PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 4, 2013
Stop Tampering of Prescription Pills Act of 2013 - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prescribe new drug application requirements for abuse-deterrent drugs: (1) containing as an active moiety (the part of the drug that makes it work the way it does) a controlled substance classified as opium, an opiate, or a derivative; (2) formulated for oral administration; (3) exhibiting physicochemical properties making them significantly more difficult or ineffective in altering the drug's characteristics for purposes of misuse or abuse; and (4) containing one or more additional ingredients intended to deter abuse through potential pharmacological effects.
Requires the Secretary to refuse a new drug application for any new (brand name) drug containing opium, an opiate, or a derivative as an active moiety that is not abuse-deterrent if an abuse-deterrent drug containing the same active moiety has been approved and has not been discontinued from marketing. Authorizes the Secretary to approve an application failing to meet such requirements, however, if approval is necessary to prevent or alleviate a drug shortage or otherwise address a significant unmet public health need.
Requires an abbreviated new (generic) drug application for an abuse-deterrent drug to include testing information demonstrating that the generic drug resists manipulation or the effect of manipulation to a degree at least comparable to the listed drug. Authorizes the Secretary to deny approval of a generic application if the listed drug is abuse-deterrent and one or more of the generic drug's active moieties differ in any material respect from those of the listed drug.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Declares that an approved generic drug shall not be considered bioequivalent to, or as having the same therapeutic effect as, a listed drug if the listed drug becomes abuse-deterrent unless and until the generic drug demonstrates that it resists manipulation or the effect of manipulation to a degree at least comparable to the listed drug.
Prescribes requirements governing when a drug which is not abuse-deterrent may have its approval withdrawn or suspended.
People & committees
Rep. Keating, William R. [D-MA-9] · D–MA
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 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.
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.486 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.486 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.486 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.486 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.