PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

John Thomas Decker Act of 2016

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

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 26, 2016

John Thomas Decker Act of 2016

This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to report on the availability of information regarding prescription of opioids after youth sports injury, including information on opioid use and misuse, injury treatments that do not involve opioids, and treatment for opioid addiction. (Opioids are drugs with effects similar to opium, such as heroin and certain pain medications.) The report must determine the extent this information is available to teenagers and adolescents who play youth sports, their families, youth sports groups, and health care providers.

Taking into consideration the findings of the report, HHS must develop and disseminate such information.

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. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA] · D–PA

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 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

    2. 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

    Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.3015 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.3015 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.3015 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.3015 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