7184 research outputs found
Sort by
SB 6: The Review, Creation, and Extension of Georgia Tax Credits and Deductions
Get PDFThe Act provides for the review of tax credits and deductions while extending or creating various tax credits and deductions. First, the Act allows certain government officials to request a review of up to five tax credits or deductions per year to evaluate their economic efficiency. Second, the Act creates or extends tax credits and deductions for medical and pharmaceutical manufacturers, high-impact aerospace defense projects, short-line railroads, ticket sales for fine arts performances, rehabilitation of historic structures, yacht maintenance, and projects of regional significance
HB 128: Prohibition of Discrimination Against Potential Organ Transplant Recipients
Get PDFThe Act functions to prohibit discrimination by health care providers and insurers against potential organ transplant recipients due to physical or mental disabilities. Also known as Gracie’s Law, the Act provides a pathway through local courts to enforce compliance, and an affected individual may bring a civil action for injunctive and other equitable relief. In addition, the Act incorporates Simon’s Law, which provides that an order to not resuscitate a minor child can only be issued with the consent of the minor’s parents
SB 33: Civil Cause of Action Against Human Traffickers
Get PDFThe Act creates a new civil cause of action against human traffickers. It allows both victims and the Attorney General to sue traffickers and those benefitting financially from human trafficking for damages and reasonable attorney’s fees. The plaintiffs can file their lawsuit within ten years after the cause of action arose or, if the victim was a minor at the time of the violation, within ten years after the victim turned eighteen-years-old
The Boldness of Healthy Cities: A Tricky Challenge
Get PDFHow can planning use health more fully to build more visibility, better alliances, and more substantial public support while focusing on important and meaningful change? Unfortunately, healthy cities and communities’ approaches are often on the margins of the planning field, not the center. While most people support making places that can promote health, this can be complicated at times of crisis or constraint when, for example, some may perceive economic health to be in tension with human health. At its best, however, the idea of making healthier places can meld together individual and collective goals. To make health more central, however, will require creating a long-running infrastructure for collaboration among professions and occupations, the public and civic sectors, businesses, and governments. It would need to capture the imagination
The Future of the Comprehensive Plan
Get PDFThis article begins with a brief history of the comprehensive plan from its historic roots to the present day. It then considers contemporary comprehensive planning practice, using the Comprehensive Plan Standards for Sustaining Places developed by the American Planning Association (APA) as a benchmark. The article concludes by exploring how the comprehensive plan can and must evolve to address the major challenges of the 21st century. It draws on research and content from The Comprehensive Plan: Sustainable, Resilient and Equitable Communities for the 21st Century (Rouse and Piro 2022)
The Influence of Civil Rights and Anti-Discrimination Laws on Shaping our Transportation System
Get PDFRegarding the title of this paper, “The Influence of Civil Rights and Anti-Discrimination Laws on Shaping Our Transportation System”, the reverse is also true—the transportation system has helped shape the civil rights laws in the U.S. The way bus lines in the South used to be segregated is one example, and fighting this helped shape the modern Civil Rights Movement. This influence goes back to include famous cases involving segregated train cars in the 1880s. In this article, we address the numerous ways in which civil rights and anti-discrimination laws shape our transportation system. We offer a suite of approaches for the nation to move toward transportation equity, broadly speaking
Cost-Effectiveness Comes to America: The Promise and Perils of Cost-Effective Analysis in Medication Coverage Decisions
Get PDFIn an effort to control rising drug costs, some health insurers have begun experimenting with methods to link decisions about coverage to the value added by medicines, including through the use of formal cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Increased interest in subjecting new drugs to rigorous economic analysis is a welcome development, as it offers the potential to minimize wasteful spending on drugs whose high prices are not justified by evidence of additional benefits produced. At the same time, CEA raises significant ethical issues, particularly when payers use it to limit access to drugs deemed to provide insufficient value for money. For example, most forms of CEA focus on the absolute quantity of health benefits a drug is expected to produce, without regard to how those benefits will be distributed among individuals or population groups. In addition, the measure of benefits most often used in CEA—the quality-adjusted life year (QALY)—has a built-in bias against life-extending drugs for patients with incurable disabilities as well as for patients with diseases that disproportionately affect racial minorities. As a result of this bias, relying on CEA to limit access to medications could potentially violate federal civil rights laws in some situations. Finally, defining effectiveness solely in terms of direct health benefits to patients ignores other important ways that medicines can provide value, including benefits to third-party caregivers and society at large. Previous scholarship has examined the role of CEA in setting health care priorities, but less attention has been paid to the use of CEA in the context of health insurance. This Article fills that gap by critically exploring the use of CEA in medication coverage decisions, identifying ethical shortcomings in current approaches, and recommending strategies for reforming CEA to retain its benefits and to minimize its negative effects
The Abuse of Offsets as Procompetitive Justification: Restoring the Proper Role of Efficiencies After \u3cem\u3eOhio v. American Express\u3c/em\u3e and \u3cem\u3eNCAA v. Alston\u3c/em\u3e
Get PDFUnder the rule-of-reason framework, litigation involving the NCAA has condoned the practice of crediting purported benefits to one group as an “offset” to antitrust injury suffered by another. Although the Ohio v. American Express decision addressed countervailing effects on merchants versus cardholders within the same two-sided market (credit cards), NCAA v. Alston, consistent with the 1986 NCAA v. Board of Regents decision, acknowledged procompetitive justifications that occur in an entirely different market (the output market for viewing sporting events) than the market in which harm occurred (the labor market for college athletes). Both cases elevated the welfare of consumers above that of injured workers (Alston) or other input providers (American Express). In Alston, the Supreme Court muted any intent it may have had to cabin its American Express decision to two-sided transactional platforms defined by indirect network effects. Further, the blind search for offsets in single-firm monopolization cases such as American Express and in wage-fixing cases such as Alston evinces a clear incongruity with the prohibition against cross-market offsets in merger evaluation. This Article discusses how a logical error in NCAA v. Board of Regents opened the door to justifying harms to workers through even the feeblest claims of consumer benefit. As American Express and Alston have blurred the lines between offsets that cross-market lines, we explain that the terms “intergroup” and “intragroup” offsets accuratelydescribe benefits and harms that occur to different constituencies versus those that affect the same, respectively. Although the rule-of-reason lens properly concerns itself with the latter, the former falls under the ambit of the legislative branch. As such, we argue for statutory repeal of American Express and a prohibition on judicial balancing of claimed benefits to any group other than the group that suffered antitrust injury. The search for offsets has resulted in the justification of harms to labor even in the presence of direct evidence of antitrust injury to workers, a clear erosion of per se adjudication of cartel behavior by expanding the definition of ancillary restraints. Consistent with the broader policy of protecting labor from anticompetitive conduct, including the exercise of monopsony power, legislative intervention should prohibit such balancing. In wage-fixing cases involving multiple defendants, the no-offset rule would immediately condemn the restraint and bar courts from considering any claimed efficiencies, regardless of whom they benefit. In single-firm monopsony cases, the no-offset rule would bar courts from considering any offsetting benefits to parties other than the injured group of workers or input providers