PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 8, 2014
Protecting Access to Diabetes Supplies Act of 2014 - Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to revise the special competitive acquisition program rule applied to diabetic testing strips to require the volume for such types of products to be determined through the use of multiple sources of data that measure consumption and utilization of such strips among individuals in the United States.
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to reject any bid submitted by an entity under the competitive acquisition program that does not demonstrate that it can furnish the types of strips included in its bid.
Requires an entity to furnish to an individual the brand of strips compatible with the individual's home blood glucose monitor.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits an entity from attempting to influence or incentivize an individual to switch the brand of glucose monitor or testing strips selected.
Prohibits an entity from communicating directly to such an individual until it has given the individual verbally standardized information about the individual's rights with respect to the entity.
Directs the Secretary to establish a process under which an individual furnished with diabetic testing strips under a competitive acquisition program may reject them by notifying the supplier and the Secretary. Permits the individual to obtain different strips from another supplier and have a new claim processed.
People & committees
Rep. DeGette, Diana [D-CO-1] · D–CO
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 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 Committee on Ways and Means, 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.
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.5808 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.5808 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.5808 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.5808 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.