Exclusive Interview with Congresswoman Julia Brownley, Architect of the MAMMO Act

Congresswoman Julia Brownley represents California’s 26th Congressional District and is a leading advocate for veterans’ and women’s health access. In this exclusive interview, she pulls back the curtain on how preventive care policy is shaped in Congress and what is at stake for patients as screening access, funding pressures, and digital health technologies collide.

Q: What motivated you to focus on veteran health issues in Congress?  

My focus on veterans’ issues, and particularly veterans’ health care, comes from both personal  experience and a deep sense of responsibility. In California’s 26th Congressional District, more  than 40,000 veterans are part of our community. Over the years, I have met with veterans and  their families at town halls, in various health care settings, and through the casework my office  has handled on their behalf. I have heard directly how delays, denials, and bureaucratic failures  within the VA system affect their health, their stability, and their lives.  

That responsibility is also deeply personal to me. I come from a military family — my father,  brother, and uncle served our country in uniform — and growing up, I saw the sacrifices that  military service demands and the lasting impact it can have long after someone returns to  civilian life. Those experiences shaped my belief that caring for veterans is not an abstract  policy issue; it is a moral obligation we owe to the people who put their lives on the line for our  country.  

Too often, veterans are forced to fight a system that should be fighting for them. As Ranking  Member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Health, strengthening the VA health  care system has been a core focus of my work in Congress. Ensuring timely, high-quality, and  compassionate care is not just about fixing bureaucracy — it is about honoring service, restoring  trust, and saving lives.  

Q: Can you walk us through what the MAMMO for Veterans Act accomplishes and  what tangible results you've seen since it became law in 2022?  

The MAMMO for Veterans Act was about closing a gap in care that never should have existed.  For years, women veterans were excluded from receiving mammograms and breast cancer  screenings through the VA simply because of outdated eligibility rules. As a result, many were  forced to seek care outside the VA, delay screenings, or forgo them altogether.  

This law fixed that. The MAMMO for Veterans Act expanded eligibility so that women veterans  can receive mammograms and breast cancer screenings through the VA based on medical  need, not arbitrary service-connected criteria. That means earlier detection, fewer barriers to  care, and greater peace of mind for veterans who have already sacrificed so much.  

Since becoming law in 2022, I have heard directly from women veterans who are now getting  screened earlier and more consistently because of this change. These are not abstract  outcomes — they are real lives impacted by timely, preventive care. The MAMMO for Veterans  Act has made the VA’s health care system more equitable and more responsive, and it is  already saving lives by ensuring veterans can access the care they deserve when they need it. 

Q: How do the health challenges facing women veterans differ from the general  population when it comes to breast cancer and screening access? Are there  lessons from improving VA women's health services that could apply to civilian  healthcare? 

Women veterans face unique and often heightened health challenges compared to the general  population, particularly when it comes to breast cancer risk and access to timely screening.  Military service can involve exposure to toxic substances, extreme stress, and environments  that increase long-term health risks, including cancer. Yet for far too long, women veterans’  health needs were overlooked or treated as an afterthought.  

That is why I have focused on ensuring the VA’s health care system recognizes and responds  to those realities. In addition to expanding access to mental health and reproductive health care,  I authored and passed the SERVICE Act to require the VA to take service-related exposures  into account when determining cancer risk and screening eligibility. This law ensures that  women veterans are not denied care simply because outdated criteria fail to reflect how military  service affects their health.  

There are important lessons here for civilian health care. A one-size-fits-all approach does not  work. Health care systems must be designed around patients, not averages. When care fails to  account for differences shaped by gender, race, sexual orientation, or lived experience, people delay care or are missed altogether. That is especially true in women’s health, where gaps in  research, screening tools, and culturally competent care continue to cost lives.  

What we have seen in improving care for women veterans is that patient-centered, equity-driven  health care leads to better outcomes. That should be the standard across our entire health care  system — for veterans and civilians alike — so that everyone has access to timely,  comprehensive care that reflects who they are and the experiences they bring with them.  

Q: How do you respond to critics who want to defund programs that provide cancer  screenings?  

I strongly oppose efforts to defund programs that provide preventive care, including cancer  screenings. Preventive screenings save lives and reduce long-term health care costs, and  undermining them is both shortsighted and harmful. At a time when families are already  struggling with rising health care costs, taking away access to early detection only increases  fear, delays diagnoses, and leads to worse outcomes.  

We have seen troubling efforts to weaken the infrastructure that supports cancer prevention,  from rolling back research investments to attacking the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,  which sets evidence-based screening guidelines. These actions threaten to reverse decades of  progress in early detection and treatment. 

My Democratic colleagues and I are fighting back because access to cancer screenings should  never be a partisan issue. I remain committed to protecting the research, services, and public  investments that make preventive care more affordable and accessible. Early detection saves  lives, and it is our responsibility to ensure that cost or politics never stand in the way of people  getting the care they need.  

Q: What role can the federal government realistically play in improving access to  breast cancer screening and care? What tradeoffs does Congress have to  consider?  

The federal government plays an important role in shaping access to breast cancer screening  and care by protecting health coverage, funding preventive services, and ensuring the health  care system allows people to get screened early rather than wait until disease is more  advanced.  

At the same time, we have to be realistic about the moment we are in. We cannot meaningfully  expand access to breast cancer screening if millions of Americans are at risk of losing health  coverage altogether. Right now, much of Congress’s focus is on defending the coverage people  rely on in the face of deep cuts and policy changes that would leave individuals uninsured or  unable to afford care. Now law, H.R. 1 represents one of the most serious threats to health care  access we have seen in decades, cutting Medicaid on an unprecedented scale and making it  harder for people to stay covered.  

These are the real tradeoffs Congress must confront. Preventive care only works if people are  insured and able to access it. That is why protecting coverage must go hand in hand with  investing in research, supporting evidence-based screening guidelines, and continuing to push  for more equitable, patient-centered care. Undermining coverage in the name of cost-cutting  only delays diagnoses, worsens outcomes, and costs lives.  

Q: California is often seen as a leader in women’s healthcare. What has California  done right that other states could realistically replicate?  

California has taken a comprehensive approach to women’s health by combining strong legal  protections with policies that expand access to care in real, practical ways. That includes  safeguarding reproductive freedom, investing in preventive services, and recognizing that  women’s health care must be accessible, affordable, and grounded in medical science.  

One of the most important things California has done is make clear that personal health care  decisions belong between a patient and their doctor, not politicians. By codifying reproductive  rights and protecting access to abortion care, California has provided certainty for patients and  providers alike, including those who travel to the state seeking care. In the wake of the Dobbs  decision, that clarity and stability matter more than ever. 

California has also shown that states can expand access by supporting evidence-based  screening, strengthening provider networks, and reducing financial and logistical barriers that  keep women from getting preventive care. These are not radical ideas — they are practical  steps other states can take to improve outcomes and save lives.  

As we reflect on more than five decades since Roe v. Wade and confront the consequences of  its reversal, the lesson is clear: protecting rights must go hand in hand with investing in access.  Other states can replicate California’s approach by prioritizing patients, trusting science, and  building health care systems that meet women where they are.  

Q: As healthcare becomes more digital, what opportunities do you see to improve  women’s access and outcomes, and what should policymakers be careful about?  

Digital health tools present a real opportunity to close long-standing gaps in women’s access to  care. Telehealth, remote monitoring, and digital screening tools can help women receive care  earlier, connect with specialists who may not be available in their communities, and better  manage their health over time. Used responsibly, these tools can significantly improve  outcomes, particularly for women in rural and underserved areas.  

But as digital health expands, strong guardrails are essential. Protecting women’s health data  must be a top priority, especially data related to reproductive and sexual health. Without clear  protections, sensitive information collected by apps and digital platforms can be misused,  shared without consent, or exploited in ways that put women at risk.  

Digital health should be a tool for empowerment, not surveillance. That means setting clear  standards for privacy and security, ensuring transparency in how data is collected and used,  and making sure innovation expands access without undermining trust. If we do this right, digital  health can be a powerful driver of more equitable, patient-centered care.