Bill Overview
Title: DEMAND Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to designate breast pumps and certain lactation supplies as eligible for financial assistance under major disaster relief provisions.
Sponsors: Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]
Target Audience
Population: Mothers requiring breastfeeding supplies following natural disasters
Estimated Size: 290000
- The legislation targets mothers who require breastfeeding supplies following natural disasters.
- In disasters, breastfeeding supplies are crucial for the health of infants and mothers.
- CDC reports approximately 3.6 million babies born each year in the U.S.; assuming 80% breastfeed, that means roughly 2.9 million mothers could require these supplies as potential beneficiaries.
- Natural disasters can affect large populations; common ones impact millions globally annually.
Reasoning
- The policy is aimed specifically at mothers affected by natural disasters who require breast pumps and lactation supplies. The beneficiaries would predominantly involve new mothers residing in disaster-prone areas.
- Given the budget constraints and estimated reach of 290,000 mothers annually, the policy would prioritize areas with recurring or significant disaster impacts, such as states along the Gulf Coast and certain parts of California prone to wildfires.
- Since natural disasters are unpredictable, there will be years of variable demand on resources, making it essential to ensure funding aligns with preparedness and rapid response.
- The policy's impact will largely be medium to high for those directly benefiting, with better immediate health outcomes for infants, reduced stress for mothers, and in some cases, potential long-term health benefits.
- Some individuals may experience no change due to geographic location or alternative resources, but most new mothers in affected areas will see notable improvements in their wellbeing during and after assuming readiness and efficient distribution.
Simulated Interviews
Nurse (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy would have been helpful during Hurricane Ida; I had to scramble for supplies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Teacher (Miami, Florida)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy ensures that I won't have to worry about accessing breastfeeding supplies after a storm.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Student (Houston, Texas)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would relieve a lot of the stress around preparedness, especially financially as a student.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Software Developer (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's nice to know we'll be a priority for support in emergencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Lawyer (New York, New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy wouldn't affect me directly now, but it's reassuring for future possible needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Stay-at-home mom (Des Moines, Iowa)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could provide me peace of mind knowing supplies would be available.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Nanny (San Diego, California)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It would have been a relief not to worry about how to feed my twins during an evacuation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Marketing Manager (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to know help could be faster when needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Entrepreneur (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although I'm not directly impacted, knowing there are systems in place is comforting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Waitress (Mobile, Alabama)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think having these supplies readily available could really help lower stress levels during floods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $87000000 (Low: $43500000, High: $130500000)
Year 2: $87900000 (Low: $43950000, High: $131850000)
Year 3: $89250000 (Low: $44625000, High: $133875000)
Year 5: $91875000 (Low: $45937500, High: $137812500)
Year 10: $96750000 (Low: $48375000, High: $145125000)
Year 100: $145125000 (Low: $72562500, High: $217687500)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring rapid and efficient distribution of supplies post-disaster is crucial.
- Coordination with local and state agencies to identify affected mothers quickly will heighten program success.
- Continuous monitoring of the number of beneficiaries to adjust funding and supply allocation if necessary.
- Inflation might slightly affect the cost of supplies over time.