We may need to consider cyber crime regarding policy, law and ethical issues.
Complaints of internet fraud received by a US watchdog last year rose by 33 percent from 2007, its latest report shows. The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), which includes the FBI, received 275,284 complaints in 2008, which amounted to losses of USD 265m. The most common complaint was non-delivery of goods followed by internet auction fraud and credit card fraud.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
HIV/AIDS in D.C.
A report showing that 3 percent of residents are infected with HIV or AIDS is a wake-up call for the District, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said today.
What these data point out for DC is that we have a serious HIV epidemic right here at home. What we also know is that the right combination of evidence-based interventions, including testing, condoms, and serious decisions around relationships, can make a large prevention difference. I believe strongly that we are entering a time where a strategic increased investment in and accountability for HIV prevention, as well as the platform of healthcare reform to ensure full coverage for persons living with HIV, will have a major impact.
What these data point out for DC is that we have a serious HIV epidemic right here at home. What we also know is that the right combination of evidence-based interventions, including testing, condoms, and serious decisions around relationships, can make a large prevention difference. I believe strongly that we are entering a time where a strategic increased investment in and accountability for HIV prevention, as well as the platform of healthcare reform to ensure full coverage for persons living with HIV, will have a major impact.
HIV/AIDS in D.C.
What these data point out for DC is that we have a serious HIV epidemic right here at home. What we also know is that the right combination of evidence-based interventions, including testing, condoms, and serious decisions around relationships, can make a large prevention difference. I believe strongly that we are entering a time where a strategic increased investment in and accountability for HIV prevention, as well as the platform of healthcare reform to ensure full coverage for persons living with HIV, will have a major impact.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Obama Lifts Bush’s Strict Limits on Stem Cell Research
President Barack Obama said Monday he is allowing federal taxpayer dollars to fund significantly broader research on embryonic stem cells because "medical miracles do not happen simply by accident," and promised his administration would make up for the ground lost under his predecessor."
"President Barack Obama has ordered a review of his predecessor's so-called signing statements, which often told officials how to implement laws."
Because embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell or tissue in the body, many scientists believe they hold the possibility for treatments and cures for ailments as varied as diabetes, Parkinson’s and heart disease. Some researchers say stem cells may someday be used to treat catastrophic injuries, such as spinal-cord damage.
The promise that these advances might help bring a cure for Alzheimer’s disease and other afflictions made Nancy Reagan an avid supporter of stem cell research. Her husband, the late president, suffered from Alzheimer’s.
They have been questioning it for decades......all the while science and technologies have only improved. There is proof out there that it is happening, the only questions that really should have any validity is how much and how fast.
"President Barack Obama has ordered a review of his predecessor's so-called signing statements, which often told officials how to implement laws."
Because embryonic stem cells are capable of developing into any type of cell or tissue in the body, many scientists believe they hold the possibility for treatments and cures for ailments as varied as diabetes, Parkinson’s and heart disease. Some researchers say stem cells may someday be used to treat catastrophic injuries, such as spinal-cord damage.
The promise that these advances might help bring a cure for Alzheimer’s disease and other afflictions made Nancy Reagan an avid supporter of stem cell research. Her husband, the late president, suffered from Alzheimer’s.
They have been questioning it for decades......all the while science and technologies have only improved. There is proof out there that it is happening, the only questions that really should have any validity is how much and how fast.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
White House set to reverse health care conscience clause
Story Highlights
Under rule, health-care workers can refuse services, information for moral reasons
Obama administration plans to reverse the Bush regulation
Supporter praises protection of women's right to health care
Family Research Council: Change would make government the conscience
By Saundra Young
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration plans to reverse a regulation from late in the Bush administration allowing health-care workers to refuse to provide services based on moral objections, an official said Friday.
The Provider Refusal Rule was proposed by the Bush White House in August and enacted on January 20, the day President Barack Obama took office.
It expanded on a 30-year-old law establishing a "conscience clause" for "health-care professionals who don't want to perform abortions."
Under the rule, workers in health-care settings -- from doctors to janitors -- can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it.
"We recognize and understand that some providers have objections to providing abortions, according to an official at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The official declined to be identified because the policy change had not been announced. "We want to ensure that current law protects them.
"But we do not want to impose new limitations on services that would allow providers to refuse to provide to women and their families services like family planning and contraception that would actually help prevent the need for an abortion in the first place."
Many health-care organizations, including the American Medical Association, believe health-care providers have an obligation to their patients to advise them of the options despite their own beliefs. Critics of the current rule argue there are already laws on the books protecting health-care professionals when it comes to refusing care for personal reasons.
Dr. Suzanne T. Poppema, board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, praised Obama "for placing good health care above ideological demands."
"Physicians across the country were outraged when the Bush administration, in its final days, limited women's access to reproductive health care," she said. "Hundreds of doctors protested these midnight regulations and urged President Obama to repeal them quickly. We are thrilled that President Obama took the first steps today to ensure that our patients' health is once again protected."
But Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said, "Protecting the right of all health-care providers to make professional judgments based on moral convictions and ethical standards is foundational to federal law and is necessary to ensure that access to health care is not diminished, which will occur if health-care workers are forced out of their jobs because of their ethical stances.
"President's Obama's intention to change the language of these protections would result in the government becoming the conscience and not the individual. It is a person's right to exercise their moral judgment, not the government's to decide it for them."
An announcement reversing the current rule is expected early next week, the HHS official said. Any final action would have to be taken after a 30-day public comment period.
All AboutHealth Care Policy • U.S Department of Health and Human Services • American Medical Association
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/conscience.rollback/index.html?iref=newssearch
Under rule, health-care workers can refuse services, information for moral reasons
Obama administration plans to reverse the Bush regulation
Supporter praises protection of women's right to health care
Family Research Council: Change would make government the conscience
By Saundra Young
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration plans to reverse a regulation from late in the Bush administration allowing health-care workers to refuse to provide services based on moral objections, an official said Friday.
The Provider Refusal Rule was proposed by the Bush White House in August and enacted on January 20, the day President Barack Obama took office.
It expanded on a 30-year-old law establishing a "conscience clause" for "health-care professionals who don't want to perform abortions."
Under the rule, workers in health-care settings -- from doctors to janitors -- can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it.
"We recognize and understand that some providers have objections to providing abortions, according to an official at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The official declined to be identified because the policy change had not been announced. "We want to ensure that current law protects them.
"But we do not want to impose new limitations on services that would allow providers to refuse to provide to women and their families services like family planning and contraception that would actually help prevent the need for an abortion in the first place."
Many health-care organizations, including the American Medical Association, believe health-care providers have an obligation to their patients to advise them of the options despite their own beliefs. Critics of the current rule argue there are already laws on the books protecting health-care professionals when it comes to refusing care for personal reasons.
Dr. Suzanne T. Poppema, board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, praised Obama "for placing good health care above ideological demands."
"Physicians across the country were outraged when the Bush administration, in its final days, limited women's access to reproductive health care," she said. "Hundreds of doctors protested these midnight regulations and urged President Obama to repeal them quickly. We are thrilled that President Obama took the first steps today to ensure that our patients' health is once again protected."
But Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said, "Protecting the right of all health-care providers to make professional judgments based on moral convictions and ethical standards is foundational to federal law and is necessary to ensure that access to health care is not diminished, which will occur if health-care workers are forced out of their jobs because of their ethical stances.
"President's Obama's intention to change the language of these protections would result in the government becoming the conscience and not the individual. It is a person's right to exercise their moral judgment, not the government's to decide it for them."
An announcement reversing the current rule is expected early next week, the HHS official said. Any final action would have to be taken after a 30-day public comment period.
All AboutHealth Care Policy • U.S Department of Health and Human Services • American Medical Association
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/conscience.rollback/index.html?iref=newssearch
Facebook invites users to help set policy
Story Highlights
• Facebook is inviting its 150 million users to help decide how the site is run
• New approach will give users more control over Facebook policies and practices
• Over the next month, the site will host virtual "Town Halls" to collect user comments
• News comes a week after a Facebook policy-change blunder sparked protests
By Brandon Griggs
CNN
(CNN) -- In keeping with the democratic nature of user-generated media, Facebook is inviting its 150 million users to help decide how the online gathering place is run.
A week after a policy-change blunder sparked widespread protests, the Web's most popular social-networking site announced a new approach Thursday to give users more control over future Facebook rules and practices.
Site managers published the Facebook Principles, a set of 10 values they hope will make Facebook more transparent, along with a proposed statement of rights and responsibilities governing privacy, content ownership and other issues. Users will be able to comment and vote on the wording of the documents.
"As people share more information on services like Facebook, a new relationship is created between Internet companies and the people they serve," Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, said in a statement. "The past week reminded us that users feel a real sense of ownership over Facebook itself, not just the information they share."
Facebook became caught in a content-rights battle after revealing this month that it was granting itself permanent rights to users' photos, wall posts and other information, even after a user closed an account. Member backlash was swift and severe, as tens of thousands of angry users either canceled their accounts or created online petitions.
To quell the uprising, Facebook hastily announced last week it was reverting to its old terms of use policy on member information "while we resolve the issues that people have raised."
Thursday's announcement seemed aimed at further reassuring users that they, not Facebook, will retain rights to their postings.
"You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, including information about you and the actions you take," reads the proposed statement of rights and responsibilities, which condenses almost 40 pages of legal jargon into fewer than six pages.
Facebook said Thursday it will continue to make independent decisions about the timing and rollout of products. But users will now help determine future changes to Facebook policies through online voting.
Over the next month, the fast-growing site will host virtual "Town Halls" to collect user comments on the proposed new principles and statement of rights and responsibilities.
As of Friday morning, more than 8,600 users had joined a Facebook group to solicit feedback regarding the proposed Facebook Principles, while more than 7,800 had joined a group that was set up to review the proposed statement of rights and responsibilities.
Facebook says that after the comment period ends March 29, it will review users' submissions, then republish its policies to incorporate feedback. All future policy changes would be subject to similar notice and comment periods.
Facebook also plans to establish a user council to participate more closely in the development of future policies and practices.
"Companies like ours need to develop new models of governance," Zuckerberg added. "Rather than simply reissue a new Terms of Use, the changes we're announcing today are designed to open up Facebook so that users can participate meaningfully in our policies and our future." iReport.com: iReporter feels like a 'citizen of Facebook' now
Initial reaction to Facebook's more open approach appeared to be positive.
"The idea that a major company like Facebook would give its users a vote in how the service is governed is remarkable," user Julius Harper, co-founding administrator of the People Against the new Terms of Service group, said in a statement posted on Facebook. "This decision should go far in restoring people's trust, and I hope it sets a precedent for other online services to follow."
But other members had concerns about section 2.3 of the proposed statement of rights and responsibilities, which states that users will grant Facebook license "to use, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of ... any content you post" until a member deletes the content or closes an account.
"This is precisely why I pulled one of my photos and why I'm now considering the deletion of my account," Bertha Chambers of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, wrote in a Facebook post Thursday afternoon.
"If Facebook wants to make money through advertising ... that's fine with me. BUT, I'm not giving Facebook permission to use my words or my art for their profit or in ways or reasons that I might not personally support."
All AboutFacebook Inc. • Mark Zuckerberg
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/27/facebook.democracy/index.html?iref=newssearch
• Facebook is inviting its 150 million users to help decide how the site is run
• New approach will give users more control over Facebook policies and practices
• Over the next month, the site will host virtual "Town Halls" to collect user comments
• News comes a week after a Facebook policy-change blunder sparked protests
By Brandon Griggs
CNN
(CNN) -- In keeping with the democratic nature of user-generated media, Facebook is inviting its 150 million users to help decide how the online gathering place is run.
A week after a policy-change blunder sparked widespread protests, the Web's most popular social-networking site announced a new approach Thursday to give users more control over future Facebook rules and practices.
Site managers published the Facebook Principles, a set of 10 values they hope will make Facebook more transparent, along with a proposed statement of rights and responsibilities governing privacy, content ownership and other issues. Users will be able to comment and vote on the wording of the documents.
"As people share more information on services like Facebook, a new relationship is created between Internet companies and the people they serve," Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, said in a statement. "The past week reminded us that users feel a real sense of ownership over Facebook itself, not just the information they share."
Facebook became caught in a content-rights battle after revealing this month that it was granting itself permanent rights to users' photos, wall posts and other information, even after a user closed an account. Member backlash was swift and severe, as tens of thousands of angry users either canceled their accounts or created online petitions.
To quell the uprising, Facebook hastily announced last week it was reverting to its old terms of use policy on member information "while we resolve the issues that people have raised."
Thursday's announcement seemed aimed at further reassuring users that they, not Facebook, will retain rights to their postings.
"You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, including information about you and the actions you take," reads the proposed statement of rights and responsibilities, which condenses almost 40 pages of legal jargon into fewer than six pages.
Facebook said Thursday it will continue to make independent decisions about the timing and rollout of products. But users will now help determine future changes to Facebook policies through online voting.
Over the next month, the fast-growing site will host virtual "Town Halls" to collect user comments on the proposed new principles and statement of rights and responsibilities.
As of Friday morning, more than 8,600 users had joined a Facebook group to solicit feedback regarding the proposed Facebook Principles, while more than 7,800 had joined a group that was set up to review the proposed statement of rights and responsibilities.
Facebook says that after the comment period ends March 29, it will review users' submissions, then republish its policies to incorporate feedback. All future policy changes would be subject to similar notice and comment periods.
Facebook also plans to establish a user council to participate more closely in the development of future policies and practices.
"Companies like ours need to develop new models of governance," Zuckerberg added. "Rather than simply reissue a new Terms of Use, the changes we're announcing today are designed to open up Facebook so that users can participate meaningfully in our policies and our future." iReport.com: iReporter feels like a 'citizen of Facebook' now
Initial reaction to Facebook's more open approach appeared to be positive.
"The idea that a major company like Facebook would give its users a vote in how the service is governed is remarkable," user Julius Harper, co-founding administrator of the People Against the new Terms of Service group, said in a statement posted on Facebook. "This decision should go far in restoring people's trust, and I hope it sets a precedent for other online services to follow."
But other members had concerns about section 2.3 of the proposed statement of rights and responsibilities, which states that users will grant Facebook license "to use, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of ... any content you post" until a member deletes the content or closes an account.
"This is precisely why I pulled one of my photos and why I'm now considering the deletion of my account," Bertha Chambers of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, wrote in a Facebook post Thursday afternoon.
"If Facebook wants to make money through advertising ... that's fine with me. BUT, I'm not giving Facebook permission to use my words or my art for their profit or in ways or reasons that I might not personally support."
All AboutFacebook Inc. • Mark Zuckerberg
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/27/facebook.democracy/index.html?iref=newssearch
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Facebook backs down, reverses on user information policy
Story Highlights
Facebook this month changed its policy to say user content belonged to Facebook
Outraged members canceled their accounts or created online petitions
On Wednesday, Facebook reviewed user "feedback," and reverted to its old policy
(CNN) -- Under fire from tens of thousands of users, the social networking site Facebook said early Wednesday it is reverting to its old policy on user information -- for now.
The site posted a brief message on users' home pages that said it was returning to its previous "Terms of Use" policy "while we resolve the issues that people have raised."
The "Terms of Use" is the legalese tacked on to the bottom of most Web sites that details what the site's owners can do with the information that users provide.
Facebook, the Web's most popular social networking site, has been caught in a content-rights battle after revealing earlier this month that it was granting itself permanent rights to users' photos, wall posts and other information even after a user closed an account.
The popular site allows users to create personal profiles where they can then connect with one another, upload photos and share links. The site boasts more than 150 million active users.
Member backlash against Facebook began over the weekend after a consumer advocate Web site, The Consumerist, flagged a change made to Facebook's policy earlier in the month.
The company deleted a sentence from the old Terms of Use. That sentence said Facebook could not claim any rights to original content that a user uploaded once the user closed his or her account.
It replaced it with: "You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. ... (H)owever, you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content."
In response, Chris Walters wrote in the Consumerist post, "Make sure you never upload anything you don't feel comfortable giving away forever, because it's Facebook's now."
Thousands of indignant members either canceled their accounts or created online petitions. Among them were more than 64,000 who joined a group called "The People Against the new Terms of Service." iReport.com: Too much information posted online?
On Monday, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg tried to quell the controversy by saying the company's philosophy is that "people own their information and control who they share it with."
But members were not appeased because the site did not fix its Terms of Use. The company, in its post Wednesday, said it was returning to its previous Terms of Use because of the "feedback" it had received.
"As Mark expressed in his blog post on Monday, it was never our intention to confuse people or make them uneasy about sharing on Facebook," company spokesman Barry Schnitt said in a blog post. "I also want to be very clear that Facebook does not, nor have we ever, claimed ownership over people's content. Your content belongs to you." iReport.com: Your thoughts on Facebook's about-face
Schnitt said the company is in the process of rewording its Terms of Use in "simple language that defines Facebook's rights much more specifically."
"Well that worked pretty fast," wrote member Al Reford of Vancouver, British Columbia. "Numbers count when giving feedback :)"
And Shahrzad Grami of St. Paul, Minnesota, added: " YAYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!! nice job guys! i won't be canceling my account after all."
Facebook this month changed its policy to say user content belonged to Facebook
Outraged members canceled their accounts or created online petitions
On Wednesday, Facebook reviewed user "feedback," and reverted to its old policy
(CNN) -- Under fire from tens of thousands of users, the social networking site Facebook said early Wednesday it is reverting to its old policy on user information -- for now.
The site posted a brief message on users' home pages that said it was returning to its previous "Terms of Use" policy "while we resolve the issues that people have raised."
The "Terms of Use" is the legalese tacked on to the bottom of most Web sites that details what the site's owners can do with the information that users provide.
Facebook, the Web's most popular social networking site, has been caught in a content-rights battle after revealing earlier this month that it was granting itself permanent rights to users' photos, wall posts and other information even after a user closed an account.
The popular site allows users to create personal profiles where they can then connect with one another, upload photos and share links. The site boasts more than 150 million active users.
Member backlash against Facebook began over the weekend after a consumer advocate Web site, The Consumerist, flagged a change made to Facebook's policy earlier in the month.
The company deleted a sentence from the old Terms of Use. That sentence said Facebook could not claim any rights to original content that a user uploaded once the user closed his or her account.
It replaced it with: "You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. ... (H)owever, you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content."
In response, Chris Walters wrote in the Consumerist post, "Make sure you never upload anything you don't feel comfortable giving away forever, because it's Facebook's now."
Thousands of indignant members either canceled their accounts or created online petitions. Among them were more than 64,000 who joined a group called "The People Against the new Terms of Service." iReport.com: Too much information posted online?
On Monday, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg tried to quell the controversy by saying the company's philosophy is that "people own their information and control who they share it with."
But members were not appeased because the site did not fix its Terms of Use. The company, in its post Wednesday, said it was returning to its previous Terms of Use because of the "feedback" it had received.
"As Mark expressed in his blog post on Monday, it was never our intention to confuse people or make them uneasy about sharing on Facebook," company spokesman Barry Schnitt said in a blog post. "I also want to be very clear that Facebook does not, nor have we ever, claimed ownership over people's content. Your content belongs to you." iReport.com: Your thoughts on Facebook's about-face
Schnitt said the company is in the process of rewording its Terms of Use in "simple language that defines Facebook's rights much more specifically."
"Well that worked pretty fast," wrote member Al Reford of Vancouver, British Columbia. "Numbers count when giving feedback :)"
And Shahrzad Grami of St. Paul, Minnesota, added: " YAYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!! nice job guys! i won't be canceling my account after all."
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Health Information Privacy (HIPAA)
The Privacy Rule provides federal protections for personal health information held by covered entities and gives patients an array of rights with respect to that information. The Privacy Rule is balanced so that it permits the disclosure of personal health information needed for patient care and other important purposes.
http://www.hhs.gov/policies/index.html
http://www.hhs.gov/policies/index.html
Obama health care proposal
What is the health information policy of the Obama health care proposal?
Overall assessment
• Greatly increase health insurance coverage but would still leave about 6% of the non-elderly population uninsured, compared to 17% today.
• Substantially increase access to affordable and adequate coverage for those with the highest health care needs, including those with chronic illnesses, by spreading health care risk broadly;
• Significantly increase the affordability of care for low-income individuals; and
• Reduced the growth in health spending through a broad array of strategies.
In short, Obama’s proposal contains the basic components necessary for effectively addressing the most important shortcomings of the current health care system, that is, limited coverage, inadequate risk pooling, and high-cost growth.
Coverage
• Extending eligibility for Medicaid and SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program)
• Providing income-related subsidies for coverage in the NHIE (National Health Insurance Exchange), and
• Offering a guaranteed source of purchasing insurance coverage, even to those in poor health.
Risk Pooling
• Prohibiting insurance companies from using health status to determine price coverage,
• Making comprehensive benefits available to all through the NHIE, and
• Using broad-based sources of revenue to finance health insurance subsidies, thus guaranteeing that all taxpayers, not just those voluntarily deciding to purchase coverage, share in the costs of providing medical care.
Cost Containment
• Spending $50 billion over several years to accelerate the adoption of electronic medical records and other efficient health information technology,
• Creating the NHIE Framework, which would result in increased insurer competition,
• Repealing the ban on direct price negotiation between Medicare and drug companies and ending the overpayment of Medicare Advantage plan, and
• Investing in public health and prevention, expanding chronic care management, and supporting an independent institute to conduct comparative effectiveness analyses on technologies and treatment options.
Outstanding issues
• While this plan would significantly increase coverage, it would still leave about 6% of the non-elderly population uninsured. As a consequence, the inefficient and costly safety net system we have today will need to remain in place.
• The approach relies on an employer mandate, which could increase costs to some businesses and engender the same political opposition that has contributed the defeat of past reform efforts.
• The campaign’s cost estimates ($65 billion) may be somewhat low, even if the campaign’s cost-containment initiatives are successful. Much depends on details that are unspecified, including subsidy levels, benefits, reinsurance, and a phase-in schedule. How these are resolved will have significant implications for programs costs.
The Obama plan is that it would greatly increase health insurance coverage but would still leave about 6% of non-elderly US residents without insurance. The plan should receive high marks for increasing the sharing of health care risk through a combination of strategies that would substantially increase access to affordable and adequate coverage for those with the highest health care needs, including those with chronic illnesses. The plan would make great strides in increasing the affordability of care for the low-income population.
The cost-containment initiatives in the plan have the potential to reduce cost growth if aggressively pursued. The fact that the Obama plan would devote $50 billion to help subsidize the adoption of health information technology suggests a seriousness of intent. The plan would promote a model of strengthened insurer competition through the NHIE. It would develop policies to improve prevention and to manage chronic conditions. It would repeal the ban on direct price negotiation between Medicare and drug companies, allow for drug re-importation, and reduce current payments to Medicare Advantage plans. It would invest in public health and prevention, reform medical malpractice, and support an independent institute to conduct comparative effectiveness analysis on technologies and treatment options. The Obama proposal would also dedicate financial resources to developing the types of health information systems and comparative effectiveness data that could make the delivery of medical care more efficient and height quality over time. In general, the Obama plan approaches cost containment on multiple fronts because most individual initiatives by themselves have only small effects.
However, an aggressive pursuit of several of these measures would likely be met by opposition from affected providers, including hospitals and pharmaceutical manufacturers. Further, the savings from many of the cost-containment provisions could take a number of years to materialize.
On the other hand, the approach includes an employer mandate that will almost certainly result in opposition by the business community. The lack of an individual mandate for adults means that the plan would not reach universal coverage, but it could still experience relatively high subsidy costs due to the attraction of higher-cost enrollees into public programs and new subsidized insurance options. The proposed funding is likely inadequate but is probably not far from what is necessary to meet its objectives. The Obama plan does not address the issue of the tax exclusion for employer contributions to health insurance. A cap on this exclusion and indexing it to GDP growth would result in substantial revenues that could help pay for the proposed coverage expansion.
Overall assessment
• Greatly increase health insurance coverage but would still leave about 6% of the non-elderly population uninsured, compared to 17% today.
• Substantially increase access to affordable and adequate coverage for those with the highest health care needs, including those with chronic illnesses, by spreading health care risk broadly;
• Significantly increase the affordability of care for low-income individuals; and
• Reduced the growth in health spending through a broad array of strategies.
In short, Obama’s proposal contains the basic components necessary for effectively addressing the most important shortcomings of the current health care system, that is, limited coverage, inadequate risk pooling, and high-cost growth.
Coverage
• Extending eligibility for Medicaid and SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program)
• Providing income-related subsidies for coverage in the NHIE (National Health Insurance Exchange), and
• Offering a guaranteed source of purchasing insurance coverage, even to those in poor health.
Risk Pooling
• Prohibiting insurance companies from using health status to determine price coverage,
• Making comprehensive benefits available to all through the NHIE, and
• Using broad-based sources of revenue to finance health insurance subsidies, thus guaranteeing that all taxpayers, not just those voluntarily deciding to purchase coverage, share in the costs of providing medical care.
Cost Containment
• Spending $50 billion over several years to accelerate the adoption of electronic medical records and other efficient health information technology,
• Creating the NHIE Framework, which would result in increased insurer competition,
• Repealing the ban on direct price negotiation between Medicare and drug companies and ending the overpayment of Medicare Advantage plan, and
• Investing in public health and prevention, expanding chronic care management, and supporting an independent institute to conduct comparative effectiveness analyses on technologies and treatment options.
Outstanding issues
• While this plan would significantly increase coverage, it would still leave about 6% of the non-elderly population uninsured. As a consequence, the inefficient and costly safety net system we have today will need to remain in place.
• The approach relies on an employer mandate, which could increase costs to some businesses and engender the same political opposition that has contributed the defeat of past reform efforts.
• The campaign’s cost estimates ($65 billion) may be somewhat low, even if the campaign’s cost-containment initiatives are successful. Much depends on details that are unspecified, including subsidy levels, benefits, reinsurance, and a phase-in schedule. How these are resolved will have significant implications for programs costs.
The Obama plan is that it would greatly increase health insurance coverage but would still leave about 6% of non-elderly US residents without insurance. The plan should receive high marks for increasing the sharing of health care risk through a combination of strategies that would substantially increase access to affordable and adequate coverage for those with the highest health care needs, including those with chronic illnesses. The plan would make great strides in increasing the affordability of care for the low-income population.
The cost-containment initiatives in the plan have the potential to reduce cost growth if aggressively pursued. The fact that the Obama plan would devote $50 billion to help subsidize the adoption of health information technology suggests a seriousness of intent. The plan would promote a model of strengthened insurer competition through the NHIE. It would develop policies to improve prevention and to manage chronic conditions. It would repeal the ban on direct price negotiation between Medicare and drug companies, allow for drug re-importation, and reduce current payments to Medicare Advantage plans. It would invest in public health and prevention, reform medical malpractice, and support an independent institute to conduct comparative effectiveness analysis on technologies and treatment options. The Obama proposal would also dedicate financial resources to developing the types of health information systems and comparative effectiveness data that could make the delivery of medical care more efficient and height quality over time. In general, the Obama plan approaches cost containment on multiple fronts because most individual initiatives by themselves have only small effects.
However, an aggressive pursuit of several of these measures would likely be met by opposition from affected providers, including hospitals and pharmaceutical manufacturers. Further, the savings from many of the cost-containment provisions could take a number of years to materialize.
On the other hand, the approach includes an employer mandate that will almost certainly result in opposition by the business community. The lack of an individual mandate for adults means that the plan would not reach universal coverage, but it could still experience relatively high subsidy costs due to the attraction of higher-cost enrollees into public programs and new subsidized insurance options. The proposed funding is likely inadequate but is probably not far from what is necessary to meet its objectives. The Obama plan does not address the issue of the tax exclusion for employer contributions to health insurance. A cap on this exclusion and indexing it to GDP growth would result in substantial revenues that could help pay for the proposed coverage expansion.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Executive Order -- Presidential Records 2009
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
SEARCH NZ JOBS
WOMAD '09 - Buy Tickets Now
Discover Massey BA - Enrol Now
Search New Zealand Business
Win a holiday on MasterCard
(a) "Archivist" refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.
(b) "NARA" refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.
(c) "Presidential Records Act" refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.
(d) "NARA regulations" refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.
(e) "Presidential records" refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.
(f) "Former President" refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.
(g) A "substantial question of executive privilege" exists if NARA's disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.
(h) A "final court order" is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.
Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records.
(a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
(b) Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.
Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President.
(a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.
(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.
(c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.
(d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.
Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President.
(a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist's determination as to whether to honor the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist's determination with respect to the former President's claim of privilege.
(b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 21, 2009
Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
SEARCH NZ JOBS
WOMAD '09 - Buy Tickets Now
Discover Massey BA - Enrol Now
Search New Zealand Business
Win a holiday on MasterCard
(a) "Archivist" refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.
(b) "NARA" refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.
(c) "Presidential Records Act" refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.
(d) "NARA regulations" refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.
(e) "Presidential records" refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.
(f) "Former President" refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.
(g) A "substantial question of executive privilege" exists if NARA's disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.
(h) A "final court order" is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.
Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records.
(a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
(b) Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.
Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President.
(a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.
(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.
(c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.
(d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.
Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President.
(a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist's determination as to whether to honor the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist's determination with respect to the former President's claim of privilege.
(b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 21, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Obama keeps his beloved Blackberry.
President Barack Obama is keeping hsi cherished BlackBerry, becoming the first sitting president to use e-mail.
It's no secret that the Secret Service was none too happy about President Barack Obama's foundness for his personal e-mail device. That's becuase the addictive hand-held communicators are popular targets for the WWW of password scammers. More worrisome for those who must protect the president: Mobile phones con be used to track the whereabouts of their users.
Still, mamy of the president's e-mails will become subject to public scrutiny some day.
"The presumption regarding those e-mails that they are all subject to the Presidentila Recorsd Act" said Gibbs, which means that all but purely personal missives eventually will end up in the National Archives.
It's no secret that the Secret Service was none too happy about President Barack Obama's foundness for his personal e-mail device. That's becuase the addictive hand-held communicators are popular targets for the WWW of password scammers. More worrisome for those who must protect the president: Mobile phones con be used to track the whereabouts of their users.
Still, mamy of the president's e-mails will become subject to public scrutiny some day.
"The presumption regarding those e-mails that they are all subject to the Presidentila Recorsd Act" said Gibbs, which means that all but purely personal missives eventually will end up in the National Archives.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Health Information Privacy
Health Information Privacy
The Office for Civil Rights enforces the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which protects the privacy of individually identifiable health information, and the confidentiality provisions of the Patient Safety Act, which protects identifiable information being used to analyze patient safety events and improve patient safety.
HHS.GOV
The Office for Civil Rights enforces the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which protects the privacy of individually identifiable health information, and the confidentiality provisions of the Patient Safety Act, which protects identifiable information being used to analyze patient safety events and improve patient safety.
HHS.GOV
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978
www.archives.gov
Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978
The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2207, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents created or received after January 20, 1981. The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage their records.
Specifically, the Presidential Records Act:
Defines and states public ownership of the records.
Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.
Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once he has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal.
Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.
Establishes a process for restriction and public access to these records. Specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years. The PRA also establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain special access to records that remain closed to the public, following a thirty-day notice period to the former and current Presidents..
Requires that Vice-Presidential records are to be treated in the same way as Presidential records.
Amendments
Executive Order 12667
Issued by President Reagan in January 1989, this Executive Order established the procedures for NARA and former and incumbent Presidents to implement the PRA.
Executive Order 13233
This Executive Order, issued by President George W. Bush on November 1, 2001, supersedes the previous Executive Order. The Bush Executive Order also includes the documents of former Vice Presidents.
Page URL: http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html
The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001 • Telephone: 1-86-NARA-NARA or 1-866-272-6272
Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978
The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2207, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents created or received after January 20, 1981. The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage their records.
Specifically, the Presidential Records Act:
Defines and states public ownership of the records.
Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.
Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once he has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal.
Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.
Establishes a process for restriction and public access to these records. Specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years. The PRA also establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain special access to records that remain closed to the public, following a thirty-day notice period to the former and current Presidents..
Requires that Vice-Presidential records are to be treated in the same way as Presidential records.
Amendments
Executive Order 12667
Issued by President Reagan in January 1989, this Executive Order established the procedures for NARA and former and incumbent Presidents to implement the PRA.
Executive Order 13233
This Executive Order, issued by President George W. Bush on November 1, 2001, supersedes the previous Executive Order. The Bush Executive Order also includes the documents of former Vice Presidents.
Page URL: http://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html
The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001 • Telephone: 1-86-NARA-NARA or 1-866-272-6272
A current event/policy issue
Blogger Arrested in Korea for Post That Led to Won's Decline
By EVAN RAMSTAD
(See Correction & Amplification below.)
SEOUL -- South Korean officials arrested a blogger who for months had been criticizing the government's economic policy, charging him with spreading false rumors that led to a drop in the country's currency.
AFP
Park Dae-sung, following his court appearance in Seoul over the weekend.
Prosecutors identified Park Dae-sung, who is unemployed, as the widely read blogger writing under the pseudonym Minerva.
The charge stems from a Dec. 29 posting in which Mr. Park allegedly accused bureaucrats of writing a letter to local bankers to persuade them not to buy dollars so as to raise the value of the won. Prosecutors said Monday that news accounts of Mr. Park's anonymous posting had led to a plunge in the value of the won that forced the government to intervene in trading.
Mr. Park's allegations suggested bureaucrats were trying to undercut the government's measures to help banks obtain U.S. dollars.
The arrest of Mr. Park highlights two facets of Seoul's response to the economic crisis that worry analysts: a currency policy that isn't transparent enough for traders and an intolerance of criticism of public policy.
Currency traders keep close watch for changes in the government's stance because the won is thinly traded, giving the government outsized influence. The government signaled early last year it no longer supported a strong won, beginning the most recent shift in trading sentiment.
In 2008, the won reversed three years of steady gains with a 26% decline in value versus the dollar, the chief currency against which it is traded. That decline is one of the most visible effects of the global crisis in South Korea.
Meanwhile, since the debt crisis turned global in September, officials have lashed out at economists and journalists who negatively portray South Korea's economic prospects or policy measures. And regulators last month announced an investigation of foreign stock analysts who placed "sell" ratings on South Korean stocks. The arrest of Mr. Park appears to represent this new level of sensitivity to criticism about the economy.
—SungHa Park contributed to this article.
Write to Evan Ramstad at evan.ramstad@wsj.com
Corrections & Amplification
The Korea Securities Dealers Association, an industry trade group, is investigating stock ratings issued by foreign brokerages on Korean companies last year. This article incorrectly says that government regulators were conducting the investigation.
By EVAN RAMSTAD
(See Correction & Amplification below.)
SEOUL -- South Korean officials arrested a blogger who for months had been criticizing the government's economic policy, charging him with spreading false rumors that led to a drop in the country's currency.
AFP
Park Dae-sung, following his court appearance in Seoul over the weekend.
Prosecutors identified Park Dae-sung, who is unemployed, as the widely read blogger writing under the pseudonym Minerva.
The charge stems from a Dec. 29 posting in which Mr. Park allegedly accused bureaucrats of writing a letter to local bankers to persuade them not to buy dollars so as to raise the value of the won. Prosecutors said Monday that news accounts of Mr. Park's anonymous posting had led to a plunge in the value of the won that forced the government to intervene in trading.
Mr. Park's allegations suggested bureaucrats were trying to undercut the government's measures to help banks obtain U.S. dollars.
The arrest of Mr. Park highlights two facets of Seoul's response to the economic crisis that worry analysts: a currency policy that isn't transparent enough for traders and an intolerance of criticism of public policy.
Currency traders keep close watch for changes in the government's stance because the won is thinly traded, giving the government outsized influence. The government signaled early last year it no longer supported a strong won, beginning the most recent shift in trading sentiment.
In 2008, the won reversed three years of steady gains with a 26% decline in value versus the dollar, the chief currency against which it is traded. That decline is one of the most visible effects of the global crisis in South Korea.
Meanwhile, since the debt crisis turned global in September, officials have lashed out at economists and journalists who negatively portray South Korea's economic prospects or policy measures. And regulators last month announced an investigation of foreign stock analysts who placed "sell" ratings on South Korean stocks. The arrest of Mr. Park appears to represent this new level of sensitivity to criticism about the economy.
—SungHa Park contributed to this article.
Write to Evan Ramstad at evan.ramstad@wsj.com
Corrections & Amplification
The Korea Securities Dealers Association, an industry trade group, is investigating stock ratings issued by foreign brokerages on Korean companies last year. This article incorrectly says that government regulators were conducting the investigation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
