FAAN Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Underwood, Lauren [D-IL-14]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 11, 2025
Bottom line
The FAAN Act authorizes $1 billion in federal grants to bolster nursing education programs, aiming to address workforce shortages and improve public health emergency preparedness by expanding capacity and modernizing infrastructure, particularly in underserved communities.
What it actually does
This bill, the 'Future Advancement of Academic Nursing Act' or 'FAAN Act,' amends the Public Health Service Act to authorize $1 billion in grants for schools of nursing. These grants are intended to increase the number of nursing faculty and students, enhance preparedness for public health emergencies, and modernize nursing education programs, with a priority for schools in underserved or rural areas and those serving disadvantaged student populations. Funds can be used for student enrollment and retention, faculty hiring, clinical education partnerships, infrastructure modernization, and curriculum development.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a critical investment in the nation's nursing workforce, which faces significant shortages exacerbated by an aging population and increased healthcare demands. They contend that by supporting nursing schools in expanding capacity, modernizing facilities, and attracting diverse students and faculty, the bill will strengthen the healthcare system, improve patient outcomes, and enhance the country's ability to respond to future public health crises. Investing in nursing education, especially in underserved areas, is seen as a direct way to improve access to care.
Opponents contend
Opponents, if any, might argue against the scale of federal spending, suggesting that a $1 billion authorization could contribute to the national debt or that market forces should primarily drive workforce development. Some might also contend that while nursing shortages are real, federal intervention through grants may not be the most efficient or effective solution, preferring alternative approaches like tax incentives or deregulation. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for administrative burden on schools or the effectiveness of federal oversight in ensuring funds are used optimally.
The bill is short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions within the time typically allotted for legislative review.
Section 2, new Section 832(a)
Nursing Education Enhancement and Modernization Grants
This provision authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), to award grants to schools of nursing. The grants are specifically for increasing the number of faculty and students to address nursing workforce shortages, expanding capacity for public health emergency preparedness, and enhancing or modernizing nursing education programs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that direct federal grants are essential to address the systemic underfunding of nursing education and the urgent need to expand the nursing workforce, especially in the context of public health preparedness.
Critics contend
Critics, if any, might argue that direct grants could create dependency on federal funding or that the private sector and state governments should bear more responsibility for nursing education funding.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for federal intervention to address a national workforce shortage against concerns about federal overreach into educational funding traditionally managed at state or institutional levels.
Section 2, new Section 832(b)
Grant Priority for Underserved and Rural Areas
This section establishes priority criteria for grant selection, favoring schools of nursing located in or preparing students to practice in medically underserved areas, health professional shortage areas, rural areas, or noncontiguous states/territories. It also prioritizes institutions of higher education listed under section 371(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which often includes minority-serving institutions.
Section 2, new Section 832(d)
Permitted Use of Grant Funds
This section outlines how schools of nursing must use the grant funds. Permitted activities include enhancing student enrollment and retention (especially for disadvantaged backgrounds, rural/underserved individuals, low-income, and first-generation students), retaining and hiring diverse faculty, partnering with healthcare facilities for clinical education, modernizing infrastructure (e.g., simulation, telehealth), creating or updating educational programs, enhancing nurse researcher programs, and establishing nurse-led interprofessional partnerships.
Section 2, new Section 832(f)
Report to Congress on Grant Outcomes
This provision mandates that the Secretary submit a report to Congress within five years of enactment, summarizing the activities and outcomes of the grants. The report must include a list of recipient schools, student enrollment and graduation data (disaggregated by demographics where available, with specific focus on underrepresented and disadvantaged students), effects on faculty retention/hiring and clinical partnerships, and recommendations for improving the grant program.
Section 2, new Section 832(g)
Authorization of Appropriations
This section authorizes the appropriation of $1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars) to carry out the grant program. The funds are specified to remain available until expended, meaning they do not expire at the end of a fiscal year but can be used until fully disbursed.
Prioritizes schools in or serving a 'medically underserved area (as defined in section 330I(a))'.
Section 2, new Section 832(b)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting practice to avoid reprinting lengthy definitions already established in law.
Case for: Supporters would argue that referencing existing definitions ensures consistency with other federal health programs and leverages established criteria for identifying areas of greatest need.
Case against: Critics might argue that relying on external definitions makes the bill less self-contained and harder for the average reader to fully comprehend without consulting additional legal texts.
Estimated impact: This definition significantly shapes where grant funds are directed, ensuring they target communities with documented healthcare access challenges.
Prioritizes institutions of higher education listed under 'section 371(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965'.
Section 2, new Section 832(b)(3)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting practice, referencing a broad category of institutions defined elsewhere.
Case for: Proponents would highlight that this reference implicitly prioritizes a diverse range of institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), and other minority-serving institutions, without explicitly naming them, thereby promoting equity.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this type of reference, but a reader unfamiliar with the Higher Education Act might not immediately grasp the full scope of institutions being prioritized.
Estimated impact: This provision ensures that a significant portion of grant funding could be directed towards institutions that historically serve underrepresented student populations, fostering diversity in the nursing workforce.
Prioritizes students from 'disadvantaged backgrounds (including racial or ethnic groups underrepresented in the nursing workforce)', 'low-income individuals', and 'first generation college students (as defined in section 402A(h)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 1965)'.
Section 2, new Section 832(d)(1)
Why it matters:Standard practice to use established federal definitions for student demographics.
Case for: Supporters argue that this targeted approach ensures the grants directly address systemic inequities in access to nursing education and promote a more representative nursing workforce that better reflects the diversity of the patient population.
Case against: Some might argue that focusing on specific demographic groups could be seen as preferential treatment, though this is a common and generally accepted practice in federal programs aimed at increasing diversity and equity.
Estimated impact: This provision aims to significantly increase the representation of diverse and disadvantaged individuals in the nursing profession, addressing long-standing disparities.