PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 26, 2005
Comprehensive Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 2005 - Limits the non-economic damages that an individual may recover from a health care provider for an injury or death as the result of health care malpractice to $250,000 as adjusted for inflation from 1975.
Requires each medical malpractice liability insurance company to reduce its medical malpractice liability coverage premiums with financial savings from this Act.
Requires a medical malpractice action to be dismissed unless the signer of complaint certifies its validity.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to: (1) develop voluntary performance standards applicable to state medical boards; (2) establish an interstate patient reporting and physician tracking database; and (3) study alternatives to the present legal process in resolving health care malpractice claims arising out of a hospital emergency room's screening examination or treatment required by law.
Directs the Attorney General to make grants to states and health care entities to carry out mediation programs to resolve health care malpractice allegations without litigation.
Amends the Public Health Service Act to provide for the voluntary disclosure of patient safety information to patient safety organizations. Makes such information privileged. Directs the Secretary to establish a database to receive relevant non-identifiable patient safety information.
Limits the liability of a health care provider that provides information to a state medical board regarding the competence or professional conduct of a physician.
People & committees
Rep. Baird, Brian [D-WA-3] · D–WA
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 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.
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 currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.2657 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.2657 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.2657 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.2657 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.