TBI and PTSD Treatment Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/72
Last Updated: February 12, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]

ID: B001302

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

February 6, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

âś…

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another bill, another opportunity for our esteemed lawmakers to pretend they care about veterans while actually serving the interests of their real constituents: lobbyists and campaign donors.

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The TBI and PTSD Treatment Act (HR 72) claims to provide hyperbaric oxygen therapy to veterans with traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder. How noble. In reality, this bill is a classic case of "legislative lip service." It's a feel-good measure designed to make politicians look good while doing little to address the actual needs of veterans.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends title 38 of the United States Code to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish hyperbaric oxygen therapy to eligible veterans. Wow, what a bold move. The key provision is that it "authorizes" the Secretary to provide this treatment, which is just a fancy way of saying "we're not actually committing to anything." It's like writing a prescription for a patient without ensuring they can afford the medication.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

Veterans with TBI or PTSD might think they're the primary beneficiaries of this bill. Ha! The real stakeholders are the hyperbaric oxygen therapy providers and manufacturers, who will likely see a surge in demand (and profits) if this bill passes. Lobbyists for these industries have probably been whispering sweet nothings into the ears of our lawmakers, ensuring that their interests are represented.

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The impact of this bill will be minimal, at best. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the actual needs of veterans struggling with TBI and PTSD. The real implications are:

1. More bureaucratic red tape: This bill creates another layer of administrative complexity, which will likely lead to delays and inefficiencies in providing care. 2. Increased costs: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy is not cheap. Who will foot the bill? Taxpayers, of course. 3. Misdirection of resources: By focusing on a niche treatment like hyperbaric oxygen therapy, lawmakers are diverting attention (and funds) away from more pressing issues affecting veterans, such as access to quality mental health care and job training programs.

In conclusion, HR 72 is a classic example of "legislative placebo." It's a bill that looks good on paper but does little to address the underlying problems. Our lawmakers are once again treating the symptoms rather than the disease, all while pretending to care about veterans. How touching.

Related Topics

Civil Rights & Liberties Transportation & Infrastructure National Security & Intelligence Congressional Rules & Procedures Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement Small Business & Entrepreneurship State & Local Government Affairs Government Operations & Accountability Federal Budget & Appropriations
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

đź’° Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$116,250
26 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$116,250

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
GRAINGER, DAMON
2 transactions
$6,870
2
MCBRIDE, MICHAEL
2 transactions
$6,870
3
BENNETT, HEATHER
1 transaction
$6,600
4
COX, HOWARD
1 transaction
$6,600
5
SCOTT, MARILYN
1 transaction
$6,600
6
SEYMORE, GARY W
1 transaction
$6,600
7
TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J
2 transactions
$6,600
8
BENSON, LEE
2 transactions
$6,600
9
MATTEO, CHRIS
1 transaction
$5,000
10
CASSELS, W.T. JR.
1 transaction
$3,500
11
CASSELS, W TOBIN III
1 transaction
$3,500
12
ARIAIL, BRANDI C
1 transaction
$3,500
13
FLOYD, KAREN KANES
1 transaction
$3,500
14
SIMPSON, DARWIN H
1 transaction
$3,500
15
JOHNSON, NEIL
1 transaction
$3,435
16
KUMAR, DHAVAL
1 transaction
$3,435
17
LEE, LUCIAN
1 transaction
$3,435
18
RAHM, CHRISTINA
1 transaction
$3,435
19
THOMAS, CLAYTON
1 transaction
$3,435
20
EZELL, SHAWN
1 transaction
$3,435
21
MCCLEVE, LONNIE
1 transaction
$3,300
22
FAUST, ANNE R
1 transaction
$3,300
23
BROPHY, DANIEL
1 transaction
$3,300
24
LONDEN, PRISCILLA
1 transaction
$3,300
25
ALLEN, GWYNDA S
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2]

ID: C001132

Top Contributors

10

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
Organization MARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Mar 31, 2024
2
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
Organization MARICOPA, AZ
$3,300
Sep 16, 2024
3
HALE, STEVEN L. MR.
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL • WEALTH MANAGEMENT ADVISOR
Individual PEACHTREE CITY, GA
$9,900
Mar 31, 2024
4
JOHNSON, BENJAMIN MR.
Individual GRIFFIN, GA
$9,900
Mar 29, 2024
5
METCALF, MICHAEL MR.
SOUND MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC • OWNER
Individual WOODSTOCK, GA
$9,900
Mar 29, 2024
6
MILES, PHILLIP MR.
Individual ALPHARETTA, GA
$9,900
Mar 29, 2024
7
SANDWICH, JAMES T.
Individual BROOKS, GA
$9,900
Feb 13, 2024
8
SANDWICH, JAMES T. DR.
FAYETTE AREA DERMATOLOGY • PHYSICIAN
Individual BROOKS, GA
$9,900
Feb 13, 2024
9
HALE, STEVEN L. MR.
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL • WEALTH MANAGEMENT ADVISOR
Individual PEACHTREE CITY, GA
$9,900
Mar 31, 2024
10
JOHNSON, BENJAMIN MR.
LIBERTY TECHNOLOGY • CEO
Individual GRIFFIN, GA
$9,900
Mar 29, 2024

Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9]

ID: G000565

Top Contributors

10

1
COLORADO RIVER INDIANS TRIBES
Organization PARKER, AZ
$2,000
Sep 21, 2023
2
COLORADO RIVER INDIANS TRIBES
Organization PARKER, AZ
$1,000
Jun 29, 2024
3
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
Organization BANNING, CA
$1,000
Jul 19, 2023
4
SCHIRMER, SCOTT
M3 COMP • EXECUTIVE
Individual SCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
May 20, 2024
5
SMITH, RYAN
SELF EMPLOYED • ENTREPRENEUR
Individual SCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
May 20, 2024
6
SCHIRMER, SCOTT
Individual SCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
Jun 5, 2024
7
SMITH, RYAN
Individual SCOTTSDALE, AZ
$5,000
Jun 5, 2024
8
TAPIA, DONALD
RETIRED • RETIRED
Individual PARADISE VALLEY, AZ
$5,000
Aug 29, 2024
9
TAPIA, DONALD
Individual PARADISE VALLEY, AZ
$5,000
Sep 9, 2024
10
O'KEEFFE, WILLIAM
SAFTI • PRESIDENT
Individual SAN FRANCISCO, CA
$5,000
Oct 23, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 33 nodes and 36 connections

Total contributions: $136,750

Top Donors - Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

26 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.

Introduction

Low 58.7%
Pages: 679-681

— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo,

Introduction

Low 58.7%
Pages: 679-681

— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo, — 647 — Department of Veterans Affairs reimagine the health care footprint in some locales, and spur a realignment of capacity through budgetary allocations. Specifically: 1. Embrace the expansion of Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) as an avenue to maintain a VA footprint in challenging medical markets without investing further in obsolete and unaffordable VA health care campuses. 2. Explore the potential to pilot facility-sharing partnerships between the VA and strained local health care systems to reduce costs by leveraging limited talent and resources. Personnel l Extend the term of the Under Secretary for Health (USH) to five years. Additionally, authority should be given to reappoint this individual for a second five-year term both to allow for continuity and to protect the USH from political transition. l Establish a Senior Executive Service (SES) position of VHA Care System Chief Information Officer (CIO), selected by and reporting to the chief of the VHA Care System with a dotted line to the VA CIO. l Identify a workflow process to bring wait times in compliance with VA MISSION Act–required time frames wherever possible. 1. Assess the daily clinical appointment load for physicians and clinical staff in medical facilities where wait times for care are well outside of the time frames required by the VA MISSION Act. 2. Require VHA facilities to increase the number of patients seen each day to equal the number seen by DOD medical facilities: approximately 19 patients per provider per day. Currently, VA facilities may be seeing as few as six patients per provider per day. 3. Consider a pilot program to extend weekday appointment hours and offer Saturday appointment options to veterans if a facility continues to demonstrate that it has excess capacity and is experiencing delays in the delivery of care for veterans. 4. Identify clinical services that are consistently in high demand but require cost-prohibitive compensation to recruit and retain talent, and examine exceptions for higher competitive pay.

Introduction

Low 57.2%
Pages: 688-691

— 655 — Department of Veterans Affairs ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Division, VHA Directive 1003, “VHA Veteran Patient Experience,” April 14, 2020, pp. 1 and B-1. 2. S. 2372, VA Mission Act of 2018, Public Law No. 115-182, 115th Congress, June 6, 2018, https://www.congress. gov/115/plaws/publ182/PLAW-115publ182.pdf (accessed January 30, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA History Office, “VA History,” last updated May 27, 2021, https://www. va.gov/HISTORY/VA_History/Overview.asp (accessed January 28, 2023). 4. 38 U.S. Code § 1116, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/1116 (accessed January 28, 2023). 5. S. 3373, Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (Honoring Our PACT Act of 2022), Public Law No. 117-168, 117th Congress, August 10, 2022, https://www. congress.gov/117/plaws/publ168/PLAW-117publ168.pdf (accessed January 28, 2023). 6. H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Public Law No. 117-103, 117th Congress, March 15, 2022, Division S, Title I, https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ103/PLAW-117publ103.pdf (accessed March 18, 2023). Known variously as the Department of Veterans Affairs Nurse and Physician Assistant Retention and Income Security Enhancement Act and the VA Nurse and Physician Assistant RAISE Act. 7. See note 5, supra. — 657 — Section Four THE ECONOMY The next Administration must prioritize the economic prosperity of ordi- nary Americans. For several decades, establishment “elites” have failed the citizenry by refusing to secure the border, outsourcing manufacturing to China and elsewhere, spending recklessly, regulating constantly, and generally controlling the country from the top down rather than letting it flourish from the bottom up. The proper role of government, as was articulated nearly 250 years ago, is to secure our God-given, unalienable rights in order that we might enjoy the pursuit of happiness, the benefits of free enterprise, and the blessings of liberty. Finding the right approach to trade policy is key to the fortunes of everyday Americans. In Chapter 26, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute Kent Lassman and former White House director of trade and manufacturing policy Peter Navarro debate what an effective conservative trade policy would look like. Lass- man argues that the best trade policy is a humble, limited-government approach that would encourage free trade with all nations. He maintains that aggressive trade policies involve an increased government role that future leftist Administra- tions will utilize to push “climate change” and “equity”-based activism. Focusing more on gross domestic product (GDP) growth than on median income, he writes that “people mistakenly believe that U.S. manufacturing and the U.S. economy are in decline” when in truth “American manufacturing output is currently at an all-time high.” Meanwhile, we continue to experience “record-setting real GDP” despite our “long-run decline in manufacturing employment.” Lassman does not think that an aggressive U.S. trade policy would lead to more manufacturing jobs. Rather, he writes, “Federal Reserve research shows” that the

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.