This bill directs the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use to award formula grants to States to address gambling addiction, and authorizes the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse to fund related research. It sets out a specific allocation method tied to existing substance-abuse block grant ratios and creates a reporting requirement to Congress.
Funding is authorized for fiscal years 2025 through 2034 and is expressed as percentages of federal wagering excise taxes (IRC §4401(a)(1)). The measure establishes procedural rules for reallocating funds if States do not apply and cross-references the Public Health Service Act definition of “State.”
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use to award formula grants to States to address gambling addiction, with allocations computed using the same State ratios as the substance-abuse block grant formula. Authorizes NIDA to award research grants and mandates a report to Congress on program effectiveness.
Who It Affects
State behavioral health agencies that administer federal block grants, public and private treatment providers that would receive subgrants, researchers seeking federal funding on gambling-related harms, and the Department of Health and Human Services agencies that administer and oversee the programs.
Why It Matters
This creates the first dedicated federal funding stream — tied to wagering excise tax receipts — aimed specifically at gambling addiction treatment and research, rather than folding those needs into broader substance-use funding. That alignment changes how States could prioritize program development and research investment.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates two parallel federal channels to address gambling addiction: a mandatory formula grant program administered by the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, and discretionary research grants administered by the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. For the grant program, the bill does not invent a new distribution key; instead, it borrows the State allocation ratios already used for the substance-abuse prevention and treatment block grant under subpart II of part B of title XIX of the Public Health Service Act.
Practically, that means each State’s share will mirror the proportions used for established substance-abuse block grants, not a prevalence-based gambling metric.
States must apply for the grants; if a State declines or fails to apply, the bill requires HHS to reallocate that State’s share proportionally among the applying States based on the same block-grant ratios. The term “State” is not redefined in the bill but is tied to the PHSA definition referenced in section 1954, so territories treated as States under that provision are included for allocation purposes.
The bill does not create new statutory eligibility criteria for subrecipients or prescribe how States must spend the funds beyond the high-level purpose of addressing gambling addiction.On research, the bill gives NIDA explicit authority to award grants to support gambling-addiction research; it uses permissive language (“may award”), leaving grant program design, priority areas, and peer-review procedures to NIDA’s existing authorities and processes. The bill also requires the Secretary of HHS to report to Congress on the effectiveness of both the grant program and the research activities not later than three years after enactment.
Finally, appropriations are authorized for FY2025–2034 and are expressed as fixed percentages of an annual Treasury estimate of taxes received under IRC §4401(a)(1): 37.5 percent for the SAMHSA-administered grants and 12.5 percent for NIDA research, with actual funding contingent on subsequent appropriation action by Congress.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use must award formula grants to States to address gambling addiction, using the same State allocation ratios as the substance-abuse prevention and treatment block grant under PHSA title XIX, part B, subpart II.
If a State does not apply for a grant in a fiscal year, HHS must reallocate that State’s share among applying States in proportion to their block-grant allocations.
The Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse is authorized (but not required) to award grants supporting research on gambling addiction.
The Secretary of HHS must submit a report to Congress on program and research effectiveness no later than three years after enactment.
The bill authorizes appropriations for FY2025–2034 equal to 37.5% (for grants) and 12.5% (for research) of the amount the Treasury estimates was received under IRC §4401(a)(1) in the preceding fiscal year.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act’s short title as the "Gambling Addiction Recovery, Investment, and Treatment Act." This provision is purely captioning and has no operative effect, but it signals the bill’s policy focus for agency regulatory and guidance drafting.
SAMHSA formula grants to States
Requires the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use to award grants to States to address gambling addiction and prescribes the allocation method: distribute funds among States in the same ratios used for the substance-abuse block grant under PHSA title XIX, part B, subpart II. The provision also directs HHS to reallocate shares from nonapplying States to applying States in proportion to those same ratios. The text references the PHSA definition of "State," so territories included under PHSA section 1954 are covered.
NIDA research grants
Authorizes the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse to award grants supporting research on gambling addiction. The authority is discretionary, leaving NIDA to design priorities, solicitations, and award criteria under its existing statutory authorities and peer-review practices; the bill does not specify research topics, required match, or distribution among basic, clinical, and implementation research.
Congressional report on effectiveness
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit a report to Congress within three years describing the effectiveness of programs and activities carried out under the SAMHSA grant program and NIDA research awards. The bill does not prescribe report metrics, methodology, or whether the report must include audited financials or outcomes, leaving those decisions to HHS.
Authorization of appropriations tied to wagering tax receipts
Authorizes funding for FY2025–2034 for both the grant and research programs, expressed as percentages of the Treasury’s estimate of taxes received under IRC §4401(a)(1) in the preceding fiscal year: 37.5% for the SAMHSA grants and 12.5% for NIDA research. These are authorization levels only; actual annual funding requires congressional appropriation and will fluctuate with taxable wagering receipts and Treasury estimates.
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
- Individuals with gambling addiction and their families — the bill creates a dedicated federal funding stream intended to expand treatment access, prevention services, and potentially crisis support at the State level.
- State behavioral health agencies — States that apply will receive formula grant dollars that can be used to create or scale programs, develop training, and fund provider networks focused on gambling-related harms.
- Researchers and academic centers — NIDA-authorized grants open a targeted funding line for gambling-addiction research that can support epidemiology, intervention trials, and implementation science.
- Treatment providers and community organizations — providers that successfully compete for subgrants or contracts from State agencies may see new revenue for specialized services, workforce development, and outreach.
- Public-health data systems — with federal attention and funds, States may invest in surveillance and outcome measurement for gambling addiction, improving evidence for future policy and program design.
Who Bears the Cost
- Congressional appropriations process and federal budget makers — although the bill ties authorizations to wagering-tax estimates, Congress must appropriate funds each year; budget trade-offs will arise if Treasury estimates are large.
- State administrative agencies — States that accept funds will bear administrative and programmatic responsibilities, including application compliance, program monitoring, and potentially matching or maintenance-of-effort if imposed later.
- SAMHSA and NIDA — agencies will need to absorb implementation workload (rulemaking, guidance, grant management, monitoring) which could divert staff and resources from other priorities without additional administrative funding.
- Smaller or nonapplying States and territories — because reallocations favor applying States, jurisdictions with limited capacity to apply or administer new programs risk losing out on funding they might otherwise need.
- Stakeholders seeking narrowly prescriptive guidance — providers and advocates may face uncertainty since the bill leaves eligibility, allowable uses, and metrics largely to State plans and agency rulemaking.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between creating a dedicated, visible funding stream for harms caused by gambling and relying on a revenue source that is itself a product of the gambling activity the program seeks to mitigate: the bill channels wagering tax receipts to treatment and research, which funds response to harms but ties program sustainability to the size and volatility of the gambling market and to congressional appropriation choices.
The bill ties authorized funding to a slice of federal wagering excise taxes (IRC §4401(a)(1)), which provides a politically and conceptually tidy revenue source but creates volatility: revenues rise and fall with gambling activity and Treasury revenue estimates, and the authorization does not guarantee appropriations. Using the substance-abuse block-grant allocation ratios simplifies administration but may misalign funds with gambling-addiction prevalence or local need; States with high gambling-related harm but smaller block-grant shares could be underfunded.
Operational gaps create implementation questions. The statute sets broad purposes but leaves crucial design choices to agencies or States: it does not specify eligible services, required evidence standards, performance metrics, or administrative set-asides.
NIDA’s authority is permissive rather than mandatory, so research priorities, scale, and awarding timelines are uncertain. The three-year reporting deadline provides a checkpoint but may be too soon to evaluate program outcomes rigorously or too late to adjust funding in the near term.
Finally, the reallocation rule rewards States that can mount timely applications, which advantages better-resourced jurisdictions and risks widening disparities unless HHS pairs reallocations with capacity-building supports.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.