PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 29, 2010
Prostate Research, Outreach, Screening, Testing, Access, and Treatment Effectiveness Act of 2010 or the PROSTATE Act - Requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish the Interagency Prostate Cancer Coordination and Education Task Force, which shall: (1) develop a summary of advances in federal prostate cancer research and compile a list of best practices for treatment of prostate cancer that warrant broader adoption in health care programs; (2) consider establishing guidance to enable physicians to allow screening of men over age 74; (3) coordinate information on federal research and health care program activities relating to prostate cancer; (4) develop a comprehensive interagency strategy on, and advise agencies in, the solicitation of proposals for collaborative, multidisciplinary research and health care programs relating to prostate cancer; (5) develop a coordinated message related to screening and treatment for prostate cancer to be reflected in educational and beneficiary materials for federal health programs; and (6) submit recommendations regarding federal research and health care programs.
Directs the Secretary to establish and carry out a program to coordinate and intensify prostate cancer research, including by establishing clinical registries for prostate cancer and awarding research grants.
Establishes in the Office of the Chief Scientist of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) a Prostate Cancer Scientific Advisory Board to be responsible for accelerating real-time sharing of the latest research data and accelerating movement of new medicines to patients.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) establish four-year telehealth pilot projects for the purpose of analyzing the clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness associated with telehealth services in a variety of geographic areas that contain high proportions of medically underserved populations and those in rural areas; and (2) develop a national education campaign for prostate cancer.
People & committees
Rep. Towns, Edolphus [D-NY-10] · D–NY
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 Military Personnel.
Referred to House Veterans' Affairs
Referred to House Armed Services
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and Veterans' Affairs, 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 House 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: Aug 14, 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.6389 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.6389 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.6389 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.6389 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.