5 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in ENROLLED BILLcompared with PLACED ON CALENDAR SENATE (Jul 23, 2026)

Technical corrections only. The diff between v4 and v5 primarily reflects changes in the bill's legislative status from 'Placed on Calendar Senate' to 'Enrolled Bill,' including updated legislative metadata and minor formatting adjustments. There are no substantive policy changes to the text of the Act.

H.R. 8205119th CongressIntroduced Apr 6, 2026

Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Reauthorization Act of 2026

Vetoed By PresidentHealthSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5]
Committees: Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
Last action: Oct 26, 2026

This analysis was written for v4 (PLACED ON CALENDAR SENATE, Jul 23, 2026). ENROLLED BILL changed too little to need its own, so it reuses that one rather than a rewrite. The differences between the two are summarized above. View v4

Bottom line

H.R. 8205 extends and strengthens federal initiatives to accelerate the development of therapies for ALS and other rare neurodegenerative diseases, focusing on sustained funding, enhanced clinical trial oversight, and strategic FDA planning.

What it actually does

This bill reauthorizes the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act through fiscal year 2031, extending federal support for grants related to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) research. It also enhances the grant program by requiring the assessment of safety and efficacy data for grant renewals and mandating prompt reporting of serious adverse events in clinical trials. Furthermore, the bill directs the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop and publish a comprehensive action plan for rare neurodegenerative diseases.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that this reauthorization is crucial for maintaining momentum in ALS research and drug development, a field where progress is vital for patients facing a devastating disease. The enhancements to grant review and safety reporting will ensure that federal funds are used effectively and that patient safety remains paramount in clinical trials. The FDA action plan will provide a clear, public strategy for addressing the challenges in developing therapies for rare neurodegenerative conditions.

Opponents contend

Specific opposition to this bill is unlikely, given its focus on reauthorizing and improving support for research into a severe, rare disease. Any potential concerns might center on the administrative burden of new reporting requirements for researchers or the allocation of FDA resources, but these are generally considered minor in comparison to the public health benefits.

The bill is short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its provisions and implications within a short timeframe.

Section 2(a) and 2(b)

Reauthorization of Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section extends the authorization for the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act from fiscal year 2026 to fiscal year 2031. This means that the federal government's ability to fund and support initiatives under the original Act, including grants for ALS research, will continue for an additional five years. It ensures the continuity of existing programs aimed at accelerating the development of treatments for ALS.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupALS patients and their familiesImpactPositive, continued hope for new therapies and treatments through sustained research funding.MechanismScale

GroupMedical researchers and institutionsImpactPositive, ensures continued access to federal grants for ALS research, providing stability for ongoing projects and encouraging new ones.MechanismScale

GroupPharmaceutical and biotechnology companiesImpactPositive, continued opportunities for grant funding to support investigational drug development for ALS.MechanismScale

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that extending this Act is essential to maintain the momentum in finding effective treatments for ALS. It provides critical, long-term stability for researchers and drug developers, allowing them to pursue complex, multi-year projects without fear of abrupt funding cessation.

Critics contend

No specific opposition is typically raised against the reauthorization of an act supporting research for a severe, rare disease like ALS, as it is widely seen as a humanitarian effort.

Tradeoffs

The primary tradeoff is the commitment of federal funds for an additional five years, which is generally accepted given the severity of ALS and the public interest in finding a cure.

Section 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c)

Improvements to Program for Grants for Research on Therapies for ALS

mentioned in summarymoderately complex

This section introduces several enhancements to the existing grant program. For grant renewals, the Secretary is now required to assess enrollment, safety, and available efficacy data for investigational drugs. It also mandates that grant recipients promptly report any new, serious, and unexpected adverse events and safety information from Phase 3 trials to the grant-making institution, in addition to existing FDA requirements. Finally, it clarifies that a 'phase 3' clinical trial can include a combined phase 2/3 trial, provided enrollment begins within a timeframe set by the Secretary.

Section 4

FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Disease Action Plan

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section requires the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to publish an action plan on the FDA website within 18 months of the bill's enactment. This plan must outline the FDA's intended actions over a five-year period concerning program enhancements, policy development, and regulatory science initiatives for rare neurodegenerative diseases. Five years after enactment, the FDA must publish a report detailing the actions taken under this plan and their effectiveness.

FOUND

Requires entities seeking grants to promptly report any new and serious adverse events and safety information that is considered unexpected with respect to a Phase 3 trial to the grant-making institution, *in addition to* complying with the safety reporting requirements under section 312.32 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulations).

Section 3(b)(3)

Why it matters:Referring to existing regulations is standard legislative drafting practice to avoid reprinting lengthy legal text. It is not intended to be evasive, but it does require external knowledge to fully understand the scope of the new requirement.

Case for: Proponents argue that this dual reporting mechanism ensures comprehensive and timely safety information reaches both the grant-making institution and the FDA, enhancing patient protection and allowing for quicker responses to unexpected safety concerns during clinical trials.

Case against: Critics might suggest that adding a separate reporting requirement to the grant-making institution, beyond the existing FDA mandate, could create redundant administrative burdens for researchers and pharmaceutical companies, potentially complicating compliance without significantly improving safety.

Estimated impact: This provision will likely result in a minor increase in administrative effort for grantees but offers a significant potential benefit in terms of enhanced safety oversight and faster dissemination of critical safety data for ALS clinical trials.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

CosmeticWhat changed in ENROLLED BILLcompared with PLACED ON CALENDAR SENATE (Jul 23, 2026)

H.R. 8205119th CongressIntroduced Apr 6, 2026

Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Reauthorization Act of 2026

Vetoed By PresidentHealthSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5]
Committees: Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
Last action: Oct 26, 2026

Bottom line

What it actually does

Proponents argue

Opponents contend

The bill is short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its provisions and implications within a short timeframe.

Section 2(a) and 2(b)

Reauthorization of Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act

prominently featuredstraightforward

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupALS patients and their familiesImpactPositive, continued hope for new therapies and treatments through sustained research funding.MechanismScale

GroupMedical researchers and institutionsImpactPositive, ensures continued access to federal grants for ALS research, providing stability for ongoing projects and encouraging new ones.MechanismScale

GroupPharmaceutical and biotechnology companiesImpactPositive, continued opportunities for grant funding to support investigational drug development for ALS.MechanismScale

Supporters argue

Critics contend

No specific opposition is typically raised against the reauthorization of an act supporting research for a severe, rare disease like ALS, as it is widely seen as a humanitarian effort.

Tradeoffs

The primary tradeoff is the commitment of federal funds for an additional five years, which is generally accepted given the severity of ALS and the public interest in finding a cure.

Section 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c)

Improvements to Program for Grants for Research on Therapies for ALS

mentioned in summarymoderately complex

Section 4

FDA Rare Neurodegenerative Disease Action Plan

prominently featuredstraightforward

FOUND

Section 3(b)(3)