That's the latest revision dating to 2017; an earlier revision was included in Leverage.
None that exactly zero of this has been put forward by our Federal Government, despite it being fact that CMS, "Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services", is the single largest element of the Government and responsible for far more spending than our deficit. It also is expanding at a higher rate than GDP and has been for decades with no actual attempt to rein that in by either political party. These facts mean that it will be the reason there is eventually a default, if there is one, and the reason there is a collapse in both the government and medical system when that occurs, and it will occur with certainty if this trajectory is not halted and in fact reversed.
I fully understand that this is the "third rail" of American politics, and it doesn't require you to touch it to get BBQd; it is in fact one of the oldest partisan claims made by the left that the GOP intends to kill Granny by starving her to death or throwing her down the stairs, usually depicted as Granny in a wheelchair for more dramatic effect.
Expecting the Federal Government to take this on is, at this point, probably a lost cause. The people will not demand it of their Representatives in sufficient quantity and there's always something "more important" to be addressed, whether its some "equity" claim or cutting taxes. Never mind skyrocketing inflation and 30%+ shortfalls on electrical generation after you cater to the Green initiative coming out of DC, or, for that matter, a NOTAM system (for pilots) that apparently was considered "not safety-critical" (it isn't, directly, but you can't without having that data legally so "its not safety" is simply because if it doesn't work you don't fly at all.) Pete and rest of the crazies in DC didn't bother thinking about that, of course.
No, let's focus on the state level because it is there that all medical licensing happens, and thus it is there we can push much of this back. Not all of it, mind you, but most of it.
Incidentally the states can immediately implement the level pricing requirements in that above-cited article, so leaning on them to do so would be a good idea too. How? Simple: All states issue business licenses and in the medical field they also issue credentials without which you cannot operate in the profession. Indeed in most states, including Tennessee, it is unlawful to practice medicine without a license, and each person upon which one does so is a separate offense. Therefore the states can absolutely enforce the level pricing mandates in my proposed legislation by tying said licensure of both facilities and persons to them doing so. The states have near-plenary authority in this regard particularly when their actions implicate the rights of their citizens, and in this case that is absolutely true, particularly given price-fixing and monopolist practices, as declared unlawful in 15 USC Chapter 1, also are mirrored in state legal codes for conduct entirely within a state.
Further, state-level consumer protection and privacy laws can impose an absolute requirement that medical records are the sole property of the individual and that any use by any third party is subject to the personal acquiescence of said person and may not be transferred without their explicit consent. This does not forbid the Obamacare mandate for electronic records but it would immediately prevent the retention, sharing or transfer of same beyond the person's personal control. Prior to EMR you could literally walk out of the doctor's office with your file; we must restore that and restore your ownership of your medical history.
We should also consider expanding the general pushback we saw with alleged "*******s." I will argue that no ******* should be able to be mandated for anyone, at any time, under any circumstance and the right of bodily autonomy to refuse should be ensconced into State Constitutions. This does not interfere with a State's right to quarantine someone who is actually infectious for the duration of that period of time; said power is separate and already present in State legal codes. At the same time I would forbid at state level, and punish same as a criminal felony of intentional great bodily harm the labeling of anything a "*******" unless it induces sterile, stable and durable immunity to the disease in question, and the combining of that which is a ******* with that which is not results in the entire preparation losing said claim.
Another change, and one that does come into play, is to mandate that no actual ******* which has a boosting requirement during one's life to maintain protection, such as tetanus, may be offered at all unless you can obtain it separately at a reasonable price compared to that when compounded with anything else.
We used to call the annual flu inoculation "the flu shot" for this reason; it does not induce stable, sterile and durable immunity. It does, in some cases, reduce the risk of acquiring the flu or its severity but it does not prevent getting or transmitting influenza. By definition leading people to believe they're "safe" from getting and transmitting a disease when they're not puts other people at risk and is fraud -- not just upon the person who gets the inoculation but against society generally because they are led to believe they are safe when others have taken it and that is not true.
That doesn't mean that "shots" cannot be offered (e.g. the flu shot); they can provided they're truthfully marketed and no statement or implication is made that they induce sterile and stable immunity.
At the same time I would fully support the state supplying at no charge to any resident any actual ******* they wish, to be administered at any county public health department with no questions asked and an explicit bar on referral to any agency. Yes, this means anyone including those who are here illegally.
Why "no mandate" even for things like MMR (measles, mumps and rubella)? Because if anyone who wants them can have them at no cost to them and no risk of their information being exposed, since its "no questions asked" then anyone who chooses not to take them accepts the risk of the bad outcome if they get the disease. If the ******* actually works then if you take it you're protected. If it turns out they don't work and we've been sold a bill of goods and the reason for the decline to near-zero for, as an example, measles isn't actually the ******* but simply because that virus is disfavored in a reasonably-sanitary and developed world then that should be increasingly and immediately apparent.
Never mind that we have millions of people who have unlawfully come into the United States who have not been required to present evidence of having taken any vaccinations whatsoever to enter. It is ridiculously inappropriate to demand something when it comes to health of citizens you will not impose on those with no right of entry into the United States in the first place. Improving their coverage with actual *******s is a good thing from a public health perspective particularly considering that those people almost-never have any sort of private health cost coverage and thus their illnesses, if they're severe enough to require medical attention will wind up being paid for by the taxpayer anyway.
(For the record: I have no reason to believe that's its the case that most of the "common" *******s are ineffective, and from my work the math on the MMR *******, which I have done from published data, is that its a better gamble than the disease. Not completely safe -- nothing is -- but its safer than getting the measles and not by a little either.)
So let's take this fight to the states and get these changes ensconced into law. The various state medical boards can whine all they want but since the state can both remove these requirements and demand that medical license holders act in accordance with said mandates the power to both levy the regulation and enforce it is not only in the same place and thus they can be forced to accept these changes the regulatory muscle is closer to the people -- which is how and where it should be.