PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 24, 2008
National Pain Care Policy Act of 2008 - (Sec. 2) Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to seek to enter into an agreement with the Institute of Medicine to convene a Conference on Pain to: (1) increase the recognition of pain as a significant public health problem in the United States; (2) evaluate the adequacy of assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and management of acute and chronic pain in the general population and in identified demographics groups that may be disproportionately affected by inadequacies; (3) identify barriers to appropriate pain care; and (4) establish an agenda for action to reduce such barriers and significantly improve the state of pain care research, education, and clinical care in the United States. Allows the Secretary to enter into an agreement with another appropriate entity if the Institute of Medicine declines. Requires a report summarizing the Conference's findings and recommendations to be submitted to Congress. Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2010.
(Sec. 3) Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to continue and expand, through the Pain Consortium, an aggressive program of basic and clinical research on the causes of and potential treatments for pain. Requires the Pain Consortium to develop and submit to the Director of NIH recommendations on appropriate pain research initiatives that could be undertaken with funds available for such initiatives.
Requires the Secretary to establish the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee to coordinate all efforts within Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and other federal agencies that relate to pain research. Directs the Committee to: (1) develop a summary of advances in federal pain care research relevant to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of pain and diseases and disorders associated with pain; and (2) identify critical gaps in basic and clinical research on the symptoms and causes of pain. Requires the Secretary to review the necessity of the Committee at least once every two years.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 4) Allows the Secretary to make awards of grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts to health professions schools, hospices, and other public and private entities for the development and implementation of programs to provide education and training to health care professionals in pain care. Sets forth information and education that must be included in the program as a condition for receiving a grant.
(Sec. 5) Requires the Secretary to establish and implement a national pain care education outreach and awareness campaign to educate consumers, patients, their families, and other caregivers with respect to: (1) the incidence and importance of pain as a national public health problem; (2) the adverse physical, psychological, emotional, societal, and financial consequences that can result if pain is not appropriately assessed, diagnosed, treated, or managed; (3) the availability, benefits, and risks of all pain treatment and management options; and (4) having pain promptly assessed, appropriately diagnosed, treated, and managed and regularly reassessed with treatment adjusted as needed. Requires the Secretary, in designing such campaign, to: (1) take into account the special needs of geographic areas and underserved demographic groups; and (2) provide resources that will reduce disparities in access to appropriate diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2011.
People & committees
Rep. Capps, Lois [D-CA-23] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 9/23/2008 H8674-8675)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 9/23/2008 H8674-8675)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H9406)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Burgess objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2994.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8674-8676)
Mr. Pallone moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 567.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 110-871.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 110-871.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.
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.2994 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.2994 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.2994 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.2994 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.