PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 773.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 5, 2003
Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2003 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to include pancreases procured by an organ procurement organization and used for islet cell transplantation or research to be counted toward organ procurement organization certification.Establishes the Interagency Committee on Islet Cell Transplantation within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Requires the Committee to study related issues, including Federal research funding, the effect of specified policies on transplantation, and data collection.Instructs the Secretary of HHS to request the Institute of Medicine to provide a study of the impact of islet cell transplantation on juvenile diabetes patients, including their health and the treatment's cost-effectiveness.Directs the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to establish a demonstration project to assess the efficacy of pancreatic cell islet transplantation for individuals who: (1) have Type I diabetes; and (2) have end-stage renal disease; and (3) are Medicare beneficiaries. Limits to six the number of eligible facilities that can participate in the project. Directs the Secretary to conduct an evaluation of the outcomes under the project and report to Congress. Allows the Secretary to waive such requirements of titles XI (General Provisions) and XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act as are necessary to carry out the project.Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME] · R–ME
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 773.
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Reported by Senator Gregg with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 108-387.
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Reported by Senator Gregg with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 108-387.
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3166)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 21, 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.518 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.518 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.518 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.518 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.