PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 26, 2025
Telehealth Response for E-prescribing Addiction Therapy Services Act or the TREATS Act
This bill permanently allows health care practitioners to prescribe certain controlled substances for treating substance use disorders via telehealth without evaluating the patient in person.
Generally, a health care practitioner may not prescribe a controlled substance via telehealth unless they first conduct an in-person medical evaluation. Federal regulations currently provide a temporary exception to this requirement, allowing practitioners to prescribe schedule II-V controlled substances for legitimate medical purposes (such as treating substance use disorders) via telehealth without an in-person evaluation. However, this temporary regulatory flexibility expires on December 31, 2025.
The bill permanently allows practitioners to prescribe schedule III-V controlled substances for the treatment of a substance use disorder via telehealth without conducting an in-person evaluation. In such instances, a practitioner may conduct a telehealth evaluation using audio-only or audio and video equipment.
People & committees
Rep. Norcross, Donald [D-NJ-1] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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 the Judiciary, 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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. 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.1627 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.1627 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.1627 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.1627 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-26 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would allow a telehealth evaluation as an alternative to an in-person evaluation for prescribing certain federally regulated medicines approved to treat substance use disorders. Patients could be evaluated through live, two-way audio or video communication. The proposal limits which medicines and practitioners qualify and requires evaluations to comply with applicable federal and state laws.
(II) for purposes of prescribing a controlled substance in schedule III, IV, or V that has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of a substance use disorder, 1 telehealth evaluation of the patient; or
a medical evaluation that is conducted in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws by a practitioner (other than a pharmacist)
audio-only or audio and video equipment permitting two-way, real-time interactive communication
Section 1 would name the proposal the Telehealth Response for E-prescribing Addiction Therapy Services Act, or TREATS Act.
This Act may be cited as the Telehealth Response for E-prescribing Addiction Therapy Services Act or the TREATS Act.
Section 2 would amend the Controlled Substances Act's evaluation requirement to add one telehealth evaluation as an alternative to one in-person evaluation for the specified prescriptions. This alternative would apply only to controlled substances in schedules III, IV, or V—specified legal categories of regulated drugs—that the Food and Drug Administration has approved to treat a substance use disorder.
Section 309(e)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 829(e)(2)) is amended— (1) in subparagraph (A)(i)— (A) by striking at least 1 in-person medical evaluation and inserting the following: at least— (I) 1 in-person medical evaluation
(II) for purposes of prescribing a controlled substance in schedule III, IV, or V that has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of a substance use disorder, 1 telehealth evaluation of the patient; or
The proposed definition requires the evaluating practitioner to be somewhere other than the patient's location and excludes pharmacists from serving as that evaluator. The practitioner could communicate with either the patient or a practitioner treating the patient. The evaluation must comply with applicable federal and state laws.
The term telehealth evaluation means a medical evaluation that is conducted in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws by a practitioner (other than a pharmacist) who is at a location remote from the patient and is communicating with the patient, or a practitioner who is treating the patient
The evaluation would use a telecommunications system referenced in section 1834(m) of the Social Security Act. The bill expressly permits audio-only or combined audio and video equipment, provided it allows live, two-way communication between the remote practitioner and the patient or the patient's treating practitioner.
using a telecommunications system referred to in section 1834(m) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(m)) that includes audio-only or audio and video equipment permitting two-way, real-time interactive communication between the distant site practitioner and the patient, or the practitioner who is treating the patient.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 19, 2026, records introduction in the House on February 26, 2025, and referral that day to the Energy and Commerce and Judiciary committees for provisions within their respective jurisdictions. These entries do not establish enactment or the bill's subsequent status.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:12:42Z.
2025-02-26: Introduced in House
2025-02-26: Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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.
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-26. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or appropriations policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what other versions or accompanying materials contain.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying earmark materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential carve-out beyond the main policy's treatment eligibility was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The policy's intended coverage alone does not establish a targeted benefit. This conclusion is limited to that version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 19, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI