PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 23, 2011
Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2011 - Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act with respect to distribution of additional resident positions as they affect calculation of payments for direct graduate medical education (DME) costs.
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), for each of FY2013-FY2017 (and each succeeding fiscal year if additional residency positions are available to distribute), to increase the otherwise applicable resident limit for each qualifying hospital.
Requires the aggregate number of increases in the otherwise applicable resident limit to be 3,000 in each of FY2013-FY2017, of which 1,500 in each such fiscal year shall be used for full-time equivalent residents training in a shortage speciality residency program.
Specifies the process for distributing positions.
Directs the National Health Care Workforce Commission to study the physician workforce.
Directs the Comptroller General to study strategies for increasing the diversity of the health profession workforce.
People & committees
Sen. Nelson, Bill [D-FL] · D–FL
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 Finance.
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.1627 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.1627 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.1627 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.1627 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.