Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill amends section 543(b)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290dd–2(b)(2)) to add an exception permitting disclosure of records relating to the prescribing or dispensing of substance use disorder (SUD) medications to State prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). Disclosure is allowed only when the record relates to SUD medications and the disclosure is required by applicable State law.
Privacy and treatment access concerns versus monitoring and diversion prevention
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that clearly creates a narrow exception permitting disclosure of records related to substance use disorder medications to State prescription drug monitoring programs when state law requires such disclosure.
The bill amends section 543(b)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290dd–2(b)(2)) to add an exception permitting disclosure of records relating to the prescribing or dispensing of substance use disorder (SUD) medications to State prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs).
Disclosure is allowed only when the record relates to SUD medications and the disclosure is required by applicable State law.
The change creates a statutory pathway for such confidentiality exceptions where state law mandates reporting.
Limited scope and no fiscal cost improve prospects, but confidentiality concerns and variable state laws introduce friction and possible opposition.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that clearly creates a narrow exception permitting disclosure of records related to substance use disorder medications to State prescription drug monitoring programs when state law requires such disclosure. The operative change is specific and well-targeted within the existing statutory citation.
Privacy and treatment access concerns versus monitoring and diversion prevention
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Privacy and treatment access concerns versus monitoring and diversion prevention
Likely cautious or concerned.
Supports effective SUD treatment but worries this reduces confidentiality protections and may deter care.
Would want strong privacy safeguards and non-punitive use of PDMP data.
Mixed but pragmatic.
Sees value in monitoring to prevent misuse while recognizing privacy tradeoffs.
Would weigh state flexibility and demand statutory safeguards and oversight.
Generally supportive.
Values state authority and tools to prevent drug diversion and improper prescribing.
Sees the bill as enabling public-safety and medical oversight consistent with state law.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Limited scope and no fiscal cost improve prospects, but confidentiality concerns and variable state laws introduce friction and possible opposition.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Privacy and treatment access concerns versus monitoring and diversion prevention
Limited scope and no fiscal cost improve prospects, but confidentiality concerns and variable state laws introduce friction and possible op…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that clearly creates a narrow exception permitting disclosure of records related to substance use disorder medications to State presc…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.