PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 30, 2013
Medicare Part D Patient Safety and Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2013 - Amends part D (Voluntary Prescription Drug Benefit Program) of title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to establish a safe pharmacy access program under which a prescription drug plan (PDP) sponsor (or a Medicare Advantage (MA) organization offering an MA-PD plan) shall have in place procedures designed to prevent fraud and abuse in the dispensing of certain controlled substances under Medicare part D.
Allows a PDP sponsor to suspend payments and clean claim notifications to a pharmacy pending an investigation of a credible allegation of fraud against the pharmacy, unless the Secretary determines there is a good cause not to suspend payments.
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), under contracts entered into under the Medicare integrity program with Medicare drug integrity contractors (MEDICs), to authorize such MEDICs to obtain prescription and medical records directly from entities such as pharmacies, PDPs, and physicians. Requires a MEDIC to acknowledge receipt of a PDP sponsor referral of information for investigation, report back to the sponsor the investigation results within 45 days, and share them with appropriate agencies.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires electronic transmission (e-prescribing) of prescriptions for certain covered Medicare part D controlled substances.
People & committees
Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12] · R–FL
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 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: Aug 12, 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.3392 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.3392 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.3392 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.3392 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.