The bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services, through the National Institutes of Health, to expand, coordinate, and fund research on uterine fibroids and related diagnostic and treatment strategies. It authorizes targeted appropriations for research, directs the creation or expansion of a Medicaid and CHIP research database to capture fibroid treatment utilization and costs, and mandates a report to Congress on federal and state expenditures.
Beyond research and data, the Act instructs HHS to run a public education program and to work with medical specialty societies and health systems to disseminate evidence‑based guidance to clinicians, explicitly highlighting elevated risks for minority populations and non‑hysterectomy treatment options. The measure is designed to fill major knowledge gaps about prevalence, outcomes, and disparities, while leaving coverage rules and clinical decisionmaking authority with existing agencies and payers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs HHS/NIH to expand and coordinate uterine fibroid research and authorizes $30 million per year from FY2026–2030 for that purpose. It requires HHS to build or expand a Medicaid/CHIP research database tracking fibroid treatments and to deliver a report to Congress on federal and state expenditures within two years of enactment. It also funds public education and mandates provider outreach and dissemination of evidence‑based options.
Who It Affects
This Act primarily affects NIH and HHS program offices, state Medicaid and CHIP programs that will contribute treatment data, health systems and specialty societies asked to implement guidance, and patients—especially those in minority communities with higher fibroid burden. Medical device and pharmaceutical developers will be indirectly affected by changes in research priorities and evidence generation.
Why It Matters
The bill injects dedicated federal research funding and builds a claims‑level evidence base for Medicaid/CHIP services—two gaps identified as limiting better treatments and policy. For policymakers and compliance officers, it creates new reporting expectations for states and expands the federal footprint on how clinicians receive and disseminate fibroid care information.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act has three operational tracks: research funding, administrative data development, and education/communication. First, it tells HHS to expand, intensify, and coordinate uterine fibroid research across NIH institutes and other relevant agencies.
Congress sets aside a fixed appropriations level for those activities—framing fibroid research as a discrete federal priority—and expects NIH leadership to decide which institutes and programs will participate.
Second, the bill targets the administrative data used to assess care for low‑income populations. It requires HHS (or its designee) to create or expand a research database that captures services provided to Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries with fibroids.
That database is explicitly for measuring how often treatments are furnished and for preparing a two‑year report to Congress on federal and state spending tied to those services. The intention is to create a clearer picture of utilization and expenditures within safety‑net programs.Third, the Act authorizes an HHS public education program and directs outreach to clinicians.
The public program must cover prevalence and awareness, elevated risk among racial and ethnic minority groups, and the range of treatment options—emphasizing fertility‑preserving and non‑hysterectomy approaches. For clinicians, HHS must work with specialty societies and health systems, aligning with existing society guidelines, to promote evidence‑based care; the text explicitly includes FDA‑approved drugs and devices as part of the options to be highlighted.The law also codifies an inclusive definition of "minority individuals" by reference to the Public Health Service Act.
Mechanically, much of the Act relies on coordination—between NIH institutes, with other federal agencies, and with non‑federal partners such as nonprofit groups, academic centers, and state programs—to implement research priorities, populate the Medicaid/CHIP database, and spread education materials. It does not alter Medicaid coverage rules, change reimbursement, or create new entitlement rights; its levers are funding, data, and information dissemination.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes $30,000,000 per year for NIH‑led uterine fibroid research for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 (Section 3).
HHS must establish or expand a research database to collect Medicaid and CHIP claims‑level data on services furnished for uterine fibroid treatment (Section 4(a)).
Within two years of enactment, the Secretary must report to Congress on federal and State expenditures for fibroid treatments furnished under Medicaid and CHIP (Section 4(b)).
The public education program must specifically address elevated fibroid risk among minority individuals and describe non‑hysterectomy treatment options, with dissemination permitted through nonprofits, academia, and public‑private partnerships (Section 5).
HHS must work with medical specialty societies and health systems to promote evidence‑based care that includes FDA‑approved non‑hysterectomy drugs and devices; the Act defines "minority individuals" by referencing section 1707(g) of the Public Health Service Act (Sections 6 and 7).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Congressional findings on prevalence, cost, and evidence gaps
This section compiles the bill's factual predicate: high prevalence estimates, substantial direct and productivity costs, disparities in incidence and severity (particularly for Black women), delayed diagnosis, and low NIH funding relative to disease burden. The findings frame subsequent provisions as responses to these evidence and equity gaps and will be used to justify the research and education priorities that follow.
NIH expansion and coordination of fibroid research with dedicated appropriations
The Secretary must expand and coordinate fibroid research across appropriate NIH institutes and other federal agencies, with the Director of NIH deciding which components participate. Congress authorizes $30 million annually for FY2026–2030 to carry out this mandate. Practically, NIH will need to set priorities (basic biology, biomarkers, fertility‑sparring treatments, comparative effectiveness) and establish grant mechanisms or intramural programs to deploy the funds.
Medicaid/CHIP research database and expenditure reporting
HHS must create or enlarge a database to capture services provided to Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries diagnosed with uterine fibroids. The statute is outcome‑oriented—data collection for frequency and utilization—rather than prescriptive about data standards, leaving operational choices to HHS. The Secretary must submit a coordinated report within two years detailing federal and state spending on fibroid services, which will hinge on states' ability to provide standardized claims or encounter data and on how race/ethnicity and clinical indicators are captured.
Public education program and dissemination authorities
HHS must develop public materials covering awareness, incidence — including a focus on minority populations — and the range of treatments, emphasizing fertility‑preserving options. The agency can disseminate directly or partner with intra‑agency initiatives, nonprofits, consumer groups, institutions of higher education, or public‑private partnerships. The statute authorizes 'such sums as necessary' for FY2026–2030, so funding levels for outreach will be determined through future appropriations.
Guidance and outreach to health care providers
HHS must work with relevant medical societies and health systems, following society guidelines, to promote evidence‑based care that includes non‑hysterectomy drugs and devices approved under the FD&C Act. The provision is implementation‑focused: it asks for clinical dissemination and alignment with existing specialty guidance rather than imposing new clinical standards, placing practical emphasis on medical societies' role in adoption.
Definition of minority individuals
The Act adopts the definition of 'minority individuals' from section 1707(g) of the Public Health Service Act (a statutory racial and ethnic minority definition). That choice standardizes the populations targeted by research, education, and provider outreach but also ties implementation to how race and ethnicity are operationalized in federal programs.
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
- Black and other racial/ethnic minority women with fibroids — the bill directs targeted outreach and research into populations identified as having higher incidence and worse outcomes, which can improve diagnosis, awareness, and eventually treatment options.
- Researchers and academic medical centers — receives a dedicated, multi‑year funding stream and a federal mandate for coordinated research priorities that can support basic science, clinical trials, and comparative effectiveness studies.
- Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries — the database and subsequent reporting aim to surface utilization patterns and spending that can inform programmatic improvements and targeted interventions for low‑income patients.
- Medical specialty societies and health systems — gain federal support and an institutional role in shaping and disseminating evidence‑based clinical approaches, strengthening guideline adoption.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal government (HHS/NIH appropriations) — Congress authorizes $30 million per year for research plus unspecified sums for education and provider outreach; taxpayers ultimately fund those appropriations.
- State Medicaid and CHIP agencies — states will need to supply claims/encounter data or otherwise cooperate to populate the research database, which could require systems work and staff time.
- Health systems and clinicians — expected to participate in dissemination and to incorporate evidence‑based guidance; adopting new protocols or training staff may impose operational and financial burdens.
- NIH and agency program managers — must coordinate cross‑institute research programs and oversee grant competitions and interagency coordination, increasing administrative workload without new agency authorities for enforcement.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between generating better evidence and awareness about a common, costly, and racially disparate condition, and the absence of direct policy levers in the bill to ensure the care that evidence supports is affordable and accessible—especially for Medicaid populations that already face access barriers; knowledge alone may not change outcomes without parallel coverage and delivery reforms.
The Act is deliberately narrow in its policy levers: it funds research, creates data infrastructure, and pushes information to the public and clinicians, but it does not change Medicaid coverage rules, reimbursement, or create new mandates for states to expand benefits. That creates a gap between knowledge generation and patients' real‑world access to new, potentially fertility‑preserving treatments.
If research identifies effective but costly therapies, Congress would need a separate policy or appropriations response to ensure equitable access.
Operationally, the database requirement raises data quality and interoperability questions. Medicaid and CHIP administrative records vary by state in how they record race/ethnicity, diagnosis codes, and procedure specificity; claims data may miss clinically important details such as symptom severity, fibroid size/location, fertility desires, or over‑the‑counter medication use.
Privacy rules, data standardization, and the technical burden on state agencies could slow timely, comparable analysis. Finally, the bill gives NIH discretion over prioritization but does not specify outcome metrics, evaluation timelines, or how HHS should coordinate evidence generation with FDA review pathways for devices and drugs, leaving open how quickly research will translate into practice-changing approvals or coverage decisions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.