House bill could slow high-cost health and labor rules

The agencies would also have to report on cost-benefit analyses for proposed rules and assess possible alternatives to the proposed rules.

Another provision in the bill would also create a mechanism members of Congress could use to slow or block consideration of a bill if the bill could impose high costs on private-sector parties.

The federal Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an arm of the White House, would be responsible for determining whether other agencies had complied with the cost-analysis requirements.

The federal Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 already requires federal agencies to prepare impact analyses for many regulations, but agencies can avoid having to prepare an impact analysis if they decide a regulation is not a major regulation.

"Every year Washington imposes thousands of rules on local governments and small businesses," Foxx said in a comment about the bill. "Hidden in those rules are costly mandates... At the very least, policymakers and unelected regulators should know the price of what they dictate."

Bill mechanics: The regulation analysis bill was introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., the chair of the House Rules Committee.

Foxx is one of the most powerful members of Congress, because she helps determine which bills can reach the House floor.

Foxx recruited two Republican cosponsors and two Democratic cosponsors.

The bill is under the jurisdiction of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the House Budget Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, as well as the House Rules Committee.

Members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee backed it by a 23-19 vote at a meeting in May.

The backdrop: Analysis at the Congressional Budget Office predicted in a review posted last week that the bill would probably have little direct effect on federal spending or revenue, but that it could have an especially big effect on proposed health and labor regulations.

In the past, employer groups and benefits groups have fought hard against what they argued were some benefits regulations, such as new regulations that would affect how employer health plans meet federal standards for behavioral health plans for provider network quality, care access rules and other "non-quantitative treatment limits."

The administration of President Trump ended up freezing implementation of the NQTL regulations earlier this year.

Related: Trump administration backs off from implementing Biden-era mental health parity regulations

In some cases, other benefits community players have used existing comment period rules, regulatory analysis rules and other rules to slow, change or kill federal regulations.

In 2022, for example, some researchers accused big pharmaceutical companies of taking aggressive steps to water down and block federal Medicare drug pricing negotiation regulations.

If the Foxx becomes law and is implemented as written, it could, for example, end up affecting implementation of any new pharmacy benefit manager oversight bills that become law.

Employers, benefits groups, PBMs and drug manufacturers could end up trying to shape the federal PBM regulations using the Foxx Unfunded Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act framework.

If federal agencies try to make major changes in the existing Affordable Care Act health insurance system or the individual coverage health reimbursement arrangement, regulatory efforts related to those efforts could also be subject to the Foxx regulatory analysis requirements.