PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2013
Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 2013 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to direct the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to award grants to states and nonprofit entities for consumer education about opioid abuse, including methadone abuse.
Amends the Controlled Substances Act to: (1) set forth training requirements for practitioners registered to prescribe or dispense methadone or other opioids, and (2) require each registered opioid treatment clinic to make acceptable arrangements for each patient who is restricted from having a take-home dose of a controlled substance related to treatment to receive a dose of that substance under appropriate supervision when the clinic is closed.
Prohibits any individual or entity (except hospitals that provide direct patient supervision) from prescribing or dispensing a 40-mg diskette of methadone unless such prescription or dispensation is consistent with the current Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) methadone policy, until the date the Controlled Substances Clinical Standards Commission: (1) publishes dosing guidelines for methadone, and (2) finds that such 40-mg diskettes are safe and clinically appropriate. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish such Commission to develop and publish guidelines related to methadone use, including safe dosing guidelines for all forms of methadone and benchmark guidelines for the reduction of methadone abuse.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires states receiving controlled substances monitoring program grants to: (1) provide information, upon request, to drug enforcement officials relating to an individual who is the subject of an active drug-related investigation; and (2) require opioid-related deaths to be reported to the Administrator.
Directs the Administrator to develop a Model Opioid Treatment Program Mortality Report.
Requires the Administrator to establish and implement, through the National Center for Health Statistics, a National Opioid Death Registry to track opioid-related deaths.
Requires the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), to require the development and application of specific prescription drug abuse prevention and treatment quality measures for each relevant health care provider setting.
People & committees
Rep. Rahall, Nick J., II [D-WV-3] · D–WV
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 Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, And Investigations.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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 the Judiciary, 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.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.672 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.672 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.672 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.672 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.