Tuberculosis tissue screening feasibility study

Summary#

The Shandra Eisenga TB Study Act of 2026 would create a new law directing the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to study whether a reliable, standardized test or testing strategy for tuberculosis in human cadaver tissue is feasible. Its stated goal is to improve donor screening, transplant safety, and the integrity of organ and tissue donation systems; those are goals, not guaranteed results. The bill is not law: it has been introduced and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

  • The HHS Secretary must conduct the study within two years of enactment and report its findings and recommendations to Congress within three years.
  • The Secretary must consult the directors of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, the Health Resources and Services Administration Administrator, and relevant donation and post-mortem system stakeholders, including organ procurement organizations and tissue banks.
  • The study may cover the state of research and gaps; testing methods; specimen collection, timing, quality assurance, and biosafety; possible pilot and implementation studies across diverse populations and multiple types of sites; agency coordination; and scientific, operational, or regulatory barriers.
  • The bill requires a study and report, not development or use of a test. It does not establish a screening program or require changes to current donation practices.

What it means for you#

  • HHS and named federal officials: If the bill becomes law, the Secretary must complete the study and report on time, and must consult the named officials and relevant stakeholders.
  • Organ procurement organizations, tissue banks, and other relevant stakeholders: They are included in the required consultation. The bill does not set out how consultation would work or require them to test tissue.
  • People who donate or receive organs or tissue: The bill does not directly change eligibility, screening, or transplant rules. Any effect on those rules would depend on later action.
  • Congress: The Secretary’s report must include recommendations for developing and implementing a test, including any congressional or regulatory action needed to address barriers.

Money#

No publicly available information on the estimated cost.

  • The Secretary may use amounts appropriated to support HHS for fiscal years 2027 through 2031, subject to available appropriations. The bill does not provide a new, specific appropriation.
  • The bill gives no estimate for study, staffing, or consultation costs.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define what counts as an “accurate and reliable” test or a “comprehensive” study.
  • The listed study topics are optional: the Secretary may include them “as appropriate.” The bill does not say which must be covered.
  • It does not set rules for how stakeholders are selected or consulted, or how the study’s findings will be assessed.
  • It does not specify funding levels or what happens if available appropriations are insufficient.
  • It does not require the government to develop, approve, or implement a test after the study.

Case for#

  • A study could identify whether existing science can support a standardized test and where research gaps remain.
  • Examining specimen collection, timing, quality assurance, and biosafety could help assess practical barriers before any test is put into use.
  • Consulting federal health agencies and donation-system organizations could bring scientific, regulatory, and operational perspectives into the study.
  • Reporting recommendations to Congress could clarify what further steps, if any, are needed.

Case against#

  • A study alone does not ensure that a test will be developed, validated, or adopted.
  • The bill leaves the Secretary discretion over which listed topics to include, so key questions could be left unanswered.
  • It sets deadlines for the study and report but does not specify a process for acting on the recommendations.
  • Funding depends on available appropriations, and the bill gives no cost estimate.