Database Search Results

The statute specifically restricts the Secretary’s ability to award grants unless a state Medicaid plan includes particular screening procedures. While it doesn’t detail how the Secretary should determine compliance, it outlines a specific requirement that needs to be met before a grant can be issued, representing a clear instruction on a specific regulatory task.

The statute explicitly states a condition (“may not make a grant”) that must be met (“unless the State plan…includes the screening procedures”). This directly mandates the Secretary to ensure states comply with specific Medicaid screening procedures as a prerequisite for receiving grants under section 300k.

The statute provides specific instructions to health plans and issuers, detailing their responsibilities regarding coverage of qualified individuals in approved clinical trials. It defines key terms like “qualified individual” and “approved clinical trial” and outlines specific inclusions and exclusions for “routine patient costs.” This level of detail indicates a specific authority delegation.

The statute 42 U.S. Code § 300gg-8 directly mandates specific actions regarding health insurance coverage for individuals participating in approved clinical trials. It uses the term “may not” to prohibit certain actions, making it a direct mandate.

The statute provides a clear and specific regulatory task: prohibiting waiting periods exceeding 90 days in group health plans. While the definition of “waiting period” is cross-referenced, the core instruction is precise, fitting the “Specific Authority” delegation framework as it instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task.

The statute explicitly states that group health plans and health insurance issuers “shall not apply any waiting period…that exceeds 90 days.” This directly mandates a specific prohibition, creating a direct link and mandate for regulation. 45 CFR Part 147.116 directly implements this statutory requirement.

The statute provides specific instructions to the Secretary regarding enforcement. It details who is liable for penalties, the amount of the penalty, the process for administrative review, judicial review, and the limitations on the penalty. The statute clearly instructs the agency on the regulatory task.

The statute (42 U.S.C. § 300gg-22) explicitly grants the Secretary enforcement authority when a state fails to substantially enforce the provisions of the relevant parts of the U.S. Code. It details the imposition of penalties, administrative review, and judicial review, directly mandating the relationship.

The statute clearly instructs the Secretary on the specific regulatory task of defining “restricted annual limit” and ensuring access to needed services with minimal impact on premiums. This level of direction, even with terms like “ensure,” indicates a Specific Authority Delegation.

42 U.S.C. § 300gg-11(a)(2) explicitly directs the Secretary to determine the scope of benefits that are essential health benefits, as well as define the term “restricted annual limit.” This constitutes a direct mandate to regulate specific aspects of health insurance coverage. The “Authorities” section of the statute also directly corresponds to this regulation.

The statute lists very specific functions and responsibilities for the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, such as leading policy coordination, overseeing various programs (National Disaster Medical System, Hospital Preparedness Program, etc.), coordinating with federal, state, and local entities, and developing budget plans. Although some language may be open-ended, the overall context of instructing an agency with specific tasks satisfies the Specific Authority delegation categorization.

The statute authorizes the creation of the position of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response within HHS and defines specific duties. However, it doesn’t directly mandate the creation of specific regulations found in 45 CFR Part 147. While these regulations relate to health insurance reform, they’re a broader implementation of health-related statutes which the Assistant Secretary would need to consider in preparedness and response, making it authorized but not mandated.

The statute provides broad authority to the Secretary to conduct and fund research. It does not specify particular regulations to be promulgated or gaps in regulation to be filled. The language “may conduct… and make grants… and enter into contracts…” suggests a broad discretion to conduct research activities related to family planning and population.

The statute authorizes the Secretary to conduct and fund research in family planning and population-related fields. While the regulation addresses health insurance reform requirements, including preventive services coverage (which could relate to family planning), there’s no direct mandate or explicit authorization in the statute for the specific regulations in 45 CFR Part 147. The connection is thematic and general, not a direct statutory instruction to regulate health insurance in a particular way based on the research authorized in 42 U.S.C. § 300a-2.

42 U.S.C. § 300j-7 prescribes very specific actions for the Administrator and the courts regarding the review of regulations and determinations under the Safe Drinking Water Act, including specifying the court circuits for petitions, timeframes for filing, and circumstances under which the court shall remand penalty orders. These are clearly defined tasks outlined by Congress to be followed for judicial review.

42 U.S.C. § 300j-7 concerns judicial review procedures related to the Safe Drinking Water Act. While 45 CFR Part 147 deals with health insurance reform requirements and references 42 U.S.C. 300gg et seq. as its authority, these statutes fall under a different title (Title 42, Chapter 6A, Subchapter XXV versus Title 42, Chapter 6A, Subchapter XXIII). The health insurance regulations are tangentially related to the Safe Drinking Water Act regulations through the overarching theme of healthcare and well-being but do not stem directly or from explicit authorization in the Safe Drinking Water Act legislation concerning judicial review.

The statute delegates the authority to spend funds on the broader goal of “carrying out this subchapter” and for “demonstration projects for services.” Although it provides specific direction on how to allocate funding between services and prevention services demonstration projects, it does not identify a specific regulatory task or gap to address through rulemaking. Therefore, it’s a general authority delegation.

The statute authorizes appropriations “for the purpose of carrying out this subchapter,” which concerns health services. While it provides funding for specific demonstration projects, it does not directly mandate the creation of specific regulations. Instead, it empowers the relevant agency to act.

The statute clearly instructs medical facilities on specific notification procedures, including the content of the notification (name of the disease and date of transport) and the manner of notification (informing the designated officer upon sending notification and a 10-day response timeline). This level of detail indicates a specific directive, rather than a broad grant of authority.

The statute, 42 U.S.C. § 300ff-134, directly mandates specific procedures for medical facilities to notify designated officers about potential infectious disease exposures. It explicitly specifies the content and manner of notification, including timelines for response. The CFR regulation 45 CFR Part 147 implements health insurance reform requirements, and the “Authority” section of the CFR regulation includes citations to 42 U.S.C. 300gg, etc. while the statute provided does not fall in this range, the notification requirements outlined in the statute are designed to ensure effective communication and follow-up in potential exposure situations, which aligns with the broader goals of health insurance reform related to access to care, preventive services, and patient protection, therefore, it can be considered directly mandated to establish the basis and scope for health insurance reforms.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary and Administrator on awarding grants, conducting public health activities, establishing a national coordinating center, and collecting data related to sickle cell disease and heritable blood disorders. These instructions, though using terms like “appropriate” and “practicable,” outline specific tasks and purposes, fitting the “Specific Authority” delegation framework.

The statute authorizes grants and demonstration programs related to sickle cell disease and other heritable blood disorders. While 45 CFR Part 147 broadly addresses health insurance reform requirements, there’s no direct mandate or explicit authorization in the statute to directly regulate the subject matters covered in the regulation (e.g., guaranteed availability, fair premiums, preventive services). There is a connection insofar as both pertain to health, but one concerns research and grants while the other concerns insurance regulations broadly.

The statute specifically defines the election period and sets forth rules for continuation coverage elections by qualified beneficiaries and TAA-eligible individuals. It gives the agency clear direction on specific regulatory tasks.

The statute defines the election period for COBRA and addresses the effect of election on beneficiaries, and provides an extension for TAA-eligible individuals. While it sets specific parameters, it doesn’t explicitly mandate regulations to be created but authorizes agency action for implementation.

The statute instructs the Secretary to award grants for specific demonstration programs focused on evaluating the effectiveness of screening, followup, counseling, and healthcare services related to heritable disorders in newborns and children. It lists specific areas for evaluation, such as the timeliness of diagnosis and screening specimen collection. The statute does not create broad rulemaking authority, but identifies specific regulatory objectives.

The statute concerns grants for demonstration programs to evaluate newborn and child screening programs, while the regulation, 45 CFR Part 147, addresses health insurance reform requirements. While both are related to healthcare, the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the specific regulations found in 45 CFR Part 147. The statute could influence policy that could indirectly shape the regulations, but the relationship is not direct.

The statute provides specific instructions to the Administrator to modify existing regulations regarding monitoring methods for Class I injection wells, including the consideration of groundwater monitoring. The statute sets a deadline (18 months) and defines the type of wells and the objective (earliest possible detection of fluid migration). This level of specificity aligns with a Specific Authority Delegation, even if the terms “wherever appropriate” introduce some agency discretion.

The statute explicitly states that the Administrator “shall modify regulations” related to specific monitoring methods for Class I injection wells. This constitutes a direct mandate.

Although the statute provides a broad directive to promulgate regulations for enforcement, it also specifically mentions the possibility of providing for appropriate penalties, which falls under the umbrella of enforcement, but provides a more narrow instruction. Additionally, subsections (a), (c), (d), and (e) all give explicit tasks for the Secretary or NAIC to accomplish.

Subsection (b)(3) states “The Secretary shall promulgate regulations for enforcing the provisions of this section and may provide for appropriate penalties.” This is a direct mandate for the Secretary to issue regulations related to the statute.

While broad in scope, the statute does provide a series of specific regulatory tasks for the Secretary to engage in, including: approving accrediting organizations and their standards; granting waivers of accreditation; setting maintenance of effort requirements; determining appropriate administrative functions, and establishing reporting requirements. This goes beyond a general, undirected grant of power.

The statute authorizes the Secretary to award grants and specifies certain conditions and uses for the funds. While it mandates the Secretary may award grants, it does not directly mandate that regulations are created to govern the poison control centers, but rather sets the standards for the grants themselves.

The statute specifically references and relies on existing regulations promulgated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and section 262 of Title 42. While not explicitly instructing the agency to create new regulations directly under 300aa-22, it gives it authority to utilize the regulations to determine the presumption of proper directions and warnings. This places it under Specific Authority Delegations as it instructs the agency on a specific regulatory gap.

While the statute references compliance with regulations issued under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and section 262 of Title 42, it does not explicitly mandate new regulations specifically pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-22 itself. Instead, it authorizes reliance on existing regulations for determining proper vaccine preparation, directions, and warnings. The regulatory scheme is authorized, but not mandated by the statute.

While not specifically dictating precise regulatory content, the statute instructs the EPA Administrator on specific tasks: providing baseline information on malevolent acts, recognizing third-party technical standards for water system resilience, establishing a grant program, and providing guidance to small water systems. These are specific directives falling under the “Specific Authority” delegation.

42 U.S. Code § 300i-2 pertains to community water system risk and resilience, while 45 CFR Part 147 relates to health insurance reform requirements. These two topics are unrelated, as one concerns water infrastructure security, and the other deals with health insurance market regulations.

The statute instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task: prohibiting rescissions of health plans. It outlines exceptions (fraud, intentional misrepresentation), giving the agency the responsibility to implement and potentially clarify these boundaries through regulation.

42 U.S.C. 300gg-12 explicitly prohibits rescission of health plans under specific conditions, directly mandating the content of regulations concerning rescissions. 45 CFR Part 147.128 implements the statute by providing rules regarding rescissions of coverage.

Subsection (b) of the statute, regarding “Administrative penalty orders,” provides specific instructions to the EPA Administrator regarding the process for issuing penalty orders, including the maximum penalty amount and the procedures for notice, hearing, and judicial review. This constitutes a specific regulatory task assigned to the agency.

42 U.S.C. § 300j-6 pertains to compliance by federal agencies with safe drinking water requirements and the authority of the EPA administrator to issue penalties. 45 CFR Part 147 pertains to health insurance reform requirements. These topics are unrelated.

The statute clearly instructs the Secretary on a specific regulatory task: ensuring that programs receiving grants comply with the restrictions outlined in subsection (a). While the term “appropriate action” is open-ended, it falls within the category of Specific Authority Delegations as it directs the agency to address a specific gap – compliance with the stated funding restrictions.

The statute authorizes the Secretary to ascertain compliance and “take appropriate action,” including withholding funds, but does not mandate specific regulations to be created. It grants discretion in how to achieve compliance with the statutory restrictions.

The statute specifically outlines the circumstances under which the Administrator can approve alternative state programs and when that approval can be revoked. This represents a specific regulatory task identified by Congress.

The statute authorizes the Administrator to approve or disapprove State underground injection control programs and to later void such approvals by rule, indicating authorization but not a direct mandate to issue specific regulations.

The statute instructs the Secretary to make grants and contracts for the specific purpose of “promoting and expediting international research and training concerning the natural history and pathogenesis of the human immunodeficiency virus and the development and evaluation of vaccines and treatments for acquired immune deficiency syndrome and opportunistic infections.” This falls under Specific Authority because it directs the agency to act on a defined regulatory task. The statute also specifies conditions for grants and preferences for certain organizations, further indicating a specific delegation.

The statute authorizes the Secretary to make grants and contracts for research and training related to HIV/AIDS internationally. While 45 CFR Part 147 deals with health insurance reform requirements, including preventive services, essential health benefits, and transparency, there is no direct mandate or explicit authorization connecting the two. The statute focuses on international public health efforts related to HIV/AIDS, while the regulation focuses on domestic health insurance market reforms. There is a relatedness through the general subject of public health.

The statute provides clear instructions to the Secretary, outlining a specific regulatory task: the development and submission of a “severity of need index.” It includes details regarding what the index should measure, how it should be developed (including field testing and community input), and what information should accompany its submission. While the statute allows for some discretion in the factors used in the index, the core task is clearly defined.

The statute explicitly authorizes the Secretary to develop a severity of need index and specifies the requirements for its submission to Congress. However, it does not mandate regulations, but rather the creation and submission of a report to congress. The related regulation concerns health insurance reform. Although this statute falls under that umbrella, the statute itself does not directly mandate the regulation.

The statute specifically directs the Secretary to expedite the award of research grants and sets specific time limitations, even allowing for adjustments to these limitations under certain conditions. This falls under “Specific Authority Delegations” because it instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task.

The statute and regulation are related in that they both pertain to health insurance, but the statute does not directly mandate or explicitly authorize the specific regulations in 45 CFR Part 147. The statute concerns research grants for AIDS, while the regulation governs health insurance market reform.