PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 18, 2014
Opioid Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 2014 - Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to award grants to states to develop a peer review process to identify and investigate questionable or inappropriate prescribing and dispensing patterns of drugs classified as schedule II or III under the Controlled Substances Act, which are drugs with an accepted medical use that have the potential to be abused and addictive.
Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary to establish grant programs to: (1) facilitate training to increase the capacity of health care providers to screen and treat patients to prevent drug abuse, and (2) develop continuing education criteria that allow health profession boards or state agencies to certify appropriate education for safe prescribing of schedule II or III drugs. Requires the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration to award grants to evaluate the prospect of state health professions boards expanding the authority of providers to prescribe drugs to treat drug abuse.
Requires the Attorney General to request that practitioners registered to dispense controlled substances screen patients for potential drug abuse before prescribing a schedule II or III drug.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider whether naloxone (a prescription drug used to rapidly reverse an overdose of heroin or other opioids, which are drugs with effects similar to opium) should be available without a prescription.
Requires the Secretary to use an interagency working group to encourage states and local governments to increase opportunities for disposal of opiates (drugs derived from opium) and to reduce opportunities for abuse of opiates.
Requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review federal opioid abuse activities and make recommendations to reduce opioid abuse and overdoses.
People & committees
Rep. Foster, Bill [D-IL-11] · D–IL
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.5587 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.5587 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.5587 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.5587 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.