PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 18, 2009
Right to a Second Medical Opinion Act of 2009 - Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require a group health plan to provide coverage for a second opinion requested by a participant or beneficiary or a health care practitioner if certain conditions are met, including that the medical condition threatens loss of life, quality of life, loss of limb, loss of bodily function, loss of cognitive function, or substantial impairment of the mind or body.
Directs that the financial responsibility of the participant or beneficiary for a second opinion shall be the same as that for comparable services furnished by a participating physician in connection with an initial opinion.
Sets forth provisions governing a health plan: (1) limiting coverage of a second opinion to a participating physician; (2) requiring preapproval for a second opinion; and (3) denying coverage or denying preapproval for a second opinion.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Allows a plan to condition payment for a second opinion on the physician providing a consultation report to the health care practitioner making the initial opinion.
Requires plans to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) a timeline for providing reimbursement of claims for second opinions and for responding to requests for preapproval of second opinions.
Applies the provisions of this Act to individual health insurance coverage.
People & committees
Rep. Davis, Susan A. [D-CA-53] · D–CA
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, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to House Ways and Means
Referred to House Education and Labor
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Labor, and 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 House Energy and Commerce
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1182)
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: Mar 23, 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.2457 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.2457 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.2457 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.2457 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.