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 · Jun 25, 2014
National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Reauthorization Act of 2014 - Amends the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act of 2005 to include as a purpose of such Act to foster the establishment of state-administered controlled substance monitoring systems in order to ensure that appropriate law enforcement, regulatory, and state professional licensing authorities have access to prescription history information for the purposes of investigating drug diversion and prescribing and dispensing practices of errant prescribers or pharmacists.
Amends the Public Health Service Act to revise and update the controlled substance monitoring program, including to:
allow grants to be used to maintain and operate existing state controlled substance monitoring programs,
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
require submission by a state of a plan to apply the latest advances in health information technology to incorporate prescription drug monitoring program data directly into the workflow of prescribers and dispensers,
require timelines and descriptions for implementation of interoperability for purposes of information sharing with a bordering state that already operates a monitoring program,
require health information interoperability standards to be consistent with at least one health information technology system,
require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to redistribute any funds that are returned among the remaining grantees,
require a state to provide the Secretary with aggregate data and other information to enable the Secretary to evaluate the success of the state's program and to submit a progress report to Congress, and
expand the program to include any commonwealth or territory of the United States.
Authorizes the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) or a state Medicaid program or health department receiving nonidentifiable information from a controlled substance monitoring database to make such information available to other entities for research purposes.
Requires a state receiving a grant to: (1) facilitate prescriber and dispenser use of the state's controlled substance monitoring system, and (2) educate prescribers and dispensers on the benefits of the system both to them and society.
Removes the preferences for grants related to drug abuse for states with approved applications to implement controlled substances monitoring programs.
Revises requirements for studies on progress to include assessment of the effects upon linkages to substance abuse disorder services and interoperability with health information technology systems.
People & committees
Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH] · D–NH
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 12, 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.2529 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.2529 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.2529 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.2529 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.