PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 26, 2004
Medicare Prescription Drug Cost Containment Act of 2004 - Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, on the same date on which the President submits a budget to Congress, to submit to Congress a determination as to whether there is projected to be excess general revenue Medicare prescription drug funding for the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted, and if there is an affirmative determination it shall be treated as a Medicare part D (Voluntary Prescription Drug Benefit Program) funding warning in the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of the year in which the determination is submitted to Congress.
Amends Federal money and finance law, as amended by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, to direct the President to submit to Congress proposed legislation to respond to such a Medicare part D funding warning made in a year within the 15-day period beginning on the date of the budget submission to Congress for the succeeding year. Provides that such amendment shall not apply if, during the year in which the warning is made, legislation is enacted which eliminates excess general revenue Medicare funding for the period beginning with the fiscal year for which the determination is made and ending on September 30, 2013, as certified by the Board of Trustees of the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund not later than 30 days after the enactment of such legislation.
Expresses the sense of Congress that legislation submitted pursuant to such amendment in a year should be designed to eliminate excess general revenue Medicare funding for the period that begins with the fiscal year for which the determination is made and ends on September 30, 2013.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets out the special procedures for House and Senate consideration of the President's legislative proposal in response to such warning.
People & committees
Rep. Flake, Jeff [R-AZ-6] · R–AZ
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 Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Rules, 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 Committees on Ways and Means, and Rules, 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 Committees on Ways and Means, and Rules, 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 Committees on Ways and Means, and Rules, 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: Aug 18, 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.3854 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.3854 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.3854 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.3854 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.