Post New

On healthcare pricing.
Back in...2019...I believe it was, Trump directed a study on making pricing in healthcare more transparent. One of the basics of economics is that you can't have a functioning market without all participants understanding the price and service availability for a particular good. Absent that, no real market can exist as by definition a price equilibrium never is able to take hold.

Trump's first EO was an attempt to start the ball rolling in that direction. Today, we get the followup:

During my first term, my Administration took historic steps to correct a fundamental wrong within the American healthcare system. For far too long, prices were hidden from patients and employers, with inadequate recourse available to individuals looking to shop for care or obtain pricing information from a healthcare provider in advance of a visit or procedure. These opaque pricing arrangements allowed powerful entities, such as hospitals and insurance companies, to operate with insufficient accountability regarding their pricing practices, resulting in patients, employers, and taxpayers shouldering the burden of inflated healthcare costs.

Exactly right. Which leads us to...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/20...

One economic analysis from 2023 estimated the impact of these regulations, if fully implemented, could result in as much as $80 billion in healthcare savings for consumers, employers, and insurers by 2025. Another report from 2024 suggested healthcare price transparency could help employers reduce healthcare costs by 27 percent across 500 common healthcare services. Recent data has found the top 25 percent of most expensive healthcare service prices have dropped by 6.3 percent per year following the initial implementation of price transparency during my first term.

Unfortunately, progress on price transparency at the Federal level has stalled since the end of my first term. <-- After the last EO was cancelled.

We have seen the benefits of places like the Oklahoma Surgery Center, where prices for common procedures are prominently displayed.

And so now, today:
Sec. 3. Fulfilling the Promise of Radical Transparency. The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take all necessary and appropriate action to rapidly implement and enforce the healthcare price transparency regulations issued pursuant to Executive Order 13877, including, within 90 days of the date of this order, action to:
(a) require the disclosure of the actual prices of items and services, not estimates;
(b) issue updated guidance or proposed regulatory action ensuring pricing information is standardized and easily comparable across hospitals and health plans; and
(c) issue guidance or proposed regulatory action updating enforcement policies designed to ensure compliance with the transparent reporting of complete, accurate, and meaningful data.

There will be the requisite complaints about this, but why anyone doesn't want to know if they're being charged $400 for a saline IV is beyond me.

The last EO came out too late to make a big dent. This one has at least 4 years to work.

The last EO came out too late to make a big dent. This one has at least 4 years to work.

How would this work, though?

Executive orders aren't laws. They're orders to the government to take certain actions, or do them in certain ways. They are the President formalizing his instructions to federal employees.

So an EO can order the Department of Health and Human Services to do (or not do) a certain thing. But an EO can't order a hospital or doctor to do a certain thing.

In order to require a private party to do (or not do) something, you need to have a statute. The President doesn't have any legislative power - he can only execute the laws passed by Congress.

So there's already a statute that requires price disclosure by hospitals that exceed a certain size, and that statute has already been implemented by regulation. CMS fines hospitals that don't comply with it:

https://www.cms.gov/priorities/key-initiatives/hos...

So when Trump issued his first EO back in June 2019, it was a direction to HHS to come up with whatever regulations it could issue consistent with existing law to increase price transparency. I couldn't find, though, that they ever actually drafted any. I don't know whether that's because they got busy with other stuff (COVID-19 kind of reprioritized everything in the health care agencies)....but it may simply be that there isn't any statutory authority to require private parties to disclose prices beyond that already in the regulations.

Absent a grant of statutory authority that's previously gone unused, this EO won't have much effect at all. I suppose it's possible that there's something out there, but I think it's far more likely that this EO won't have any greater impact than the prior one.

How would this work, though?

It won't. Has no chance of raising awareness or promoting transparent behavior. Also, the government has no influence over Medicare/Medicaid pricing, so all those expenditures need to stay hidden from the public.

It won't. Has no chance of raising awareness or promoting transparent behavior. Also, the government has no influence over Medicare/Medicaid pricing, so all those expenditures need to stay hidden from the public.

You're obviously being sarcastic - but I wasn't asking about how posting prices would help. I was asking something more basic. How does issuing this EO get medical providers to start posting prices?

People sometimes mistakenly think that EO's are laws. They're not. EO's can't tell anyone other than federal government employees to do anything. So no actual medical providers have to do anything as a result of this EO.

The prior EO told HHS to draft a regulation to make providers post prices...but they can't do that, unless there's a statute passed by Congress that gives them the power to do it. They weren't able to put together a regulation last time, that I could find - which makes me suspect that there isn't a statute out there to support a reg. And SCOTUS has just put the kibosh on agencies finding old general language and using it as a prop for new regulations that weren't what Congress had in mind.

So....how will this EO actually work to get providers to disclose pricing?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fac...

The order directs the Departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services to rapidly implement and enforce the Trump healthcare price transparency regulations, which were slow walked by the prior administration.
The departments will ensure hospitals and insurers disclose actual prices, not estimates, and take action to make prices comparable across hospitals and insurers, including prescription drug prices.
The departments will update their enforcement policies to ensure hospitals and insurers are in compliance with requirements to make prices transparent.

They can issue regs to require the insurance companies to disclose pricing of care all day long:

(c) issue guidance or proposed regulatory action updating enforcement policies designed to ensure compliance with the transparent reporting of complete, accurate, and meaningful data.

They can issue regs to require the insurance companies to disclose pricing of care all day long:

How? They can't issue a regulation unless there's a statute authorizing them to issue that regulation.

Unless Congress passes a law that requires insurance companies to disclose pricing, the Executive can't just decide to make them do it. If there's a statute, the agencies can promulgate regulations to implement it. But if there isn't a statutory basis for the regulation, they can't.

What statute authorizes the agencies to require price disclosure (that isn't already being implemented)?

There are already requirements in place for price disclosures, the hospitals and what not aren't following them:

https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-health-care-cost-t...

A November review from Patient Rights Advocate found that just 21 percent of 2,000 hospitals analyzed were in full compliance of transparency requirements. The Health and Human Services Inspector General also published an audit last year that estimated 46 percent of hospitals are not in full compliance, an even higher projection than Patient Rights Advocate found.

Health care prices have historically been kept private between doctors, hospitals, drug companies and insurance companies. Trump said in a Tuesday fact sheet that his new order would "give patients the knowledge they need about the real price of healthcare services."

Who does these rules? And is this a new thing?

https://us.milliman.com/en/insight/full-disclosure...

The Transparency in Coverage final rule was issued by the U.S. Department of Treasury, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Collectively, the departments anticipate that the disclosure of provider-specific reimbursement rates will spur competition, ultimately driving costs down.

And those were the Departments named in the EO.

What is this rule?
https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-an...
SUMMARY: The final rules set forth requirements for group health plans and health insurance
issuers in the individual and group markets to disclose cost-sharing information upon request to a
participant, beneficiary, or enrollee (or his or her authorized representative), including an
estimate of the individual’s cost-sharing liability for covered items or services furnished by a
particular provider. Under the final rules, plans and issuers are required to make this information
available on an internet website and, if requested, in paper form, thereby allowing a participant,
beneficiary, or enrollee (or his or her authorized representative) to obtain an estimate and
understanding of the individual’s out-of-pocket expenses and effectively shop for items and
services.

If you look at the link, you'll see the issuing authorities being the IRS and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CMS is essentially the government's insurance administrator, rolling up to HHS. It's their jobs to do this sort of thing.

There are already requirements in place for price disclosures, the hospitals and what not aren't following them:

Sure - hospitals that exceed a certain size are required to post certain prices. That's been on the books for a while (before Trump), because there's a statute that says they have to do that.

Do you want more enforcement of that rule? Generally speaking, enforcement requires agency staff and spending. You only get as much enforcement as you have employees that are investigating claims and reviewing compliance and bringing enforcement actions. That's very much not on the cards these days, though.

CMS (and Obamacare provisions generally) are in the sights of DOGE, so it's pretty unlikely that hospitals are going to be made to comply even with existing requirements. DOGE is going to fillet CMS down to size like all of the other agencies that do things that haven't historically enjoyed broad Republican support (like defense), so I wouldn't hold out hope that enforcement is going to improve:

https://www.healthcare-brew.com/stories/2025/02/25...

What is this rule?

A rule implementing disclosure of what insurance companies will cover for services. It modifies regulations that were part of Obamacare, which imposed a lot of requirements on health care plans. But the rules don't require health care providers (other than the hospitals already subject to them) to disclose anything.

As an aside, I don't think those rules survive the new SCOTUS decisions on agency power, since they rely on a catch-all clause that SCOTUS now discourages from being interpreted broadly. From the discussion on legal authority in the rule:

Several commenters contended that section 1311(e)(3)(A)(ix) of PPACA does not give the Departments statutory authority to require that plans and issuers make the rates they have negotiated with providers and out-of-network allowed amounts publicly available. The commenters noted that section 1311(e)(3)(A) of PPACA enumerates eight specific categories of information subject to the transparency in coverage mandate followed by a ninth “catchall” category consisting of “other information as determined appropriate by the Secretary.”71 These commenters maintained that the Secretary of HHS’s authority under section 1311(e)(3)(A)(ix) of PPACA is insufficient to support a requirement to publicize negotiated rates because they are not sufficiently similar to the other categories of information identified under section 1311(e)(3)(A) of PPACA.

The Departments disagree with these comments and are of the view that the information required to be disclosed under this rule fits squarely within the scope of information that plans and issuers may be required to disclose under section 1311(e)(3)(A)(ix) of PPACA and section 2715A of the PHS Act.

In years past, I think SCOTUS might have sided with the Departments - but under their current jurisprudence, look for the commenters to get the courts to throw this type of effort out as exceeding the purview of the agencies under the statute.

In years past, I think SCOTUS might have sided with the Departments - but under their current jurisprudence, look for the commenters to get the courts to throw this type of effort out as exceeding the purview of the agencies under the statute.

And the plaintiffs repoing the insurance industry and the hospitals will go to the first judge they get and argue that the government has no right demand to see how much something that the taxpayers are paying for cost. Yeah, good luck with that.

And the plaintiffs repoing the insurance industry and the hospitals will go to the first judge they get and argue that the government has no right demand to see how much something that the taxpayers are paying for cost. Yeah, good luck with that.

"The government" has the right to demand to see how much something that the taxpayer are paying for costs. But "the government" only exercises that right if Congress has passed a law actually demanding to see that information. The agencies don't get to demand to see anything if Congress hasn't authorized them to demand it. In years past, I would have agreed with you that this is exactly the sort of information that the agency should be able to require as part of a "catch-all" requirement - I just don't think SCOTUS is in the mood for letting agencies do things that Congress has declined to specifically mention.

And again, this only applies to the insurance plans - not what the medical providers are actually charging. So the patient gets to see that the insurance plan covers $121 of the cost of an IV, not the price that the doctor's office will charge for the IV.

And even more again, CMS barely had the bandwidth to successfully enforce the regulations that were already on the books against the much more limited universe of large hospitals. Once DOGE gets through gutting their staff, they're not even going to be able to do that - let alone actually enforce whatever new requirements get put into the CFR. The whole point of DOGE is to get rid of those pencil-necked bureaucrats who sit at desks in DC and write and enforce regulations against the people who actually do things in the economy.

If you're looking for more enforcement of bureaucratic regulations (and Obamacare regulations at that!) just because they'll provide greater protection and information for consumers, you've come to the wrong Administration.

"The government" has the right to demand to see how much something that the taxpayer are paying for costs. But "the government" only exercises that right if Congress has passed a law actually demanding to see that information.

So again, they're going to argue in court that the entire free market system requires a law ordering somebody to disclose a price for every good and/or service exchanged in this country. Again, good luck with that.

So again, they're going to argue in court that the entire free market system requires a law ordering somebody to disclose a price for every good and/or service exchanged in this country. Again, good luck with that.

What? No. Why would they argue that?

They would simply argue that the PPACA does not specifically authorize HHS or CMS to require that insurance plans make public their reimbursement rate agreements with providers. They weren't required to do that prior to the PPACA, and the PPACA doesn't specifically require them to do it. The PPACA just has a "catch-all" allowing HHS to require disclosure of other information not specifically provided. It's not a particularly unusual argument for them to claim that the catch-all should not be construed as Congress having decided that this information needs to be made public under Obamacare, and I think the courts will be sympathetic to it. None of that has anything to do with "the entire free market system."

Even if that regulation were upheld in court it still doesn't do what I think you want the EO to do, which is to require providers to say how much procedures cost. Because even under the PPACA, it doesn't require the actual providers to disclose prices. It just requires insurance companies to disclose how much they will cover.
Hospitals above a certain size already are supposed to disclose, but the PPACA doesn't expand that to any other providers. And as mentioned, that disclosure requirement is already inadequately enforced - and will be even more inadequately enforced once DOGE takes Musk's chainsaw to CMS.

They would simply argue that the PPACA does not specifically authorize HHS or CMS

Why are you arguing Obamacare's statute? Is that the only one governing healthcare?
At any rate, the point here is that people need to see what they're paying for healthcare. Full stop. We will never reduce health care costs until we get some semblance of a market going.

I get that the democrats want to protect the status quo and/or keep the graving train flowing for their interests, but this is another 80/20 issue they're going to find themselves on the wrong side of.

By statute - not Obamacare - CMS has the ability to enforce health care reforms with insurers. While the primary responsibility falls to the states to do that CMS does have the ability to partner with them to nudge the insurance companies. I expect they'll do that here with the willing participation of several states.

They also have authority derived from the No Surprises Act of 2022:
https://www.uofmhealth.org/no-surprises-act-nsa#:~....

Patients have the right to receive a “good faith estimate” explaining how much your healthcare will cost.
Healthcare providers are required to give patients an estimate of their bill for healthcare services before services are provided.

So this is merely an extension of something they're already doing.

The Consolidated Appropriations act of 2021 mandates reporting out on pricing and pricing trends. Here's last year's report:
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/laws-a...

Executive Summary: Key Findings on Prescription Drug Spending, Pricing Trends,
and Contributions to Premium Changes
Prescription drug prices are a top concern for policymakers and the public. As detailed in a recent report
by ASPE, more than 4,200 drug products had manufacturer list price increases from January 2022 to
January 2023; the average change in the manufacturer list price of these drugs was 15.2 percent, and 46.0
percent of these drugs had price increases that were higher than the rate of general inflation.1 For many
drugs, however, list prices are not the prices ultimately paid to manufacturers; payers or pharmacy benefit
managers (PBMs) negotiate with manufacturers over formulary placement in exchange for discounts in
the form of rebatesa off the list price.

Furthermore, these post-rebate or net prices paid by private health insurance plans and issuers may be
higher than the net prices received by manufacturers given supply chain markups and amounts retained
by or paid to PBMs. However, comprehensive data on the net prices paid by private health insurance
plans, issuers, and consumers do not exist for private health insurance coverage. To address that gap in
data availability, section 204 of Division BB of Title II of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA)
(“Section 204”) directed group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual (non
group) health insurance coverage (“private health insurance plans and issuers”) to submit annually certain
data on premiums, enrollment, nondrug medical spending, spending on prescription drugs, and
prescription drug rebates to HHS, the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Department of the Treasury
(UST) (collectively “the Departments”).b,2

So what does that Act do?
https://www.warnerpacific.com/getmedia/4a79fec8-6b...

1. What is required under the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, Title II, Section 204 Prescription
Drug and Health Care Spending Report?

› The Medical and Rx Reporting provision (Section
204) requires health plans and payers to report
information on plan medical costs and prescription
drug spending to the Secretaries of Health and
Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury, and the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on an
annual basis. This requirement applies to group
health plans (including ASO plans, expatriate plans,
and grandfathered plans) and health insurance
issuers offering group or individual health
insurance coverage, with the exception of church
plans that are not subject to the Revenue Code.


› On November 17, 2021, the departments released
an interim final rule (IFR) with request for
comments (IFC). – With the IFR, the Departments released reporting
instructions that provided greater technical detail
regarding each data element; the reporting
instructions were updated on June 30, 2022. – The Departments are requiring plan/issuer
submission of information based on the
“reference year,” defined as the “calendar year
immediately preceding the calendar year in which
the Section 204 data submissions are due.”
› On June 28, 2022, additional guidance and
clarification was added regarding several
key report elements, including:– Plan list dates, Spend Categories and
Total Spending.– New Additional Categorization – Medical
Benefit Known, Medical Benefit Estimated and
Requirement to provide Premium Split between
Member/Employer in the 2022 report.

I suppose one could make a Chevron style argument here, but again, good luck with that.

And btw:
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/about-...

Reporting on Prescription Drug and Health Care Spending
Internal Revenue Code section 9825, Employee Retirement Income Security Act section 725,
and Public Health Service Act section 2799A-10, as added by section 204 of Title II of Division
BB of the CAA, require group health plans (plans)1 and health insurance issuers (issuers) to
report to the Departments certain information related to prescription drug and other health care
expenditures. This information includes, among other things, general information regarding the
plan or coverage; the 50 most frequently dispensed brand prescription drugs, the 50 most costly
prescription drugs by total annual spending, and the 50 prescription drugs with the greatest
increase in plan expenditures over the preceding plan year; total spending by the plan or
coverage broken down by the type of costs; and the average monthly premiums paid by
participants, beneficiaries, and enrollees and paid by employers. Plans and issuers must also
report the impact on premiums of rebates, fees, and any other remuneration paid by drug
manufacturers to the plan or coverage or its administrators or service providers, including the
amount paid with respect to each therapeutic class of drugs and for each of the 25 drugs that
yielded the highest amount of rebates and other remuneration under the plan or coverage from
drug manufacturers during the plan year.

In other words, they're already telling the government this information, now they get to put it on their web sites. I suppose one could whip out the textbook and claim that an MRI or an ultrasound isn't covered in there, but good luck with that, also: Trump will simply pen up another EO while whoever is suing gets to pay more in legal fees instead of merely publishing their prices.

"At any rate, the point here is that people need to see what they're paying for healthcare. Full stop." - Dope

No duh.

What you are failing to realize is that this EO doesn't do that because it does not have the power of law. This EO does nothing but make the cult think the leader is actually doing something about healthcare. Congrats, you have been fooled again.

"I get that the democrats want to protect the status quo and/or keep the graving train flowing for their interests, but this is another 80/20 issue they're going to find themselves on the wrong side of." - Dope

This is too dumb or dishonest, even for you Dope. How can anyone think that it is Democrats want to keep the status quo in healthcare to protect their interests?

In the past 3 decades, only one major law has been passed that even slightly upended the status quo in healthcare, the Democrats passed it. The Republicans were against it and haven't been able to pass anything of their own. The Democrats want to make drastic changes to healthcare (single payer anyone.....) and you are the one who keep arguing that no one wants to such radical changes to healthcare.

So let's get back to the question you always dodge: Why do you always have a such a hard time accurately describing the views of your opponents?

Why are you arguing Obamacare's statute? Is that the only one governing healthcare?

It's the statute that was cited as the grounding authority for the rule you linked upthread. It's what they reached for when trying to find Congressional authority for doing what they were doing.

It's not the only statute "governing healthcare," but an agency needs something other than a statute "governing healthcare" generally in order to create a system of mandatory pricing disclosure. They need a statute that authorizes them to require that private actors disclose price information. Not a lot of them out there that haven't already been implemented, like the hospital requirement.

By statute - not Obamacare - CMS has the ability to enforce health care reforms with insurers.

There's no statute that gives CMS the ability "to enforce health care reforms" generally. There are lots of statutes that authorize CMS to do specific things. But they don't give them the ability to require disclosure of procedure prices. There are statutes that require them to disclose the insurer's reimbursement schedules....but that's not what you're after. You want the health care providers to disclose the prices for their services.

So this is merely an extension of something they're already doing.

They don't get to extend something they're already doing if they don't have statutory authorization for the extended activity. If Congress gives CMS the right to require insurers to provide information on their reimbursement rates, that doesn't mean CMS now has the power to require providers to disclose the prices they charge patients for procedures.

It used to be that the courts gave an enormous amount of leeway to agencies to justify almost any regulation with even the most tangential connection to an express grant of Congressional power. Those days are now gone. So merely because statutes - not Obamacare - give EPA the ability to enforce pollution controls with emitters (to borrow your formulation above), that does not give them the ability to regulate the fuels that power plants utilize. The grant of authority is limited to what's actually been granted. That's not Loper Bright (which overruled Chevron), but WV v. EPA.

I mean....this is exactly the whole point of the conservative legal project. To curtail agencies from exceeding the specific and limited things that Congress has authorized them to do. Unless Congress tells the agencies they're allowed to require private medical providers to post a price list, the agencies can't do it. Regardless of whether it's good public policy or not, that's Congress' call - not the agencies. Or the President's, because the President doesn't get to legislate - he only gets to execute through the agencies the laws that Congress has enacted.

In other words, they're already telling the government this information, now they get to put it on their web sites.

I doubt it's very useful to consumers to know how much Humana paid in total for insulin last year. That doesn't let them know how in advance how much the local pharmacy will charge for an insulin dose. Finding out how much the insurers paid for a given health care plan

I suppose one could whip out the textbook and claim that an MRI or an ultrasound isn't covered in there, but good luck with that, also: Trump will simply pen up another EO while whoever is suing gets to pay more in legal fees instead of merely publishing their prices.

Once more, Executive Orders cannot create obligations for anyone that isn't part of the federal government. An EO is a directive or rule for the government, not a law that other people have to follow. He doesn't get to decide whether medical providers have to publish their prices - only Congress does. If Congress has enacted a statute that requires such publication, the President can execute and enforce that law. If they haven't, he doesn't get to just decide to enact it for them.

I doubt it's very useful to consumers to know how much Humana paid in total for insulin last year. That doesn't let them know how in advance how much the local pharmacy will charge for an insulin dose. Finding out how much the insurers paid for a given health care plan

Which is why the order is about price publishing.

Some hospitals will do this because they actually have a handle on their books already and know what these numbers are. They'll figure- correctly - that there is something of a demand for price transparency in the market and will respond. When people get a chance to shop around and compare prices, they'll make informed choices about their health care. Hospitals that DON'T publish will soon find themselves in a position where their patients are reorienting to other providers.

I mean....this is exactly the whole point of the conservative legal project. To curtail agencies from exceeding the specific and limited things that Congress has authorized them to do.

Heh. "Be careful what you wish for. You might get it."

We'll probably be hearing "but we didn't mean that bit!" a lot in the future.

Once more, Executive Orders cannot create obligations for anyone that isn't part of the federal government. An EO is a directive or rule for the government, not a law that other people have to follow.

But it's not what he wants to happen.

Though...hmmmm...[type type type]...Roosevelt used EO 9066 to order Japanese internment. Though, it was directed at the military. So, while it affected private citizens, it wasn't directed at them. That would be the distinction, yes?

But an EO directing me to go back to work (just for a silly example), I could tell the Felon to take a long walk off a short pier, because it would be directed at me (private citizen). (Plus, I'd enjoy telling him off.)

Which is why the order is about price publishing.

But what is the statutory authority for the agencies to require price publishing? The statutes you cited require insurers to provide cost information in the aggregate. They don't require price publishing.

Where do the agencies derive their authority to require an additional medical providers (other than the large hospitals already regulated) to publish their prices?

Though...hmmmm...[type type type]...Roosevelt used EO 9066 to order Japanese internment. Though, it was directed at the military. So, while it affected private citizens, it wasn't directed at them. That would be the distinction, yes?

Somewhat. EO 9066 was directed to the government (like all EO's, it's just the President issuing an order to federal employees, not a rule imposed on the general public). But the military implemented EO 9066 under a claim of Executive authority at first. Because the nation was at war, the argument was that the President and the War Department had inherent power to do these actions under their Article II authority, without need for Congressional authorization.

However, Congress quickly mooted the issue. Although the curfew/internment program began by EO, Congress passed a law in 1942 that ratified it and made violation of the curfew/internment a federal criminal offense. So there was both Congressional and Executive action, by the time they started imposing penalties for violating the program.

But what is the statutory authority for the agencies to require price publishing?

I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader; I'm not going to wade through all the legislation that created CMS.

I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader; I'm not going to wade through all the legislation that created CMS.

Then I think you'll be sorely disappointed in the outcome of this, the EO you wanted. If the legislation that created CMS doesn't give them the authority to require medical providers to publicly disclose their prices, then they're not going to be able to do it. And an EO can't change that.

Give the text of the proposed rule you linked above, it doesn't look like they have that kind of power. They hung the power to require the disclosure of insurer's agreed reimbursement rates on a pretty thin reed, and one that wouldn't reach to actual medical providers. If they had a statutory grant of authority that was broad enough to force providers to disclose their prices, they absolutely would have pointed to that as part of their discussion of the legal grounds for the rule. They didn't, so it seems pretty likely that in "all the legislation that created CMS" they were never given this kind of authority.

As I mentioned upthread, if you're looking for the federal government to start doing more than it was doing before, you've come to the wrong Administration. The conservative legal project is to put a harness on federal administrative power, and DOGE and the Administration are going to slash agencies' resources to the bone. This is not an era when the federal government is going to meaningfully take on new regulatory efforts.

Then I think you'll be sorely disappointed in the outcome of this, the EO you wanted. If the legislation that created CMS doesn't give them the authority to require medical providers to publicly disclose their prices, then they're not going to be able to do it. And an EO can't change that.

I guess we'll...just have to let it play out, won't we?

I'm interested in lowering health care prices by actually having market forces do their thing and am willing to see how this goes.

I guess we'll...just have to let it play out, won't we?

I'm interested in lowering health care prices by actually having market forces do their thing and am willing to see how this goes.

There are a few states that have adopted laws requiring price transparency for medical providers. I don't know if they've had those rules in place long enough to assess whether they have had any effect on medical prices:

https://www.ncsl.org/health/state-actions-to-contr...

Follow-up question. How did the military enforcing the order on US soil not violate posse comitatus?

Follow-up question. How did the military enforcing the order on US soil not violate posse comitatus?

The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the use of the military to enforce domestic civil laws. I don't know if it were ever argued, but I imagine the defense would be that the order was a wartime defense measure, not domestic civil law enforcement, and thus it was appropriate to use the military to enforce it. Generally, domestic military activities that are taken to support a military purpose do not fall within the Act's prohibitions:

The Armed Forces, when in performance of their military responsibilities, are beyond the reach of the Posse Comitatus Act and its statutory and regulatory supplements. Analysis of constitutional or statutory exceptions is unnecessary in such cases. The original debates make it clear that the act was designed to prevent use of the Armed Forces to execute civilian law. Congress did not intend to limit the authority of the Army to perform its military duties.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R42659.pdf

That said, I don't know for sure if the military ever did enforce it. Fred Korematsu (of Korematsu v. U.S.) was arrested by the FBI, and Gordon Hirabayashi (who was convicted for violating the curfew before it was converted into internment) voluntarily turned himself in to the FBI in order to test the legality of the law. The EO and the military might have established the curfew and the exclusion zones, but it might not have been the military itself that actually enforced it against non-compliers.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.