PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2013
Neuromyelitis Optica Consortium Act - Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to establish, administer, and coordinate a National Neuromyelitis Optica (NMO) Consortium to: (1) award grants of not fewer than five years duration to conduct research with respect to the causes of, and the risk factors and biomarkers associated with, NMO (a neurological disease leading to blindness and paralysis); (2) assemble a panel of experts to provide ongoing guidance and the recommendations on research design and protocols, and (3) designate a central laboratory to collect, analyze, and aggregate data with respect to such research and to make such data and analysis available to researchers.
Establishes eligibility requirements for a consortium (a partnership of two or more universities, health care organizations, or government agencies, or any combination of such entities), including that: (1) it has the capability to enroll a minimum of 25 individuals with a diagnosis of NMO as research participants from the designated catchment area (geographical area), and (2) that the catchment area does not overlap with any other consortium receiving a grant under this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Lee, Barbara [D-CA-13] · D–CA
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.660 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.660 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.660 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.660 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.