Rachel Kemel Associate Editor Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2020 The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“the Parity Act”) is a federal civil rights and consumer protection law. The Parity Act prohibits most public and private insurance plans from imposing more restrictive standards on mental health (“MH”) and substance use disorder …
Every time we turn on the news, someone is either talking about immigration reform or health care reform. Health care and immigration are two major areas that President Trump promised to address and is attempting to tackle within his first two years in office. Although most would not consider that these two issues would overlap, in today’s American health care system, Americans need immigrants. Immigrants contribute a great deal to our medical research, make up a large percentage of our health care providers, and subsidize health insurance premiums.
California Governor Jerry Brown signed a historic bill on September 30 that mandates every publicly held corporation whose principal offices are located in California to have a representative number of women on its board of directors. In a letter announcing Senate Bill 826, Governor Brown admits that there are serious legal concerns to the bill and that its potential flaws could “prove fatal to its ultimate implementation” but that it is time to force action regarding the lack of gender diversity on company boards.
With the implementation of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that was passed in 2017, there have been several changes to the tax system. The Opportunity Zone program was a small piece of the tax reform that has recently gained more publicity. The Opportunity Zone program provides tax benefits to real-estate investors. The Trump Administration recently released definitions and rules in a package of proposed regulations.
Protected Health Information is seeing a surge of breaches on the cyber security front due to contractor error. It’s also impacting the most consumers in comparison to other data breaches and, in some cases, has the power to cause chaos in national infrastructure. Advances in technology and compliance measures can stem the tide and protect the most valuable information in consumers lives.
Earlier this year, Bitcoin, and cryptocurrencies writ large, occupied many financial headlines as onlookers began to divert their attention to the “unexplained” rise, and subsequent fall in the price of one the more popular (and maiden) cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin. Naturally, because many of the onlookers didn’t realize what Bitcoin was (or is), the media took lead on the story. Earlier this month, Bitcoin began to make its appearance in headlines, once again.
In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations issued a special report on the impact of global warming. The report shared extensive research about our changing atmosphere and issued a grave warning: we must act immediately. The harrowing news came just over one year after President Trump ordered the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement in June 2017. This begs the question: how will changes be made when the world’s most powerful and impactful hegemon refuses to cooperate?
Will new litigation affect Beto O’Rourke’s campaign? With election polls opening up for early voting last week, a one week left of campaigning and the new Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the “TCPA”) litigation to defend, it is unlikely that Beto O’Rourke will be slowing down any time soon. O’Rourke has made it his mission to reach all voters, not just those residing in the three major cities: Austin, Houston and Dallas. New litigation filed October 19, 2018, raises the question whether “Beto for Texas” reached those voters in violation of the TCPA and the recent Marks v. Crunch decision. The litigation will address whether the 5th Circuit will implement Marks expansive definition of an “automated telephone dialing system.”
On September 18, 2018, the United States Supreme Court overturned a stay blocking a District Court ruling requiring non-profits to disclose identity of all contributors who give more than $200 a year. Prior to the ruling, IRS designated 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and 501(c)(6) organizations such as business leagues and boards of trade, who do not register as political committees with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), were required to disclose donors only when they contributed for specific political advertisements. While the ruling requires the FEC to give guidance, newly issued FEC rules limit the scope of the court’s intention. It is likely that the new ruling will allow some donors to remain undisclosed while requiring partial disclosure of donors who contribute towards certain, but not all, expenditures.
Since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, hospitals have faced strict and substantial regulations regarding the provision of financial assistance to patients in the form of “charity care.” An essential element in a hospital’s ability to maintain tax-exempt status and financial solvency, charity care has worked to serve uninsured and indigent patients while helping charitable hospitals serve their mission and retain the benefits that come with it. The state of Pennsylvania recently passed legislation requiring more explicit and affirmative acts to provide charity care to more eligible patients. The change is unprecedented, and other states look to be slowly responding in their own ways. Compliance with these changes is most beneficial with proactive measures and risk assessments even before change comes through the doors.