Database Search Results

While the statute deals with grants generally, it includes a very specific instruction in (c)(3). The Secretary may waive limitations outlined if they establish criteria “by regulation.” This directs the agency to a very specific area to address using rulemaking.

The statute authorizes the Secretary to establish grant programs and criteria, but doesn’t mandate specific regulations on every aspect. Section (c)(3) explicitly states, “The Secretary may waive the limitation specified in paragraph (2)(A) for any year in accordance with criteria established by regulation,” indicating authorization but not a mandate for a regulation on waiver criteria.

While subsection (a) is broad, subsection (d) provides a specific task. It directs the Administrator to carry out a loan guarantee program for small public water systems and specifically instructs the Administrator to “prescribe regulations to carry out this subsection.” This provides a specific regulatory task with clear objectives.

Subsection (d) explicitly states that the Administrator “shall prescribe regulations to carry out this subsection,” authorizing the agency to create regulations related to the loan guarantee program. This is an authorization by the statute, but not a direct mandate for other regulatory actions.

The statute provides a relatively specific regulatory task: to develop or update a “One Health framework to address zoonotic diseases and advance public health preparedness” and a “One Health coordination mechanism”. While the details are not exhaustively laid out, the objective and scope are clear enough to qualify as a specific authority delegation under Hickman’s framework. The statute uses the term “appropriate”, suggesting discretion in implementation, but still within the specific scope outlined.

The statute authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop and update a One Health framework and coordination mechanism. While the statute mandates the development or updating of this framework and coordination mechanism, it doesn’t directly mandate specific regulations. The agency has discretion in how it implements this framework.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary, acting through the CDC Director, to provide quality assurance and surveillance activities related to newborn screening for heritable disorders. It identifies specific tasks such as quality assurance for labs, timeliness for processing tests, performance evaluation services, technical assistance, technology transfer, coordination of surveillance activities, standardized data collection, reporting, and promotion of data sharing. While “appropriate” is used, it’s within the context of clearly defined regulatory goals.

While subsection (a) uses the word “shall” indicating a direct mandate, subsection (b) uses the word “may” indicating an authorized but not mandated relationship, since both subsections are components of the same overall statute, it is appropriate to classify the relationship as “authorized but not mandated”.

The statute, 42 U.S.C. § 300z-6, directs the Secretary to coordinate specific programs related to adolescent pregnancy prevention. It outlines specific tasks like requiring reports from grantees, providing technical assistance, reviewing programs for consistency, giving priority to certain funding applications, and prioritizing certain projects. While the statute uses terms like “appropriate,” the specific regulatory task of coordination and the detailed actions listed fall under the category of specific authority delegations, aligning with Hickman’s definition.

While the statute (42 U.S.C. § 300z-6) and the regulation (45 CFR Part 147) both deal with health-related issues and involve the Department of Health and Human Services, the statute specifically addresses coordination of adolescent pregnancy prevention programs, whereas the regulation pertains to health insurance reform requirements. The statute does not directly mandate the creation of the health insurance regulations, nor is there any explicit authorization. Thus, the relationship is related but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.

Subsection (d) “Guidance” of the statute explicitly instructs the Administrator to publish guidance to assist states in the development of programs. It further dictates what that guidance shall, at a minimum, include. This identifies a very specific task.

The statute authorizes the Administrator to publish guidance to assist states in developing source water quality protection programs. While it encourages these programs, it does not mandate their creation or any specific regulatory actions derived from them at the federal level. States may establish a program.

The statute provides specific direction to the Secretary to convene stakeholders, develop reporting criteria (including what should be included), award grants, collect feedback, and publish reports. While the statute uses open-ended terms like “appropriate” and “reasonably require”, it clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task with boundaries and considerations.

The statute authorizes the Secretary to establish an electronic health record reporting program but does not explicitly mandate all of the regulatory details. The statute outlines the framework, but the specifics of implementation are left to the Secretary’s discretion.

While the statute doesn’t dictate how the Secretary ensures confidentiality or informed consent, it specifically identifies what the Secretary must address: ensuring confidentiality of early intervention services and voluntary informed consent for HIV/AIDS testing as a condition for grant approval. The statute directs the agency to focus on these defined areas within the grant program.

The statute states that the Secretary “may not make a grant” unless certain conditions regarding confidentiality and informed consent are met. This authorizes the Secretary to set requirements related to these topics, but does not explicitly mandate specific regulations. It’s a condition on the grant-making process.

The statute provides specific instructions to the WTC Program Administrator regarding the establishment of a nationwide network, the criteria healthcare providers must meet (credentialing, protocols, data collection, quality assurance), and the provision of training and technical assistance. While the WTC Program Administrator is given discretion in establishing the “fraud, quality assurance, and other requirements,” this discretion is cabined within the specific task of establishing and maintaining the network for WTC responders and survivors.

42 U.S. Code § 300mm-23(a) explicitly mandates the WTC Program Administrator to “establish a nationwide network of health care providers” for eligible individuals outside the New York metropolitan area, thus directly mandating regulatory action. Furthermore, subsection (b)(4) indicates the WTC program administrator must establish fraud, quality assurance and other requirements.

42 U.S. Code § 300j-19e outlines very specific goals, means to achieve those goals, and programs for the EPA administrator to implement. This is more in line with Specific Authority Delegations.

The statute and regulation are related through the broader context of health and water infrastructure. However, the statute focuses on workforce development and grants for the water utility sector, while the regulation pertains to health insurance reform requirements. The statute does not explicitly mandate or authorize the specific health insurance regulations outlined.

The statute clearly instructs the Administrator on a specific regulatory task: to conduct a review of technologies. While the wording includes some open-ended terms (such as “appropriate departments and agencies”), the core instruction is clear and specific about what the agency must do (review technologies) and why (to ensure the physical integrity of water systems, prevent contamination, allow for alternate water sources, and facilitate source water assessment). It also provides explicit examples of the technologies to be reviewed in subsection (b).

The statute directs the Administrator to review technologies related to community water systems and contaminants. While 45 CFR Part 147 deals with health insurance reform, some aspects, like coverage of preventive health services (§ 147.130), could be indirectly related to ensuring access to safe drinking water by preventing waterborne diseases and associated health issues. However, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize regulations on health insurance.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to continue activities related to stillbirth, SUID, and SUDC. It lists specific tasks, such as collecting information, disseminating information, and collaborating with other entities. The language “including, as appropriate” indicates that the Secretary has some discretion, but the statute clearly delineates the regulatory task.

The statute concerns public health data collection and dissemination related to stillbirth, SUID, and SUDC. While 45 CFR Part 147 addresses health insurance reform, including preventive services coverage and reporting, it doesn’t directly mandate or is explicitly authorized by this statute. The statute’s focus is narrower than the broad health insurance market regulations covered by Part 147, but both are related to public health.

The statute explicitly instructs the WTC Program Administrator to collect and analyze data, integrate it into program activities, collaborate with the WTC Health Registry, and protect data privacy. While some phrasing is open-ended, the statute provides a clear regulatory task with specific instructions about how the agency is to perform these tasks.

While 42 U.S.C. § 300mm-3 mandates data collection and analysis regarding WTC-related health conditions and references “applicable statutes and regulations,” including HIPAA, it does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the specific regulations in 45 CFR Part 147, which broadly covers health insurance reform requirements. The statute does reference existing privacy regulations. Therefore, they are related as they both operate in the health arena, but there is no clear directive from the statute to create those specific regulations.

Although 42 U.S.C. § 300j-21 is a definitions section, subsection (2) states “The Administrator may establish more stringent requirements for treating any part or component of a drinking water cooler as lead free for purposes of this part whenever he determines that any such part may constitute an important source of lead in drinking water.” This gives the Administrator a specific task and directs the actions that can be taken.

42 U.S.C. § 300j-21 defines terms related to lead in drinking water coolers, particularly in schools. While it enables regulations related to drinking water safety, it doesn’t explicitly mandate or authorize the regulations in 45 CFR Part 147, which broadly covers health insurance reform. The statute and the regulation are related through the general goal of public health, but one does not directly necessitate or allow the other.

The statute outlines exceptions to health insurance coverage, but it doesn’t specify how the agency should implement or further define these exceptions beyond referencing section 300gg-91(c). The statute provides the agency broad authority to create regulations concerning health insurance coverage but lacks a specific regulatory task instructing the agency how to do this.

The statute, 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-63, defines exceptions to certain health insurance coverage requirements. While the statute itself doesn’t explicitly mandate the creation of regulations, the broad framework established by 42 U.S.C. 300gg et seq., including the statute in question, authorizes the relevant agency (HHS) to issue regulations to further define and implement the provisions related to health insurance reform. 45 CFR Part 147 falls under this authority, specifying and elaborating upon the statutory requirements and exceptions.

While the statute itself doesn’t directly delegate rulemaking authority in the traditional sense (it outlines the subrogation process), the underlying legislative framework establishing the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) delegates authority to HHS to administer the program, and this statute operates within that broader delegated authority. It instructs the agency (HHS) to manage the fund’s subrogation rights and deposit recovered amounts.

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-17 concerns subrogation rights of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund. 45 CFR Part 147 addresses health insurance market regulations. While both relate to healthcare, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the specific health insurance regulations outlined in the CFR part. The relationship is therefore related but neither directly mandated nor explicitly authorized.

While the statute uses “may” regarding grants and contracts, it provides specific instructions and goals for the agency regarding the training of health personnel, development of curricula, and other activities related to HIV/AIDS. The statute pinpoints particular regulatory tasks, which include giving preference to projects to train certain health professionals. These tasks, even with the use of terms like “appropriate,” or “necessary,” fall within Specific Authority Delegations.

The statute, 42 U.S.C. § 300ff-111, authorizes the Secretary to make grants and enter into contracts to address HIV/AIDS, but it does not mandate the creation of regulations. The “may” language throughout the statute indicates authorization, not a direct mandate.

The statute directs the WTC Program Administrator to institute an education and outreach program, outlining specific tasks like establishing a website, holding meetings, developing materials, and providing phone information services. This clear instruction on a specific regulatory task, even if using general terms like “potentially eligible populations” and “culturally and linguistically diverse populations” qualifies as a Specific Authority Delegation under Hickman’s framework.

While both the statute and the regulation deal with health services, the statute specifically mandates education and outreach for the WTC Program, while the regulation concerns health insurance market reforms more broadly. The statute doesn’t directly mandate the specific regulations in 45 CFR Part 147, nor does it explicitly authorize them, but the broader topic of health coverage and services makes them related.

The statute clearly directs the Secretary, acting through specific agencies, to establish and conduct specific types of programs (fellowship and training) to address a particular issue (AIDS). It outlines the purpose and scope of those programs, indicating a specific task.

The statute discusses fellowship and training programs related to AIDS, while the regulation addresses broader health insurance reform requirements. While both relate to health, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the specific regulations in 45 CFR Part 147.

The statute instructs the Secretary, acting through the CDC, to make grants to states that meet specific criteria (described in subsection (b)). It also details how the funds can be used (subsection (c)) and the form of the application (subsection (d)). Though the statute uses language like “in such form, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require,” the specific task of setting up and administering the grant program for HIV/AIDS testing and prevention to states in accordance with the compliance options described within the statute provide more than general authority.

While 42 U.S.C. § 300ff-33 concerns HIV/AIDS testing and prevention, and 45 CFR Part 147 deals with health insurance reform requirements, there isn’t a direct mandate or explicit authorization relationship between them. The statute references “laws or regulations of a State”, but does not specifically mandate or authorize federal regulations found in 45 CFR part 147. There is relatedness in that both address healthcare, but their connection is indirect.

The statute provides a very specific regulatory task: to order the repair, replacement, or recall of lead-lined drinking water coolers identified by the Administrator. While the CPSC has some discretion in the process (notice and comment, public hearing), the core directive is clearly defined. The statute also references specific sections of the Consumer Product Safety Act further defining enforcement procedures.

The statute directly mandates the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to issue an order requiring the repair, replacement, or recall of drinking water coolers with lead-lined tanks, identified by the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for comment. The statute doesn’t just authorize; it instructs the CPSC to act.

While the statute gives the Secretary discretion, it very specifically tasks the Secretary with identifying activities that do not constitute information blocking. It also directs the Secretary to set disincentives for information blocking by providers “through notice and comment rulemaking”. The statute offers a very specific regulatory task of defining exceptions to the broad prohibition on information blocking. It uses terms like “reasonable and necessary activities” which Hickman identifies as a specific authority delegation.

Subsection (a)(3) of the statute directly mandates that the Secretary, through rulemaking, identify reasonable and necessary activities that do not constitute information blocking. The statute provides the framework and definition of information blocking, and the regulation (45 CFR Part 147) contains health insurance reform requirements. While the entire regulation is not directly mandated by this statute alone, the element related to information blocking falls under direct mandate. Subsection (b)(2)(B) also explicitly mentions that the Secretary sets forth disincentives “through notice and comment rulemaking.”

The statute clearly instructs the Secretary to prescribe regulations regarding the option of membership in a qualified health maintenance organization for certain employers and states. Although the statute uses the general term “regulations”, the specific context makes this a Specific Authority Delegation under Hickman’s framework.

Subsection (a) of the statute explicitly states that the Secretary shall prescribe regulations. This indicates a direct mandate.

The statute explicitly instructs the Secretary to establish a program for evaluating specific types of drugs (those unapproved for AIDS treatment but in use) and to create scientific and ethical guidelines for those evaluations. This is a clear, specific task assigned to the Secretary, thus fitting the definition of a Specific Authority Delegation.

The statute directs the Secretary to establish a program for evaluation and to set guidelines. While 45 CFR Part 147 deals with health insurance reform broadly, including preventive services, there is no direct mandate or explicit authorization in the statute requiring this specific regulation. The statute and regulation are related to healthcare, but the link isn’t a clear direct mandate or authorization.

The statute provides broad rulemaking authority by instructing the Secretary to improve minority health and eliminate disparities and broadly delegates powers. While there are specific duties outlined, the overall delegation is framed in terms of achieving broad goals and establishing and supporting programs and initiatives. The statute grants a broad mandate but does not identify a specific regulatory task.

The statute establishes an Office of Minority Health and outlines its duties, including awarding grants and developing measures to evaluate effectiveness in reducing health disparities. The regulation (45 CFR Part 147) concerns health insurance reform requirements. While both address healthcare, the statute focuses on minority health and disparities, while the regulation covers broader health insurance market reforms. The statute authorizes grants and agreements to improve minority health, but does not explicitly direct specific regulations found in 45 CFR Part 147, nor does the statute draw authority from the regulation..