PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 21, 2013
Supporting Colorectal Examination and Education Now Act of 2013 or SCREEN Act of 2013 - Increases Medicare payments to qualifying Medicare providers by 10% for cancer screening tests recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Terminates the increase for a test when it reaches a 75% utilization rate for beneficiaries for whom such screening is recommended. Makes a Medicare provider eligible for such increased payment only if the provider: (1) participates in a nationally recognized quality improvement registry with respect to such test, and (2) demonstrates that the tests were provided in accordance with accepted outcomes-based quality measures.
Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to waive cost-sharing for colorectal cancer screening tests.
Extends Medicare coverage to include an outpatient office visit or consultation prior to a colorectal cancer test consisting of a screening colonoscopy, or in conjunction with an individual's decision regarding the performance of such a test on the individual, for the purpose of beneficiary education, assuring selection of the proper screening test, and securing information relating to the procedure and the sedation of the individual.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reduce the conversion factors for purposes of payment to physicians and hospital outpatient departments under Medicare to offset the additional expenditures under this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Neal, Richard E. [D-MA-1] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E352)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1320 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1320 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1320 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1320 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.