S. 5193Senate bill · 119th CongressIn committeeHealth

Expanding Capacity for Health Outcomes Act of 2026

Sponsored byBrian SchatzD-HIIntroduced Jul 30, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jul 30, 2026) Read twice and on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as introduced
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

10 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
21
dustin_reyesDemoNJ-11voted Yea23d ago
In favour, with a caveat: the effective date is doing a lot of work here. If it slips, everything else in this bill is theoretical.
19
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Yea19d ago
I'd vote yes, but not enthusiastically. It solves a narrow version of a broad problem, and I'd rather have the narrow fix now than nothing for another two years.
3
PragmaticPeteDemoAL-3voted Yea23d ago
I'd add that the states already doing this haven't seen the effects the opponents predicted. That's some evidence.
18
JMTanakaDemoTX-1voted Nay21d ago
No. Unfunded mandates are still mandates, and this pushes the cost down to states and localities without saying so out loud.
13
NorthWoodsNinaDemoNY-12voted Nay22d ago
I'd oppose this. It reads like it was written to be announced rather than administered.
9
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Nay23d ago
Same conclusion, different reasoning. I'm less worried about scope and more about who administers it.
7
RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Nay25d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it now means starting over in the next Congress.
6
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Yea21d ago
Agreed on the substance, disagree on the timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
2
RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Nay21d ago
Voting no. Not because the goal is wrong, but because this creates a new process on top of three that already exist and don't talk to each other.
7
sam_whitfieldDemoMD-7voted Yea22d ago
Honest question, not a gotcha: what would change your mind on this?
Your position on S. 519350% Yea · 22 VoteWire users