A Democratic bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 11 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Coordinating Access, Research, and Education for Blood Cancer Act of 2026, or the CARE for Blood Cancer Act of 2026. It requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish the National Blood Cancer Program. The program aims to spread public information, improve health professional training, and support individuals diagnosed with blood cancer and their caregivers. To achieve these goals, the Secretary will coordinate federal agencies and award grants to improve public awareness, education, diagnostics, and treatments. The bill also requires the Secretary to submit annual reports to Congress regarding the outcomes of the program.
Yes· 3 of 13
- Scored +7
Does this put more money into medical research?
The legislation provides grants to research best practices, screening methods, and novel treatments for blood cancer.
- Scored +6
Does this make health care easier to get in general?
The bill establishes the National Blood Cancer Program and awards grants to improve public awareness, early detection, and access to diagnostics and treatments for blood cancer.
- Scored +6
Does this put more money into scientific research?
The bill authorizes grants for institutions of higher education and academic medical centers to research screening methods and novel treatment options for blood cancer.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2 and Section 3 establish programs and grants to improve public awareness, education, and reduce disparities in blood cancer incidence, diagnostic delays, and access to treatment, which can help everyday people learn the warning signs and get diagnosed earlier.
-
Section 2 and Section 4 provide support for individuals diagnosed with blood cancer and their caregivers, and award grants to improve the availability of and access to new screening methods, diagnostics, and novel treatment methods.
-
Section 3 prioritizes grants for communities with a high risk of blood cancers or areas with a substantial rate of mortality or incidence, ensuring that the hardest-hit populations receive focused help.
-
Section 5 requires annual reports to Congress detailing the grants awarded, the number of individuals served, and an assessment of barriers to accessing resources, which holds officials accountable for how the program is working.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- The provided text does not contain any specific provisions outlining negative consequences, burdens, or penalties for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Older adults experience higher rates of blood cancers and will benefit from improved diagnostic and treatment access supported by the program.Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill targets high-risk communities and aims to reduce health disparities in blood cancer outcomes among vulnerable populations.Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill includes Tribal health agencies and requires reporting on individuals served disaggregated by rural, suburban, and urban areas to track and address access barriers.Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The focus on reducing disparities in blood cancer outcomes and targeting high-risk areas benefits minority populations disproportionately affected by certain blood cancers.Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Targeted grants and awareness programs aimed at reducing diagnostic delays will help underserved Hispanic communities.Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Tribal health agencies are explicitly eligible for grant funding under the program to improve awareness and education.Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Veterans who may face environmental risk factors for blood cancer can benefit from expanded awareness, screening, and treatment initiatives.
- Healthcare
- Does this put more money into medical research? — The legislation provides grants to research best practices, screening methods, and novel treatments for blood cancer.Does this make health care easier to get in general? — The bill establishes the National Blood Cancer Program and awards grants to improve public awareness, early detection, and access to diagnostics and treatments for blood cancer.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill prioritizes reducing disparities in blood cancer incidence, diagnostic delays, and access to treatment in populations with higher-than-average rates.Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — By prioritizing grants for high-risk communities and areas with substantial rates of mortality, the bill directs health resources to underserved populations.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The bill authorizes grants for institutions of higher education and academic medical centers to research screening methods and novel treatment options for blood cancer.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The legislation mandates annual reports to Congress detailing grants awarded, individuals served, and demographic assessments of the program's outcomes.
- 10/22/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 11 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Jim CostaDemocrat · California
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
John GaramendiDemocrat · California
Henry JohnsonDemocrat · Georgia
Jonathan JacksonDemocrat · Illinois
Doris MatsuiDemocrat · California
LaMonica McIverDemocrat · New Jersey
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Pete SessionsRepublican · Texas
Lateefah SimonDemocrat · California
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan