Recent Projects

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act benefit and payment parameters for the 2022 coverage year that could cause significant health costs. We submitted comments on several elements of the proposed rule, including (1) its authorization of entirely privatized insurance marketplaces; (2) its promotion of the use of private enrollment websites by enrollment assisters; (3) its reduction of marketplace user fees; and (4) its continued reliance on a 2019 change to the formulas used to calculate premium-adjustment percentages and cost-sharing limits for consumers.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed to retrospectively and prospectively establish an "expiration date" for each of its regulations. Under the proposed rule, regulations would be automatically rescinded unless HHS first completes a restrospective review of the regulation's effects on small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We submitted comments criticizing the proposal, which is neither lawful nor rational.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Department of Homeland Security’s “Public Charge” rule is both contrary to statute and arbitrary and capricious. Our amicus brief in the case played a key role in shaping the decision. The Ninth Circuit adopts our core arguments, emphasizing how Homeland Security fails to assess the rule's harms and draws conclusions that are contradicted by the record.

As the presidential transition begins, the Institute for Policy Integrity has outlined recommended policy priorities for the Biden administration on climate, energy, and environmental policy, and related social equity outcomes. It is crucial that the incoming administration undertake aggressive reforms that are grounded in science and economics. In recent months, we published a series of reports highlighting actionable, near- and medium-term policy recommendations in several key areas.

Last fall, three federal courts—in the Southern District of the New York, the Northern District of California, and the Eastern District of Washington—vacated the Department of Health and Human Services’ conscience rule, which sought to expand healthcare providers’ rights to deny care on religious or moral grounds. In amicus briefs supporting the vacatur, Policy Integrity criticized HHS for, among other things, failing to consider the new policy’s likely health costs for women and LGBT individuals.

A rule proposed by the Department of Labor would limit the shareholder rights of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) participants. The rule, in particular, would eliminate opportunities for ERISA fiduciaries to vote on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) proposals that have long-term financial benefits for retirements plans. We worked with the Environmental Defense Fund to submit comments detailing the flaws of the Department’s rule.  

A rule by the Department of Health and Human Services would narrow the scope of civil rights protections for patients under the Affordable Care Act. We filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York explaining how HHS fails to acknowledge, let alone weigh, the significant social harms resulting from the rule.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed revisions to dust-lead post-abatement clearance levels. We submitted comments emphasizing how EPA, itself, concedes that the economic analysis supporting the rule is inaccurate.

The Department of Labor proposed a rule that would impose limitations on investors’ ability to choose investments in Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) strategies. We worked with the Environmental Defense Fund to submit comments focusing on the proposal’s flaws.