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 · Jul 23, 2014
Recovery Enhancement for Addiction Treatment Act or the TREAT Act - Amends the Controlled Substances Act to increase the number of patients that a qualifying practitioner dispensing narcotic drugs for maintenance or detoxification treatment is initially allowed to treat from 30 to 100 patients per year.
Allows a qualifying physician, after one year, to request approval to treat an unlimited number of patients under specified conditions, including that he or she: (1) agrees to fully participate in the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program of the state in which the practitioner is licensed, (2) practices in a qualified practice setting, and (3) has completed at least 24 hours of training regarding treatment and management of opiate-dependent patients for substance use disorders provided by specified organizations.
Revises the definition of a "qualifying practitioner" to include: (1) a physician who holds a board certification from the American Board of Addiction Medicine; and (2) a nurse practitioner or physicians assistant who is licensed under state law to prescribe schedule III, IV, or V medications for pain, who has specified training or experience that demonstrates specialization in the ability to treat opiate-dependent patients, who practices under the supervision of, or prescribes opioid addiction therapy in collaboration with, a licensed physician who holds an active waiver to prescribe schedule III, IV, or V narcotic medications for opioid addiction therapy, and who practices in a qualified practice setting.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Comptroller General to initiate an evaluation of the effectiveness of this Act, including an evaluation of: (1) changes in the availability and use of medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction, (2) the quality of medication-assisted treatment programs, (3) diversion of opioid addiction treatment medication, and (4) changes in state or local policies and legislation relating to opioid addiction treatment.
People & committees
Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA] · D–MA
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.2645 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.2645 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.2645 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.2645 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.