The medical malpractice insurance "crises" and federal medical malpractice tort reform: Collection and analysis of bills passed by the United States House of Representatives from 1995--2005

There have been three medical malpractice insurance "crises" in the United States over a time spanning roughly the past three decades (Poisson, 2004, p. 759-760). Each crisis is characterized by a number of common features, including rapidly increasing medical malpractice insurance premiums, cancellation of existing insurance policies, and a decreased willingness of insurers to offer or renew medical malpractice insurance policies (Poisson, 2004, p. 759-760). Given the recurrent "crises," many sources argue that medical malpractice insurance coverage has become too expensive a commodity—one that many physicians simply cannot afford (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2002, p. 1-2; Physician Insurers Association of America [PIAA], 2003, p. 1; Jackiw, 2004, p. 506; Glassman, 2004, p. 417; Padget, 2003, p. 216). ^ The prohibitively high cost of medical liability insurance is said to limit the geographical areas and medical specializations in which physicians are willing to practice. As a result, the high costs of medical liability insurance are ultimately said to affect whether or not people have access to health care services. ^ In an effort to control the medical liability insurance crises—and to preserve or restore peoples' access to health care—every state in the United States has passed "at least some laws designed to reduce medical malpractice premium rates" (GAO, 2003, p.5-6). More recently, however, the United States has witnessed a push to implement federal reform of the medical malpractice tort system. Accordingly, this project focuses on federal medical malpractice tort reform. This project was designed to investigate the following specific question: Do the federal medical malpractice tort reform bills which passed in the House of Representatives between 1995 and 2005 differ in respect to their principle features? To answer this question, the text of the bills, law review articles, and reports from government and private agencies were analyzed. Further, a matrix was compiled to concisely summarize the principle features of the proposed federal medical malpractice tort reform bills. Insight gleaned from this investigation and matrix compilation informs discussion about the potential ramifications of enacting federal medical malpractice tort reform legislation. ^

Texas electronics waste management: A policy analysis for the 21st century

Electronic waste is a fairly new and largely unknown phenomenon. Accordingly, governments have only recently acknowledged electronic waste as a threat to the environment and public health. In attempting to mitigate the hazards associated with this rapidly growing toxic waste stream, governments at all levels have started to implement e-waste management programs. The legislation enacted to create these programs is based on extended producer responsibility or EPR policy. ^ EPR shifts the burden of final disposal of e-waste from the consumer or municipal solid waste system to the manufacturer of electronic equipment. Applying an EPR policy is intended to send signals up the production chain to the manufacturer. The desired outcome is to change the methods of production in order to reduce production outputs/inputs with the ultimate goal of changing product design. This thesis performs a policy analysis of the current e-waste policies at the federal and state level of government, focusing specifically on Texas e-waste policies. ^ The Texas e-waste law known, as HB 2714 or the Texas Computer TakeBack Law, requires manufacturers to provide individual consumers with a free and convenient method for returning their used computers to manufacturers. The law is based on individual producer responsibility and shared responsibility among consumer, retailers, recyclers, and the TCEQ. ^ Using a set of evaluation criteria created by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Texas e-waste law was examined to determine its effectiveness at reducing the threat of e-waste in Texas. Based on the outcomes of the analysis certain recommendations were made for the legislature to incorporate into HB 2714. ^ The results of the policy analysis show that HB 2714 is a poorly constructed law and does not provide the desired results seen in other states with EPR policies. The TakeBack Law does little to change the collection methods of manufacturers and even less to change their production habits. If the e-waste problem is to be taken seriously, HB 2714 must be amended to reflect the proposed changes in this thesis.^