A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Chapter 2 of Title 9.1 a section numbered 9.1-208.2, relating to Firefighters Cancer Screening Grant Program and Fund; established.
HB393 establishes a Firefighters Cancer Screening Grant Program and a dedicated, nonreverting state fund to help localities pay for cancer screening tests for firefighters. The bill defines eligible screening tests as ultrasound cancer detection tests or multi-cancer detection tests, and authorizes grants of up to $350 per screening for costs incurred by localities in providing those tests. The Department of Fire Programs would administer the program, set application and award guidelines, and publish criteria for participation.
The bill also creates the First Responders Cancer Screening Fund in the state treasury. The fund would receive appropriations and any gifts, donations, grants, or bequests, and any interest would remain in the fund rather than reverting to the general fund. Money in the fund may be used only for grants to localities under the program. The bill includes a sunset provision: if the fund ever drops to zero and is not later replenished by a separate appropriation, the section expires on July 1 of that fiscal year.
HB393 would add a new section to Title 9.1 of the Code of Virginia, creating a state-administered grant program and special fund for firefighter cancer screening. It would affect the Department of Fire Programs, the State Treasurer, the Comptroller, and localities that choose to apply for grants to offset screening costs. The bill does not mandate screenings statewide, but it would provide a funding mechanism for local governments to expand access to cancer detection for firefighters and would require data collection on screening results, exposure history, and demographics.
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable support for the bill’s purpose, but not enough support to advance it out of committee. The bill was continued to the next session in Finance and Appropriations by an 11-3 vote, indicating substantial committee approval but also some reservations. No committee transcript is provided, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote outcome suggests the concept of supporting firefighter health was broadly accepted while funding and implementation questions remained unresolved.
The main likely points of contention are fiscal and administrative. Because the bill creates a special fund and authorizes grants, members may have questioned the availability of ongoing appropriations, the cost per screening, and whether the program should be funded through the state budget. The required data collection on screening results, workplace exposure history, and demographics could also raise privacy, reporting, or administrative burden concerns for localities. The continuation vote indicates that while the policy goal was not controversial, the committee was not ready to enact it immediately, likely due to funding or program design issues.