PREDICT Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 11, 2026
Bottom line
The PREDICT Act aims to enhance public health emergency preparedness and response by funding and standardizing wastewater surveillance systems for infectious disease detection across the United States.
What it actually does
The PREDICT Act establishes a new program within the Public Health Service Act, directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the CDC, to award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements. These awards will fund State, Tribal, and local health departments to establish, maintain, or improve infectious disease detection and monitoring through wastewater surveillance for public health emergency preparedness. The bill also mandates the Secretary to issue guidance on standardized wastewater testing methods and data reporting, and to continue supporting research in this field.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that wastewater surveillance offers a critical early warning system for infectious disease outbreaks, providing invaluable data for public health responses, particularly in communities where clinical testing might be limited or delayed. They emphasize its potential to detect emerging pathogens and monitor community-level disease trends efficiently and non-invasively, thereby strengthening national health security and enabling more proactive interventions.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns about the significant upfront costs and ongoing maintenance expenses of establishing and sustaining extensive wastewater surveillance systems, questioning their cost-effectiveness compared to other public health interventions. Some may also raise privacy concerns regarding the collection and public sharing of localized health data, or highlight the technical challenges of standardizing methods across diverse jurisdictions and ensuring data accuracy and interpretability.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick review to understand its core purpose and mechanisms.
Section 2. (a), adding Section 2827(a) to the Public Health Service Act.
Establishment of Wastewater Surveillance Grant Program
This provision directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to provide financial assistance. This assistance, in the form of grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, is specifically for eligible entities to set up, operate, or enhance activities related to detecting and monitoring infectious diseases using wastewater analysis. The primary goal is to bolster public health emergency preparedness and response capabilities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this program is vital for building a robust national public health infrastructure, enabling early detection of outbreaks and more targeted responses, which can save lives, reduce economic disruption, and protect public health proactively.
Critics contend
Some might argue that while beneficial, the program could divert resources from other critical public health initiatives or that the effectiveness of wastewater surveillance in all contexts needs further validation before widespread implementation.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the significant investment required to establish and maintain these systems versus the potential benefits of early disease detection and improved public health response, particularly in resource-constrained environments.
Section 2. (a), adding Section 2827(b) to the Public Health Service Act.
Eligibility and Application Criteria for Funding
To qualify for funding, an entity must be a State, Tribal, or local health department, or a partnership involving such a department. Applications must detail proposed activities, criteria for selecting wastewater sampling sites, a plan for responding to surveillance findings, and a strategy for sustaining these activities after the federal funding period concludes. The Secretary may prioritize applications that include plans for public data access and an assessment of community needs related to infectious disease monitoring.
Section 2. (a), adding Section 2827(g) to the Public Health Service Act.
Development of Wastewater Surveillance Guidance and Standards
This section requires the Secretary to issue draft guidance within 180 days of the bill's enactment. This guidance will provide recommendations for award recipients on efficient assay use for single and multiple infectious diseases, and establish standards for wastewater testing methods, metrics, and data reporting. The aim is to ensure consistency and scientific rigor across all funded surveillance activities, with collected data to be published by the Secretary in a publicly available wastewater surveillance database and dashboard.
Section 2. (b)
Continued Research on Wastewater Surveillance
This provision mandates the Secretary of Health and Human Services to continue conducting or supporting research aimed at improving wastewater surveillance. This includes efforts to enhance the efficiency of sample collection and analysis, increase the sensitivity and specificity of testing methods, and develop evidence-based practices for estimating population-level data from wastewater. The provision also emphasizes avoiding unnecessary duplication of efforts within the Department of Health and Human Services.
The bill states that the Secretary *may* give priority to eligible entities whose applications detail plans to provide public access to data generated through wastewater surveillance activities in a manner that enables comparison. This means public data access is an incentive for receiving funding, not a universal requirement for all recipients.
Section 2. (a), adding Section 2827(c)(1) to the Public Health Service Act.
Why it matters:This approach allows for flexibility, acknowledging that not all entities may have the immediate capacity for robust public data sharing, while still incentivizing it. It avoids making public data access an insurmountable barrier to entry for some health departments.
Case for: Proponents argue that making public access a priority encourages transparency and data sharing without creating an immediate, potentially prohibitive, hurdle for smaller or less-resourced health departments. It allows for a phased approach to data availability.
Case against: Critics might argue that without a universal mandate for public data access, the full potential for comparative analysis and broad public health insights could be diminished, as data silos might persist among non-prioritized recipients, limiting the national impact.
Estimated impact: This provision will likely lead to a significant portion of funded entities sharing data publicly, but not necessarily all, potentially affecting the comprehensiveness and utility of a national public wastewater surveillance dashboard.
Eligible entities applying for awards must submit a plan outlining how they will sustain their wastewater surveillance activities following the conclusion of the federal award period.
Section 2. (a), adding Section 2827(b)(2)(D) to the Public Health Service Act.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure long-term impact beyond initial federal funding, promoting fiscal responsibility. However, its implications for local budgeting and planning are substantial and could be a significant hurdle for applicants.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures federal investments lead to lasting public health infrastructure rather than temporary programs, promoting responsible use of taxpayer money and building enduring capabilities at the local level.
Case against: Critics might contend that requiring a detailed sustainability plan could disproportionately burden smaller or less-resourced health departments, potentially limiting their ability to apply for and receive grants, even if they have immediate and pressing needs.
Estimated impact: This requirement will likely push health departments to consider long-term funding strategies, potentially involving state or local appropriations, user fees, or integration into existing public health budgets, influencing the longevity and stability of surveillance programs.
Funds awarded under this section can be used to conduct wastewater surveillance, as appropriate, at individual facilities, institutions, and locations in rural areas where there is an increased risk of infectious disease outbreaks and wastewater is not treated through the relevant local utility of the jurisdiction.
Section 2. (a), adding Section 2827(d)(2) to the Public Health Service Act.
Why it matters:This detail addresses a critical gap in traditional wastewater surveillance, which often focuses on municipal treatment plants, ensuring coverage for vulnerable or underserved populations and specific high-risk settings that might otherwise be missed.
Case for: Proponents emphasize that this provision ensures equitable access to surveillance benefits, particularly for rural communities and specific high-risk settings (e.g., nursing homes, schools, correctional facilities) that might otherwise be missed by broader municipal wastewater monitoring efforts.
Case against: Critics might point to the increased logistical complexity and cost of implementing surveillance at numerous individual sites compared to centralized municipal systems, potentially diluting resources and making overall program management more challenging.
Estimated impact: This will significantly expand the reach of wastewater surveillance beyond urban centers and large treatment plants, providing more granular data for specific vulnerable populations and underserved geographic areas, enhancing targeted public health interventions.