S-958-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Sponsored by Ben Luján (D-NM)
What it does
The Tech to Save Moms Act would direct federal action to expand the use of health technology — such as telehealth, remote monitoring, and digital health tools — to address maternal mortality and morbidity in the United States. The bill's full text was not provided beyond its title and referral to the Senate HELP Committee, so specific programmatic mechanisms, funding levels, and eligibility criteria are not available for detailed analysis.
Who benefits
Pregnant and postpartum women, particularly those in rural or underserved areas with limited access to in-person obstetric care. Black and Indigenous mothers, who experience maternal mortality at disproportionately higher rates. Telehealth and digital health technology companies that may receive grants or contracts. Hospitals and clinics that adopt qualifying technologies. Researchers studying maternal health outcomes.
Who is hurt
Traditional in-person obstetric care providers who may face competitive pressure or funding reallocation. Patients without reliable broadband internet or smartphones, who may be unable to access technology-based solutions and could be left behind if resources shift toward digital tools. Taxpayers who would bear any new federal spending. States or providers that do not meet eligibility criteria for any grants or programs established.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among high-income nations — approximately 22 deaths per 100,000 live births as of recent CDC data — and that technology-based interventions such as remote blood pressure monitoring have demonstrated measurable reductions in postpartum complications. They contend that expanding telehealth access directly addresses geographic and systemic barriers that prevent high-risk mothers, especially in rural and minority communities, from receiving timely care.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that technology-focused solutions risk treating symptoms rather than root causes of maternal mortality, such as systemic gaps in insurance coverage, provider bias, and social determinants of health that digital tools cannot address. They contend that federal spending on health technology platforms may disproportionately benefit well-resourced health systems and tech companies while failing to reach the most vulnerable mothers — those without broadband access or digital literacy — potentially widening existing disparities.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to fund health programs under the Taxing and Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1). If the bill conditions federal funds on state or provider compliance with specific requirements, spending clause coercion limits established in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) would be relevant. Any agency rules implementing the bill would face independent judicial review under Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), which eliminated automatic deference to agency interpretations.
Checks and balances
Congress would set program parameters and any appropriations; HHS (likely through HRSA or CMS) would gain administrative authority to implement grants or rules; courts retain review authority over agency implementation under the post-Loper Bright independent judgment standard.
Historical precedent
The Preventing Maternal Deaths Act of 2018 similarly directed federal resources toward maternal mortality review committees, establishing a precedent for targeted federal intervention in maternal health outcomes.