PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 14, 2025
COVID-19 Vaccination Non-Discrimination Act
This bill prohibits making federal funds available to any facility that refuses to treat an individual based on the individual's COVID-19 vaccination status, including any funding under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
People & committees
Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9] · R–IN
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 Ways and Means, 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 Ways and Means, 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: Oct 6, 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.1381 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.1381 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.1381 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.1381 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 · 2025-02-14 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 bill would cut off federal funding to a facility that refuses to treat someone because of that person’s COVID–19 vaccination status. The restriction would cover federal funds broadly, including federally funded trust funds, rather than only payments for the refused treatment. The supplied text is a proposal, not evidence of enacted law.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law
shall be made available to a facility that refuses to provide treatment to an individual based on the COVID–19 vaccination status of such individual.
The funding restriction would apply when a facility refuses treatment because of an individual’s COVID–19 vaccination status. The wording does not limit the restriction to refusals involving either vaccinated or unvaccinated people.
shall be made available to a facility that refuses to provide treatment to an individual based on the COVID–19 vaccination status of such individual.
The proposal would bar federal funds that Congress has authorized or appropriated—approved through legislation or provided through spending laws—and funds held in federally funded trust funds. It expressly includes funding under three listed titles of the Social Security Act and says the restriction would apply despite other laws.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, including funds provided under titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.; 1396 et seq.; and 1397aa et seq., respectively) shall be made available to a facility that refuses to provide treatment to an individual based on the COVID–19 vaccination status of such individual.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 6, 2026, records introduction in the House on February 14, 2025, and referral that day to the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees for provisions within their respective jurisdictions.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-06T21:31:38Z.
2025-02-14: Introduced in House
2025-02-14: Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 · 2025-02-14. 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 change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not cover 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 particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying disclosure and committee materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential treatment or special exemption was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Protection against exclusion from treatment based on vaccination status does not by itself constitute preferential treatment. This conclusion is limited to this version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 6, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI