Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Health Care Access Improvement Act''. SEC. 2. NONREFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR CERTAIN PRIMARY HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS SERVING HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SHORTAGE AREAS. (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after section 25A the following new section: ``SEC. 25B. PRIMARY HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDERS SERVING HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SHORTAGE AREAS. ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of a qualified primary health services provider, there is allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for any taxable year in a mandatory service period an amount equal to the product of-- ``(1) the lesser of-- ``(A) the number of months of such period occurring in such taxable year, or ``(B) 60 months, reduced by the number of months taken into account under this paragraph with respect to such provider for all preceding taxable years (whether or not in the same mandatory service period), multiplied by ``(2) $1,000. ``(b) Qualified Primary Health

Summary:
1. Health Care Access Improvement Act - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a limited tax credit to qualified primary health services providers who establish practices in health professional shortage areas for 50 months, rather than 60.

Is the summary factua Provide the entire answer in JSON format.
user