Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 2824

Should the Federal Home Visiting Program for Pregnant Women and Families be Extended?

Argument in favor

The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program should be extended through 2022 at its current funding levels with reforms aimed at improving outcomes.

John's Opinion
···
09/25/2017
Universal, single payer healthcare would take care of this. Why can we find the money to feed a bloated military & not enough to care for citizens?
Like (159)
Follow
Share
Jim2423's Opinion
···
09/26/2017
We have come to a point in time that Universal Health Care is needed more than ever. Insurance companies are out to make a profit for their share holders and not concerned for people's welfare. Government is making to many rules for states to enforce or lose benefits. Thank you Congressmen Amodei
Like (36)
Follow
Share
Frank's Opinion
···
09/26/2017
If We are going to claim to be "pro-Life", We must not give up on People once They are born.
Like (32)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

More funding should be provided to the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program as it’s extended, and reforms to improve outcomes aren’t needed.

Sandra's Opinion
···
09/22/2017
It is an awful bill. No guarantee that states won't exempt prior conditions or discriminate against women. CBO hasn't even scored it. How on earth could you vote for it? NO medical org, nor AARP, nor AMA support it. It's bad for both providers and people. Tweak the ACA, do NOT throw it all away.
Like (33)
Follow
Share
DrRichSwier's Opinion
···
09/26/2017
The federal government has no role in the healthcare industry. This is a state and local issue. It's between a patient and her doctor.
Like (18)
Follow
Share
kbondee's Opinion
···
09/26/2017
I'm voting "nay" because I'm curious as to why this bill doesn't include expectant parents of children with disabilities (ALS, MS, Down Syndrome, or FAS) - at-risk families that actually NEED assistance in raising their children to function as highly as possible. Children who are "able" just simply need bipartisan agreement on education reform. lol.
Like (15)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Finance
  • The house Passed September 26th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 214 Yea / 209 Nay
      house Committees
      Worker and Family Support
      Committee on Energy and Commerce
      Health
      Committee on Ways and Means
    IntroducedJune 8th, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

What is House Bill H.R. 2824?

This bill would reauthorize the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program through fiscal year 2022 with $400 million allocated to it annually. The program aims to give pregnant women and families, particularly those considered at-risk, resources and skills to raise children who are physically, socially, and emotionally healthy and ready to learn. The program is set to expire at the end of September 2017. 

Current law requires grantees receiving funds through the program to demonstrate improvement in specified benchmark areas three years after implementation. This bill would also require grantees in subsequent years to track and demonstrate improvement in those areas. If the grantee fails to do so, they would be required to develop and implement a corrective plan that’d be subject to the approval of the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS would terminate program grants to grantee that implements such a plan but continues to fail to show improvement. To receive grants, a state would have to conduct a statewide needs assessment by October 1, 2019 and at least once every five years thereafter.

Grantees would have to provide matching funds under the program starting with fiscal year 2020. They could use program funds to support a “pay-for-outcomes initiative”, which is a performance-based grant, contract, or agreement in which a commitment is made to pay for improved outcomes that result in social benefit and public-sector cost savings.

HHS would be required to establish data-exchange standards for the program.

Impact

Pregnant women and families; grantees under the MIEHCV program; and HHS.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 2824

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-DepthSponsoring Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) introduced this bill to extend funding for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program, which is currently set to expire at the end of September 2017:

“MIECHV is a positive example of what we should expect and receive from anti-poverty programs, as its funding for voluntary home visiting services is tied to proven evidence of effectiveness in areas such as improving economic self-sufficiency and reducing child abuse and neglect. Making this upfront investment in families protects children and reduces government dependence down the road. I am pleased to introduce the reauthorization of MIECHV and look forward to continuing our work to support healthy families and increase economic opportunity.”

This legislation passed the House Ways and Means Committee on a 22-15 vote. It currently has the support of seven cosponsors in the House, all of whom are Republicans.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: Aleksander Nakic / iStock)

AKA

Increasing Opportunity and Success for Children and Parents through Evidence-Based Home Visiting Act

Official Title

To amend title V of the Social Security Act to extend the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, and to amend the Social Security Act to make certain revisions to provisions limiting payment of benefits to fugitive felons under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the Social Security Act.

    Universal, single payer healthcare would take care of this. Why can we find the money to feed a bloated military & not enough to care for citizens?
    Like (159)
    Follow
    Share
    It is an awful bill. No guarantee that states won't exempt prior conditions or discriminate against women. CBO hasn't even scored it. How on earth could you vote for it? NO medical org, nor AARP, nor AMA support it. It's bad for both providers and people. Tweak the ACA, do NOT throw it all away.
    Like (33)
    Follow
    Share
    We have come to a point in time that Universal Health Care is needed more than ever. Insurance companies are out to make a profit for their share holders and not concerned for people's welfare. Government is making to many rules for states to enforce or lose benefits. Thank you Congressmen Amodei
    Like (36)
    Follow
    Share
    If We are going to claim to be "pro-Life", We must not give up on People once They are born.
    Like (32)
    Follow
    Share
    This is so important. Parents are sent home with a child with less instructions than that of which came with their toaster. That along with the awareness of post partum depression, shorter and shorter hospital stays and all the risks that come with a new baby makes more important than ever to have help.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    The federal government has no role in the healthcare industry. This is a state and local issue. It's between a patient and her doctor.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    I'm voting "nay" because I'm curious as to why this bill doesn't include expectant parents of children with disabilities (ALS, MS, Down Syndrome, or FAS) - at-risk families that actually NEED assistance in raising their children to function as highly as possible. Children who are "able" just simply need bipartisan agreement on education reform. lol.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Wouldn't single payer be a fix for all issues around ACA, lower premiums because everyone would be paying for health care and allow for aid to ask risk people. The biggest group of those at risk are the ones who have preexisting conditions ❗️🇺🇸
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    This highly successful program should definitely be funded.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    First remember we live in a republic. The citizens are to be taken care of bottom up not top down. Meaning citizens are supported by their neighbors and local governments. The Federal Government has the primary responsibility of securing our borders. Through the equal rights amendment they are also responsible for equal treatment and that sex and race are not a deciding factor. No group gets excluded or given preferential treatment, period. I personally believe that NGO without receiving federal assistance are best fitted for providing this support when the individuals immediate family can not. My response is the program needs to be discontinued and not replaced.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    When I was a young woman and had my first child I was unfortunately in an abusive relationship. He was so paranoid and controlling that I wasn't even allowed to take my daughter to the doctor. Thankfully a visiting health nurse came to check on us and I was able to get the help and support I needed. Plus my daughter had her health issues treated. For many reasons we need to keep this program.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    I support this bill. It's great to see an initiative sponsored by a Republican that seems to be geared toward improving society with an eye toward long-term fiscal conservatism. Investing in healthier kids today will create cost savings down the road, and likely more productive and well-adjusted members of society, too.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill should be passed now and then ought to be rolled into Single payer, universal health care.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Early intervention is of paramount importance for the well being of infants. Pay now, or pay more later.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    We are $20 trillion in debt and counting. When are we going to say "no" to federal programs. Secure Social Security as that money was not the federal governments to take.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    My initial thought would be yes. However, I'd like to know what's been done so far on the existing program. How many lives has it saved? Are there any statistics? Who'd administering it? How much do contractors get paid of the 400 million? One never finds the answers to these questions in print. I wonder why?
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    This is an amazing program that assists young women in raising their kids to be healthy and curious. This is an amazing example. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/09/542110282/pay-for-success-approach-used-to-fund-a-program-that-supports-new-moms
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Nothing saves more money than babies well cared for.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    YES IT MUST BE EXTENDED!!! NOT SHOULD BE !!!
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Women are safer having a baby in Lebanon than they are in the U.S. Anything we can do to help expectant mothers is a plus for them and for the rest of us.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE