Agriculture Bill 2020: An Apolitical Analysis

Australia's political engagement on health and climate change: the MJA-Lancet Countdown indicator and implications for the future.

To provide baseline findings regarding Australians' trust in federal, state and local government. A computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) survey was administrated during October to December 2009 to a random sample (n=1109) across Australia (response rate 41.2%). Binary logistic regression analyses were carried out by means of SPSS. Age, household size, household income, IRSD and ARIA were found to be significant indicators for trust in federal, state and local government. Trust in state government is lower for older respondents and respondents living in inner and outer regional areas. Trust in local council is lower in respondents living in inner regional areas, respondents living in disadvantaged areas, and respondents in the income bracket of $60001 to $100000. Trust in federal government is lower for older respondents and respondents living in disadvantaged areas. Of note is diminished trust in government among older, regional and lower income ($30001-$60000) respondents. Trust in all levels of government was found to be the lowest in population groups that are identified by empirical research and media to have the poorest access to government services. As a consequence, improved access to services for these populations may increase trust in health policy. Increased trust in health governance may in turn, ensure effective dissemination and implementation of health policies and that existing inequities are not perpetuated through distrust of health information and policy initiatives.

Federalism as an institutional doctrine

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government & LegalFull AccessAPA, Partner Groups Call for Action on COVID-19Katie O'ConnorKatie O'ConnorSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:10 Apr 2020https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2020.4b13AbstractAPA and its coalition partners gave specific recommendations on how state and federal governments can help patients and physicians on the front lines during the COVID-19 outbreak and urged swift action to help mitigate the spread of the disease.Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, APA has worked with its coalition partners to give specific recommendations on how federal and state governments can help patients and physicians on the front lines during the outbreak, urging swift action to help mitigate the spread of the disease.Earlier in March when Congress was debating phases I, II, and III of COVID-19 legislation, APA and five other medical organizations representing more than 600,000 physicians and medical students sent a joint statement outlining numerous specific actions that state and federal governments should take to address the pandemic.“During this unprecedented national emergency, our organizations are committed to doing everything possible to prevent and slow the spread of the virus while ensuring that patients get the care they need,” the statement reads. “However, they can’t do it alone; there are specific actions that federal and state governments can take now to support access to and coverage for COVID-19 treatment and prevention.”Collectively known as the Group of Six, the organizations in addition to APA are the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, and American Osteopathic Association.“The repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic on the physical and mental health of Americans will be long lasting and far reaching,” said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A. “With strong, immediate support from federal and state governments using science and medical experts to guide the response, we can slow the spread of this highly contagious virus and ensure patients receive the care they need.”In the statement, the organizations praised some of the steps that Congress and President Donald Trump’s administration have taken so far, including the president’s declaration that COVID-19 is a national emergency under the Stafford Act and the passage of the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 (HR 6074) and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (HR 6201).Yet they urged further action, as well. The organizations outlined several key policy actions that state and federal governments should implement to help ensure widespread coverage of and access to COVID-19 testing and treatment. The recommendations also highlight ways in which governments can support health care system capacity and availability of personal protection equipment (PPE).Recommendations include the following:Congress, the administration, and state governments should continue to assess, fund, and increase the immediate and long-term availability of COVID-19 tests, as well as masks, PPE, and other pharmaceutical and medical supplies. Congress partially addressed this issue in each of the emergency supplemental funding in phases I, II, and III of the COVID-19 legislation, requiring health insurers to cover COVID-19 tests at no cost to patients and increasing funding for PPE and other medical equipment.Congress should appropriate at least $200 million to the Hospital Preparedness Program to bolster health care system emergency readiness. The CARES Act, phase III of COVID-19 legislation, included an additional $100 billion for hospitals and other health care facilities responding to COVID-19 through the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund. This funding could be used for hospital readiness, but it is unclear how these funds will be allocated given that this is new funding, not specifically designated for the Hospital Preparedness Program.Congress should additionally authorize funding for community health centers, community mental health centers, and the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education Program. The CARES Act reauthorized and funded these programs through November 30, 2020.The administration should use national disaster relief funding to reimburse physicians at 110% of the Medicare rates for COVID-19–related care for people who are uninsured.“People all over the country are struggling with the stress and anxiety this pandemic is causing,” said APA President Bruce Schwartz, M.D. “Congress, the administration, and the states must act decisively so the physicians on the front lines of the crisis can protect their patients’ and their own physical and mental health.” ■ “Frontline Physicians Recommend Further Actions to Address COVID-19” is posted here. ISSUES NewArchived

Political parties reflect a democratic state, which is believed to be a condition for modern state life. As institutions for channeling interests, political parties are used as communication with a two-way function, namely, top-down and bottom-up. If this can be carried out well, then political parties' function as political socialization, political participation, political communication, articulation of interests, aggregation of interests, and policymaking can run well to realize the expected political development. The research method used in this research is qualitative research methods. Through qualitative research, the author has created a complex picture, examined words, reviewed detailed reports from the point of view of resource persons, and conducted studies on natural situations. This study aims to determine political parties' development in the Russian Republic of Tatarstan, political parties' function, and political development amid a society in this modern era. The problem in this research is that political parties in Russia tend to have their own interests, either from the central government or the state or Federation governments. In addition, there tends to be a mismatch between the central and state governments in decision making. In fact, in the context political parties can be a tool for realizing development in a country. Even though there are problems, the results showed that political parties in the Republic of Tatarstan rated quite well in carrying out their functions by the functions of political parties according to the Law of the Russian Federation and the Law of the Republic of Tatarstan concerning Political Parties. The development of political parties in the Tatarstan Republic has played a role in controlling conflicts of interest among the Republic of Tatarstan.

Political parties reflect a democratic state, which is believed to be a condition for modern state life. As institutions for channeling interests, political parties are used as communication with a two-way function, namely, top-down and bottom-up. If this can be carried out well, then political parties' function as political socialization, political participation, political communication, articulation of interests, aggregation of interests, and policymaking can run well to realize the expected political development. The research method used in this research is qualitative research methods. Through qualitative research, the author has created a complex picture, examined words, reviewed detailed reports from the point of view of resource persons, and conducted studies on natural situations. This study aims to determine direction of political parties' development in the Russian Republic of Tatarstan, political parties' function, and political development amid a society in this modern era. The problem in this research is that political parties in Russia tend to have their own interests, either from the central government or the state or Federation governments. In addition, there tends to be a mismatch between the central and state governments in decision making. In fact, in the context political parties can be a tool for realizing development in a country. Even though there are problems, the results showed that political parties in the Republic of Tatarstan rated quite well in carrying out their functions by the functions of political parties according to the Law of the Russian Federation and the Law of the Republic of Tatarstan concerning Political Parties. The development of political parties in the Tatarstan Republic has played a role in controlling conflicts of interest among the Republic of Tatarstan.

Gary Gerstle. Liberty and Coercion: The Paradox of American Government, from the Founding to the Present. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015. Pp 492. $35.00.

Moving Australia's health-care system into the 21st century

Medicaid Politics: Federalism, Policy Durability, and Health Reform

The federal government and the states spent $328 million to support the provision of contraceptive services in fiscal 1982, 13 percent less than they had spent the previous year. Federal funds for family planning services came from Title X of the Public Health Service Act, Title XIX of the Social Security Act (Medicaid), and the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) and Social Services block grants, which are administered by the states. Title X continued to provide the largest, although a diminishing, share of public funds for contraceptive services--36 percent of all such funds in 1982. (In 1980, Title X had accounted for 44 percent of public funding.) Medicaid expenditures for family planning totaled $94 million; $17 million was spent under the MCH block grant, and $46 million under the Social Services block grant. State governments contributed an additional $53 million, about the same figure reported for the previous year, indicating that the states did not use their own funds to soften the impact of cuts in federal expenditures for contraceptive services in 1982. The federal government and the states spent an estimated $55 million, almost all of it through Medicaid, to provide sterilization services for poor women. The states spent $67 million and the federal government spent $1 million to provide abortions for 210,000 indigent women. These figures come from the 11th annual survey of state health and welfare agencies and state Medicaid programs by The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). The AGI conducted this survey in January 1983 to determine the levels and sources of public funding for contraceptive, sterilization and abortion services in each state during FY 1982.

When Cyber Threats Loom, What Can State and Local Governments Do? Josephine Wolff (bio) and William Lehr (bio) State and local governments in the United States often struggle to muster sufficient funds and technical expertise to tackle the cybersecurity threats they face. A 2016 survey of 464 state, local, tribal, and territorial government entities conducted by the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC) found that these groups "show slow growth in their cybersecurity maturity" and are hindered primarily by a lack of resources.1 Allocating more resources for cybersecurity is therefore a crucial step for governments, but given the budget constraints public sector institutions face, it is not realistic to expect them to tackle every component of a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy on their own. Ideally, state and local governments would receive support from the federal government and regularly partner with federal agencies to address these threats and augment their limited resources. However, instead of fostering productive partnerships, these different levels of governments have found themselves at odds in the aftermath of serious cybersecurity incidents, hindering the ability to work together toward defending critical cyber infrastructure against attacks and mitigating the impacts of computer security breaches. Nevertheless, local, state, and federal governments should prioritize their strategic strengths when it comes to cybersecurity and invest their resources accordingly, relying on other levels of government to reinforce their weaknesses and provide additional funding and expertise as needed. For instance, in 2012, after the South Carolina Department of Revenue's (SCDOR) [End Page 67] computer systems were breached by intruders who stole 3.5 million tax records containing personal information of more than 75 percent of the population of South Carolina, the state government of South Carolina placed blame for the incident on a federal government agency, the Internal Revenue Service. Then-governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley insisted at the time of the breach, "There wasn't anything where anyone in state government could have done anything to avoid it."2 Instead of taking responsibility on the state government, she faulted the IRS for failing to require state revenue departments to encrypt their sensitive tax records, calling the IRS rules for data protection "archaic."3 The IRS, in turn, lashed out at South Carolina for failing to follow security standards recommended by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).4 This back-and-forth captures some of the challenges of promoting strong cybersecurity partnerships between the federal government and state or local governments: despite a common goal, they are often suspicious of each other's motives and eager to cast blame for failures and breaches because of both political and liability issues. More recently, this dynamic has given rise to tensions around the protection of voting systems, with some states rejecting the help proffered by federal government agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2018 to help assess and secure their voting technology.5 Government officials in several other states expressed suspicion in 2016 when DHS considered reclassifying voting technology as "critical infrastructure" for the purposes of enhanced protection.6 While all levels of government presumably share the goal of administering secure elections, their wariness of any interference and sense of mutual distrust has hindered attempts to partner effectively and pool their resources and expertise. In this paper, we consider how state and local governments can better leverage their particular strengths and capabilities to help mitigate the economic impact of cybersecurity incidents and data breaches. The first section identifies cybersecurity strengths and weaknesses of different levels of government and recommends how they should invest their resources and when they should look to other government entities for assistance. The second section focuses on the emerging classes of threats in cyberspace that state and local governments need to be better prepared to address, especially in light of the weaknesses identified in the first section. We emphasize how criminal business models are changing with the rise of threats such as ran-somware, extortion, and insurance fraud, and the ways in which state and local governments must adapt their policing and defensive efforts to these new types of threats and the associated schemes for monetization of stolen or compromised data...

Native American Voting Rights in Utah: Federal Policy, Citizenship, and Voter Suppression

Jurisdictional mismatch plagues contemporary environmental law and policy. The division of authority and responsibility for environmental protection between the federal and state governments lacks any cohesive rationale or justification. The federal government regulates in many areas where there is no clear analytical basis for federal involvement. At the same time, the federal government is relatively absent where a stronger federal presence could be justified. Conversely, states are precluded, discouraged or otherwise inhibited from adopting environmental protections where state efforts would be worthwhile. At the same time, state intervention seeps into areas where a dominant federal role would be more defensible. This jurisdictional mismatch produces sub-optimal levels of environmental protection, wastes regulatory resources, discourages innovation, and inhibits the adoption and evolution of more effective environmental protection measures. Environmental protections would be more successful were responsibility divided between the federal and state governments in a more justifiable manner. To address the current mismatch, the federal government should reorient its efforts toward those areas in which the federal government possesses an institutional advantage, due to economies of scale, or where state and local governments are incapable of addressing environmental problems, such as where there are substantial interstate spillovers.

2An increasing amount of resources is needed for Science & Technology (S&T) to be able to actually contribute to economic and social development in Brazil. The federal government has established a clear policy in this sense. The Budget Law has reserved resources from Sectoral Funds to promote investments in priority areas through calls for projects. In the same line, resources for research are gradually increasing, in accordance with a cooperation policy between the federal and state governments. Although this perspective is stimulating, it is not enough. There is a need for greater investments in S&T budgets, involving central, state and municipal governments and partnerships with the productive sector. On a global scale, the health area is considered to be one of the sectors with the highest research spending. Estimates for Brazil indicated that, in 2001, R$ 500 million were spent on research in the public sector, with an annual per capita investment of R$ 27,907 in health researchers. On that occasion, this amount was considered insufficient to attend needs, in view of the large number of problems that result from the crisis faced by most university and teaching hospitals (1) . In 2004/2005, approximately R$ 130 million was applied to health research projects and this amount is expected to increase by 10% for 2006 (2) . In view of the fact that, nowadays, the crisis does not only affect university hospitals, but the entire health sector, the research budget seems to be insufficient and can put up barriers to the advancement of scientific knowledge in health, in the orientation of technological development and industrial innovation vectors in terms of equipment, medication, immunization agents and other basic health inputs. One strategy used by the Ministry of Health, in collaboration with the Ministry of Science & Technology, which has been offering new perspectives to the scientific community is the establishment of health research priorities, with a view to improving services and actions carried out in the Single Health System and, consequently, the population’s health levels (3)

A country consisting of 28 states and eight federal territories, India follows a federal system in which legislative, administrative and financial powers are divided between the federal / central and state governments. This research paper examines the legislative powers of the Centre and the detailed constitutional provisions for the three lists, namely the union list, the state list, and the states listed at the same time, under Article 245, Article 254 of the Constitution. In addition, this paper analyses the division of administrative power when the powers of unions and state governments extend to the subject of the list of unions and states, respectively, as defined in Article 256, Article 263 of the Constitution. The end-of-life study also educates readers about the exercise of administrative and legislative power over federal territory by the central government and the president of the country. Like other federal constitutions, the central and state governments work closely together, and in most cases one jurisdiction exclude the other.