The bill introduces several critical changes to existing healthcare laws by regulating how private equity firms interact with healthcare entities. It requires these firms to secure financial commitments sufficient to cover operational costs for a minimum of five years, thereby ensuring that essential services remain accessible even in cases of financial distress. Furthermore, in the event of a hospital's closure or reduction in services, the bill necessitates the creation of a mitigation plan designed to protect patient access, with evaluations by the Secretary before any such actions can be finalized.
Summary
House Bill 9156, also known as the 'Health Over Wealth Act,' seeks to amend the Public Health Service Act by imposing stricter regulations on for-profit corporations that own healthcare systems. The bill mandates that the Secretary of Health and Human Services ensure compliance with specific requirements aimed at preserving access to essential health services. A key focus of this legislation is to mitigate the potential negative impacts of private equity involvement in healthcare, which has been a growing concern among policymakers regarding patient care quality and access.
Contention
Notably, the bill's proponents argue it addresses long-standing issues regarding the prioritization of profits over patient care. However, opponents may raise concerns about the feasibility and potential bureaucratic burdens of these regulations on healthcare entities. The bill also includes provisions to prevent any state law preemption, allowing local governments to maintain their authority to oversee and regulate healthcare services. This aspect facilitates a balance between federal oversight and local control, although it may lead to divergent regulatory environments across states.
Laken Riley ActThis bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain certain non-U.S. nationals (aliens under federal law) who have been arrested for burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. The bill also authorizes states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement.Under this bill, DHS must detain an individual who (1) is unlawfully present in the United States or did not possess the necessary documents when applying for admission; and (2) has been charged with, arrested for, convicted of, or admits to having committed acts that constitute the essential elements of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting.The bill also authorizes state governments to sue for injunctive relief over certain immigration-related decisions or alleged failures by the federal government if the decision or failure caused the state or its residents harm, including financial harm of more than $100. Specifically, the state government may sue the federal government over adecision to release a non-U.S. national from custody;failure to fulfill requirements relating to inspecting individuals seeking admission into the United States, including requirements related to asylum interviews;failure to fulfill a requirement to stop issuing visas to nationals of a country that unreasonably denies or delays acceptance of nationals of that country;violation of limitations on immigration parole, such as the requirement that parole be granted only on a case-by-case basis; orfailure to detain an individual who has been ordered removed from the United States.