H.R. 9212

H.R. 9212: To amend title 38, United States Code, to reimburse veterans for the cost of emergency medical transportation to a Federal facility, and for other purposes.

Introduced Mark Alford (R) HOUSE_BILL — 119th Congress
Plain English Summary

H.R. 9212 aims to amend existing laws to allow veterans to be reimbursed for the costs associated with emergency medical transportation to federal healthcare facilities. This bill seeks to ensure that veterans can receive necessary medical care without the burden of transportation costs during emergencies.

Positive Media Summary

The bill has been positively received by veteran advocacy groups who argue that it addresses a critical gap in healthcare access for veterans. Supporters highlight that this legislation will alleviate financial stress for veterans in emergency situations, ensuring they can prioritize their health without worrying about transportation expenses.

Negative Media Summary

Some critics have raised concerns about the potential costs associated with the bill, arguing that it could lead to increased government spending. Additionally, there are worries that the reimbursement process may be complicated, potentially discouraging veterans from seeking necessary emergency care.

Conflict of Interest Analysis Deep Analysis
2/10
Risk Level
Low
Total Donations
$157,500,000
PAC Percentage
0%
Policy Area
Armed Forces and National Security

The analysis of H.R. 9212 reveals no direct industry overlaps between the sponsor Mark Alford's top donor industries and the bill's subject matter, which focuses on reimbursing veterans for emergency medical transportation. Alford's top donor industries include Health Professionals, contributing $120 million, and Retired individuals, contributing $37.5 million. While these industries are significant in terms of financial contributions, they do not directly relate to the specifics of the bill, which is aimed at veterans' medical transportation costs. Furthermore, the lobbying activity in this policy area is largely undisclosed, making it difficult to assess potential influences. Overall, the absence of direct conflicts suggests a low risk of influence from donor interests on this legislation.

Lobbying Activity — Who's Pushing?

Organizations that lobbied on issues related to this bill's policy area.

Client Lobbying Firm Amount
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY RMP STRATEGIES, LLC $10,000
MANAGED FUNDS ASSOCIATION RMP STRATEGIES, LLC $10,000
PUBLIC PRIVATE STRATEGIES VALENTINE STRATEGIES undisclosed
SAMSARA INC. CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INC. undisclosed
OTG PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
BLOCKQUAKE HOLDINGS LLC PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
PAYSAFE MERCHANT SERVICES CORPORATION PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
PROOF OF STAKE ALLIANCE PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
INTEGRAL COMMUNITIES PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
SENTILINK CORP. PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
TEMPLUM LLC (FORMERLY KNOWN AS OUISA CAPITAL LLC) PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
GLOBAL PRIMEX LLC PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
WARRIOR TRADING PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
SYNIVERSE TECHNOLOGIES LLC PAUL HASTINGS LLP undisclosed
SOUTHERN INSTITUTE OF POLICY RESEARCH SOUTHERN INSTITUTE OF POLICY RESEARCH undisclosed

Source: Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) filings, 2026

Sponsor's Top Donor Industries

Top industries funding Mark Alford, ranked by total contributions.

Health Professionals $120,000,000
Individuals: $120,000,000 PACs: $0
Retired $37,500,000
Individuals: $37,500,000 PACs: $0

Source: OpenSecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics)

TheBillRoom is free and independent. No ads, no subscriptions, no political funding. If this analysis was useful, reader support keeps it running.
Support Us