This bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop, publicly release, and update a national plan to accelerate the development, validation, authorization, manufacture, procurement, and distribution of diagnostic tests during a declared public health emergency. The plan is intended to speed testing capacity and coordinate public and private actors so tests can be developed and deployed more quickly in crises.
It also sets a timeline and governance framework to ensure ongoing readiness.
The Diagnostics Testing Preparedness Plan Act of 2025 would embed a forward-looking framework for test readiness, including domestic capacity building and collaboration with manufacturers, laboratories, distributors, and government partners. It would require periodic drills and updates to reflect new technologies and evolving threats.
The net effect is to formalize how the United States prepares for and responds to testing needs in emergencies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Secretary must develop, publicly release, and update a plan for rapid development, validation, authorization, manufacture, procurement, distribution, and scaling of diagnostic tests during a declared public health emergency.
Who It Affects
Public health laboratories (state, local, and tribal), diagnostic test manufacturers, clinical and reference laboratories, device distributors, and federal, state, local, and tribal health agencies will implement and rely on the plan.
Why It Matters
Provides a formal, publicly accessible blueprint to shorten the time from test conception to deployment in emergencies, with an emphasis on domestic capacity and cross-sector coordination.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill would amend the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary to develop a Diagnostic Testing Preparedness Plan. This plan would lay out the steps for rapid development, validation, authorization, manufacture, procurement, distribution, and scaling of diagnostic tests in health emergencies, and would specify how these steps should be coordinated across government and private partners.
It would emphasize domestic manufacturing capacity, new testing technologies, and the supply chain needs that support testing at scale.
The plan must address collaboration among device manufacturers, laboratories, distributors, and local, state, and tribal health authorities, and may involve contracts to expand domestic capacity for immediate response. It would be publicly released within one year of enactment and updated at least every three years.
The bill envisions drills and operational exercises to test readiness, ensuring that the plan remains current with evolving threats and technologies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary must develop, publicly release, and update the Diagnostic Testing Preparedness Plan.
The plan covers rapid development, validation, authorization, manufacture, procurement, distribution, and scaling of tests.
Considerations include domestic capacity, novel technologies, and medical supply needs.
The Secretary may contract with public or private entities to build domestic testing capacity.
Plan must be released within one year and updated at least every three years.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Section 1 designates the act as the Diagnostics Testing Preparedness Plan Act of 2025 and sets the formal naming used in references and cross-references.
Improving development and distribution of diagnostic tests
Section 2, as amended, directs the Secretary to establish a Diagnostic Testing Preparedness Plan under Section 319B of the Public Health Service Act. The plan must outline rapid development, validation, authorization, manufacture, procurement, distribution, and scaling of testing capacity during chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear threats or emerging infectious diseases for which a public health emergency is declared. It requires consideration of domestic capacity, novel technologies (including high-throughput diagnostics, point-of-care tests, and rapid at-home diagnostics), medical supply needs, and strategies for local, regional, or national distribution. The Secretary may contract with public and private entities to bolster domestic capacity and ensure immediate public health response when an emergency is declared.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State and local health departments gain a clear pathway to expand testing capacity and access to tests during emergencies.
- Diagnostic test manufacturers benefit from defined processes and coordination that streamline development and deployment.
- Clinical and reference laboratories gain clarity on validation and procurement pathways, reducing delays in testing.
- Tribal health departments and Tribal organizations receive targeted capacity-building and coordinated support.
- Federal, state, and local public health agencies gain improved readiness and cross-sector collaboration.
Who Bears the Cost
- Taxpayers may bear costs associated with capacity-building contracts and procurement commitments.
- HHS will incur administrative costs to develop and maintain the plan and to conduct updates.
- State and local health departments may need additional resources to implement plan-driven activities.
- Diagnostic test manufacturers may face compliance and integration costs to align with the plan’s processes.
- Public health distributors and supply chains may incur costs to align with new distribution strategies and drills.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing rapid expansion of diagnostic testing capacity with maintaining rigorous validation, quality control, and cost-effectiveness in a funded, multi-stakeholder environment.
The bill creates a mandated planning framework without explicit funding language, which raises questions about the resources available to implement it. Real-world execution will hinge on agency budgets and private sector participation.
The absence of funding authorization could slow progress if resources are insufficient to realize capacity-building and scale-up efforts.
A central tension is the speed of deployment versus safeguards for testing quality, regulatory oversight, and cost control. Expediting development and distribution could strain validation and manufacturing quality if not paired with adequate funding, oversight, and drills.
The plan’s effectiveness will also depend on sustained intergovernmental and cross-sector collaboration, and on ensuring that domestic capacity-building does not inadvertently raise costs or reduce access to international supply sources during non-emergency periods.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.