Sunny Co Clothing posted a photo of a woman wearing a red swimsuit with a caption reading “EVERYONE that reposts and tags us in this picture within the next 24 HOURS will receive a FREE Pamela Sunny Suit” – along with other applicable rules. Instagram went crazy with thousands of reposts. The following day, Sunny Co Clothing posted a second photo stating that they had the right to cap the promotion if they so choose. Many people, myself included, questioned how this retraction was possible. Could it be as simple as reposting an Instagram photo and tagging the company to receive a $64.99 swimsuit for free? The answer is yes, but with a caveat. One must follow the federal sweepstakes laws, applicable sweepstakes laws of the participants’ home states, and the governing rules of all the social medial platforms where the post appears. Easy, right?
In March 2019, charges were brought against a number of National College Athletic Association (“NCAA”) athletic department personnel. These officials were found partaking in a fraudulent scheme which allowed affluent young adults to gain admission to elite universities under false pretenses, like fake test scores and phony athletic prowess. The actions of these athletic directors and coaches call into question the effectiveness of the NCAA monitoring and reporting methods to combat misuse and abuse of the athletic system. The NCAA and their institutions must learn from this most recent scandal to identify the problems in athletic compliance that allowed this fraud.
On August 29, 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (“the EPA”) announced a proposed reconsideration amendment to an Obama Administration rule regulating the natural gas industry’s methane emissions. This proposal is in response to President Trump’s order for federal agencies to review their actions, purportedly to remove potential resource burdens. The EPA asserts that the changes will remove regulatory duplication and save the industry millions of dollars, but the savings may come at the expense of increasing the planet’s vulnerability.
Despite industry groups’ and tech companies’ numerous efforts over the past few months to water down and ultimately halt the first-ever U.S. data privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA” or “the Act”), the CCPA now has its final language set on September 13, 2019, the end of California’s legislative calendar, and will go into effect on January 1, 2020. The goal is to give California residents control of their personal information collected and processed by companies.
At first, the story of John Kapoor’s rise to the top of the pharmaceutical industry sounds like the American dream played out in real life. The first to attend college in his family, Kapoor graduated from Bombay University in India with a degree in pharmacy. He came to the United States after securing a fellowship at the University of Buffalo, and earned his Ph.D. in 1972. His scientific and business savvy was evident from the start – in a matter of a decade, Kapoor took over a struggling pharmaceuticals business, turned it around, and netted a personal gain of $100mm. From there Kapoor became a serial entrepreneur, with INSYS Therapeutics marking the pinnacle of his success. The company made him a billionaire, but later made him the target of a criminal racketeering investigation and the face of one of America’s darkest problems.
We are coming up on the end of the 2018-2019 academic year and, for myself and my fellow 3Ls, graduation! I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of our journal, our authors, our faculty advisers, and our readers for their continued support.
Earlier this year, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) uninamously voted to recommend removing “incident to” Medicare billing for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) and physician assistants (PAs). MedPAC serves as an independent congressional agency that advises Congress on Medicare-related issues by analyzing access and quality of care. If this recommendation is adopted, APRNs and PAs would only be able to bill Medicare directly, thus reducing the amount paid by Medicare from 100% under services billed “incident to” to 85% directly. This recommendation could potentially save the Medicare program up to $250 million annually and would allow for better data collection into the amount of services performed by APRNs and PAs, whose services are often masked under “incident to” billing reports. Though there is still some debate on whether the financial loss of losing this option is too high for primary physicians who may hire APRNs and PAs for their practice, the benefits of billing directly likely outweigh the losses.
The Department of Health and Human Services, along with National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety and the Center for Disease Control have begun a concerted effort to fill the knowledge gaps in defining the hazards, exposures, and risks involved with handling nanomaterials. Investigators are working to provide guidance for those working in the field of nanotechnology to address the risks associated with working with animals exposed to various engineered nanomaterials, epidemiologic research, and exposure limits. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has summarized its progress and recommended risk management strategies for those in the field.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) jointly create national standards for electronic transactions, code sets, and unique identifiers. The ACA introduced Administrative Simplification provisions in 2010 and now the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) has launched a Compliance Review Program to ensure that HIPAA covered entities are abiding by the Administrative Simplification rules.
Artificial intelligence is all around us. Whether it exists in your iPhone as “Siri” or in complex machines that are detecting diabetic retinopathy, it is constantly growing and becoming a regular part of the modern day. As with any new technology, regulation surrounding artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly problematic. The question facing us now is how do we encourage further development without accidentally hindering its growth? Recently, the Food and Drug Administration has attempted to take steps toward further regulation of artificial intelligence by introducing a review process for medical artificial intelligence. This is just one instance of how regulation may affect the evolution of artificial intelligence.