PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Mar 27, 2007
Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act - (Sec. 2) Amends the Public Health Service Act to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to carry out an education and information campaign to promote stroke prevention and to increase the number of stroke patients who seek immediate treatment. Allows the Secretary to: (1) make public service announcements about the warning signs of stroke and the importance of treating stroke as a medical emergency; and (2) provide education regarding ways to prevent stroke and the effectiveness of stroke treatment. Requires the Secretary to evaluate the campaign and measure its impact every two years.
Requires the Secretary, acting through the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), to maintain the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry and Clearinghouse by: (1) collecting specific data points and benchmarks for stroke care analysis; (2) compiling and disseminating information on state, local, and private care system achievements and problems; and (3) carrying out activities to reflect the latest advances in all forms of stroke care.
Includes developing and enhancing training for health professions to improve stroke and traumatic injury prevention, diagnosis, and treatment within the the purposes of the grant program for emergency medicine residency training.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Secretary, through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, to make grants to qualified entities for health care professionals education programs in the use of diagnostic approaches, technologies, and therapies for stroke and traumatic injury treatment. Gives preference to areas with a significant incidence of stroke or traumatic injuries.Sets forth reporting requirements. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2012.
(Sec. 3) Authorizes the Secretary, through the Director of the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth, to make up to seven grants to states and consortia of public and private entities in a state that is not a grantee to conduct a five-year pilot project to improve patient outcomes by coordinating health care through telehealth networks.
Requires a state or consortium to use the grants to: (1) identify entities with expertise in the delivery of high-quality stroke treatment; (2) work with those entities to establish or improve telehealth networks to provide stroke treatment assistance and resources; (3) inform emergency medical systems of the location of entities to facilitate the transport of individuals with stroke symptoms; (4) establish networks to coordinate collaborative activities for stroke treatment; (5) improve access to high-quality stroke care, especially for populations with a shortage of stroke care specialists or with a high incidence of stroke; and (6) conduct performance and quality evaluations to identify activities that improve clinical outcomes for stroke patients. Gives priority to any applicant that submits a plan demonstrating how the applicant will use the grant to improve access to high-quality stroke care for target populations.
Limits the award of grants to periods of three years, or periods that do not extend beyond FY2012. Requires an application to outline how the state or consortium will establish baseline measures and benchmarks to evaluate program outcomes.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2012.
Requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress that includes: (1) an evaluation of the grant program outcomes; (2) recommendations on how to promote stroke networks in ways that improve access to clinical care in rural and urban areas and reduce the incidence of stroke and resulting complications; and (3) recommendations on whether similar telehealth grant programs could be used to improve patient outcomes in other public health areas.
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.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
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 H3161-3162)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H3161-3162)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 477.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3161-3164)
Mr. Pallone moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 41.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 110-75.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 110-75.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee 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: Apr 21, 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.477 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.477 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.477 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.477 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.