PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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.
Source last updated: Sep 28, 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.10287 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.10287 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.10287 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.10287 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 9-8-8 Crisis Response Act would expand a state Medicaid option to include crisis call center operations and services at crisis receiving and stabilization facilities. It would remove the option’s five-year wording, increase the pilot program’s listed funding amounts for 2027–2029, and require qualifying facilities to meet service and access standards. These are proposed changes; the supplied history does not establish enactment.
This Act may be cited as the 9-8-8 Crisis Response Act.
(1) qualifying community-based mobile crisis intervention services; (2) regional and local lifeline call center operations; and (3) services furnished by crisis receiving and stabilization facilities.
by striking during the 5-year period
by striking section, $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029 and inserting the following: section— (1) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 and 2026; and (2) $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2029
provides such services 24 hours per day, 7 days per week using a sliding scale of payment, and neither rejects service nor limits services on the basis of a patient’s ability to pay
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-28T21:51:21Z. 2026-09-03: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2026-09-03: Introduced in House
Section 2 would retain the Mental Health Crisis Response Partnership Pilot Program’s listed amount of $10 million annually for fiscal years 2025 and 2026, and replace $10 million with $100 million annually for fiscal years 2027–2029. This section changes amounts in existing law; it does not itself expressly appropriate that money.
2. Mental Health Crisis Response Partnership Pilot Program Section 520F(e) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb–37(e)) is amended by striking section, $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029 and inserting the following: section— (1) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 and 2026; and (2) $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2029
Section 3 would expand the state Medicaid option beyond community-based mobile crisis intervention services to include regional and local lifeline call center operations and services furnished by crisis receiving and stabilization facilities.
3. Revisions to the State option to provide qualifying community-based mobile crisis intervention services and other services under State plans under the Medicaid program
by striking for qualifying community-based mobile crisis intervention services and inserting for— (1) qualifying community-based mobile crisis intervention services; (2) regional and local lifeline call center operations; and (3) services furnished by crisis receiving and stabilization facilities.
The proposal would delete the words “during the 5-year period” from the state-option provision. The surrounding existing law is not reproduced, so this deletion alone does not establish the duration of every related funding rule.
(1) in subsection (a)—
(B) by striking during the 5-year period;
The proposal would retain the existing reference to an 85 percent rate and add an 85 percent rate for medical assistance for call center operations and crisis facility services furnished during the referenced quarter. The supplied amendment does not reproduce the full provision governing that rate.
(2) regional and local lifeline call center operations; and (3) services furnished by crisis receiving and stabilization facilities.
in subsection (c)— (A) by striking 85 percent. and inserting the following: 85 percent, and for medical assistance for items described in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) furnished during such quarter shall be equal to 85 percent.
The amendment to subsection (c) would replace a reference to the removed period with wording referring to when a state provides medical assistance for qualifying community-based mobile crisis intervention services. In subsection (d)(2)(A), the reference year would become the fiscal year before the state’s first fiscal quarter providing that assistance. Separately, subsection (d)(2)(B) would replace its period reference with only “occurring during a fiscal quarter.” The surrounding requirements are not supplied.
by striking occurring during the period described in subsection (a) that a State and inserting in which a State provides medical assistance for qualifying community-based mobile crisis intervention services under this section and
by striking for the fiscal year preceding the first fiscal quarter occurring during the period described in subsection (a) and inserting for the fiscal year preceding the first fiscal quarter in which the State provides medical assistance for qualifying community-based mobile crisis intervention services under this section
in subparagraph (B), by striking occurring during the period described in subsection (a) and inserting occurring during a fiscal quarter
Section 3 would directly appropriate $5 million to the Secretary for purposes stated in an existing sentence that is not reproduced. The money would remain available until spent, without a specified expiration date.
There is appropriated, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $5,000,000 to the Secretary for the purposes described in the preceding sentence to remain available until expended.
To qualify under the new crisis facility definition, a facility would have to qualify for state licensing or certification. It would also have to provide 23-hour observation and assessment chairs or beds, plus 48-hour psychiatric crisis stabilization beds that include withdrawal management and 24-hour medical monitoring.
(1) qualifies for licensure or certification as a crisis receiving and stabilization facility, pursuant to State law of the State in which such facility furnishes the crisis response services; (2) provides 23-hour observation and assessment chairs or beds and 48-hour crisis stabilization psychiatric beds inclusive of withdrawal management and 24-hour medical monitoring
Qualifying facilities would have to operate around the clock, use a sliding payment scale, and neither reject nor limit services because of a patient’s ability to pay, residence, prior involvement with the justice system, severity of a mental health or substance use condition, intellectual or developmental disability, age, or related factors.
provides such services 24 hours per day, 7 days per week using a sliding scale of payment, and neither rejects service nor limits services on the basis of a patient’s ability to pay, place of residence, prior forensic engagement, acuity of mental health or substance use condition, intellectual or developmental disability, age or related factors
Qualifying facilities would have to support admission access through law enforcement officers, emergency medical personnel, and family members—the text calls this “no-wrong-door” admission capacity. Their average length of stay would have to remain below 150 hours; this is an average, not an express limit on each patient’s stay.
(4) supports no-wrong-door admission capacity available to law enforcement officers, emergency medical personnel, and family members; and (5) maintains an average length of stay of less than 150 hours.
The Section 3 amendments would take effect as though they had been included when the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was enacted. This proposed retroactive effective-date rule applies to Section 3(a), not expressly to the pilot program funding change in Section 2.
(b) Effective date The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117–2).
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 28, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on September 3, 2026. It does not establish what happened after those recorded actions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-28T21:51:21Z. 2026-09-03: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 2026-09-03: Introduced in House
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 separate policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in 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. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark status cannot be conclusively assessed without accompanying materials and the omitted statutory context.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential carve-out, special exemption, or exception was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Ordinary program eligibility and equal-access requirements do not alone constitute preferential treatment. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 28, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI