Kira Johnson Act

Summary#

The Kira Johnson Act would create new grant and study requirements and amend the Public Health Service Act to add grants for respectful maternity-care training. Its stated goal is to reduce preventable maternal deaths and serious pregnancy-related health conditions, and to narrow disparities in maternal health outcomes. It has been introduced and referred to committee; it is not law.

  • The Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary would have to award grants to eligible community organizations for programs to advance maternal health equity, after a one-year period of outreach and application help.
  • HHS would also award grants for training programs aimed at reducing bias, racism, and discrimination in maternity-care settings. Grant applicants that cover specified training features, such as periodic training for all staff who interact with patients, would receive special consideration.
  • HHS would award grants to accredited hospitals, health systems, and other maternity-care settings to establish complaint and response programs. Those programs would have to collect and report information, publish a strategy to reduce bias, and report cases to HHS.
  • HHS would have to seek a study agreement with the National Academies and arrange a separate study of compliance-program reports. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) would report on whether these programs are being established.
  • The bill authorizes specific amounts for two grant programs and “such sums as may be necessary” for compliance-program grants. These are authorizations for Congress to provide funding, not appropriations themselves.

What it means for you#

  • People receiving maternity care and their families: The bill would not give individuals a new right to a particular service or require every hospital to create a complaint program. At settings receiving compliance-program grants, patients, family members, and perinatal health workers would have ways to report alleged bias or racism, and the program would have to follow up with the patient when possible.
  • Community organizations: Eligible organizations could seek grants for evidence-based programs serving groups with elevated rates of poor maternal health outcomes. HHS would have to give special consideration to certain organizations and programs, including those based in affected communities or led by people from affected groups.
  • Hospitals, health systems, and other maternity-care settings: Accredited settings could seek grants to establish compliance programs. A funded program would have to meet the bill’s reporting, response, and public-information requirements. The bill does not require every setting to apply or establish one.
  • Maternity-care providers and other employees: They would not all be required by this bill to take training. HHS grants would fund training programs, and applications covering broad, periodic training would receive special consideration.
  • Taxpayers: The bill could lead to federal spending if Congress provides the authorized funding.

Money#

The bill authorizes grant funding, but the available material gives no estimate of actual spending.

  • It authorizes $100 million per year for fiscal years 2027–2031 for community-organization grants, and $5 million per year for fiscal years 2027–2031 for training grants.
  • It authorizes whatever amounts may be necessary for compliance-program grants for fiscal years 2027–2032.
  • The bill gives no specific cost for the required studies, outreach, technical assistance, reporting, or administration.

What is unclear#

  • Congress would still need to provide funding; the bill does not say how much will actually be appropriated or how many grants would be awarded.
  • The bill does not set grant amounts, grant periods, detailed application rules, or how HHS would measure whether a program is effective.
  • “Another protected class” appears in the compliance-program rules but is not defined in the bill.
  • The bill does not specify how reported case information would be protected beyond requiring deidentified demographic information in the annual reports to HHS.
  • The supplied material does not include the existing Public Health Service Act, so it is not possible to verify how the new grant section would interact with current grant authorities or programs.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that community organizations may be well placed to design services around local needs; the grants would direct special consideration to organizations rooted in affected communities.
  • Training grants could support approaches that reach beyond clinicians to other staff who interact with patients, and that use periodic rather than one-time training.
  • Funded compliance programs would give patients and families a way to report concerns and require hospitals to track cases, publish strategies, and report information to HHS.
  • The studies and reports could help identify which approaches work and where programs are not being established.

Case against#

  • Grant programs do not require every hospital or provider to adopt the practices described in the bill, so coverage would depend on applications, awards, and available funding.
  • The bill leaves important choices to HHS, including grant rules and the information applicants must provide; it does not set detailed standards for training or complaint handling.
  • The bill requires reporting and studies but does not itself create penalties or other enforcement measures for bias or discrimination in maternity care.
  • The bill authorizes substantial potential spending but does not provide cost estimates or guarantee that Congress will fund the programs.