Declaring that achieving the primary goal of the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease of the Department of Health and Human Services to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's disease by 2025 is an urgent national priority.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 30, 2015
Expresses commitment to strengthening the quality of care and expanding support for individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias and their family caregivers.
Declares that: (1) achieving the primary goal of the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease to prevent and effectively treat Alzheimer's by 2025 is an urgent national priority, and (2) bold action and considerable increases in funding are necessary to meet that goal.
Encourages: (1) greater collaboration between governments to advance a global Alzheimer's and dementia research plan; (2) innovative public-private partnerships, financing tools, incentives, and other mechanisms to accelerate the pursuit of disease-modifying therapies.
Calls for: (1) significantly increasing the funding for Alzheimer's research in FY2016; and (2) developing a plan for FY2017-FY2020 to meet the target of the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services for the United States to spend $2 billion each year on Alzheimer's research.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 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 Foreign Affairs, 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 Foreign Affairs, 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
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Res.237 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Res.237 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Res.237 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Res.237 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.