PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 5, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10274 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10274 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10274 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10274 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Partnerships for Better Health Act would create grants to help local partnerships connect chronic disease care with nutrition and social support. Funded services would serve people with family incomes at or below twice the poverty line, or people who are otherwise medically underserved. Partnerships could use grants for coordinated care, transportation, education, and food programs linked to medical treatment or prevention.
This Act may be cited as the Partnerships for Better Health Act.
shall establish a program under which the Secretary concerned will award grants to lead eligible entities to carry out activities that support integrated chronic disease prevention, management, and social support.
to serve populations whose family income does not exceed 200 percent of the poverty line (as defined in section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) for a family of the size involved, or otherwise medically underserved;
(1) provide for integrated care delivery through— (A) the provision of care coordination across clinical, nutrition, and social services; (B) community health workers or patient navigators; (C) providing for referral systems between programs; or (D) transportation services; (2) provide for nutrition and chronic disease education and self-management support through— (A) peer support and group education sessions; or (B) evidence-based, culturally and linguistically appropriate education materials delivered by a certified diabetes educator; community health worker, or trained peer educators using culturally appropriate printed and digital material; (3) establish or expand a Food Is Medicine program;
Health and Human Services would establish the program in consultation with Agriculture. Health and Human Services would administer grants to the listed health organizations; Agriculture would administer grants to food banks and nonprofit organizations with nutrition expertise.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall establish a program
(i) A Federally qualified health center (as defined in section 1861(aa) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa))). (ii) A community health center receiving assistance under section 330 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b). (iii) A nonprofit hospital or health system. (iv) A nonprofit organization with demonstrated healthcare expertise. (v) A food bank. (vi) A nonprofit organization with demonstrated nutrition expertise.
The term Secretary concerned means— (A) the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the case of grants awarded to an entity specified in clauses (i) through (iv) of paragraph (2)(C); and (B) the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of grants awarded to an entity specified in clauses (v) and (vi) of paragraph (2)(C).
A lead applicant would have to be a nonprofit or public entity applying for a local coalition and belong to one of the six listed organization types. It would need experience serving underserved or high-risk populations, capacity to manage federal grants, and at least one formal agreement with a coalition partner when applying.
The term lead eligible entity means the nonprofit or public entity submitting an application for a grant under this section on behalf of a local coalition, that— (A) has demonstrated— (i) experience serving underserved or high-risk populations; and (ii) capacity to manage Federal grant funds; (B) has in effect on the date on which the application is submitted, one or more formal agreements with a coalition partner; and (C) is one of the following: (i) A Federally qualified health center (as defined in section 1861(aa) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa))). (ii) A community health center receiving assistance under section 330 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b). (iii) A nonprofit hospital or health system. (iv) A nonprofit organization with demonstrated healthcare expertise. (v) A food bank. (vi) A nonprofit organization with demonstrated nutrition expertise.
The local coalition definition includes clinical, food and nutrition, public health or government, and community organizations. Its examples include rural clinics, food providers able to deliver medically tailored or disease-appropriate food, Tribal health authorities where applicable, faith-based organizations, and educational institutions.
The term local coalition includes— (A) A clinical partner, such as— (i) a Federally qualified health center or rural health clinic (as such terms are defined in section 1861(aa) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa))); (ii) a community health center receiving assistance under section 330 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b); or (iii) a nonprofit hospital. (B) A food and nutrition partner, such as a food bank, food pantry network, or nonprofit food provider with capacity to source and deliver medically tailored or disease appropriate foods. (C) A public health or government partner, such as— (i) a local or State public health department; or (ii) Tribal health authority, where applicable. (D) A community-based organization, including— (i) a faith-based organization; (ii) a community action agency; (iii) a social service nonprofit; and (iv) an educational institution.
Applications would need a community assessment showing high chronic disease prevalence, a plan linking health care and nutrition, and measurable outcomes for each grant year. The administering secretary could set application timing and format and require additional information.
A lead eligible entity seeking a grant under this section shall submit an application at such time and in such manner, as the Secretary concerned may require. Such application shall include— (1) a community needs assessment showing high chronic disease prevalence; (2) a care integration plan linking health and nutrition; (3) a measurable outcomes framework for each year of the grant; and (4) such other information as the Secretary concerned may require.
Grant priority would go to applicants serving communities with high chronic disease prevalence, high food insecurity, health professional shortages, medical underservice, rural location, or persistent poverty. The administering secretary would determine the communities, using the referenced statutory definitions or designation requirements where specified.
the Secretary concerned shall give priority to applicants serving communities (as determined by the Secretary concerned) that— (1) have a high prevalence of chronic disease; (2) have high food insecurity; (3) are located in a health professional shortage area with a designation in effect under section 332 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254e); (4) are medically underserved communities (as defined in section 799B of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295p)); (5) are located in a rural area (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww)); or (6) are located in an area of persistent poverty (as defined in section 6702 of title 49, United States Code).
Grant recipients and their coalition members could pay for care coordination, community health workers or patient navigators, referral systems, and transportation. They could also support peer groups and education on nutrition and managing chronic disease, including culturally and linguistically appropriate materials delivered by the specified educators.
A lead eligible entity that receives a grant under this section (and any member of a local coalition on whose behalf the application under this section is submitted) may use grant funds to— (1) provide for integrated care delivery through— (A) the provision of care coordination across clinical, nutrition, and social services; (B) community health workers or patient navigators; (C) providing for referral systems between programs; or (D) transportation services; (2) provide for nutrition and chronic disease education and self-management support through— (A) peer support and group education sessions; or (B) evidence-based, culturally and linguistically appropriate education materials delivered by a certified diabetes educator; community health worker, or trained peer educators using culturally appropriate printed and digital material;
Grants could establish or expand a Food Is Medicine program. The bill defines this as a structured intervention in which a health care provider prescribes or refers patients for home-delivered, medically appropriate food, nutrition education, and related support as part of preventing or treating diet-related disease.
(3) establish or expand a Food Is Medicine program;
The term Food is Medicine program means a structured intervention in which a healthcare provider prescribes or refers patients to receive, via home delivery, medically appropriate food, nutrition education, and related support as part of a treatment or prevention plan for diet-related disease.
Grants could also support data systems, outcome tracking, coalition collaboration data, evaluations, and reporting. Outreach and enrollment work could identify eligible participants and build community engagement and trust.
(4) establish or upgrade data infrastructure and conduct evaluations of outcomes, including through— (A) upgrades to data collection systems; (B) outcomes tracking; (C) coalition collaboration data; or (D) program evaluation and reporting; and (5) carry out outreach and enrollment efforts, such as identifying eligible participants in services provided through such a grant and increasing community engagement and trust building with the community to be served by the lead eligible entity.
Recipients would have to agree to use only evidence-based or evidence-informed service models and serve populations whose family income is no more than 200 percent of the applicable poverty line, or who are otherwise medically underserved. They would also have to ensure every coalition member maintains partnership agreements throughout the grant and participates in federal evaluations related to these grants.
As a condition on the receipt of a grant under this section, the lead eligible entity shall agree— (1) to exclusively use evidence-based or evidence informed models in providing services described in subsection (d); (2) to serve populations whose family income does not exceed 200 percent of the poverty line (as defined in section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) for a family of the size involved, or otherwise medically underserved; and (3) to ensure that each member of the local coalition involved— (A) maintains partnership agreements among the coalition for the duration of the period of the grant; and (B) participates in any Federal evaluations related to grants made under this section.
Federal grant money would have to add to, rather than replace, nonfederal money that otherwise would support the authorized activities.
Funds made available under this section shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be used for activities authorized under this section.
An initial grant could last no more than three years. It could be renewed for an additional two years based on performance.
The term of a grant awarded under this section shall not exceed 3 years. A grant may be renewed for an additional 2-year period, based on performance.
Recipients would have to submit their first report within six months of receiving a grant and report every year afterward. Reports would cover outcomes and progress in program design and implementation, along with participant demographics, services, lessons learned, and barriers to access.
Beginning not later than 6 months after the date on which a lead eligible entity receives a grant under this section, and every year thereafter, a lead eligible entity that receives a grant under this section shall submit to the Secretary concerned a report on— (A) the outcomes achieved by the program under this section; and (B) the progress made with respect to the design and implementation of the program.
The report under subsection (a) shall include— (A) the demographics of participants in programs funded through the grant; (B) the services delivered by such programs; (C) the lessons learned from such programs and barriers to access to services provided by such programs; and (D) the health, social and access, and utilization outcomes of such programs specified in paragraph (3).
Reporting would examine whether participants had reductions in HbA1c, a blood-sugar measure; blood pressure; or weight or body mass index. It would also examine food security, continuity of care, participation, health behavior, and dietary habits, and whether the service area had fewer chronic-disease-related emergency visits or hospitalizations. These are measures to report, not established effects of the proposed program.
(A) With respect to health outcomes, whether participants in programs funded through the grant had experienced a reduction in— (i) HbA1c levels; (ii) blood pressure; or (iii) weight or body mass index (BMI). (B) With respect to social and access outcomes, whether such participants experienced— (i) a change in food security status; (ii) continuity of care; (iii) increased engagement and retention in programs funded through the grant; or (iv) a change in health behavior and dietary habits. (C) With respect to utilization outcomes, whether within the area served by the entity receiving the grant— (i) had fewer emergency department visits related to chronic diseases; or (ii) had fewer hospitalizations related to chronic diseases.
The bill would authorize Congress to provide $15 million for each fiscal year from 2027 through 2031. This authorizes future appropriations; it does not itself supply that money.
There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 5, 2026, records introduction in the House on September 3, 2026, and referral that day to the Energy and Commerce and Agriculture Committees for provisions within their respective jurisdictions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-05T12:58:28Z.
2026-09-03: Introduced in House
2026-09-03: Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The program authorization does not itself establish an earmark; this conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow special exemption, carve-out, or preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The eligibility rules and community priorities define the program's intended coverage. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 5, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI