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 19, 2009
National Pain Care Policy Act of 2009 - Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to seek an agreement with the Institute of Medicine to convene a Conference on Pain to: (1) increase the recognition of pain as a significant public health problem in the United States; (2) evaluate the adequacy of assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and management of acute and chronic pain; (3) identify barriers to appropriate pain care; and (4) establish an agenda to reduce such barriers and significantly improve the state of pain care research, education, and clinical care in the United States. Allows the Secretary to enter into an agreement with another appropriate entity if the Institute of Medicine declines.
Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to continue and expand, through the Pain Consortium, an aggressive program of basic and clinical research on the causes of and potential treatments for pain. Requires the Pain Consortium to develop and make recommendations on appropriate pain research initiatives.
Requires the Secretary to establish the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee to: (1) develop a summary of advances in federal pain care research relevant to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of pain and diseases and disorders associated with pain; and (2) identify critical gaps in basic and clinical research on the symptoms and causes of pain.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Allows the Secretary to provide for education and training to health care professionals in pain care.
Requires the Secretary to establish and implement a national pain care education outreach and awareness campaign to educate consumers, patients, their families, and other caregivers.
People & committees
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] · R–UT
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3571)
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.660 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.660 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.660 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.660 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.