The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced a significant shift in its regulatory approach, marking a departure from five decades of practice.
In a policy statement published in the Federal Register, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declared that the agency would no longer utilize notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures for matters related to agency management, personnel, public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. This decision effectively rescinds the 1971 “Richardson Waiver” and aligns HHS rulemaking with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Under the APA, agencies are generally required to provide notice of proposed rulemaking, allow for public comment, and consider those comments before finalizing regulations. However, the APA includes exemptions for certain categories of agency actions, including those related to internal management, grants, and contracts. The Richardson Waiver, implemented in 1971, voluntarily extended notice-and-comment procedures to these exempted matters within HHS, ensuring greater transparency and public participation in rulemaking.
By rescinding the waiver, HHS will now exercise discretion in determining when public input is sought on policies that fall under the APA’s exemptions. The agency’s new position is that the waiver imposed unnecessary procedural burdens beyond those legally required and was inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, specifically the 2015 case Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.
For the general public, this policy change could significantly reduce opportunities to provide input on key HHS policies affecting healthcare benefits, grants, and contracts. Many government programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, operate under HHS regulations, and modifications to these programs could now be implemented more swiftly, but with less public scrutiny.
One immediate concern is that beneficiaries of federal healthcare programs may have fewer opportunities to voice their opinions on policy changes that directly affect them. Under the previous approach, stakeholders – including patients, healthcare providers, and advocacy groups – could submit comments on proposed rules, influencing final decisions. With the removal of this requirement, HHS has greater latitude to enact policies without external input, raising concerns about transparency and public accountability.
Additionally, healthcare providers who rely on federal grants and contracts may find themselves subject to new policies with little warning or opportunity to shape regulatory frameworks. This could create uncertainty in the healthcare sector, particularly for organizations dependent on government funding.
From an administrative perspective, rescinding the Richardson Waiver could streamline the policymaking process within HHS. By removing the procedural requirement for notice-and-comment on exempt matters, the agency can implement policies more efficiently, reducing delays associated with prolonged public feedback periods.
Supporters of the move argue that this will enable HHS to be more responsive to emerging healthcare challenges, such as public health crises or funding allocations. Agencies will no longer be obligated to undergo lengthy rulemaking procedures for administrative decisions that may need to be implemented quickly.
However, critics warn that the decision could lead to a lack of oversight and increased litigation. While HHS has the discretion to allow for public participation on a case-by-case basis, there is no guarantee that it will do so consistently. The absence of structured public engagement could make regulatory decisions more susceptible to challenges in court, particularly if stakeholders feel excluded from the policymaking process.
The shift also raises legal and constitutional questions about administrative authority and the balance between efficiency and democratic participation. The APA was designed to ensure that agencies do not act arbitrarily or without due consideration of public input.
While the APA allows exemptions for specific types of rules, agencies historically have taken a more inclusive approach to rulemaking to foster legitimacy and trust.
Moreover, the rescission of the Richardson Waiver may set a precedent for other federal agencies to similarly reduce public participation requirements. This could lead to broader regulatory shifts across the government, affecting transparency and the role of public engagement in shaping policies.
The HHS decision to rescind the Richardson Waiver represents a fundamental change in how the agency formulates policies affecting millions of Americans. While the move may improve bureaucratic efficiency, it also raises concerns about reduced transparency, public engagement, and the potential for unintended consequences in healthcare regulation. As HHS moves forward under this new framework, both citizens and policymakers will need to closely monitor its impact on healthcare access, administrative accountability, and government responsiveness.
I do not usually report on what other media are reporting (with the exception of Nina Youngstrom’s reports on Medicare compliance!), but John Oliver’s story
In the Medicare fee-for-service world, “prepayment review” (also sometimes called “prepayment medical review” or “pre-claim review,” depending on the context) means that a claim is
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Accurately determining the principal diagnosis is critical for compliant billing, appropriate reimbursement, and valid quality reporting — yet it remains one of the most subjective and error-prone areas in inpatient coding. In this expert-led session, Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, demystifies the complexities of principal diagnosis assignment, bridging the gap between coding rules and clinical reality. Learn how to strengthen your organization’s coding accuracy, reduce denials, and ensure your documentation supports true medical necessity.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY26 IPPS, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, CCs/MCCs, and MS-DRGs, plus insights, analysis and answers to your questions from two of the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
Get clear, practical answers to Medicare’s most confusing regulations. Join Dr. Ronald Hirsch as he breaks down real-world compliance challenges and shares guidance your team can apply right away.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
During this essential RACmonitor webcast Michael Calahan, PA, MBA Certified Compliance Officer, will clarify the rules, dispel common misconceptions, and equip you with practical strategies to code, document, and bill high-risk split/shared, incident-to & critical care E/M services with confidence. Don’t let audit risks or revenue losses catch your organization off guard — learn exactly what federal auditors are looking for and how to ensure your documentation and reporting stand up to scrutiny.
Learn how to navigate the proposed elimination of the Inpatient-Only list. Gain strategies to assess admission status, avoid denials, protect compliance, and address impacts across Medicare and non-Medicare payors. Essential insights for hospitals.
Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
