PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 9, 2011
Critical Care Assessment and Improvement Act of 2011 - Requires studies on critical care in the United States by the Institute of Medicine and the Comptroller General.
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to establish the Critical Care Coordinating Council to coordinate the collection and analysis of information on current NIH research relating to the care of the critically ill and injured, identify gaps in such research, and make recommendations to the Director of NIH on how to improve such research.
Requires the Secretary to report to Congress on the adequacy of the number of critical care practitioners in disaster medical assistance teams, the Medical Reserve Corps, and the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, to develop guidelines or best practices for the evacuation of intensive care units during a national health emergency, including a pandemic or natural disaster, that ensure the safe and effective evacuation of all individuals regardless of age, disability, or life expectancy.
Requires the Secretary to establish the Panel on Emergency Preparedness Databases to: (1) assess the adequacy of existing national preparedness databases in facilitating effective and coordinated medical responses during a national health emergency; (2) identify gaps in existing information networks; and (3) recommend specific ways to improve awareness of the availability of resources before, during, and after an incident.
Prohibits the Secretary from using any finding or recommendation developed under this Act in making coverage, reimbursement, or incentive determinations under any program in a a manner that precludes or discourages an individual from choosing a health care treatment based on how the individual values the tradeoff between extending the length of life and the risk of disability.
People & committees
Rep. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI-2] · D–WI
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 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.971 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.971 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.971 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.971 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.