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 · Mar 1, 2023
Increasing Prescription Drug Competition Act
This bill provides that certifications in generic drug applications of certain patents involved in Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) programs have no effect upon the drug's approval. (The Food and Drug Administration sometimes requires a REMS program for certain drugs with safety risks, which may include restrictions on a drug's distribution through elements to ensure safe use (ETASU), such as special requirements for pharmacies that dispense the drug.)
Specifically, certifications in generic drug applications with respect to patents that involve an ETASU for REMS requirements have no effect on the effective date of the drug's approval, notwithstanding any other provisions that allow for a stay of approval pending litigation outcomes (i.e., 30-month stay).
The bill also specifies that in a civil action alleging patent infringement with respect to REMS requirements, the sponsor of the approved brand-name drug may only seek damages from (rather than an injunction against) the generic drug applicant.
People & committees
Sen. Hassan, Margaret Wood [D-NH] · D–NH
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.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.574 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.574 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.574 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.574 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.