Search

How people pay is critically important to consumers and businesses alike. Many consumers are choosing to pay for goods and services from an increasing number of options. Tech‐savvy urbanites buy coffee by tapping their phone on a reader. Parents returning from a night out use peer‐to‐peer payment apps, such as Venmo, to pay the sitter. The recent explosion of financial innovations promises faster, more efficient, and cheaper transactions. These increasing digital payment options coincide with decreased number and volume of cash transactions. However, vulnerable populations face more constrained payment choices and often rely exclusively on cash. Without experience, devices, or acceptable credit histories, vulnerable populations may have little access to digital transactions. The advantages of falling digital costs and other benefits thus accrue to the digitally connected. At the same time, those who must transact in coins and paper money are likely to find their relative costs increasing. This paper highlights payment trends and the potential impact on vulnerable populations in the United States as we move toward a cashless society. This paper should stimulate discussions of public policy initiatives to mitigate digital payment issues for vulnerable people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the laws concerning electronic voting machines in the U.S. Topics discussed include voting rights, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in cases concerning voting;' the government efforts for organizing secure and fair elections act; women's suffrage laws in the country; and the electronic voting machine.

In 2006, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) initiated the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) as part of the NIH Roadmap Initiative, in order to improve the conduct and impact of NIH's clinical and translational research portfolio. The CTSA program is intended not only to transform the training programs and research infrastructure at individual academic institutions, but also to create a nation-wide collaborative consortium to transform the biomedical research enterprise. In January 2009, the NIH CTSA National Consortium adopted Strategic Goals to maximize the CTSAs' impact on the Nation's healthcare and health. Of these, the CTSA Strategic Goal 4 is to promote the translation of the results of clinical and translational research into practice and public policy. To advance this goal, a committee was constituted to focus on the organization and development of the CTSA Consortium's comparative effectiveness research (CER) capacity, an increasingly important component of research translation into practice and policy. This Committee's Workgroups took on a number of deliverables in service of this objective, including producing this White Paper on how the CTSA Consortium might best facilitate CER, for NIH's Institutes and Centers (ICs), other Federal agencies, outside stakeholders, and the healthcare system overall. This White Paper offers some specific suggestions for how the CTSA Consortium might support this emerging and crucial national effort to generate, synthesize, and disseminate CER in order to improve healthcare decision-making and health outcomes. Important points of reference for this White Paper are two Congressionally mandated reports on CER released at the end of June 2009, one by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and another by the Federal Coordinating Council for CER (FCC-CER). The definitions of CER by each report, and their recommendations for the CER enterprise, are highly germane to the purpose of this CTSA Consortium White Paper. The CER definition used in the IOM Report was, "The generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. The purpose of CER is to assist patients, clinicians, purchasers, policy makers, and the public to make informed decisions that will improve health care at both the individual and population levels."… [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article focuses on legality of metadata collection in the U.S. under the U.S PATRIOT Act. Topics include the legal justification for the investigation of Americans' private telephone records, the data collection program implemented by the U.S. National Security Administration under U.S. President Barack Obama, and if such practices are a violation of privacy.

The article focuses on the guidelines released by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), which demonstrates the flexibility and willingness of the department to engage regulated entities in the U.S. It provides specific definitions for source documentation and direct data entry, and recommendations on how to use computerized systems in clinical investigations. It also includes advice for clinical sites, analytical laboratories, and central laboratories. INSET: FDA Regulations vs Guidances.

Comments on an article by John Harte on the challenges in the adoption of land use policies in the United States to prevent biodiversity decline. Importance of managing all land; Aspects of biodiversity loss that distinguish it from other problems; Reason for the reluctance to criticize the Endangered Species Act.