Hope Snell
MGMT 520 Week 2 Homework Assignment
Professor Bruskotter
7/17/14

1. State the administrative agency that controls the regulation. Explain why this agency and your proposed regulation interests you (briefly). Will this proposed regulation affect you or the business in which you are working? If so, how? Submit a copy of the proposed regulation along with your responses to these five questions. The proposed regulation can be submitted as either a separate Word document (.doc) or Adobe file (.pdf). This means you will submit two attachments to the Week 2 Dropbox: (1) a Word doc with the questions and your answers and (2) a copy of the proposed regulation you used for this assignment. (10 points)
Agency: US Department of Veteran Affairs
Interest: My husband is soon to retire from the military and will be a veteran. He will be using a VA facility and being prescribed medication as well.
Effect of regulation: This will affect my family financially once my husband retires because his income will decrease, but his prescription co-pay will increase. He currently has no copay for his prescriptions, but if he had, it would be substantial.

2. Describe the proposal or change. (10 points)
This proposal will increase the costs of the copayment that some veterans pay for outpatient prescriptions. Some veterans will be excluded from the proposal, but most will be affected because they don’t meet the exclusion requirements.

3. Write the public comment that you would submit to this proposal. If the proposed regulation deadline has already passed, write the comment you would have submitted. Explain briefly what you wish to accomplish with your comment. (10 points)
My comment is that because of the decrease in pay an active duty service member experiences when transitioning to a retired veteran, no part of healthcare costs should be increased, especially prescription costs. Many active duty members are forced to retire due to injuries sustained while on a tour of duty or in a war. They may be disabled and not able to work, or have psychiatric and mental conditions, such as PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder). These soldiers return to our nation requiring an extensive amount of care and treatment, which alone, can dramatically raise the costs of their healthcare and the required prescriptions needed for them to function at a normal capacity level. Not to mention, many may be disabled and not able to fully and competently perform on a full time or part time job. This lowers their income and enables them to provide for their families as they would like. Even retirees with no injuries will be downsizing in pay. These service members have done so much to take care of our country, that it is time that our country takes care of them. I ask that you do not put the burden of increased prescription copayments on those who have served to protect our great nation. I request that you please reconsider this new rule and consider how these veterans have placed our lives before their own.

4. Provide the deadline by which the public comment must be made. (If the date has already passed, please provide when the deadline was.) (5 points)
Comments were to be made no later than 60 days after July 16, 2001.

5. a. Once you have submitted your comment, what will you be legally entitled to do later in the promulgation process (if you should choose to do so)? (See the textbook's discussion of the Administrative Procedure Act.) b. If the proposal passes, identify and explain the five legal theories you could use in an attempt to have (any) administrative regulation declared invalid and overturned in court. c. Which of these challenges would be the best way to challenge the regulation you selected for this assignment if you wanted to have the regulation overturned, and why?

The Department of Veteran Affairs has laws that govern them as well. According to the Executive Order 12866, the public has a right to participate in the regulatory process. Before issuing a ruling on a proposed policy, each agency is to inform those who will be affected by the policy, when it is feasible to do so. A response to the proposal is required to be made within 60 days of notification. Once I were to submit a notification within that time frame, the VA would have to consider my views, as well as others who submitted what they thought of the proposal. It would then be a waiting period, because they have done what they were required to do, and that it to notify all parties involved within the reasonable time outlined in the Executive Order and make all aspects of the proposal accessible. Within 120 days of the order, a preliminary should be submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, so the agency can frequently review for possible changes and addendums that may need to deleted and added.

If the proposal passes, the five legal theories that could be used in an attempt to have administrative regulation declared invalid and overturned in court, include: * Challenging the proposal based on if it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse to discretion, or if there was a violation to another law. In this situation, the agency is required to show proof or supporting evidence of the proposed rule, otherwise the ruling could end up as an arbitrary or capricious act. * Unsupported evidence, in which thorough supporting evidence has to be submitted. * Proving general principal regulations were not followed, such as not meeting the requirements of the APA (Administrative Procedure Act), in which the agency did not provide notice, publication, and a specific time is to be allotted for the acceptance of comments to be made regarding the proposal. * Showing the regulation is unconstitutional, or challenging based on regulations that give agencies authority to search records or that impose discriminatory requirements. * Challenging with the “Ultra vires” regulation, proving the agency is intending to change the substance and purpose of the enabling through regulation.

The best way to challenge this regulation would be to use the 2nd theory, unsupported evidence. No, the VA does not seem to have participated in arbitrary. They did follow the requirements of the APA. The proposal is not unconstitutional, nor meets the “ultra vires” clause. I do believe that they cannot support the reason as to why there should be an increase. It is stated in the article that Congress has determined that veterans have sufficient resources to pay higher copays, but that can’t be validated, because supported documentation would have to be shown for each individual. Everyone has different circumstances, and when considering who can pay for what, it should definitely not be viewed with a “one size fit all” logic.

References:

http://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=298 http://www.va.gov/ORPM/docs/EO_13563_Obama_Jan18_11.pdf