Prosthetics and Custom Orthotics Parity Act of 2010
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 19, 2010
Prosthetics and Custom Orthotics Parity Act of 2010 - Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Public Health Service Act to require a group health plan that provides medical and surgical benefits and also provides benefits for prosthetics and custom orthotics to offer such prosthetics and custom orthotics in the same manner as applicable to medical and surgical benefits. Prohibits separate financial requirements or more restrictive treatment limitations. Requires a health plan that does not provide coverage for benefits outside of a network to ensure that such provider network is adequate to ensure enrollee access to prosthetic and custom orthotic devices and related services provided by appropriately credentialed practitioners and accredited suppliers.
Limits coverage for required benefits for prosthetics and custom orthotics to the most appropriate device or component that adequately meets the medical requirements of the patient. Requires benefits to include repair and replacement due to normal wear and tear, irreparable damage, a change in the condition of the patient, or as otherwise determined appropriate by the treating physician.
Prohibits any annual or lifetime dollar limitation on benefits for prosthetics and custom orthotics unless such limitation applies in the aggregate to all benefits.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Read full official summaryShow less
Directs the Comptroller General to study the effects of the implementation of this Act.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.3223 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.3223 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.3223 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.3223 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.