Federal Tort Claims Act Malpractice Coverage for Health Centers Extension Act of 1995
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 12, 1995
Federal Tort Claims Act Malpractice Coverage for Health Centers Extension Act of 1995 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to remove provisions ending, on a specified date, the application of provisions: (1) deeming health care practitioner officers, employees, or contractors of certain entities (migrant and community health centers and grant recipients for health services to the homeless and to residents of public housing) to be employees of the Public Health Service (PHS); and (2) making a malpractice action against the United States the sole remedy against such practitioners. Adds governing board members to the list of practitioners deemed to be PHS employees. Allows the practitioners to be considered PHS employees while treating individuals who are not patients of such an entity if the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines, after reviewing the application, that the provision of the services to such individuals: (1) benefits patients of, and general populations that could be served by, the entity through community-wide intervention efforts within the communities served by such entity; (2) facilitates the provision of services to such patients; or (3) are otherwise required under an employment contract or similar arrangement between the entity and an officer, governing board member, employee, or contractor of the entity. Sets forth an application process. Directs the Attorney General to appear in State court actions to advise the court whether an officer, governing board member, employee, or contractor has been deemed to be an employee of the Public Health Service. Provides for the application of coverage to managed care plans. Revises the requirements: (1) to be considered a contractor of such an entity; and (2) of due process regarding exclusion of specific individuals from coverage. Directs the General Accounting Office to submit to the Congress a report on the medical malpractice liability claims experience of entities that have been deemed to be employees and the risk exposure associated with such entities. Reduces the maximum limit on the fund set up to cover annual estimated claims.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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 S.1471 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 S.1471 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 S.1471 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 S.1471 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.