1 Mar 2011

The REINS Act:
Would it work as intended?

by Richard Belzer

in Regulatory Policy

House and Senate Republicans have proposed legislation (HR 10, S 299) intending to substantially change federal regulatory practice. The proposed Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011 (The "REINS Act").

What is the bill supposed to do? What is it likely to do?

21 Jan 2011

Regulatory Review in the Obama Administration:
Clinton and Obama directives compared

by Richard Belzer

in Regulatory Policy

On January 18, President Obama issued an executive order that modifies longstanding principles and procedures for centralized regulatory oversight conducted by by the Office of Management and Budget.

The three tables below provide a side-by-side comparison of the new text with the text of Executive Order 12,866, issued by President Clinton in 1993. To guide readers in making comparisons, text that is underlined is the same in both documents.

Interpreting such texts requires close attention to detail. For this reason, we have color-coded both texts as follows:

GREEN HIGHLIGHT: Directive language (e.g., "shall", "must") with tightly defined verbs (e.g., "identify", "assess", "design", "maximize", "promulgate") often applied to concrete objects (e.g., "net benefits", "duplicative", "burdensome", "least burdensome", "most cost-effective") sometimes comprehensively (e.g., "only").

Objective performance evaluation generally is possible.

YELLOW HIGHLIGHT: Hortatory language (e.g., "should", "may") with loosely defined verbs (e.g., "consider", "promote", "endeavor to provide", "harmonize"), or used to modify directive language ambiguously (e.g., "where feasible and appropriate", "to the extent feasible").

Objective performance evaluation typically is impossible.

Where GREEN text is preceded or followed by YELLOW text, the result is always weaker. 

22 Feb 2010

Health Care Legislation, Part 14:
Obama's January 22 proposal

by Richard Belzer

in Litigation, Regulatory Economics, Regulatory Policy

President Obama announced a televised meeting for Thursday to discuss all options for health care legislation. Overnight, the White House released "The Obama Plan: Stability & Security For All Americans," which the President intends to be the focal point for the event. Although this Plan is short, the White House also released a one-page summary.

The January 22 Obama Plan is not accompanied by legislative text. Thus, it can only be analyzed in qualitative terms. We do that below the jump.

14 Jan 2010

Paperwork Reduction Act
How to improve implementation of the law

by Richard Belzer

in Paperwork Burdens

On October 28, 2009, the Office of Management and Budget solicited comments on its implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The purpose of the PRA is to minimize burdens on the public resulting from the federal government's information requests.

Neutral Source managing editor Richard Belzer submitted comments on his own behalf. These comments eventually will be uploaded by OMB to Regulations.Gov, the Federal government's web portal for all regulatory matters. (Clicking on the link above will reveal a fundamental weakness of the web portal: Unless the agency chooses to include information identifying the name and organizational affiliation of the submitter, there is no way to find any specific comment without opening them all.)

In response to numerous requests, a copy of these comment is posted to the Library.

6 Jan 2010

Health Care Legislation, Part 13:
Would the Senate bill prevent a future Congress from repealing the law?

by Richard Belzer

in Legislation, Regulatory Policy

It has been reported widely that the version of health care legislation passed by the Senate (HR 3590, as amended) includes provisions that would prevent a future Congress from changing or repealing it.

A careful review of the bill shows that these reports are incorrect.

5 Jan 2010

Health Care Legislation, Part 12:

by Richard Belzer

in Amusements, Regulatory Policy

Cartoonist Lisa Benson explains the "individual mandate."



More...

28 Dec 2009

Health Care Legislation, Part 11:
Insight from the funny papers

by Richard Belzer

in Amusements, Regulatory Economics, Regulatory Policy

Both the Senate and House versions of health care legislation include provisions that would prohibit insurers from declining to underwrite people with preexisting conditions and prevent them from imposing annual or lifetime caps on coverage.

Today's Shoe illustrates one of the problems with these proposed restrictions.

22 Dec 2009

Health Care Legislation, Part 10:
The bill that passed cloture

by Richard Belzer

in Legislation, Regulatory Economics, Regulatory Policy

We've delayed publishing analysis of the Senate's health care bill until a version could garner 60 votes, and thus survive a cloture vote to cut off debate. That bill is Majority Leader Reid's manager's amendment to HR 3590.

30 Nov 2009

Health Care Legislation, Part 9:
Why supporters insist on the individual mandate

by Richard Belzer

in Legislation, Regulatory Economics, Regulatory Policy

In its debate over health care legislation, the Senate and the Obama administration must contend with conflicting forces and incentives. There appears to be a political consensus among supporters that "guaranteed issue" and "community rating" are essential features of any bill. ("Guaranteed issue" means people cannot be denied coverage no matter how risky they are. "Community rating" means people with low health risks have to subsidize them.)

As we have noted several times now, keeping these features requires that everyone have health insurance. This means people with low health risks must be compelled to buy (and pay too much for) health insurance.

27 Nov 2009

Health Care Legislation, Part 8:
Is an 'individual mandate' constitutional? Necessary?

by Richard Belzer

in Legislation, Regulatory Economics, Regulatory Policy

Proposed health care legislation includes both employer mandates and an "individual mandate." Anyone not covered by employer-provided health insurance would be required by law to buy a qualifying health insurance plan or pay a tax.

An interesting debate has arisen concerning whether Congress has authority under the Constitution to require individuals to purchase health insurance. David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey are perhaps the most prominent opponents:

[C]an Congress require every American to buy health insurance?

In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.

Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus recently defended the proposition that such a law would pass constitutional muster.

21 Nov 2009

The Government's New Recommendations for Breast Cancer Screening, Part 2:
Bipartisan complaints with ironic consequences

by Richard Belzer

in Regulatory Economics, Regulatory Policy

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation that women without any risk factors for breast cancer obtain mammograms less frequently has elicited furious complaints by both Republican and Democratic Members of Congress. We blogged on the report when it was released.

18 Nov 2009

The Government's New Recommendations for Breast Cancer Screening:
Sensible advice or incipient rationing?