PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.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.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 24, 2025
Restoring Rights of Physicians to Own Hospitals Act
This bill repeals provisions under the Stark law (i.e., the Physician Self-Referral Law) that require rural providers and physician-owned hospitals to meet certain additional criteria in order to be excepted under the Stark law.
Specifically, the bill repeals provisions that require hospitals to meet the following criteria:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
the hospital had physician ownership or investment and a Medicare provider agreement as of December 31, 2010;
the hospital does not expand the number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, or beds beyond the number in existence as of March 23, 2010, with limited exceptions;
the hospital discloses certain information regarding physician ownership and investments to patients, the public, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services;
the hospital does not offer certain financial opportunities, and the percentage of ownership or investments does not exceed that in effect as of March 23, 2010;
the hospital discloses certain information to patients relating to the availability of physicians and makes alternative arrangements when necessary; and
the hospital was not converted from an ambulatory surgical center on or after March 23, 2010.
People & committees
Rep. Spartz, Victoria [R-IN-5] · R–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 4, 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.3022 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.3022 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.3022 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.3022 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.