Database Search Results

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary on reviewing and approving or disapproving alternative state mechanisms for health insurance coverage. While terms like “reasonably designed” and “acceptable alternative mechanism” allow for some agency discretion, the statute provides specific criteria and procedures the Secretary must follow.

The statute authorizes the Secretary to review and make determinations regarding state alternative mechanisms, but it does not mandate that the Secretary create regulations implementing that process. The statute allows states to seek waivers and outlines the process for the Secretary’s review and approval or disapproval.

The statute (specifically subsection (d)) instructs the Secretary to promulgate regulations, explicitly defining the subject matter of those regulations: “criteria for determining whether a reimbursement structure is described in subsection (a)”. This is a specific regulatory task.

Subsection (d) of the statute explicitly mandates the Secretary to promulgate regulations regarding reimbursement structures described in subsection (a). This establishes a direct mandate.

The statute directs the agency to apply specific provisions of another section (2704) to a specific market (individual market). It also outlines notice requirements and provides conditions for state law preemption. These are specific regulatory tasks with defined parameters, even though the agency retains some discretion in how to implement them. The delegation is therefore categorized as a specific authority delegation because it clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task.

The statute, 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-51, sets standards related to benefits for mothers and newborns. While it doesn’t explicitly mandate the creation of regulations, it establishes requirements (e.g., applying section 2704 to individual markets, notice requirements) that necessitate regulatory interpretation and enforcement. The CFR cites 42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg-63 as its authority which includes 300gg-51, indicating the regulations are authorized to enforce the statute.

The statute specifically instructs the agency (CMS) on the regulatory task, which is to enforce the minimum hospital stay requirements for mothers and newborns. While the statute itself lays out the requirements, the regulations detail how CMS will enforce them, defining procedures and penalties for non-compliance. The statute thus provides the specific authority and the agency then fleshes out the “how.”

The statute sets specific requirements regarding hospital stays for mothers and newborns, but the regulations (45 CFR Part 150) focus on CMS’s enforcement authority, which is authorized by the statute to ensure compliance with the broader provisions of the Public Health Service Act, including 42 U.S.C. 300gg-25.

The statute provides specific instructions on establishing an appeals process, detailing minimum requirements for both internal and external reviews. While some discretion is granted to the Secretary, it is within a defined framework and concerns setting “minimum standards” and deeming compliance.

42 U.S.C. § 300gg-19(b)(2) states the Secretary “shall implement an effective external review process that meets minimum standards established by the Secretary through guidance.” While the statute mandates that health plans and issuers implement an external review process, the Secretary’s role is authorized but not strictly mandated for all aspects of this process, as the law allows compliance with state processes if they meet certain criteria. The statute does directly mandate certain actions of the health plan/issuer. The link in the authorities lists parts of 45 CFR, including Part 150, though 300gg-19 isn’t listed as an authority. However, the statute is part of the range listed as authorities.

The statute provides broad authority to enforce the standards and requirements within parts of the Public Health Service Act relating to health insurance. It does not focus on a specific task, instead, it authorizes the creation of general enforcement processes and civil money penalties, which are broad enforcement mechanisms.

The statute authorizes regulations concerning enforcement (as seen in the list of CFR authorities) but does not mandate specific regulations. 42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg-63, 300gg-91, and 300gg-92 provide the broad authorization for regulations regarding health insurance standards, market rules, and enforcement. While the statute creates a framework regarding preemption and state flexibility, it is up to the agency to choose to create enforcement regulations.

While the statute specifies certain conditions under which coverage can be nonrenewed or discontinued, it provides broad authority to CMS to enforce these provisions. The statute uses general language and does not provide specific regulatory tasks, which aligns with the characteristics of a General Authority delegation.

The statute outlines the general requirements for guaranteed renewability of coverage but it does not explicitly mandate specific regulations. It authorizes the agency to enforce the provisions related to renewability and termination, but the level of detail and enforcement mechanisms are left to the agency’s discretion.

42 U.S.C. 300gg-28 establishes a specific requirement regarding coverage of dependent students on medically necessary leave of absence. The regulations in 45 CFR Part 150 provide the processes for enforcement of the requirements established by 300gg et seq. Thus it clearly instructs the agency on a specific regulatory task.

While the statute mandates certain actions by health plans and issuers, the regulations in 45 CFR Part 150 are authorized under 42 U.S.C. 300gg et seq. to establish enforcement mechanisms. The statute creates the substantive requirement for continued coverage, and the regulations facilitate the enforcement of those requirements. The statute doesn’t explicitly mandate the specific content of the enforcement regulations, only that enforcement should occur.

The statute provides specific instructions to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding the implementation of wellness program demonstration projects (subsection (l)) and reporting requirements to Congress (subsection (m)). Furthermore, subsection (a)(9) uses the language “Any other health status-related factor determined appropriate by the Secretary”, clearly instructing the agency to fill a specific regulatory gap and using “appropriate.”

42 U.S. Code § 300gg-4 directly mandates specific actions and prohibitions related to health plans and insurance issuers, and references the Secretary numerous times. The CFR explicitly lists 42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg-63, 300gg-91 and 300gg-92 as the authority.

The statute provides a clear directive not to discriminate, but leaves the specific methods of enforcement and implementation to the agency. While the statute calls for non-discrimination, the details of how that is enforced falls under a broader umbrella of authority delegated to the agency concerning health insurance market regulation. The regulation lists 42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg-63, 300gg-91, and 300gg-92 as the authority. This is a delegation of general authority to implement enforcement regulations.

While 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-5 establishes a non-discrimination mandate, it doesn’t directly and comprehensively mandate the specific enforcement regulations found in 45 CFR Part 150. The statute lays out the principle of non-discrimination, and the regulation provides the CMS enforcement mechanisms related to a broader set of statutes (300gg through 300gg-63, 300gg-91, and 300gg-92). The agency is authorized to create enforcement mechanisms for the statute.

While the statute provides specific directives regarding clinical trial coverage, it does not explicitly outline specific regulatory tasks for an agency to undertake. The agency’s authority to enforce the statute stems from broader grants of rulemaking authority related to health insurance market regulation, rather than specific instructions within this particular statute.

The statute, 42 U.S. Code § 300gg-8, establishes requirements for health plans and issuers regarding coverage for individuals participating in approved clinical trials. While the statute mandates certain actions (e.g., not denying participation or coverage), it also implies that agencies have the authority to enforce these requirements, even if not explicitly stated. The presence of the CFR sections associated with the statute further indicates that agencies like CMS are authorized to create regulations to implement and enforce the statute’s provisions, as demonstrated by 45 CFR Part 150.

While the statute addresses a broad topic, specific clauses, like (a)(1)(C) and (a)(2)(C), explicitly instruct the Secretary to establish rules for calculating average aggregate lifetime/annual limits when plans have varying limits. These are not general authorizations but directives to fill a specific regulatory gap. Also (a)(4), explicitly requires the Secretary to act through regulations.

The statute directly mandates the Secretary to establish rules in specific situations, such as when plans have different aggregate lifetime or annual limits on various categories of medical and surgical benefits (subparagraphs (a)(1)(C) and (a)(2)(C)). It also calls for regulations to address the availability of plan information per subsection (a)(4)

While the statute directs the Secretary to act “consistent with section 104 of the Health Care Portability and Accountability Act of 1996” and “to carry out the provisions of this subchapter,” it does not specify particular regulatory tasks. The use of broad language like “necessary or appropriate” indicates a grant of general rulemaking authority rather than a specific instruction.

The statute states that the Secretary “may promulgate such regulations,” indicating authorization but not a mandate to create regulations.

The statute specifically instructs the agency on a regulatory task””guaranteeing the availability of health insurance coverage””using relatively clear terms and defining “eligible individual.” While the statute utilizes terms like “service area” and involves actuarial calculations for policy forms, these aspects do not significantly detract from the relatively specific nature of the delegation, and CMS enforcement capabilities are clearly outlined.

The statute, 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-41, directly mandates that health insurance issuers offer coverage to eligible individuals, and the regulation, 45 CFR Part 150, concerns CMS enforcement of these requirements.

The statute provides a specific task: enforcing the provisions of Section 300gg-18. Although “appropriate penalties” allows for some agency discretion, it falls within the definition of “clearly instructs an agency on a specific regulatory task or gap, even using open-ended terms like ‘appropriate,’ ‘reasonable,’ or ‘necessary.'”

Subsection (b)(3) of the statute explicitly states, “The Secretary shall promulgate regulations for enforcing the provisions of this section and may provide for appropriate penalties.” This language directly mandates the Secretary to issue regulations for enforcement.

The statute specifically instructs the Secretary to create regulations concerning the “form and manner” of election, detailing a very precise task. This aligns with Specific Authority Delegation.

42 U.S. Code § 300gg-21(a)(2)(A) states: “…in such form and manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe…”. This directly mandates the Secretary to prescribe regulations regarding the “form and manner” of election for non-federal governmental plans to be excluded.

While the statute sets forth broad prohibitions and requirements, it also directs the Secretary to “establish rules to prevent an entity”™s failure to provide information under paragraph (1) or (2) with respect to previous coverage of an individual from adversely affecting any subsequent coverage of the individual under another group health plan or health insurance coverage” (42 U.S. Code § 300gg-3(e)(3)). This is a clear instruction on a specific regulatory task, qualifying it as Specific Authority delegation under Hickman’s framework.

42 U.S. Code § 300gg-3(c)(1)(I) explicitly refers to public health plans as “defined in regulations,” indicating direct mandate. Additionally, The CFR Title/Parts provided cite 45 CFR Parts 144, 146, 147, 148, 150.

While the statute specifies that the coverage provisions apply to individual markets as they do for group plans, it doesn’t provide details on how those coverage provisions are to be enforced. The agency (CMS) uses general authority to create the processes and penalties to enforce compliance with these provisions; therefore this is a general authority delegation.

The statute (42 U.S.C. § 300gg-52) applies provisions of another section (2706, now 300gg-5 or 300gg-27, depending on the date) to health insurance coverage in the individual market. The CFR (45 CFR Part 150) covers CMS enforcement in the insurance markets, including the individual market. Since the statute mandates coverage but doesn’t specify how it should be enforced, the regulation can create the mechanisms for enforcing this mandate. The statute is authorized, but doesn’t directly mandate specific enforcement procedures.

The statute sets forth general rules regarding guaranteed renewability and exceptions, but it doesn’t instruct the agency on specific regulatory tasks. While the statute lists the conditions for non-renewal, it grants the agency latitude in determining how these conditions are implemented and enforced. The regulations needed to operationalize the statute’s objectives fall under broad rulemaking authority without specific regulatory tasks clearly identified by statute.

The statute, 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-42, outlines the guaranteed renewability of individual health insurance coverage. While it establishes the requirements for renewability and exceptions, it doesn’t explicitly mandate that an agency create regulations. However, the presence of 45 CFR Parts 144, 147, 148, and 150, which address enforcement and standards related to health insurance, indicates that the statute authorizes but does not directly mandate the creation of regulations to implement and enforce the provisions of 300gg-42. Part 150 specifically mentions the range 300gg through 300gg-63 within its authority section which means 300gg-42 enables its enforcement.

Subsection (a)(2) of 42 U.S. Code § 300gg-11 specifically instructs the Secretary to define the term “restricted annual limit” and to ensure access to needed services with a minimal impact on premiums. This directs the agency on a very specific regulatory task.

The statute, 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-11, explicitly directs the Secretary to determine “restricted annual limit” for plan years prior to 2014, and ensure access to services with minimal impact on premiums, which means the agency is authorized to make rules. The other components of 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-11 define the scope of permissible plan limits or restrict plans from establishing limits, and those components do not authorize agency regulations. Thus the overall relationship is authorized but not mandated.

While the statute focuses heavily on prohibitions regarding the use of genetic information, the research exception detailed in subsection (d)(4) coupled with 42 U.S.C. 300gg-53(d)(4)(E) (“The issuer complies with such other conditions as the Secretary may by regulation require for activities conducted under this paragraph.”) gives the Secretary specific authority to regulate the research exception outlined in 42 U.S.C. 300gg-53(d)(4)(A-E). The agency is specifically instructed to issue regulation to prescribe further conditions for the activities conducted. While “appropriate,” “reasonable,” or “necessary” is not stated, the law gives explicit authority for the Secretary to prescribe regulations for activities. This falls closer to specific than general.

42 U.S.C. 300gg-53 outlines specific prohibitions related to genetic information, but does not explicitly mandate regulations. However, 42 U.S.C. 300gg-53(d)(4)(E) implies authorization, as it states the issuer “complies with such other conditions as the Secretary may by regulation require.” This indicates that the Secretary can issue regulations related to the research exception mentioned in (d)(4). Moreover, the CFR authority section includes 300gg through 300gg-63, which encompasses 300gg-53. This confirms the relationship as authorized but not directly mandated.

While the statute addresses specific exceptions to health insurance requirements, the regulation (45 CFR Part 150) encompasses CMS enforcement broadly related to 42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg-63, 300gg-91, and 300gg-92. The statute doesn’t explicitly direct the agency to create enforcement procedures. Therefore, the delegation is general.

The regulation (45 CFR Part 150) cites 42 U.S.C. 300gg-63 as an authority, meaning the statute authorizes the regulation, but the statute itself doesn’t mandate a specific regulation. The regulation implements enforcement procedures related to the broader health insurance market regulations authorized in the statutes listed under its authority section.

The statute delegates authority to CMS to enforce regulations related to health insurance coverage, but the specific details of enforcement are left to the agency’s discretion, beyond that found in the statute. 42 U.S.C. 300gg-9 falls within the range of sections cited as authority for 45 CFR Part 150 (300gg through 300gg-63, 300gg-91, and 300gg-92), suggesting a general delegation to create comprehensive enforcement mechanisms rather than a specific task.

The statute mandates disclosure of certain information by health plan issuers. While the statute itself establishes the disclosure requirement, it allows for agency (CMS) enforcement, and does not directly specify every detail of how the enforcement should be handled. Therefore, it is authorized but not mandated that the agency creates regulations for enforcement.

The statute specifies the actions the Secretary must take (enforcement via civil money penalties), the entities to which it applies (non-federal governmental plans and health insurance issuers), and even sets the amount of the penalty and considerations for its imposition. This provides a high degree of specificity.

The statute explicitly states that the Secretary “shall enforce such provision (or provisions) under subsection (b)” if a state fails to substantially enforce the provisions. This constitutes a direct mandate for Secretarial enforcement under specific circumstances.

While the statute establishes a clear prohibition against rescission, it also includes references to other sections (300gg-2(b) and 300gg-42(b)) related to permitted cancellations, broadly authorizing the agency to determine enforcement, and to interpret the scope and exceptions within the context of the broader health insurance market regulations. It does not identify any specific regulatory task, giving the agency leeway in its approach to enforcement.

The statute prohibits rescission of health plans except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation and refers to sections 300gg-2(b) and 300gg-42(b) for permitted cancellations, implying that an agency has the authority to create regulations enforcing and interpreting these restrictions and permissions, although it does not mandate specific regulatory action beyond enforcement. 45 CFR Part 150 details enforcement processes related to these market regulations, suggesting it’s authorized by the statute but not directly mandated.