PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 19, 2018
Medicaid Providers Are Required To Note Experiences in Record Systems to Help In-need Patients Act or the Medicaid PARTNERSHIP Act
(Sec. 2) This bill requires each state to: (1) establish a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP), and (2) require health care providers to check the PDMP for a Medicaid enrollee's prescription drug history before prescribing controlled substances to the enrollee. In addition to meeting other specified requirements, each PDMP must allow health care providers to access the number and type of controlled substances prescribed to a Medicaid enrollee during the most recent 12-month period.
The bill also temporarily increases the federal matching rate with respect to Medicaid expenditures related to PDMP implementation for states that have agreements to promote PDMP interoperability with their neighboring states.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services must publish guidance and best practices for states regarding PDMP utilization. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office must report on PDMP administration.
People & committees
Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9] · R–VA
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 Finance.
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 H5245-5247)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5245-5247)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5801.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5245-5247)
Mr. Guthrie moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 560.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 115-725.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 115-725.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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 7, 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.5801 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.5801 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.5801 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.5801 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.