Hazard Pay for Health Care Heroes Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 23, 2026
Bottom line
This bill creates a federal grant program to provide hazard pay and safety measures for essential, non-remote healthcare workers during various types of declared emergencies or disasters.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new emergency grant program under the Public Health Service Act, authorizing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide funds to public or private nonprofit health care facilities and home health agencies. These grants are specifically for providing hazardous duty compensation (up to $13 per hour, capped at $25,000 annually) to essential health care workers whose work cannot be performed remotely during declared emergencies or disasters, and for implementing safety measures to protect these workers.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill recognizes the critical and often dangerous work performed by essential healthcare workers during emergencies, providing them with deserved compensation and ensuring their safety, which in turn strengthens public health infrastructure. It addresses the financial and physical risks these workers face, encouraging retention and readiness during crises.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that such a program could be costly and difficult to administer, potentially leading to disputes over who qualifies as an 'eligible health care worker' or what constitutes 'hazardous' work or commutes. Concerns could also be raised about the open-ended 'such sums as may be necessary' authorization, leading to unpredictable federal spending.
The bill is concise and easily digestible, allowing for a quick understanding of its core provisions.
Section 2, inserting new Section 319D-2 into the Public Health Service Act.
Emergency Grants for Hazardous Duty Compensation and Safety Measures
This provision authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to eligible public or private nonprofit health care facilities and home health agencies. These grants are intended to provide hazardous duty compensation to essential health care workers who cannot work remotely during a declared emergency or disaster, and to fund safety measures like personal protective equipment or alternative transit options to safeguard these workers.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this grant program is crucial for recognizing and compensating the frontline workers who put their lives at risk during public health crises and natural disasters. It provides a tangible incentive for these workers and helps ensure healthcare facilities can maintain essential services by protecting their staff.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that defining 'hazardous' work or commutes could be subjective and lead to administrative burdens and potential inequities. They might also argue that a federal grant program for hazard pay could create an expectation that states and localities might otherwise fund, shifting costs to the federal government.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the need to support and protect essential workers during crises with the potential for significant federal expenditure and the administrative challenges of defining eligibility and hazard levels across diverse emergency scenarios.
The bill defines 'emergency or disaster' to include not only federal declarations (major disaster, emergency, national emergency, public health emergency) but also State, local, territorial, or Tribal emergencies or disasters declared by the applicable government.
Section 2, new Section 319D-2(a)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms upfront, but its breadth significantly expands the potential applicability of the grant program beyond what might be assumed from a 'federal bill.'
Case for: Proponents argue that local and state emergencies can be just as impactful on healthcare workers as federal ones, and these workers deserve protection and compensation regardless of the level of government making the declaration. This ensures comprehensive coverage.
Case against: Critics might argue that including local and state declarations could lead to a proliferation of eligible events, making the program's scope and cost highly unpredictable and potentially overwhelming federal resources for localized incidents.
Estimated impact: Significantly broadens the potential triggers for grant eligibility, increasing the number of events and thus the potential federal expenditure.
The term 'eligible health care worker' is specifically defined as an essential health care worker 'whose work cannot be conducted remotely.'
Section 2, new Section 319D-2(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to precisely define who is covered, but it's a key detail that narrows the scope of beneficiaries.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures the hazard pay is directed specifically to those workers who are physically exposed to risks during emergencies, aligning with the intent of 'hazardous duty' compensation. It prevents the program from being diluted by including workers who can safely perform their duties from home.
Case against: Some might argue that even remote workers in healthcare settings might face unique pressures or increased workloads during emergencies, and a blanket exclusion might overlook their contributions or stress. However, the core intent of 'hazard pay' is physical risk.
Estimated impact: Narrows the pool of eligible beneficiaries, focusing resources on frontline, physically present workers.