PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 23, 2017
Accessible Care by Curbing Excessive lawSuitS Act of 2017 or the ACCESS Act of 2017
This bill establishes provisions governing health care lawsuits where coverage for the care was provided or subsidized by the federal government. The bill does not preempt certain state laws and federal vaccine injury laws and rules.
The statute of limitations is three years after the injury or one year after the claimant discovers the injury, whichever occurs first, with exceptions.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Noneconomic damages are limited to $250,000. Juries may not be informed of this limitation.
Courts must supervise the payment of damages and may restrict attorney contingency fees. The bill sets limits on contingency fees.
Certain evidence regarding collateral source benefits (e.g., insurance payments) may be introduced in lawsuits involving injury or wrongful death.
The bill provides for periodic payment of future damage awards.
A health care provider who prescribes, or dispenses pursuant to a prescription, a medical product approved by the Food and Drug Administration may not be a party to a liability lawsuit or class action lawsuit regarding the product.
Expressions of apology, fault, or sympathy by health care providers or their employees to patients or their relatives or representatives regarding suffering, injury, or death from an unanticipated outcome of care are inadmissible as evidence of liability.
A person must give a health care provider 90 days' notice before commencing a lawsuit, with exceptions.
An affidavit of merit signed by a health care professional who qualifies as an expert witness must be filed simultaneously with a lawsuit.
The bill establishes qualifications for expert witnesses.
People & committees
Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-8] · R–NC
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 the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 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.1704 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.1704 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.1704 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.1704 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.