This Act establishes a grant program to fund mobile screening units to increase access to vital cancer screenings, particularly for lung cancer, in rural and underserved communities.
Raul Ruiz
Representative
CA-25
The Mobile Cancer Screening Act establishes a grant program to fund the creation and operation of mobile screening units, such as vans, to increase access to vital cancer screenings in rural and underserved communities. These grants will help organizations purchase vehicles, acquire necessary technology, and cover operational costs, prioritizing applicants who can significantly reduce screening gaps and provide immediate follow-up care. The Secretary must report to Congress on the program's impact on patient outcomes and screening rates within four years of enactment.
The new Mobile Cancer Screening Act sets up a federal grant program designed to tackle a critical problem: too many people, especially in rural and underserved areas, aren't getting screened for cancer. The bill authorizes $15 million annually, starting in Fiscal Year 2027 and running through 2031, to fund mobile screening units—think high-tech medical buses—that can bring early detection directly to communities.
This isn't just about general health; it specifically targets the high death rate from cancers like lung cancer, which is the deadliest but often has low screening rates (only 4.5% of eligible people were screened in 2022). The goal is to catch cancer early, given that the 5-year survival rate jumps dramatically when detection happens at an early stage. The program will be run through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), offering grants up to $2 million per award.
Who can actually apply for this money? The list is broad: nonprofit hospitals, Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), academic medical centers, and even consortiums of these groups. If you get the grant, you can use the funds to buy the commercial vehicle, outfit it with necessary imaging technology, purchase digital tools, and cover essential startup and operational costs. For a small FQHC serving a multi-county rural area, this grant could be the only way to afford the specialized equipment needed to reach patients who can’t easily drive 100 miles to a city hospital.
While this sounds like a great deal, there are two key requirements that will separate the successful applicants from the rest. First, the grant recipient must contribute non-Federal funds—cash or services—equal to at least one dollar for every three dollars they receive from the federal grant. That means if a hospital gets the maximum $2 million award, they need to show they have $666,667 of their own money or services committed to the project. This matching requirement could be a significant barrier for smaller, less-resourced community health organizations.
Second, the Secretary will prioritize applicants who can demonstrate that they offer comprehensive follow-up care for any abnormal screening results. Specifically, they must be able to arrange follow-up care that is accessible via ground transportation within 90 minutes of the mobile unit’s location. This provision is smart because it ensures that getting a scary result doesn't just leave a patient hanging. However, achieving that 90-minute follow-up window in truly remote rural areas might be a logistical tightrope, potentially favoring applicants who are already closer to regional medical centers.
If you live in an area currently considered a healthcare desert, this bill could mean that life-saving early detection services—like low-dose CT scans for lung cancer or mammograms—will literally drive to your town or even your workplace. The success of this program hinges on whether the grants go to the groups best positioned to overcome the logistical hurdles of rural healthcare delivery. The bill also requires the Secretary to report back to Congress after four years, detailing the program's impact on screening rates and patient outcomes, broken down by demographics. This reporting mechanism ensures that the government can't just throw money at the problem and walk away; they have to prove it actually improved public health.