46622 research outputs found
Sort by
Higher Education Redress Statutes: A Preliminary Analysis of States’ Reparations in Higher Education
Get PDF
Glow Up Your YouTube Playlist Video Bangers, Branding & More Educational Technologies
Get PDFTips for creating, growing, and maintaining your institution’s YouTube channel and presence
Concerning Creating A Program To Provide Food Benefits To Students From low income Households During Summer Months And
No full texthttps://scholar.law.colorado.edu/session-laws-2001-2050/10511/thumbnail.jp
Considering Vaccination Status
No full textThis Article examines whether policies—sometimes termed “vaccine mandates” or “vaccine requirements”— that consider vaccination status as a condition of employment, receipt of goods and services, or educational or other activity for participation are legally permitted, and whether such policies may even sometimes be legally required. It does so with particular reference to COVID-19 vaccines.
Part I explains the legality of private actors, such as employers or private universities, considering vaccination status, and concludes that such consideration is almost always legally permissible unless foreclosed by specific state legislation. Part II examines the consideration of vaccination status by state or federal policy. It concludes that such consideration is similarly allowed at the state level unless expressly foreclosed, and is allowed at the federal level if appropriately supported by federal regulatory authority. Part III examines what may be a future front in these debates: whether policies considering vaccination status may be required rather than merely permitted, just as some courts have found that mask requirements may be federally required in certain circumstances
Defining Health Affordability
No full textAffordable health care, insurance, and prescription drugs are priorities for the public and for policymakers. Yet the lack of a consensus definition of health affordability is increasingly recognized as a roadblock to health reform efforts. This Article explains how and why American health law invokes health affordability and attempts, or fails, to define the concept. It then evaluates potential affordability definitions and proposes strategies for defining affordability more clearly and consistently in health law.
Part I examines the role health affordability plays in American health policy, in part by contrasting the United States’s health system with systems elsewhere. Part II then reviews and categorizes approaches to affordability in American health law. It highlights how conceptions of affordability are woven into the Affordable Care Act’s premium assistance tax credits for marketplace buyers and how the American Rescue Plan and Inflation Reduction Act have implicitly shifted the definition of affordability. It also discusses how rulemaking around the “affordability guardrail” for state waivers of ACA provisions has prompted contestation between presidential administrations over the place of health equity and racial justice. After discussing these federal provisions, it identifies the role of affordability definitions in recent state-level innovations, such as affordability standards for health insurance and pharmaceutical affordability boards.
The latter two Parts situate these legal enactments within a cohesive framework and make recommendations. Part III categorizes existing or proposed definitions of health affordability according to their normative commitments, drawing on sociological and philosophical scholarship. Part IV then evaluates potential approaches to defining affordability. Options include continuing to leave affordability undefined, rejecting affordability as a cornerstone of health law, or replacing affordability with some of its constituent concepts. Rather than these alternatives, I propose a hybrid definition that combines different definitions discussed in Part III. It proposes that health spending is affordable if it delivers value for money without worsening access to basic needs or a reasonable opportunity range
Humans in the Loop
Get PDFFrom lethal drones to cancer diagnostics, humans are increasingly working with complex and artificially intelligent algorithms to make decisions which affect human lives, raising questions about how best to regulate these human-in-the-loop systems. We make four contributions to the discourse.
First, contrary to the popular narrative, law is already profoundly and often problematically involved in governing human-in-the-loop systems: it regularly affects whether humans are retained in or removed from the loop. Second, we identify the MABA-MABA trap, which occurs when policymakers attempt to address concerns about algorithmic incapacities by inserting a human into a decision-making process. Regardless of whether the law governing these systems is old or new, inadvertent or intentional, it rarely accounts for the fact that human-machine systems are more than the sum of their parts: they raise their own problems and require their own distinct regulatory interventions.
But how to regulate for success? Our third contribution is to highlight the panoply of roles humans might be expected to play, to assist regulators in understanding and choosing among the options. For our fourth contribution, we draw on legal case studies and synthesize lessons from human factors engineering to suggest regulatory alternatives to the MABA-MABA approach. Namely, rather than carelessly placing a human in the loop, policymakers should regulate the human-in-the-loop system