PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 5, 2009
Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2009 - Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to: (1) reduce a hospital's otherwise applicable resident limit by the number of positions unused for the five most recent cost reporting periods; and (2) require the distribution of additional resulting residency positions to certain other hospitals.
Requires that all the time spent by a resident in outpatient settings be counted towards the determination of full-time equivalency for the purposes of payments for direct graduate (GME) and indirect (IME) medical education costs, without regard to the setting in which the activities are performed, if the hospital continues to incur the costs of the resident's stipends and fringe benefits during the time the resident spends in that setting.
Sets forth rules for counting resident time for didactic and scholarly activities and other activities.
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a process for the redistribution of residency slots after a hospital closes.
People & committees
Sen. Nelson, Bill [D-FL] · D–FL
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 Finance.
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.973 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.973 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.973 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.973 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.