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 · Sep 18, 2007
Community Coalitions for Access and Quality Improvement Act of 2007 - Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to eligible entities to assist in developing integrated health care delivery systems to serve defined communities to: (1) improve efficiency and coordination among providers; (2) assist local communities in developing programs targeted toward preventing and managing chronic diseases; and (3) expand and enhance services provided.
Requires eligible entities to represent a balanced consortium whose principal purpose is to assure sustained capacity for the provision of a broad range of coordinated services for all residents, including at least one of each of the following providers that serve the community (with exceptions): (1) a federally qualified health center; (2) rural health clinics and rural health networks; (3) a hospital with a low-income utilization rate greater than 25% or a critical access hospital; (4) a public health department; and (5) an interested public or private sector health care provider or organization that has traditionally served medically uninsured and low-income individuals.
Authorizes the Secretary, in awarding grants, to provide priority to applicants that demonstrate the greatest unmet need for a more coordinated system of care.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires a grantee to use amounts provided only for: (1) direct expenses associated with achieving greater integration of a health care delivery system to directly provide or ensure the provision of a broad range of culturally competent services; and (2) direct patient care and service expansions to fill identified or documented gaps within an integrated delivery system.
Requires entities to report annually to the Secretary. Conditions grant renewal on demonstrable progress in meeting goals.
People & committees
Sen. Murray, Patty [D-WA] · D–WA
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.2065 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.2065 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.2065 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.2065 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.