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 · Jan 25, 2011
Doctor of Nursing Practice and Doctor of Pharmacy Dual Degree Program Act of 2011 - Expresses the sense of the Senate that there should be established a Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) and Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) dual degree program, which would: (1) improve patient outcomes, (2) help health providers meet the unique needs of rural communities across the age continuum and in diverse settings, (3) enhance collaboration between DNPs and physicians regarding drug therapy, (4) provide for research concerning and the implementation of safer medication administration, (5) broaden the scope of practice for pharmacists through education and training in diagnosis and management of common diseases, (6) provide new employment opportunities, and (7) assist in filling the need for primary care providers with an expertise in geriatrics and pharmaceuticals. Calls for additional research and evaluation to be conducted to determine the extent to which graduates of such a program improve primary health care, address disparities, diversify the workforce, and increase quality of service for underserved populations.
People & committees
Sen. Inouye, Daniel K. [D-HI] · D–HI
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 14, 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.53 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.53 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.53 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.53 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.