PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 21, 2009
Medicare Patient IVIG Access Act of 2009 - Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to collect data on the differences, if any, between: (1) payments to physicians for immune globulins using average sales price payment methodology; and (2) costs incurred by physicians for furnishing these products. Requires the Secretary also to review data on the access of eligible individuals to immune globulins.
Requires the Secretary, after completion of the review, to provide, if appropriate, an additional payment to such physicians for all items related to the furnishing of immune globulins as part of hospital outpatient services.
Provides for Medicare coverage of and payment for intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) administered in the home.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to contract for the collection of data on the practice of IVIG infusion if the Secretary determines that collection of additional data is necessary.
Directs the Secretary to review data collected under such a contract as well as data submitted by members of the medical community related to the current infusion payment codes under part B (SupplementaryMedical Insurance) of SSA title XVIII.
Requires the Secretary, upon completion of any data collection and review, to: (1) notify the appropriate Medicare administrative contractors regarding which existing infusion codes shall be used for purposes of part B IVIG reimbursement; or (2) report to Congress and the RBRVS Update Committee (RUC) on why an additional infusion payment code is necessary.
Extends the meaning of durable medical equipment to include a disposable pump prescribed, instead of a non-disposable external infusion pump, for administration of a drug used as part of a chemotherapy regimen for treatment of colorectal cancer, if a non-disposable external infusion pump would have been covered to administer the same drug for the same indication as of July 1, 2008.
People & committees
Rep. Israel, Steve [D-NY-2] · D–NY
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 House Ways and Means
Referred to House Energy and Commerce
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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 21, 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.2002 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.2002 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.2002 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.2002 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.