Industrial benzene emissions in Houston: Legal barriers to reducing a public health threat

Decades of research show that environmental exposure to the chemical benzene is associated with severe carcinogenic, hematoxic and genotoxic effects on the human body. As such, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the chemical as a Hazardous Air Pollutant and prescribed benzene air concentration guidelines that provide cities with an ideal ambient level to protect human health. However, in Houston, Texas, a city home to the top industrial benzene emitters in the US who undoubtedly contribute greatly to the potentially unsafe levels of ambient benzene, regulations beyond the EPA’s unenforceable guidelines are critical to protecting public health. Despite this, the EPA has failed to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for benzene. States are thus left to regulate air benzene levels on their own; in the case of Texas, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and state legislature have failed to proactively develop legally enforceable policies to reduce major source benzene emissions. This inaction continues to exacerbate a public health problem, which may only be solved through a legal framework that restricts preventable benzene emissions to protect human health and holds industrial companies accountable for violations of such regulations and standards. This analysis explores legal barriers that the City of Houston and other relevant agencies currently face in their attempt to demand and bring about such change. ^

The movement toward patient safety: State action related to reporting and disclosure of healthcare-associated infections

Increasing attention has been given to the problem of medical errors over the past decade. Included within that focused attention has been a strong interest in reducing the occurrence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Acting concurrently with federal initiatives, the majority of U.S. states have statutorily required reporting and public disclosure of HAI data. Although the occurrence of these state statutory enactments and other state initiatives represent a recognition of the strong concern pertaining to HAIs, vast differences in each state’s HAI reporting and public disclosure requirements creates a varied and unequal response to what has become a national problem.^ The purpose of this research was to explore the variations in state HAI legal requirements and other state mandates. State actions, including statutory enactments, regulations, and other initiatives related to state reporting and public disclosure mechanisms were compared, discussed, and analyzed in an effort to illustrate the impact of the lack of uniformity as a public health concern.^ The HAI statutes, administrative requirements, and other mandates of each state and two U.S. territories were reviewed to answer the following seven research questions: How far has the state progressed in its HAI initiative? If the state has a HAI reporting requirement, is it mandatory or voluntary? What healthcare entities are subject to the reporting requirements? What data collection system is utilized? What measures are required to be reported? What is the public disclosure mechanism? How is the underlying reported information protected from public disclosure or other legal release?^ Secondary publicly available data, including state statutes, administrative rules, and other initiatives, were utilized to examine the current HAI-related legislative and administrative activity of the study subjects. The information was reviewed and analyzed to determine variations in HAI reporting and public disclosure laws. Particular attention was given to the seven key research questions.^ The research revealed that considerable progress has been achieved in state HAI initiatives since 2004. Despite this progress, however, when reviewing the state laws and HAI programs comparatively, considerable variations were found to exist with regards to the type of reporting requirements, healthcare facilities subject to the reporting laws, data collection systems utilized, reportable measures, public disclosure requirements, and confidentiality and privilege provisions. The wide variations in state statutes, administrative rules, and other agency directives create a fragmented and inconsistent approach to addressing the nationwide occurrence of HAIs in the U.S. healthcare system. ^