Penalties for Drug Company Overcharging
Health
HHS
Delayed
-
Penalties for Drug Company OverchargingA rule setting maximum drug prices and penalties for entities in the 340B drug pricing program. Section 340B of the Public Health Services Act allows certain covered entities to purchase pharmaceutical drugs at discounted prices to reach certain eligible patients. When a drug manufacturer enters a 340B pricing agreement with HHS, it agrees to keep the price of drugs below certain ceiling prices, or else pay a penalty. This rule establishes the 340B ceiling prices and the penalties drug manufacturers would pay for exceeding them.
The rule was set to go into effect on March 6, 2017, but on January 20, 2017, the president issued a regulatory freeze, delaying the effective date to March 21, 2017. On May 19, 2017, the rule was delayed until October 1, 2017, and on September 29, 2017, it was delayed again until July 1, 2018. On May 7, 2018, HHS proposed to further delay the rule to July 1, 2019, which was finalized on June 5, 2018.
The upshot is that the President does not want these drug price discounts to go into effect. The regulation would place price ceilings on pharmaceuticals that enter into a 340B pricing agreement. What this delay means is higher prescription drug prices, and no penalty for the drug companies for charging above the ceiling prices. You won't hear about that on
Fox News or at a Trump rally.
Trump screws the consumer and protects the drug companies.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule
Housing
HUD
Delayed
-
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing RuleA rule requiring communities to analyze racial residential segregation and submit plans to reverse it as a condition of receiving federal housing aid.
- The Fair Housing Act of 1968 calls on federal agencies with activities related to housing and urban development to administer their programs "in a manner affirmatively to further the purposes of" the Fair Housing Act. The Obama administration's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule in July 2015, fulfilling the unmet mandate of the Fair Housing Act. The rule requires any community receiving block-grant funding from HUD to complete a comprehensive Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) to analyze its housing stock and come up with a plan for addressing patterns of segregation and discrimination.
On January 5, 2018, HUD Secretary Ben Carson issued a notice stating that HUD would immediately stop reviewing plans that had been submitted but not yet accepted, and that participating jurisdictions now had until October 31, 2020 to submit their assessments. (Previously, municipalities were implementing the rule in a rolling fashion, largely based on where they were in their local planning cycles.) On May 8, 2018, the National Fair Housing Alliance sued HUD for illegally suspending the AFFH Rule, which New York State joined on May 14, 2018.
On May 23, 2018, HUD issued a series of three Federal Register notices. First, HUD announced it would be withdrawing the Local Government Assessment Tool, which was designed to help local governments to complete their AFHs. Second, HUD reminded local governments of their obligations to conduct "analyses of impediments" to fair housing choice, which were required before the AFFH Rule went into effect, but which were generally not submitted or reviewed by HUD. Third, HUD withdrew the January 5, 2018 notice. Taken together, these notices effectively nullify the AFFH Rule: With no assessment tool, there can be no AFH, and by extension the rule cannot be implemented. On June 5, 2018, several states and cities filed an amicus brief opposing HUD's decision to withdraw the assessment tool, and New York State moved to intervene in support of the National Fair Housing Alliance's lawsuit.
What does it mean, Uncle Ben? Well, the actions taken by HUD Secretary Carson nullify the AFFH rule. So patterns of segregation and discrimination cannot be identified or addressed. The unmet mandate of the 1968 Fair Housing Act will remain unmet and patterns of racial discrimination and segregation in housing can go on as it had since Jim Crow. It fits in with the President's past pattern of housing discrimination in New York during the 1970's when he and daddy dearest were landlords. Now he has Uncle Ben doing his dirty work for him.
Title IX Sexual Assault Regulations
Education
DoEd
In Rulemaking
-
Title IX Sexual Assault RegulationsA rule establishing sexual assault rules at schools that receive federal funding.Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program or activity that receives federal funding including institutions of higher education and elementary and secondary schools. Upon rescinding two Obama-era Title IX guidelines on September 22, 2017, Education Secretary Betsy Devos had promised that she would introduce new Title IX regulations. On January 25, 2018, three victims' and women's rights groups filed suit against the the Department of Education (DoEd) for withdrawing the Obama-era guidance. Subsequently, on November 16, 2018, DoEd promulgated Title IX regulations, which were then published in the Federal Register for notice and comment on November 29, 2018.
Citing Supreme Court precedent, the new regulations narrow the definition of sexual harassment in light of clarity, defining it as "unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the school's education program or activity." Obama-era guidelines define it as "unwelcome conduct of sexual nature." The new regulations also narrow the circumstances when schools are obligated to respond to an incident to when the school has "actual knowledge" of sexual harassment. This "actual knowledge" clause requires the accuser to officially report to an individual who has authority to institute corrective measures. Additionally, the incident must have taken place within the school's 'own programs or activities.'
The proposed regulations would hold schools responsible under Title IX only when their response to sexual harassment complaints is "clearly unreasonable in light of known circumstances." Nonetheless, they would be required to investigate and respond meaningfully to every formal complaint and maintain supportive measures for victims regardless of whether a complaint was filed officially or not.
Finally, regarding the investigation of incidents, the regulations lays out certain due process protections. Investigations would be based on a presumption of innocence for the accused, and schools would be allowed to choose the evidentiary standard between a "preponderance of evidence" or "clear and convincing evidence" in holding accused students responsible. Institutions of higher education will be expected to conduct live hearings, and cross-examination would be allowed by advisers and attorneys. 'Rape shield protections' would be extended to victims, preventing the examiners from inquiring about the victims' sexual history. Final determinations would have to be made by third-party individuals not conducting the investigation
The notice and comment period for this rule was open until 28 January, 2019. The DoEd then extended the comment period until January 30. It then reopened the comment period for one day on February 15 due to technical issues on the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
While sexual harassment can run both ways, #MeToo has shown us how overwhelmingly men are in positions of authority and thus perpetrate the vast majority of sexual harassment cases. So it's an interesting pattern to see a woman making the reporting and criteria for sexual harassment more difficult on college campuses and a black man making it easier for racial segregation and discrimination in housing to continue. Historically these people are called collaborators.
The new rules proposed by DeVos are somewhat nuanced and require some examination to understand their potential effect. On the one hand, the bar for what constitutes sexual harassment has been raised significantly and the definition of sexual harassment hangs on an interpretation of what "effectively denies a person equal access to the school's education program or activity". It also makes it easier for schools to avoid responsibility for their lack of response to a sexual harassment claim, as in the case where a victim did not report it to the appropriate person: an official report to someone with the authority to institute corrective measures. You wonder if this new guidance is adopted how well advertised it will be regarding the official making of a complaint. Given how under-reported sexual harassment is historically, it is easily forseeable that the DeVos language will put a chill on the reporting of harassment and will allow more of the less severe, but still troubling, forms of harassment to fly under the radar. Also, schools would be given the choice of evidentiary standard between "preponderance of evidence" or "clear and convincing evidence" in holding accused students responbsible.
On the other hand, the due process and presumed innocence of the accused harasser is one of the positives. Another is that rape shield protections would be in place for victims, preventing inquiries into the victim's sexual history.
Overall, these changes represent a mixed bag. There are loopholes for Universities to wiggle out of their responsibility and liability, and only time will tell whether the effect of these changes, should they be adopted, will discourage reporting of harassment, especially when the evidentiary standard is chosen by the university (one assumes based on the nature of the accusations) and only the most severe and pervasive examples of harassment meet the standard.
Follow the link from the Brookings Institute to follow all of the Trump era deregulatory efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment