PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 17, 2005
Improved Medical Malpractice Information Reporting and Competition Act of 2005 - Establishes the Office of Health Care Competition Policy within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with responsibility for the National Practitioner Data Bank.
Amends the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 to require each entity that underwrites a policy of insurance for medical malpractice actions or claims to report information respecting such insurance or claims for payment under such policy. Specifies information to be reported, including: (1) direct premiums written and earned; (2) net investment income; (3) incurred claims; (4) actual incurred expenses; (5) net operation gain or loss; and (6) certain information on claims for the year, including claims paid and verdict amounts. Sets forth a civil penalty for failure to comply with this Act. Requires the Secretary of HHS to make the information reported that does not provide individually identifiable information available on the Data Bank website.
People & committees
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR
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 House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 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.2399 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.2399 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.2399 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.2399 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.