On March 3, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., officially announced the rescission of the Richardson Waiver, a policy in place since 1971 that required public comment for certain rulemaking processes. The waiver had mandated that HHS follow the notice and comment procedures outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for rules related to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts, despite statutory exemptions. Secretary Kennedy’s policy statement argues that the waiver imposed obligations beyond the APA’s requirements and hindered the department’s operational efficiency.
Reduction of Public Comment Requirements
The rescission of the Richardson Waiver significantly reduces the public comment requirements for HHS rulemaking. The department will no longer be required to seek public input for rules related to agency management, personnel, public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts unless otherwise mandated by law. This change grants HHS greater discretion to bypass public input, potentially expediting the implementation of policy changes. The department maintains that this move aligns with the APA’s original intent and enhances its ability to adapt quickly to legal and policy mandates.
Implications of the Policy Changes
Stakeholder Reactions
The policy changes have elicited strong reactions from various stakeholders. Critics argue that eliminating public participation contradicts Secretary Kennedy’s previous promises of “radical transparency” and could lead to unchecked policy decisions, allowing HHS to operate without accountability and transparency, potentially ignoring the views of key stakeholders. Public health experts and advocacy groups have also voiced concerns that the lack of public input could result in less effective and error-prone regulations.
Legal and Operational Concerns
The rescission of the Richardson Waiver is expected to face legal challenges. Legal experts predict that the policy change could trigger litigation, as stakeholders may contest the legality of bypassing public comment in rulemaking. Additionally, the lack of public input may lead to policy decisions that fail to reflect real-world concerns, potentially impacting the effectiveness of health regulations.
Potential Impacts on Programs
The change does not apply to Medicare, which has its own legal requirements for public comments. However, the policy change could have significant implications for programs like Medicaid and NIH grants. HHS may find it easier to implement controversial policy changes, such as Medicaid work requirements or alterations to NIH research funding. The lack of public input could also affect the transparency and accountability of these programs, potentially eroding public trust in the government’s role in safeguarding public health.
Conclusion
The rescission of the Richardson Waiver and the reduction of public comment requirements mark a significant shift in HHS’s rulemaking process. While the department argues that these changes enhance operational efficiency, critics warn of potential negative impacts on transparency, accountability, and the effectiveness of health policies. As the situation unfolds, legal challenges and stakeholder reactions will likely shape the future of HHS’s rulemaking approach.
