PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Aug 2, 2011
Medical Education Development Act of 2011 - Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish a program of grants to newly accredited allopathic and osteopathic medical schools to support scholarships, develop residencies, build infrastructure, recruit and retain faculty, and develop research programs, for the purpose of increasing the supply of physicians.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) give first priority to schools accredited to admit students from FY2009-FY2014, (2) provide increased funding to schools that enroll larger classes while maintaining competitive faculty-to-student ratios, and (3) allocate funds to only schools that provide accountability and transparency in expending such funds.
Requires: (1) each school to report annually on the specific uses of funds received and on how the grant has benefited the region and the nation; and (2) the Secretary to report annually on the extent to which such grants have increased the supply of physicians, resulted in greater access to health care, enabled the creation of new care models, provided economic regional benefits, and increased the focus on medical students' communications skills.
People & committees
Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA] · D–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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 S.1481 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 S.1481 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 S.1481 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 S.1481 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.