Data to Save Moms Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Davids, Sharice [D-KS-3]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 25, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to improve the understanding and address the crisis of maternal mortality and morbidity, particularly among racial and ethnic minority groups and American Indian and Alaska Native individuals, through better data, community involvement, and targeted research.
What it actually does
H.R. 8080, the "Data to Save Moms Act," amends the Public Health Service Act to enhance maternal health data collection and quality measures. It authorizes grants for maternal mortality review committees to boost community engagement, expands the scope of conditions reviewed by these committees to include severe maternal morbidity and mental health-related deaths, mandates a comprehensive review of existing maternal health data processes and quality measures by HHS, and commissions a study on maternal health outcomes among American Indian and Alaska Native individuals. Additionally, it establishes a grant program for minority-serving institutions to research maternal health disparities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is a crucial step to combat the alarming rates of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity in the U.S., especially among marginalized communities. They contend that improved data collection, community engagement, and targeted research are essential to identify root causes, develop effective interventions, and ensure equitable maternal health outcomes. The focus on nonclinical factors, mental health, and specific demographic groups is seen as a comprehensive approach to a complex problem.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while the goals are laudable, the bill could create additional bureaucratic burdens and reporting requirements for states and healthcare providers without a clear demonstration of immediate impact on maternal health outcomes. Concerns could also be raised about the cost of the new grant programs and studies, or the potential for overreach in federal mandates on state-level data collection and review processes. Some might question the effectiveness of community engagement grants without more direct clinical interventions.
The bill is moderately complex but relatively short, making it accessible for an informed reader to evaluate its provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, amending Section 317K(d) of the Public Health Service Act
Grants for Community Engagement in Maternal Mortality Review Committees (MMRCs)
This section authorizes $10,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2027-2031 for grants to State, Indian Tribe, Tribal organization, or Urban Indian organization MMRCs. These grants are intended to increase the diversity of committee membership (prioritizing race, ethnicity, location, personal experience, nonclinical backgrounds), address participation barriers (training, transportation, compensation), establish community outreach efforts, especially to racial and ethnic minority groups, and require public reports on review processes and the impact of these grants. It also reserves $1,500,000 annually for Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, or Urban Indian organizations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that diverse community representation and engagement are critical for MMRCs to fully understand the multifaceted causes of maternal mortality, including nonclinical factors and systemic biases, leading to more effective and equitable recommendations. Addressing participation barriers ensures genuine inclusion.
Critics contend
Some might argue that while diversity is important, the focus on specific demographic representation and community engagement might divert resources or attention from core medical and clinical factors, potentially overcomplicating the review process. Concerns about the administrative burden of managing diverse community input could also be raised.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for clinical expertise in MMRCs with the imperative for lived experience and community perspective to inform comprehensive solutions. It also balances federal funding with state/tribal autonomy in committee structure.
Section 3, amending Section 317K(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Public Health Service Act
Expanded Scope for Maternal Mortality Review Committee Reviews
This section expands the types of cases that MMRCs are encouraged to review. It adds severe maternal morbidity, deaths during pregnancy or up to one year postpartum from mental health conditions or substance use disorders attributed to pregnancy, and mandates consultation with local community-based organizations to consider nonclinical factors contributing to pregnancy-related deaths, especially for demographic groups with elevated rates of maternal mortality.
Section 4
HHS Review and Recommendations for Maternal Health Data and Quality Measures
This section directs the Secretary of HHS, through CMS and AHRQ, to consult with diverse stakeholders (including patients, community groups, providers, and state agencies) to review existing maternal health data collection processes and quality measures. The review must cover various topics, including timeliness of death certificate amendments, EHR data, barriers to correlating data with demographics, MMRC practices (diversity, bias training, social determinants), effectiveness of quality measures, and recommendations for improvement and additional funding. A report is due to Congress within one year.
Section 5
Comprehensive Study on AI/AN Maternal Health Outcomes
This section mandates the Secretary of HHS to contract with an independent research organization or Tribal Epidemiology Center to conduct a comprehensive study on maternal mortality, severe maternal morbidity, and other adverse perinatal outcomes among American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) individuals. The study, guided by 12 members nominated by Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations, must examine unique causes, listen to AI/AN stories, distinguish care settings (IHS, Tribal, Urban Indian, external), review program coordination, assess data collection, consider social determinants, historical mistreatment, IHS funding, cultural appropriateness, and make recommendations to reduce misclassification and improve outcomes. A report is due to Congress within three years, and $2,000,000 is authorized for each of fiscal years 2027-2029.
Section 6
Grants for Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) for Maternal Health Research
This section establishes a grant program for research centers, health professions schools, and other entities at minority-serving institutions (MSIs) to study specific aspects of the maternal health crisis among racial and ethnic minority groups. Research topics may include systematic processes for listening to patient stories, assessing low maternal mortality rates among Hispanic individuals (and potential misclassification), examining disparities among Hispanic subgroups, and lactation education to promote diversity in the lactation workforce. $10,000,000 is authorized for each of fiscal years 2027-2031, with up to 10% for technical assistance and outreach.
Allows funds to be used to address barriers to Maternal Mortality Review Committee (MMRC) participation for community members, including required training, transportation barriers, and compensation.
Section 2(a), amending Section 317K(d)(9)(A)(i)(II)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to detail allowable uses of funds within a grant program.
Case for: Proponents argue that providing compensation and addressing practical barriers is essential for genuine community engagement, ensuring that individuals from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds can participate without financial hardship.
Case against: Some might argue that compensating volunteers could set a precedent or that the funds could be better used for direct clinical interventions.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for ensuring equitable participation, though the exact cost would vary by state/tribe.
Requires MMRCs, to the extent practicable, to consult with local community-based organizations representing pregnant and postpartum individuals from demographic groups with elevated rates of maternal mortality to ensure nonclinical factors are considered.
Section 3, amending Section 317K(d)(3)(A)(i) by inserting subclause (IV)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice for amending existing law.
Case for: Proponents argue that nonclinical factors (social determinants of health, systemic racism, access to care) are often overlooked but are critical drivers of maternal health disparities. Community organizations are best positioned to highlight these.
Case against: Some might argue that this adds another layer of consultation, potentially slowing down MMRC reviews, or that defining "local community-based organizations" could be ambiguous.
Estimated impact: Could significantly broaden the scope and depth of MMRC findings, leading to more comprehensive recommendations.
The HHS review must consider the timeliness of processes for amending death certificates when new information becomes available to reflect whether a death was pregnancy-related.
Section 4(c)(1)(A)
Why it matters:Detailed specification of review scope.
Case for: Proponents argue that accurate and timely classification of pregnancy-related deaths is fundamental to understanding the true scope of the maternal mortality crisis and ensuring data integrity.
Case against: No specific opposition, as it addresses data quality.
Estimated impact: Improves the accuracy of national maternal mortality statistics.