New Federal Crime: Attacking Hospital Staff Now Carries Up to 20 Years in Prison

The “Save Healthcare Workers Act” introduces a major change to how violence against hospital personnel is handled: it makes attacking a hospital worker a federal crime. If you knowingly assault someone who works for a hospital or a contracted company while they are on hospital grounds—and the facility is involved in interstate commerce—you could be facing federal charges, fines, and up to 10 years in prison.

Why the Feds Are Stepping In

This isn’t just about adding a new law; it’s about dramatically increasing the stakes for these assaults. Currently, most of these incidents are handled by state and local police, but this Act establishes a serious federal deterrent. The penalties jump significantly if the attack is more severe: using a dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury can bump the maximum sentence up to 20 years. That same 20-year maximum applies if the assault happens during an official public emergency or disaster declaration, like a major hurricane or pandemic response. This move essentially gives prosecutors a powerful new tool—the threat of federal time—to crack down on violence in emergency rooms and clinics.

Where the New Rules Apply

The law defines “hospital grounds” broadly, covering not just the main buildings but also the roads, paths, and open spaces used by the facility. This applies to a wide range of medical centers, including standard hospitals, critical access hospitals, and even rural emergency hospitals. Essentially, if you’re on hospital property and attack a staff member, the federal government now has jurisdiction. This broad reach is key, ensuring that security guards in the parking lot or nurses in a remote clinic are covered just as much as doctors in the main surgical wing.

The Fine Print: Exceptions and Challenges

While the goal is to protect overworked staff, the bill includes one significant carve-out: an affirmative defense for individuals with physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities. If someone with a qualifying disability commits an assault, they can argue that the attack was a direct result of their disability and that they couldn't understand the wrongfulness of their actions. However, the burden of proof here falls entirely on the defendant, meaning they must prove by a “preponderance of the evidence” that this was the case. This provision aims for fairness but places a high bar on vulnerable individuals to prove their intent in a federal court setting.

Tracking the Impact

To ensure this new federal power is actually making a difference, the legislation mandates that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conduct a study. The GAO will look at two things: first, whether this Act has actually reduced workplace violence in healthcare settings, and second, whether federal, state, and local prosecutors are using the new federal option more often. This mandated review is important because it builds in an accountability check to see if the federalization of these crimes is an effective use of resources or just an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy on top of existing state laws.