Data to Save Moms Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 25, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to combat the maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity crisis in the U.S. through improved data, community involvement, and targeted research, with a strong focus on health equity.
What it actually does
This bill aims to improve maternal health outcomes by enhancing data collection, expanding quality measures, and addressing disparities, particularly for racial and ethnic minority groups and American Indian/Alaska Native individuals. It authorizes grants for community engagement in maternal mortality review committees, mandates a comprehensive review of existing data processes, funds a dedicated study on maternal health among American Indian/Alaska Native individuals, and provides grants to minority-serving institutions for targeted research.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill directly addresses the alarming rates of maternal mortality and morbidity, especially among minority populations, by improving data quality, promoting community-led solutions, and funding critical research. They contend that this comprehensive approach is a necessary step to save lives, reduce health disparities, and ensure that maternal healthcare is equitable and effective for all individuals.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might raise concerns about the overall cost of new federal programs and studies, particularly in an environment of fiscal constraint. Some could argue that the bill expands federal involvement in areas traditionally managed by states or that existing mechanisms are sufficient, potentially leading to bureaucratic inefficiencies rather than direct improvements in care.
The bill is moderately complex due to its amendments to existing law and detailed directives, but its structure allows an informed reader to understand its main objectives and provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a), amending Section 317K(d) of the Public Health Service Act
Grants for Community Engagement in Maternal Mortality Review Committees (MMRCs)
This provision authorizes $10 million annually for fiscal years 2027-2031 for grants to state, Tribal, and Urban Indian Maternal Mortality Review Committees (MMRCs). These funds are intended to diversify committee membership by prioritizing individuals from various racial, ethnic, and geographic backgrounds, including those with lived experiences of maternal mortality or severe maternal morbidity. The grants will also address barriers to participation, such as training, transportation, and compensation, and support community outreach efforts to seek input from communities, especially racial and ethnic minority groups. Additionally, MMRCs receiving these grants must release public reports assessing their review processes and the impact of these diversity and engagement efforts.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that diverse representation and community input are crucial for MMRCs to accurately identify the multifaceted causes of maternal deaths and develop effective, culturally competent prevention strategies, especially for disproportionately affected communities. Addressing participation barriers ensures genuine, equitable engagement.
Critics contend
Some might express concerns that compensating community members for participation could set an unsustainable precedent or that non-clinical members might dilute the medical focus of MMRCs, though these arguments are generally not widely voiced against efforts to improve equity.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between maintaining clinical expertise in review committees and integrating essential lived experiences and community perspectives to achieve a more holistic understanding of maternal health challenges.
Section 2(b), amending Section 317K(f) of the Public Health Service Act
Dedicated Funding for Tribal Maternal Mortality Review Committees
This section amends existing law to reserve not less than $1,500,000 annually from current appropriations under Section 317K(f) of the Public Health Service Act. These reserved funds are specifically designated for grants to Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, or Urban Indian organizations to support their maternal mortality review committees. This funding is in addition to the new $10 million authorization provided in Section 2(a).
Section 3, amending Section 317K(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Public Health Service Act
Expanding Scope of Maternal Mortality Review Committee Data Collection
This amendment significantly expands the scope of data collection and review for Maternal Mortality Review Committees (MMRCs). It requires MMRCs, to the extent practicable, to review cases of severe maternal morbidity and deaths during pregnancy or up to one year postpartum resulting from suicide, overdose, or other mental health conditions or substance use disorders attributed to or aggravated by pregnancy. Furthermore, it mandates consultation with local community-based organizations representing demographic groups with elevated rates of maternal mortality to ensure that nonclinical factors contributing to pregnancy-related deaths are appropriately considered.
Section 4
HHS Review of Maternal Health Data Collection Processes and Quality Measures
This section directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), to consult with diverse stakeholders to review existing maternal health data collection processes and quality measures. The review must assess various aspects, including state and Tribal data practices, timeliness of death certificate amendments, use of electronic health record data, barriers to correlating data with demographics, MMRC diversity and training on bias, consideration of social determinants of maternal health, and the effectiveness of current quality measures. The Secretary must submit a public report with recommendations within one year of enactment. Such sums as may be necessary are authorized for fiscal years 2027-2030.
Section 5
Comprehensive Study on American Indian and Alaska Native Maternal Health
This section directs 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 outcomes among American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) individuals. The study must examine unique causes, include listening to AI/AN individuals' stories, distinguish care settings (IHS, Tribal, Urban Indian, external facilities), review program coordination, assess data/quality measures, consider mental health/substance use disorders, social determinants of health, and the role of historical mistreatment. It also requires recommendations to reduce misclassification of AI/AN individuals and improve outcomes. A report with recommendations is due to Congress within three years. $2 million is authorized annually for fiscal years 2027-2029.
Section 6
Grants to Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) for Maternal Health Research
This section establishes a program to award grants to research centers, health professions schools, and other entities at minority-serving institutions (MSIs). The purpose of these grants is to study specific aspects of the maternal health crisis among pregnant and postpartum individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups. Research areas may include developing systematic processes for listening to community stories, assessing potential racial misclassification and low mortality rates among Hispanic individuals, analyzing disparities among Hispanic subgroups, and promoting racial and ethnic diversity within the lactation workforce through education. The Secretary may use up to 10% of funds for outreach and technical assistance to MSIs. $10 million is authorized annually for fiscal years 2027-2031.
Authorizes the use of funds to address barriers to maternal mortality review committee participation for community members, including required training, transportation barriers, and compensation.
Section 2(a)(9)(A)(i)(II)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for detailing specific allowable uses of grant funds rather than elevating every granular detail to a top-level provision. It ensures flexibility while providing clear guidance.
Case for: Proponents argue that explicitly allowing for compensation and support for community members is vital for ensuring genuine, equitable participation from diverse individuals who might otherwise be unable to afford the time or cost of involvement, thereby strengthening the committees' effectiveness.
Case against: Critics might argue that providing compensation for committee participation could set a precedent for other volunteer-based public service roles, potentially increasing costs or expectations for future government initiatives.
Estimated impact: This provision enables practical support for community members, potentially increasing the diversity and representativeness of MMRCs nationwide.
Requires Maternal Mortality Review Committees (MMRCs) 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 appropriately considered.
Section 3, subclause (IV)
Why it matters:This is a technical amendment to existing law, fitting within the established structure for MMRC operations. Its placement reflects an expansion of existing duties rather than a wholly new program.
Case for: Proponents argue that mandating consultation with community-based organizations ensures that MMRCs gain crucial insights into the nonclinical factors (e.g., social determinants of health, systemic racism) that significantly contribute to maternal deaths, leading to more holistic and effective recommendations.
Case against: Some might argue that mandating specific consultation processes could be overly prescriptive or create an additional administrative burden for MMRCs, potentially diverting resources from core clinical review functions.
Estimated impact: This provision mandates a specific and critical form of community engagement, ensuring that systemic and social factors are explicitly considered in maternal death reviews.
Requires the HHS review of maternal health data collection processes to consider the timeliness of processes for amending a death certificate when new information becomes available to reflect whether the death was a pregnancy-related death.
Section 4(c)(1)(A)
Why it matters:This is a technical but crucial detail for ensuring data accuracy. Its placement within the data collection review topics is appropriate for its technical nature.
Case for: Proponents argue that accurate and timely classification of pregnancy-related deaths is fundamental for reliable maternal mortality statistics. Delays or failures in amending death certificates can lead to undercounting or mischaracterizing the problem, hindering effective interventions.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against efforts to improve the accuracy and timeliness of vital statistics data, as it is a core function of public health surveillance.
Estimated impact: This provision aims to improve the accuracy of national maternal mortality data by addressing a specific, technical challenge in death certificate classification.
Requires the HHS review to consider whether members of maternal mortality review committees participate in trainings on bias, racism, or discrimination, and the quality of such trainings.
Section 4(c)(1)(G)
Why it matters:This is a specific, detailed aspect of MMRC operations that fits within the broader review of their practices. Its inclusion reflects a targeted concern about equity within the review process itself.
Case for: Proponents argue that bias, racism, and discrimination significantly contribute to maternal health disparities. Assessing and improving bias training for MMRC members is crucial to ensure that reviews are conducted equitably and that recommendations address systemic issues, not just individual factors.
Case against: Some might argue that mandating specific training topics could be seen as overreach or that the effectiveness of such trainings is difficult to measure, though the importance of addressing bias in healthcare is widely recognized.
Estimated impact: This provision aims to improve the equity and cultural competence of maternal mortality reviews by scrutinizing the training provided to committee members on issues of bias and discrimination.
Recommends new authorities that may be granted to maternal mortality review committees (MMRCs) to be able to access records from other Federal and State agencies and departments (e.g., for veterans, incarcerated individuals) and work with relevant experts who are not members of the MMRC.
Section 4(c)(5)
Why it matters:This is a potential future policy change, appropriately placed within a section on recommendations for improvement rather than as an immediate statutory amendment. It signals a direction for future legislative action.
Case for: Proponents argue that expanding MMRC access to records from agencies like the VA or correctional facilities, and allowing consultation with external experts, is crucial for understanding maternal deaths in specific, vulnerable populations whose experiences might otherwise be overlooked or poorly understood due to data silos.
Case against: Concerns might be raised about privacy implications, data sharing agreements, and the potential for mission creep if MMRCs gain broad access to records from unrelated agencies without clear safeguards and protocols.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly expand the investigative capacity and scope of MMRCs, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of maternal deaths in specialized populations.
Requires the study on maternal health among American Indian and Alaska Native individuals to consider the role that historical mistreatment of American Indian and Alaska Native women has played in causing currently elevated rates of maternal mortality, severe maternal morbidity, and other adverse perinatal or childbirth outcomes.
Section 5(c)(8)
Why it matters:This is a specific, yet profound, directive for the study's scope, appropriately placed within the detailed instructions for the research. Its inclusion highlights a critical, often unacknowledged, determinant of health.
Case for: Proponents argue that acknowledging and studying the impact of historical mistreatment is essential for a complete understanding of current health disparities among AI/AN women. This approach moves beyond proximate causes to address root systemic issues, leading to more effective and culturally sensitive interventions.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against including historical context in studies of health disparities, particularly when conducted in coordination with affected communities.
Estimated impact: This provision ensures that the study delves into the deep-seated historical and systemic factors contributing to maternal health disparities, providing a more comprehensive and equitable analysis.