PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 13, 2012
Restoring the Doctors of Our Country through Scholarships Act of 2012 or the RDOCS Act of 2012 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make grants under which states provide RDOCS scholarships, paying all costs of a student's undergraduate medical education, to provide for the increased availability of primary health care services in health professional shortage areas.
Requires the scholarship recipient to agree to residency training in a primary care specialty and a five-year post-graduate period of service in a health professional shortage area.
Requires that preference be given in award of scholarships to applicants enrolled in: (1) an accelerated track family-medicine program (an integrated course of study allowing completion of undergraduate medical education and graduate medical education in six years), or (2) a program that includes clinical training in rural or underserved urban communities. Sets a minimum rate at which federal funding must be matched.
People & committees
Rep. McDermott, Jim [D-WA-7] · D–WA
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1524)
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 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.6400 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.6400 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.6400 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.6400 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.