US Federal House Bill HB8916

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Committee Review: 5/20/26

Caption

CHIERS Act of 2026

Summary

HB8916, the CHIERS Act of 2026, would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to jointly award grants to eligible entities that improve, develop, or expand transportation services for people with substance use disorders. The transportation must help covered individuals get to or from treatment or supportive services at no cost, and the bill specifically includes first- and last-mile transportation, on-demand rides, prescheduled rides, ridesharing, and taxi services. The bill is designed to reach people with substance use disorders who are experiencing homelessness, live in low-income communities, or live in areas where transportation is a barrier to health care access. Eligible grantees include nonprofits, state and local governments, Tribes, continuum of care entities, federally qualified health centers, comprehensive opioid recovery centers, street outreach providers, and other entities the Secretaries deem appropriate. Grants may be used for vehicles, personnel licensing, training, outreach, and other related activities, but not for involuntary inpatient treatment or law enforcement use. The bill also requires applications, performance measures focused on reducing missed appointments, annual reporting, technical assistance, and a supplement-not-supplant requirement. If enacted, the bill would create a new federal grant program and add a new section of law governing HHS-HUD coordination on transportation access for substance use disorder treatment and supportive services. It would not directly change eligibility rules for treatment itself, but it would authorize federal funding for transportation infrastructure and service delivery tied to existing public health and homelessness systems, including references to McKinney-Vento, FQHCs, and opioid recovery programs. The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s sponsorship is supportive and problem-solving, with the measure framed as a practical access-to-care and recovery-support initiative. No committee debate or votes are available in the provided record, so there is no documented opposition or amendment history to indicate broader controversy. The main policy tension apparent from the text is the scope of eligible uses and eligible entities, along with the explicit exclusion of involuntary inpatient transport and law enforcement involvement, which suggests an emphasis on voluntary, service-oriented transportation rather than enforcement-based interventions.

Impact

The bill would establish a new federal grant program administered jointly by HHS and HUD, creating a statutory framework for funding transportation to substance use disorder treatment and supportive services. It would affect federal agencies, nonprofit providers, local governments, Tribes, homeless services systems, and health care access organizations by making them eligible for grants to support vehicles, rides, outreach, training, and related transportation services. The bill also incorporates reporting, technical assistance, and maintenance-of-effort style requirements that would shape how grant funds are used and evaluated.

Sentiment

The bill appears broadly favorable and bipartisan in tone, with sponsors from both parties and a focus on expanding access to treatment and supportive services for vulnerable populations. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, there is no evidence of formal opposition or divided sentiment in the legislative record supplied here. The measure is presented as a targeted access-to-care and homelessness-support initiative rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are likely to be program scope, eligible recipients, and the federal role in transportation services. The bill allows broad discretion for the Secretaries to approve other eligible entities and other uses, which could raise questions about administrative reach and oversight. It also excludes involuntary inpatient transport and law enforcement personnel, signaling a deliberate policy choice that may be debated by those who favor broader intervention tools. In addition, the supplement-not-supplant requirement and performance reporting could be scrutinized by state and local entities concerned about funding flexibility and compliance burdens.