Regulatory Transactions

From: RevCycle Intelligence

By Jacqueline DiChiara

***

According to its August letter addressed to CMS contractors, CRE states CMS has a legal obligation to develop the star ratings in compliance with such regulations as well as requirements of the Medicare Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. CRE references a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent in response to a Request for Correction under the DQA filed by CRE additionally informs the World Health Organization (WHO) “the process lacked a high degree of transparency, and the data and analytic results contained within the Report were not subject to formal, independent, external peer review, among other criteria.”

From: Library of Law & Liberty

by Michael S. Greve

The Mercatus Center has just published a troubling snapshot analysis of the accumulation of regulatory mandates and restrictions since the Carter Administration. Other analyses confirm the picture of a burgeoning regulatory state. My own favorite is the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s annual, invaluable !0,000 Commandments Report. But it’s the same picture wherever you look:

• Regardless of the metric, the regulatory state has grown at a breathtaking rate, for decades.

From: CIS | Deloitte

Carmela Crimeni

On August 4, 2015, the long-awaited Average Manufacturer Price (AMP) Final Rule was sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) (a division of the Office of Management and Budget) for Executive Order (EO) 12866 Regulatory Review. EO 12866 requires OIRA review for all significant regulatory actions before the actions can take effect. Pursuant to EO 12866, the period for OIRA review is limited to 90 days, and the review period may be extended indefinitely by the head of the rulemaking agency. Alternatively, the OMB Director may extend the review period on a one-time basis for no more than 30 days. While EO 12866 establishes a maximum period for review by OIRA, there is no minimum period, therefore, we could see a final rule anytime between now and early November 2015.

OIRA-Centric Teaching Modules are focused on the instruments which govern the operations of OIRA. In some  instances the instruments are currently available for incorporation into the module; in others  they are either under development or are a recommendation for future action. These instruments are outlined in the OIRA Teaching Module in light blue or black print.

CRE is encouraged by the support accorded to this endeavor from  experts in public policy, public administration, political science  and  attorneys in private practice as well as those employed by major organizations.

A number of students have already made a commitment to assist in our program to develop OIRA-Centric Teaching modules and their input is appreciated.

 We encourage students to get in the game by submitting papers on any  of these issues. 

 Submit your paper to commons@thecre.com and post it on this  page.

Your paper will be considered for inclusion in  the OIRA Teaching Module

Our ultimate objective is described in this  letter to  CRS and GAO  and in this post  Social Entrepreneurs

CRE’s announcement of the Student Writing Contest.

If you have any questions please  contact us.

CRE’s Unique Involvement in the Evolution of  Centralized Regulatory Review

Table of Contents

Chapter

OIRA: The Cockpit of the Regulatory State

• The Evolution of Centralized Regulatory Review
  • Jim Tozzi
• Templates for the OIRA Teaching Module
  • Ed Richards LSU     Washington University    Duke University     ILRG
  • Jeff Lubbers AU       Levin   
  • American Political Science Association                                    
• The Need for an OIRA Teaching Module
• Ignorance of the Federal Administrative Process
• Questions and Comments
• Select Comments and Guest Editorials
• OIRA in the News and OIRA Watch
  • CRE
• Recent Publications of Interest
• OIRA Reference Library
• Archives: Interviews Key Regulators
• Unfinished Business

See the review Comments Schwartz.

Key Statements:

(1) “…the APA was not the product of lofty social views,”

(2) “These lawyers preferred generic procedural reform because that introduced a much greater amount of lawyering into the entire federal administrative process than there had been before.”

(3) “In brief, the more procedure there is and the more due process there is, the more money for lawyers there is.”

The activities the author were reviewing took place nearly 75 years ago. That said:

With respect to (1) above is a more in-depth analysis of McNollgast and Schwartz warranted to ascertain the presence, if any, of biases in the APA?

theDataQualityAct.us

The OMB Library

Agency Publicity in the Internet Era (ACUS)

Professor Gellhorn, The APA and Recorded History

The Political Origins of the Administrative Procedure  Act

Review of McNollgast by Professor Alan Schwartz

Asimow on McNollgast

The Administrative Presidency as Reactive Oversight: Implications for Positive and Normative Theory

Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control

APA 1951

APA at Fifty

Tozzi v. HHS  (Undue Deference to Agency)

Judicial Review of the DQA

OIRA: The Cockpit of the Regulatory State

Bagley Reviewability

Bumpers Amendment

Additional Questions and Comments

“McNollgast” describes the prevailing conclusion regarding the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the mechanism used for implementing federal policy:

“According to most legal scholarship, the purpose of the APA was to codify and rationalize existing practice of procedural due process that had percolated in a haphazard manner through the courts in the 1930s. According to this account, the passage of the act was uncontroversial.

Gellhorn (1986: 232), for instance, states: “The measure was approved on May 24, 1946, without a recorded vote and with no indication of dissent. Thus, in an atmosphere of happy accord, ended what had begun as an exercise of the imagination.” Gellhorn and Davis (1986: 521) assert, “The real reason the Administrative Procedure Act did not cause a great turmoil when it was enacted was that to a considerable extent it is declaratory.”(1)