A bill to require guidance on how the Food and Drug Administration will consider claims of opioid sparing and on the conditions under which the Food and Drug Administration will consider misuse and abuse of drugs in making certain determinations of safety.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 12, 2018

This bill requires the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to develop guidance regarding how it will assess evidence to support claims of opioid sparing (i.e., the use of drugs that reduce pain while also allowing reduced use or avoidance of oral opioids) for non-opioid or other non-addictive medical products intended to treat pain.

The FDA must also develop guidance regarding how it will consider the misuse and abuse of drugs in making certain determinations of safety.

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.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Sen. Young, Todd [R-IN] · R–IN

Committees

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee

1 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Sen. Donnelly, Joe [D-IN]

Legislative record

Actions

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

Apr 12, 2018
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Apr 12, 2018
Introduced in Senate

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

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

Introduced in Senate · Apr 12, 2018 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

S 2680 · Opioid Crisis Response Act of 2018

Source last updated: Apr 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

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.2665 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

Discuss S.2665, 115th Congress: A bill to require guidance on how the Food and Drug Administration will consider claims of opioid sparing and on the conditions under which the Food and Drug Administration will consider misuse and abuse of drugs in making certain determinations of safety.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2665

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 2018-04-12.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s2665/BILLS-115s2665is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-21T12:24:17Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze S.2665 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.2665 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

Discuss S.2665, 115th Congress: A bill to require guidance on how the Food and Drug Administration will consider claims of opioid sparing and on the conditions under which the Food and Drug Administration will consider misuse and abuse of drugs in making certain determinations of safety.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2665

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 2018-04-12.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s2665/BILLS-115s2665is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-21T12:24:17Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.2665 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.2665 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

Discuss S.2665, 115th Congress: A bill to require guidance on how the Food and Drug Administration will consider claims of opioid sparing and on the conditions under which the Food and Drug Administration will consider misuse and abuse of drugs in making certain determinations of safety.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2665

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 2018-04-12.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s2665/BILLS-115s2665is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-21T12:24:17Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.2665 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.2665 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

Discuss S.2665, 115th Congress: A bill to require guidance on how the Food and Drug Administration will consider claims of opioid sparing and on the conditions under which the Food and Drug Administration will consider misuse and abuse of drugs in making certain determinations of safety.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2665

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 2018-04-12.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/s2665/BILLS-115s2665is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-21T12:24:17Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.2665 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.