Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to revise 10 C.F.R. §35.3045(a)(1) to add explicit reporting thresholds for unintended irradiation from extravasation during nuclear medicine procedures. It defines two numeric dose thresholds (0.5 Sv to 5 cc tissue or 0.5 Sv shallow dose to 10 cm² skin) as reportable medical events.
Progressives stress stronger patient protections and lower thresholds
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive change that clearly specifies the regulatory language to be added and sets firm timelines.
The bill directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to revise 10 C.F.R. §35.3045(a)(1) to add explicit reporting thresholds for unintended irradiation from extravasation during nuclear medicine procedures.
It defines two numeric dose thresholds (0.5 Sv to 5 cc tissue or 0.5 Sv shallow dose to 10 cm² skin) as reportable medical events.
The NRC must issue the revised regulation within 120 days of enactment, and the change becomes effective 18 months after enactment.
Technically focused patient-safety bill with low controversy and limited fiscal impact, so reasonably likely to advance.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive change that clearly specifies the regulatory language to be added and sets firm timelines. It provides strong mechanism specificity and identifies the responsible agency and effective date, but omits fiscal acknowledgement, technical definitions, measurement methodology, and accountability provisions.
Progressives stress stronger patient protections and lower thresholds
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress stronger patient protections and lower thresholds
Likely supportive because the bill clarifies patient-safety reporting and closes a regulatory gap around extravasation injuries.
They will want stronger patient protections, lower thresholds, and mandatory patient notification or remediation steps added.
Some effects (like whether thresholds are sufficiently protective) are uncertain and depend on the NRC's implementing rule.
Generally favorable to clearer, narrowly focused regulation that standardizes reporting and improves safety while leaving technical rulemaking to the NRC.
Will emphasize careful implementation, stakeholder input, and cost-benefit documentation.
Support is conditional on reasonable implementation timelines and guidance to reduce compliance burdens.
Cautiously skeptical: supports patient safety objectives but concerned about federal prescriptiveness, rushed deadlines, and compliance costs.
Prefers evidence-based thresholds set through deliberative NRC processes and minimal new regulatory burden on providers.
May oppose if rulemaking appears arbitrary or costly.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically focused patient-safety bill with low controversy and limited fiscal impact, so reasonably likely to advance.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress stronger patient protections and lower thresholds
Technically focused patient-safety bill with low controversy and limited fiscal impact, so reasonably likely to advance.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive change that clearly specifies the regulatory language to be added and sets firm timelines. It provides strong mechanism specificity and ident…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.