Hazard Pay for Health Care Heroes Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 21, 2026
Bottom line
The bill creates a federal grant program to provide hazardous duty pay and safety measures for non-remote essential health care workers during declared emergencies.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to establish a new program for emergency grants to safeguard essential health care workers. It authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide grants to public or private nonprofit health care facilities and home health agencies. These funds are primarily intended to provide hazardous duty compensation, up to $13 per hour and $25,000 annually, to eligible health care workers whose work or commute is deemed hazardous during a declared emergency or disaster. Additionally, funds may be used for safety measures like personal protective equipment and alternative transit options.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that essential health care workers, particularly those whose jobs cannot be performed remotely, face significant risks during public health emergencies and natural disasters. They contend that providing hazardous duty compensation acknowledges these risks, incentivizes workers to continue their vital services, and helps retain a critical workforce. Supporters also emphasize that funding for safety measures like PPE is crucial for protecting these frontline heroes and ensuring continuity of care.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the potential cost of such a broad program, especially given the 'such sums as may be necessary' authorization, which provides no fiscal cap. They might also argue that defining 'hazardous' work or commutes could be subjective and lead to inconsistent application across different emergencies and facilities. Some critics could suggest that existing emergency funding mechanisms or employer responsibilities should cover these costs, rather than creating a new federal grant program.
The bill is short and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and easy to understand its core provisions.
Section 2, adding Section 319D-2(a)
Definitions of Emergency and Essential Health Care Worker
This section defines key terms for the grant program. An 'emergency or disaster' is broadly defined to include federal declarations (major disaster, national emergency, public health emergency) and State, local, territorial, or Tribal declarations. An 'eligible health care worker' is an essential health care worker whose job cannot be done remotely. 'Essential health care worker' includes a wide range of roles from direct care providers and medical technologists to public health workers, orderlies, and environmental service staff in health care settings, with a catch-all for other roles the Secretary deems essential.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that broad and inclusive definitions are essential to ensure that all frontline workers who face risks during emergencies are covered by the program. They contend that explicitly listing various roles, including support staff like orderlies and janitorial workers, recognizes their critical contributions and exposure to hazards, which are often overlooked.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the broad definition of 'emergency or disaster' could lead to frequent and widespread activation of the program, potentially straining federal resources. Some may also contend that the 'catch-all' provision for the Secretary to determine other essential roles grants too much discretionary power, potentially leading to inconsistent application or political influence.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between ensuring comprehensive coverage for all at-risk workers and managing the scope and potential cost of the program. Broad definitions maximize protection but could lead to higher expenditures and administrative complexity.
Section 2, adding Section 319D-2(b)(1) and (2)(A)
Emergency Grants for Hazardous Duty Compensation
This provision authorizes the Secretary to award grants to public or private nonprofit health care facilities and home health agencies. The primary use of these funds is to provide hazardous duty compensation to eligible health care workers during declared emergencies or disasters. This compensation is capped at $13 per hour, paid in addition to regular wages, and has an annual maximum of $25,000 per worker. The compensation is triggered when the Secretary determines that the worker's duties or commute are hazardous due to the emergency.
Section 2, adding Section 319D-2(b)(2)(B)
Additional Uses for Grant Funds: Safety Measures
Beyond hazardous duty compensation, grant recipients may also use the funds to implement safety measures designed to protect eligible health care workers from hazards during an emergency or disaster. These measures explicitly include alternative transit options and personal protective equipment (PPE), but also allow for other unspecified safety measures determined necessary to safeguard workers.
The definition of 'essential health care worker' specifically includes 'an orderly (as defined in the 2010 Standard Occupational Classifications of the Department of Labor under the code for Orderlies (31-1015))'.
Section 2, adding Section 319D-2(a)(3)(D)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure precision by referencing existing federal classifications, rather than providing a new, potentially ambiguous definition. It ensures that the intended scope of 'orderly' is consistent with established federal labor standards.
Case for: Supporters argue that specifying the inclusion of orderlies via a recognized federal classification ensures that these often-overlooked but critical support staff are unequivocally eligible for the program's benefits. This prevents ambiguity and ensures equitable treatment for all essential frontline workers.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this precise definitional method, as it is a technical detail. However, broader opposition to the program might indirectly include concerns about the overall number of roles deemed eligible.
Estimated impact: Ensures that a specific category of crucial support staff, often at lower pay scales, is explicitly covered by the hazard pay and safety measures program, potentially impacting thousands of workers.
The bill authorizes 'such sums as may be necessary' to be appropriated to carry out the grant program.
Section 2, adding Section 319D-2(c)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for authorizing appropriations when the exact cost of a program is unknown or expected to vary significantly based on future events (e.g., the frequency and severity of emergencies). It avoids setting an arbitrary cap that might prove insufficient.
Case for: Proponents argue that an 'open-ended' authorization is necessary for an emergency-response program, as the scale and duration of future emergencies cannot be predicted. They contend that capping appropriations could leave essential health care workers unprotected during severe or prolonged crises, undermining the bill's intent.
Case against: Critics often raise concerns about 'such sums as may be necessary' authorizations because they do not provide a clear fiscal ceiling, making it difficult to estimate the program's long-term budget impact. They argue this approach lacks fiscal discipline and could lead to uncontrolled spending, especially if emergencies become more frequent or widespread.
Estimated impact: The fiscal impact is potentially significant and uncapped, depending entirely on the frequency, severity, and geographic scope of future declared emergencies and the number of eligible workers and facilities that apply for and receive grants.