Academic Building Revenue Bond Funds, June 30, 2002

State University Audit Report

Dormitory and Dining Services Revenue Bond Funds, June 30, 2002

State University Audit Report of Iowa State University

Hilton Coliseum Revenue Bond Funds, June 30, 2002

State University Audit Report

Ice Arena Facility Revenue Note Funds, June 30, 2002

State University Audit Report

Parking System Revenue Bond Funds, June 30, 2002

State University Audit Report of Iowa State University

Recreational Facility Revenue Bond Funds, June 30, 2002

State University Audit Report of Iowa State University

Student Health Center Revenue Bond Funds, June 30, 2002

State University Audit Report of Iowa State University

Telecommunications Facilities Revenue Bond Funds, June 30, 2002

State University Audit Report

Utility System Revenue Bond Funds, June 30, 2002

State University Audit Report

Report of Recommendations to the Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance, June 30, 2003

State Agency Audit Report

Fécondation in vitro: intérêt et désavantage du remboursement par l'assurance maladie en Suisse [In-vitro fertilization: advantage and disadvantage of covering the costs of IVF/ICSI by the health insurance in Switzerland]

In-vitro fertilization: advantage and disadvantage of covering the costs of IVF/CSI by the health insurance in Switzerland The reimbursement of certain infertility treatments (stimulation with/without insemination) whereas IVF/ICSI is not leads patients with an indication of IVF to prefer treatments of low efficacy. The costs of multiple pregnancies issued by reimbursed or non-reimbursed fertility treatments are paid by the society. There should be measures to reduce these costs and to take the money used today to pay the complications of infertility treatments to reimburse IVF. The efficacy of such a system (single embryo transfer) has been proven in Belgium since several years. The dangers of complete reimbursement (IVF treatment in cases without any chances of success, only because it is for free) can be avoided by an Efficacy and Safety Board.

Do Nasty and Pleasant Surprises Regarding Tax Revenue Explain Spending Drifts ? : The Case of the Swiss Cantons

This article aims to explain the difference between the expenditure reported in governmental end-of-the-year budgets and the amounts previously forecasted in the approved beginning-of-the-year budgets. We measure how political, financial, and institutional variables affect this spending drift. We focus on two much-debated factors, namely, tax revenue budgeting errors and the stringency of fiscal rules. Our econometric approach uses a panel based on the 26 Swiss cantons covering the period of 1980 to 2011. Results suggest that stringent fiscal rules discourage budget overruns, whereas underestimating tax revenue-i.e., a budgetary "pleasant surprise"-offers the opportunity for some overspending.

Ice Arena Facility Revenue Note Funds, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Independent Auditor's Report, Financial Statements and Supplemental Information, June 30, 2004

State University Audit Report

Dormitory and Dining Services Revenue Bond Funds, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Independent Auditor's Report Financial Statements and Supplemental Information, June 30, 2004

State University Audit Report