 million per year from 2027 through 2031 for a national, evidence-based public education and awareness campaign targeting both patients and healthcare providers.
Who benefits
Women and girls with undiagnosed or undertreated bleeding disorders, particularly those with von Willebrand disease, hemophilia carrier status, or rare factor deficiencies — estimated at up to 1% of U.S. women. Pregnant women with bleeding disorders who face higher risks of adverse outcomes. Women in rural and underserved areas who face access barriers to specialized care. Hemophilia treatment centers that may see increased patient referrals. Healthcare providers (OB-GYNs, pediatricians, school nurses, hematologists) who would receive updated training and resources. Military medical researchers studying trauma-related bleeding. Grant recipients and public/private entities that would compete for awareness campaign contracts.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who would fund the $50 million authorization over five years. Competing federal health research priorities that may receive relatively less attention or funding. Entities not selected in the competitive grant process for the awareness campaign. There are no direct regulatory burdens imposed on any private party under this bill.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that women with bleeding disorders face diagnostic delays of 16 years or more, and that up to 1% of U.S. women — millions of people — may have an undiagnosed condition. They contend that the annual economic cost of heavy menstrual bleeding alone reaches $13 billion, and that mortality and hospitalization rates are 40% lower for patients treated at specialized hemophilia treatment centers, demonstrating that earlier diagnosis and access to care produces measurable health improvements. They further argue the bill addresses a documented gap in clinical research inclusion and could reduce unnecessary hysterectomies by improving treatment options.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill authorizes $50 million for a study and awareness campaign without guaranteeing any direct patient care, treatment access, or insurance coverage improvements — meaning the underlying barriers to diagnosis and treatment may persist regardless of the campaign's reach. They contend that existing agencies such as NIH, CDC, and HRSA already have mandates and funding to address rare disease research and health disparities, and that this bill duplicates bureaucratic infrastructure rather than directing resources to proven interventions. They may also question whether a five-year, $10 million-per-year campaign is sufficient in scale to produce measurable population-level outcomes.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to appropriate funds for public health research and education under the Taxing and Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) and to regulate related federal agency activity under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18). This bill does not compel states or private parties to act, so the Spending Clause coercion concerns raised in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) are not implicated. No clear constitutional tension exists.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (HHS) gains new administrative responsibilities and grant-awarding authority; Congress retains oversight through mandatory reporting requirements to four committees and the authorization — rather than direct appropriation — of funds, meaning Congress must separately appropriate money before the campaign can proceed.
Historical precedent
The Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act (1998) and the Traumatic Brain Injury Act (1996) established similar federal models of interagency review, public reporting, and awareness campaign grants for underserved disease populations.