S-2673-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Sponsored by Mark Kelly (D-AZ)
What it does
This bill would require the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to develop recommendations for improving how military medics transition into civilian healthcare jobs such as certified nurse aides, licensed practical nurses, and medical assistants. It would also establish a pilot grant program awarding up to $600,000 per recipient over three years to nonprofit healthcare providers in medically underserved areas that hire and train separating service members. The bill authorizes $5 million per year from fiscal years 2026 through 2030 for the grant program and requires periodic reporting to Congress on outcomes.
Who benefits
Military medics and other service members with clinical healthcare experience who are separating from the Armed Forces and seeking civilian employment. Nonprofit rural health clinics, federally qualified health centers, nursing homes, and other providers in medically underserved areas that would receive grants to hire and train veterans. Patients in rural and underserved communities who may gain greater access to healthcare workers. States and localities facing healthcare workforce shortages. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which could see reduced demand if veterans find stable civilian employment sooner. Indirect beneficiaries include families of transitioning service members who gain financial stability.
Who is hurt
Civilian healthcare workers and new graduates who may face increased competition for entry-level positions at grant-funded facilities. For-profit healthcare providers, who are ineligible for grants, may be at a competitive disadvantage in hiring transitioning veterans relative to nonprofit recipients. Taxpayers bear the cost of the $25 million authorization over five years. Healthcare providers in non-rural or non-underserved areas would not be eligible for grants, potentially limiting the program's geographic reach. Service members who do not hold clinical credentials would not benefit from the credentialing alignment provisions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that military medics receive extensive clinical training — often equivalent to civilian emergency medical technicians, paramedics, or licensed practical nurses — yet face significant bureaucratic barriers when translating those credentials into civilian licenses, leaving a skilled workforce underutilized. They contend the bill directly addresses two simultaneous national shortages: the civilian healthcare workforce gap, projected by the Association of American Medical Colleges to reach up to 86,000 physicians and hundreds of thousands of allied health workers by 2036, and the veteran unemployment and underemployment problem. By targeting grants to medically underserved and rural areas, the bill would direct resources where healthcare access gaps are most acute.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's $25 million authorization over five years is too modest to produce systemic change and that the core problem — inconsistent state-by-state licensing requirements — lies outside federal jurisdiction, meaning the recommendations required by the bill may have limited practical effect without state legislative action. They contend that restricting grants to nonprofit providers in designated underserved areas creates an administratively complex eligibility structure that may exclude many facilities where transitioning veterans actually seek work, and that the pilot program's three-to-five year duration is insufficient to evaluate long-term workforce retention outcomes or justify permanent program expansion.