Regulatory Transactions

CRE has three regulatory objectives:

1. Restore OIRA’s staff level to its original level of 90

2.  Subject Independent Agencies to Centralized Regulatory Review

3. Develop a Mechanism to Control the Cumulative Cost of Regulations

If Objective 3 is accomplished Objectives 1 and 2 will follow. OIRA is ideally situated to be the agency in charge of the implementation of a mechanism to control the cumulative cost of regulations.  OIRA is the natural counterpart to OMB’s BRD (Budget Review Division) which is in charge of the preparation of the federal budget.

From: RegBlog | Penn Program on Regulation

Dame Deirdre Hutton Dame Deirdre Hutton, DBE serves as the Chair of the UK Civil Aviation Authority. Previously she served as the Chair of the UK Food Standards Agency.

***

So my starting point for excellent regulation with consumers in mind is to keep the following principles firmly in mind:

• Only regulate for risks that are real and cannot be better managed by a competitive market.

From: GAO Report GAO-15-585

A growing body of research on both private-and public-sector organizations has found that increased levels of engagement—generally defined as the sense of purpose and commitment employees feel toward their employer and its mission—can lead to better organizational performance. Employee engagement is particularly important within federal agencies, where employees influence the well-being and safety of the public in myriad ways, such as by conducting advanced scientific research, verifying and administering benefits, or ensuring the safety of our workplaces, airports, and national borders. However, government-wide levels of employee engagement have recently declined 4 percentage points, from an estimated 67 percent in 2011, to an estimated 63 percent in 2014, as measured by the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), and a score OPM derived from the FEVS beginning in 2010—the Employee Engagement Index (EEI).

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?