PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

Sarah Weber Home Infusion Consumer Protection Act of 1994

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 24, 1994

Sarah Weber Home Infusion Consumer Protection Act of 1994 - Prohibits any: (1) person from providing home infusion therapy services in a State unless the person is licensed by the State to provide such services; and (2) State from licensing such a person unless the person meets licensing standards to be established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Specifies that a licensed person shall only provide services to an individual who is under the care of, and under a plan established and periodically reviewed by, a physician. Sets forth licensing requirements, including having been determined capable of providing services, maintaining clinical records, adhering to written protocols and policies, making services available seven days a week on a 24-hour basis, coordinating services with the patient's physician, conducting a quality assessment and assurance program, assuring that only trained personnel provide infusion products, assuming responsibility for the quality of services provided by others under arrangements with such person, and establishing appropriate protocols and explaining such protocols clearly to patients before the initiation of treatment. Sets forth requirements regarding: (1) cancellation of services; (2) limits on fees; and (3) enforcement of Act requirements. Prohibits a physician (or an immediate family member) who has a financial relationship with a specified entity under the Medicare program from making a referral to such entity for the furnishing of such services. Makes Medicare physician ownership and referral provisions applicable to this Act. Specifies that: (1) the payment of reasonable compensation to a physician for patient management and coordination of care shall not be considered to be a compensation arrangement; and (2) the prescription of a drug to be administered through home infusion shall constitute a referral by a physician.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Sen. Metzenbaum, Howard M. [D-OH] · D–OH

Committees

  • Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

    2. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3686-3687)

    3. Introduced in Senate

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

    Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

    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.1967 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.1967 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.1967 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.1967 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.

    View full prompt & sources