The MORE Act makes a targeted change to the health profession opportunity grants program under Section 2008 of the Social Security Act by adding a partnership-based preference. It designates three categories of business and community partners whose involvement should be reflected in grant applications to receive favorable review.
The amendments also nudge the grant review process by redesignating certain subsections to accommodate the new language and set an effective date of October 1, 2025. The bill does not create new funding by itself; it alters how applications are evaluated and which partnerships count toward meeting the program’s objectives.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a new subsection that requires the Secretary to give preference to grant applications with partners in three defined categories. It also reshuffles existing subsection lettering to insert the new provision.
Who It Affects
Applicants for health profession opportunity grants under SSA Section 2008 and the partner organizations that would qualify (government/social service providers, higher education/workforce boards, and health care employers/labor groups).
Why It Matters
Establishes a cross-sector approach to health workforce funding, potentially expanding training pipelines and aligning grants with public and private partners who can execute programs more effectively.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill amends the health profession opportunity grants program by inserting a new preference for grant applications that show active partnerships in three categories. First, state and local government agencies and social service providers, including entities that administer state programs funded under part A of the Social Security Act.
Second, institutions of higher education, apprenticeship programs, and local workforce development boards created under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Third, health care employers, health care industry partnerships, labor unions, and labor-management partnerships.
In practical terms, applicants that demonstrate these partnerships can expect a more favorable review when grants are awarded under Section 2008. The changes require redesignating some subsections to accommodate the new preference and set an effective date of October 1, 2025.
The bill does not alter overall funding levels; it changes the criteria used to select grant recipients and the structure of the SSA’s grant review process.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new partner-based preference in the health profession opportunity grants.
It requires partnerships in three specific categories to qualify for preference.
Subsections (c) and (d) are redesignated to accommodate the new provision.
The effective date for the amendments is October 1, 2025.
The bill changes how grant applications are evaluated, not the total funding amount.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title and purpose
This section provides the short title, the Making Opportunities Reachable for Everyone Act (MORE Act), and reiterates the bill’s purpose to modify grant evaluation for health workforce opportunities through preferred partnerships.
Preference for grant applicants with certain partners
This is the substantive change. A new subsection (c) is inserted into Section 2008 of the Social Security Act, and subsections (c) and (d) are redesignated as (d) and (e). The Secretary must give preference to grant applications that have business and community partners in three categories: (1) state and local government agencies and social service providers (including state entities administering a state program funded under part A); (2) institutions of higher education, apprenticeship programs, and local workforce development boards under WIOA Section 107; and (3) health care employers, health care industry partnerships, labor unions, and labor-management partnerships. This creates a multi-sector collaboration requirement that ties grant awards to demonstrated partnerships.
Effective date
The amendments take effect on October 1, 2025. The date governs when the new preference mechanism becomes active in evaluating relevant grant applications under Section 2008.
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 government health departments partnering with social service providers to deliver programs and leverage funding
- Universities and apprenticeship programs forming pipelines with local workforce boards, benefitting students and employers
- Hospitals and health systems joining with health care unions or labor-management partnerships to train and hire health workers
- Local workforce development boards coordinating with employers to design workforce pipelines
- Health care employers and industry groups that can demonstrate active partnerships to qualify for grant preference
Who Bears the Cost
- Grant applicants that lack established partnerships may be at a competitive disadvantage
- Small or rural organizations with limited networks may face barriers to meeting partnership requirements
- Grant administration and compliance workload increases for agencies verifying partnerships and maintaining records
- States and local governments may need to coordinate across multiple programs to demonstrate meaningful partnerships
- Potential for strategic focusing on partner-rich applicants could marginalize independent providers without pre-existing networks
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between encouraging practical, cross-sector collaboration and ensuring the preference does not inadvertently privilege well-connected organizations over smaller, community-based groups that may lack formal partnerships but still deliver effective health workforce outcomes.
The bill’s emphasis on cross-sector partnerships raises several policy questions. Definitions of what constitutes a meaningful partnership, and how active or sustained partnerships must be, are not specified in the text.
That ambiguity could complicate review processes and create disputes over whether an applicant’s partnerships meet the standard. The act also does not adjust funding levels or allocate any new money; it shifts competitiveness by embedding partnership credentials into scoring, which could reshape who receives grants even if overall budgets stay the same.
Finally, there is limited guidance on how partnerships are evaluated across diverse health workforce needs, or how outcome measurement would interact with the new preference.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.