Search

The study of political conflict in legislatures is fundamental to understanding the nature of governance, but also difficult because of changes in membership and the issues addressed over time. Focusing on the enduring issue of civil rights in the United States since Reconstruction, we show that using current methods and measures to characterize elite ideological disagreements makes it hard to interpret or reconcile the conflicts with historical understandings because of their failure to adequately account for the policies being voted upon and the consequences of the iterative lawmaking process. Incorporating information about the policies being voted upon provides a starkly different portrait of elite conflict-not only are contemporary parties relatively less divided than is commonly thought, but the conflict occurs in a smaller, and more liberal, portion of the policy space. These findings have important implications for a broad range of work that uses elite actions to compare political conflict/polarization across time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Populist rhetoric in America contains two essential features: first, a sharp critique of economic and political life and, second, a call for broader participation by the people that will set things right in response to an elite whose actions brought about contemporary problems. Past work generally assumes that the two goals inherent in this rhetoric - its educative critique and its exhortation to action - are compatible with each other. However, in this paper we argue that there is often an inherent tension between them. That is, the stronger the educative critique, the more it can actually reduce people's likelihood of taking action. We provide several historical and contemporary examples of this pattern and then discuss a new line of research that examines it using experiments. We conclude by considering ways in which populist rhetoric can avoid the pitfall of voter disengagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are few advanced democracies that simultaneously make voting as easy and as difficult as the US. This essay outlines some of the recent changes in voting rights and election law, with a particular attention to the causes and consequences of restrictive changes. I argue that both historically and today this pattern has been driven by strategic partisan calculation, which in the American context almost necessarily results in patterns of access and exclusion that fall sharply on lines of race, class, and civic status. The recent skirmishes in the 'voting wars' are a continuation of this historical dynamic, enabled by the unique institutional context in which American elections take place, in which parties retain control over the parameters and administration of a highly fragmented electoral system. So long as this remains the case, and so long as there are relatively few institutions capable of checking the incentive to engage in partisan manipulation, the 'voting wars' will continue and are likely even to intensify. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of a 13-year-old girl who suffered an accident, losing use of her legs and left hand and sustaining cognitively impairment. It discusses her individualized education plan, required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Her parents filed for a hearing claiming the plan and educational services were inadequate. The school district tried to graduate the girl, denying her a free appropriate public education FAPE).

The article presents a case study relating to compensatory education for a student with special needs. The concept of compensatory education relates to the reimbursement of private school tuition for students who are not being provided a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as required by United States law. Details relating to the case are presented and include information about the tuition reimbursement request made by the student's parents, and additional reimbursement requests for learning disability services that were provided at the school. The outcome of the case is included as well.

The authors focus on the use of the relative value units (RVUs) as the basis for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement to physicians in the U.S. The authors argue that a medical care finance system seeking to improve patient care is requiring constant surveillance and updates to meet the goals. It also needs to adjust what it rewards and discourages basing on the feedback from patients and care providers.

On August 3, 2017, the FDA granted regular approval to Vyxeos (also known as CPX-351; Jazz Pharmaceuticals), a liposomal formulation of daunorubicin and cytarabine in a fixed combination, for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC). Approval was based on data from Study CLTR0310-301, a randomized, multicenter, open-label, active-controlled trial comparing Vyxeos with a standard combination of daunorubicin and cytarabine ("7+3") in 309 patients 60-75 years of age with newly diagnosed t-AML or AML-MRC. Because of elemental copper concerns with the Vyxeos formulation, patients with Wilson disease were excluded from the study. Vyxeos demonstrated an improvement in overall survival (HR 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.90; P = 0.005) with an estimated median overall survival of 9.6 months compared with 5.9 months for the "7+3" control arm. The toxicity profile of Vyxeos was similar to that seen with standard "7+3" with the exception of more prolonged neutropenia and thrombocytopenia on the Vyxeos arm. Because the pharmacology of Vyxeos differs from that of other formulations of daunorubicin and cytarabine, labeling includes a warning against interchanging formulations during treatment. This is the first FDA-approved treatment specifically for patients with t-AML or AML-MRC., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)