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 · Apr 21, 2009
Eliminating Disparities in Diabetes Prevention Access and Care Act of 2009 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to provide for: (1) ongoing research and other activities with respect to pre-diabetes and diabetes in minority populations; and (2) programs to treat diabetes in minority populations.
Requires the Director of NIH, through the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities and the National Diabetes Education Program, to provide for: (1) health care professionals' mentoring; and (2) minority health professionals' participation in diabetes-focused research programs. Requires the Director to make grants for a pipeline from high school to professional school that will increase minority representation in diabetes-focused health fields.
Directs the Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee to assess federal activities and programs related to diabetes in minority populations.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to: (1) conduct research on diabetes in minority populations; (2) direct the Division of Diabetes Translation to educate the public on the causes and effects of diabetes in minority populations; and (3) carry out diabetes health promotion and prevention programs for minority populations.
Directs the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, to educate health professionals on the causes and effects of diabetes in minority populations.
Sets forth additional requirements for the Secretary related to: (1) factors that may influence health promotion, diabetes management, and prevention; (2) data collection on diabetes treatment, care, prevention, and services to the American Indian population; (3) increased participation of minority populations in clinical trials; and (4) specialized care for children with diabetes.
People & committees
Sen. Lautenberg, Frank R. [D-NJ] · D–NJ
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.844 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.844 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.844 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.844 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.