PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 5, 2015
Vaccine Access, Certainty, and Innovation Act of 2015
This bill requires the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to report on the process used by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in making recommendations on vaccines.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must issue final guidance to facilitate the use of expedited pathways for the development and licensure of vaccines to prevent certain infectious diseases.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The Public Health Service Act is amended to require the CDC to provide a vaccine developer, upon request, with information on public health needs and priorities and certain epidemiological analyses or data.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is amended to require the Food and Drug Administration to establish a process for designating diseases as tropical diseases included in the priority review voucher program. The amount of the priority review user fee is set to the cost difference between a priority review and a non-priority review.
The National Institutes of Health must support or conduct activities to advance the development of vaccines and must report on vaccine research.
Within 60 business days of a recommendation by ACIP, HHS must determine whether to update Medicare coverage of vaccines.
The Government Accountability Office must report on the impact of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates on vaccine access.
For purposes of calculating a medical loss ratio, the cost of a program to increase adult immunization is accounted for: (1) by a private health insurer as an activity that improves health care quality, and (2) by a Medicare Advantage or Part D plan under title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act as a medical loss.
People & committees
Rep. Ellmers, Renee L. [R-NC-2] · R–NC
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 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.
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.786 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.786 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.786 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.786 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.