The Kira Johnson Act is a focused federal package designed to reduce preventable maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity and to narrow racial and ethnic disparities in maternal outcomes. It directs the Department of Health and Human Services to stand up several interconnected initiatives—sustained grants to community-based organizations, federal-supported training for all staff in maternity settings, hospital-level compliance programs, and independent studies and oversight.
For professionals: the bill creates new funding streams and reporting obligations, embeds equity and cultural‑congruence as programmatic priorities, and builds multiple review mechanisms (agency evaluation, an independent National Academies study, and recurring GAO reporting) that will drive how grant programs and hospital practices are designed and assessed going forward.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes HHS to establish a grant program for community-based organizations focused on populations with elevated maternal risk, fund respectful maternity care training for all employees in maternity settings, and award grants to hospitals to create respectful maternity care compliance programs. It also directs HHS to contract with the National Academies for a study on anti-bias programs and requires GAO reporting on the spread and effects of hospital compliance programs.
Who It Affects
Community-based maternal health groups, perinatal health workers (doulas, community health workers, midwives), hospitals and health systems, state public health agencies, and training providers that offer continuing education for maternity professionals.
Why It Matters
This package both channels dedicated federal dollars into community-led and workforce interventions and builds federal oversight tools to measure whether those investments change outcomes for populations with the worst maternal health statistics — shifting federal strategy from isolated pilots to coordinated grants, training, hospital accountability, and evaluation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 2 establishes a multi-year HHS grant program specifically for community-based organizations that deliver evidence-aligned programs to populations with elevated maternal mortality or morbidity. Before grants begin, the Secretary must spend one year conducting outreach and providing technical assistance to diversify applicants; HHS must prioritize groups rooted in affected communities and programs that address social determinants, perinatal workforce supports, midwifery capacity, mutual aid for infant feeding, and culturally and linguistically congruent services.
Section 3 creates a separate grant stream to fund programs that train every employee who interacts with pregnant and postpartum people — from front‑desk staff to clinicians and EMTs — in implicit bias, cultural humility, trauma‑informed care, and shared decision-making. The statute emphasizes periodic, continuing-education–style training (with preference for CEU-bearing programs), integration into clinical simulations, and delivery pathways that reach undergraduate pipelines and WIC-related providers.Sections 4 and 5 build accountability and evidence generation.
HHS is directed to contract with the National Academies to study which anti-bias program designs and training frequencies actually improve patient outcomes, with a report due within two years. Separately, HHS shall award grants to accredited hospitals to set up respectful maternity care compliance programs that institutionalize reporting channels for patient complaints about racism or bias, require hospitals to follow up and publish a system-wide bias-reduction strategy, collect patient-reported experience data, and file annual deidentified case reports to HHS.
The bill requires HHS to promulgate best-practice processes and, via a contracted independent research organization, study implementation success and potential accountability mechanisms.Section 6 requires the GAO to produce an initial report not later than two years after enactment and then annually, cataloging which hospitals adopt compliance programs, geographic and facility-type gaps, early impacts on outcomes and experience where available, and recommendations for expanding adoption. Section 7 defines key terms (for example, maternal mortality and perinatal health worker) and broadens maternal mortality surveillance to include deaths within one year of pregnancy, including deaths from suicide or overdose when related to pregnancy complications.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes $100 million per year for fiscal years 2027–2031 for grants to community‑based organizations focused on maternal health equity.
HHS must run a 1‑year outreach and technical assistance period after enactment before awarding the community grant funds to expand and diversify applicants.
Respectful maternity care training grants are authorized at $5 million per year for fiscal years 2027–2031, prioritizing periodic CEU-capable programs that reach all staff who interact with pregnant and postpartum patients.
The Secretary must seek a contract with the National Academies within 90 days to study anti-bias program design, with the Academies’ report due within 24 months of enactment.
Hospitals receiving compliance grants must publish a bias‑reduction strategy, collect and publicly report patient‑experience metrics, and submit annual deidentified case reports to HHS; GAO must report to Congress starting 2 years after enactment and annually thereafter.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the measure as the 'Kira Johnson Act.' This is administrative but signals the bill’s focus on maternal mortality and memorializes the legislative intent to target preventable maternal deaths.
Sustained grants to community-based organizations
Mandates HHS to award grants to community organizations that implement evidence-aligned interventions for populations with elevated maternal risk. The Secretary must spend a preparatory year on outreach and technical assistance to expand and diversify the applicant pool, give special consideration to organizations led by members of affected communities, and prioritize programs addressing mental health, substance use, social determinants, perinatal worker supports, midwifery capacity-building, group prenatal/postpartum care, and mutual aid for infant feeding. HHS must also provide capacity-building TA and evaluate the program, submitting an effectiveness evaluation to Congress by the end of fiscal year 2031.
Respectful maternity care training grants
Adds a new public health service section requiring grants for programs that prevent bias, racism, and discrimination in maternity settings and promote trauma-informed, culturally and linguistically congruent care. Grant awards should favor programs that train every employee who interfaces with pregnant/postpartum patients, use periodic (not one-time) formats, integrate with continuing education, and include emergency and EMT training on pregnancy complications. Recipients must report annually on activities and impacts, enabling HHS to develop and publish best-practice findings.
National Academies study on anti-bias program design
Directs HHS to seek an agreement with the National Academies to study how to design and implement programs that reduce bias and racism in maternity care and to recommend evaluation standards (e.g., a scorecard). The Academies are to complete the study and send a report to Congress within 24 months, providing an independent evidence base for what training types and frequencies improve outcomes and experience for racial and ethnic minority patients.
Respectful maternity care compliance programs in hospitals
Authorizes grants to accredited hospitals and birth settings to integrate respectful maternity care compliance programs into quality-improvement structures. Funded programs must create reporting mechanisms for patients and perinatal workers, follow-up processes, publicly available bias-reduction strategies, routine hospital-level patient experience data collection, and annual deidentified case reporting to HHS. The Secretary must issue processes within 180 days for dissemination of best practices, promote interfacility coordination, and commission an independent study within two years to identify accountability mechanisms and effective implementation strategies.
GAO reporting
Requires the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress beginning two years after enactment and annually thereafter about adoption of respectful maternity care compliance programs, geographic and facility-type gaps, observed impacts on outcomes and patient experience, and whether appropriated funds are adequate—creating a sustained oversight channel independent of HHS.
Definitions and measurement scope
Defines key terms used throughout the Act, notably expanding maternal mortality and pregnancy‑related definitions to include deaths within one year of pregnancy and explicitly including suicide and overdose when attributable to pregnancy-related complications; it also defines perinatal health workers and cultural and linguistic congruence, setting the conceptual parameters for funding and reporting.
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
- Community-based organizations that serve high-risk populations — they gain multi-year federal grant funding, technical assistance, and priority consideration if they are community‑led or align with evidence-based practices.
- Perinatal health workers and midwives — the bill funds training, supports midwifery education and practice expansion, and channels resources to nonclinical workforce roles (doulas, CHWs, lactation counselors), strengthening their integration into care pathways.
- Pregnant and postpartum individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups — the statute targets interventions (culturally and linguistically congruent care, anti-bias training, mutual aid for infant feeding) intended to improve experience and clinical outcomes for populations with the worst maternal health metrics.
- Researchers and institutions (including HBCUs/MSIs) — the National Academies study, independent contracts, and required evaluation reporting create research opportunities and avenues to shape best practices.
- Payers and public health systems — over time they may benefit from reduced severe morbidity and mortality through prevention-focused community interventions and improved care coordination.
Who Bears the Cost
- The federal government (HHS) and taxpayers — the bill authorizes recurring appropriations (notably $100M/year for community grants and $5M/year for training for specified fiscal years), increasing discretionary spending obligations.
- Hospitals and health systems — even with grant funding, facilities will face administrative and operational costs to implement compliance programs, collect and publicly report patient experience data, and follow up on reported cases.
- Small community groups with limited capacity — while eligible for priority, they may need to invest in grant-writing, reporting systems, and program scaling (though the bill provides TA, capacity building can lag behind immediate administrative burdens).
- State health departments and data systems — increased reporting, data standardization, and coordination needs will require resources and technical integration with federal reporting expectations.
- Training providers and education programs — they may need to develop CEU-aligned curricula, simulation integrations, and scalable multilingual training materials to meet grant preferences, which entails upfront development costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between preserving community-led, culturally specific flexibility that drives trust and equitable outcomes, and imposing standardized, accountable federal metrics and compliance structures necessary to evaluate and scale what works; the bill seeks both, but delivering meaningful, durable results requires reconciling these fundamentally different implementation logics.
The bill stacks complementary interventions—community grants, workforce training, hospital compliance programs, and independent study—but those components pull in different directions when it comes to measurement and implementation. Community-based programs typically value local flexibility and qualitative impact, while HHS-driven reporting and GAO oversight require standardized data and measurable outcomes.
Translating community‑level improvements (e.g., stronger mutual aid networks or culturally tailored prenatal groups) into federal performance metrics will be technically difficult and risks privileging grantees that can more readily produce quantitative results over those that deliver deep but harder-to-measure community change.
The compliance program requirements create a formal mechanism for patients to report bias and for hospitals to respond, but the bill stops short of defining enforcement or remedial consequences. That ambiguity raises questions about how reports will intersect with clinical discipline, malpractice exposure, licensing board processes, and patient confidentiality rules.
Collecting and publicly reporting patient-reported experience data and deidentified case details is valuable for transparency, but it creates operational burdens and privacy trade-offs; hospitals must balance open disclosure with HIPAA and state privacy laws. Finally, the funding authorizations are time-limited (through FY2031 or FY2032 for some provisions), leaving unresolved whether successful programs will receive sustained support or be vulnerable to interruptions once initial appropriations lapse.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.