MORE Act Puts New Partnership Hurdles on Healthcare Job Training Grants, Effective October 2025

The “Making Opportunities Reachable for Everyone Act,” or the MORE Act, is making a significant change to how the federal government hands out Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG), which fund job training for healthcare careers. This bill doesn't change the funding amount, but it changes who gets the money, specifically by making grant applicants prove they have strong partnerships already in place.

The New Bar for Job Training Funds

Under Section 2, the Secretary is now required to give preference—think of it as bonus points—to applicants who have officially teamed up with three specific types of organizations. The idea is to make sure the training programs are tightly connected to the real job market, but this move could create a major barrier to entry. If you’re an organization trying to get federal money to train people as nurses or medical assistants, you now have to show you’ve locked down partners from each of these three buckets:

1. Government and Social Services: This includes state or local government agencies, especially those involved in social services, and crucially, any local entity running a state program funded under Part A of Title IV (which is often related to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF).
2. Education and Training: You need a college, university, or a registered apprenticeship program involved. You also need the local workforce development board established under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act on your team.
3. Healthcare and Labor: This is the direct link to jobs: actual healthcare employers, industry partnerships, labor unions, or joint labor-management partnerships.

The Real-World Impact: Who Gets the Edge?

For job seekers, this could be a good thing. If a training program is required to partner with a hospital (the employer) and a union (the labor group) before it even gets funding, that program is much more likely to place graduates directly into good jobs. The training should be better aligned with what employers actually need, meaning less time spent training people for jobs that don't exist.

However, this change sets a seriously high bar for new or smaller organizations. Imagine a community college that wants to launch a new, innovative HPOG program. Under the current rules, they could apply based on their proposed curriculum and goals. Under the MORE Act, they must first secure formal partnerships with a TANF-related agency, a workforce board, a hospital system, and a union—all before they even submit the application. This gives a massive advantage to large, established organizations that already have these complex networks built out. Smaller, local, or specialized groups might have great training ideas but could be shut out because they lack the time or resources to broker these deals.

Implementation and the Fine Print

Section 3 clarifies that these new preference rules don't kick in right away. The changes won't take effect until October 1, 2025. This gives the Department of Health and Human Services and potential applicants plenty of lead time to adjust to the new requirements.

One area of vagueness is exactly what constitutes a “strong partnership.” The bill doesn't define the depth or formality required. Does a simple letter of intent count, or does it need to be a detailed, legally binding agreement? This lack of clarity could lead to subjective interpretations by the Secretary, potentially favoring applicants who are simply better at paperwork or navigating bureaucratic hurdles rather than those offering the best training. The intent is clearly to ensure job placement, but the mechanism—mandating pre-existing, multi-layered partnerships—could inadvertently limit competition and innovation in the job training space.