House Bill Research Articles

FEDERAL TAX POLICY, IDBs AND THE MARKET FOR STATE AND LOCAL BONDS

Previous articleNext article No AccessFEDERAL TAX POLICY, IDBs AND THE MARKET FOR STATE AND LOCAL BONDSDENNIS ZIMMERMANDENNIS ZIMMERMAN Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by National Tax Journal Volume 37, Number 3September 1984Agendas for Dealing with Deficits Published for: The National Tax Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/NTJ41791970 Views: 2Total views on this site This article is in the public domain.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

House Bill Would Extend Patent Terms

House Bill Would Extend Patent Terms

SUPERFUND REWRITE: Firms say House bill tax outrageous

SUPERFUND REWRITE: Firms say House bill tax outrageous

Attitudes of Oklahoma Teachers Toward House Bill 1706

Attitudes of Oklahoma Teachers Toward House Bill 1706

Strategies for Direct Third-Party Reimbursement For Nurses

has awakened the giant! A Blue Cross lobbyist made this comment to a physician lobbyist following the session of the Maryland State legislature during which Delegate Marilyn Goldwater introduced a bill to legislate direct third-party reimbursement for nurse midwives and nurse practitioners. In the months that followed, nursing in Maryland, the sleeping giant, was indeed roused and mobilized into an effective political force under the leadership of Delegate Goldwater, who is a nurse, and the Maryland Nurses' Association. As a result, Maryland was the first state to mandate third-party reimbursement for nurse midwives and nurse practitioners without direct physician supervision. The three-year odyssey of passage of these nurse reimbursement laws in Maryland is a classic tale about the often frustrating and laborious legislative process. It started in 1977 when House Bill 1185, Health Insurance-Benefits for Services of Nurse Practitioners and Nurse Midwives, was introduced and then defeated in the Economic Matters Committee. The defeat, however, was not a total loss. Nurses gained valuable lobbying and legislative experience, and had the opportunity to teach many legislators what nurse midwives and practitioners are able to do. During the 1978 legislative session it appeared that the bill that had been reintroduced might be defeated again because proposed Nurse Practitioner Regulations to the Nurse Practice Act had not been

House Bill Would Classify Much Computer Research

House Bill Would Classify Much Computer Research

House Bill Would Classify Much Computer Research

House Bill Would Classify Much Computer Research

House Bill Would Classify Much Computer Research

House Bill Would Classify Much Computer Research

House Bill Boosts Budget for Nursing By $41 Million Over Senateʼs Version

House Bill Boosts Budget for Nursing By $41 Million Over Senateʼs Version

Government Regulation of the Hospital Industry in Colorado

a ripple effect on state programs. In Colorado, the prie c) mary effect was a unanimous effort to "keep out the Feds." It was in this spirit, during the 1977 legislative session, that House Bill 1582 passed with bipartisan and hospital support. House Bill 1582 created the Colorado Hospital Commission, with broad powers to control both revenues and rates of increase in hospital costs. It also mandated a system of prospective budgeting, which represented a radical departure from the norm established by the Medicare program in 1966 of retrospective, cost-based reimbursement. In essence, the new system required that budget and revenue levels be set prior to the start of any hospital fiscal year, rather than simply reimbursing the hospitals for whatever they happened to spend. The new law met the demands and expectations of almost all segments of society. It dealt with the political concerns of the legislature that something be done to appease their constituents about skyrocketing hospital costs. It met the sociocultural concerns of the public-at-large in that an industry that had gone unchecked might finally be brought "into line." The bill also treated the ethical concerns of all involved in that they had reached an equitable compromise solution for dealing with a problem, albeit for widely differing reasons. It was in this spirit that regulation of hospital costs began in Colorado. The Commission commenced in October 1977. Within a year, the spirit of cooperation experienced during the passage of H.B. 1582 had disintegrated. By the end of the 1979 legislative session, Senate Bill 38 passed, dissolving the Commission as of March 1, 1980. Realizing that the Com-

Employment Status of House Staff

To the Editor.— I agree with Ralph M. Stanifer, MD (242:745, 1979), that interns and residents are at the same time both students and employees. However, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that declaration of resident costs as service, as opposed to education, is likely to dissuade the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from using this reimbursement lever for policy purposes, should the agency decide to do so to effect specialty or geographic distribution. House Bill 2222 cannot be supported with such an argument. Dr Stanifer's conclusion, that classification of house staff as primarily students would be detrimental, emanates from his recitation of several potentially adverse actions by state licensing boards, third-party payers, and others in response to such classification. The fact of the matter is that house staff members have been so classified all along, as borne out by the National Labor Relations Board's Cedar-Sinai ruling,

Avalanche-Hazard Mapping and Zoning Problems in the Rocky Mountains, with Examples from Colorado, U.S.A.

AbstractAvalanche-hazard mapping as a basis for land-use decision-making was not undertaken systematically in Colorado until 1974. Passage of Colorado House Bill 1041 required counties to map areas subject to snow avalanche, landslide, debris flow, and mountain flood at 1 : 24 000, and funds were provided. This legislation induced several approaches: work undertaken directly by the Colorado Geological Survey; private contract work; mapping by the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) funded by a NASA research grant. This latter effort produced 37 individual 1 : 24 000 map sheets of Hinsdale, Ouray, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, San Juan Mountains. This emphasized problems of scale and degree of cartographic accuracy. Swiss, Austrian, and French experience, together with the actual Colorado mapping experience, facilitated further definition of problems facing the Rocky Mountains slates, both in terms of resolution of actual mapping problems, and of using such developing experience to influence the decision-making process.Two mapping attempts are described: (i) development of a combined hazard map for a mountain type area, indicating the difficulties of, and need for, combining hazard assessment of avalanche and other physical processes that frequently overlap; (ii) consideration of avalanche-zoning problems in a wilderness area.Finally, scale limitations and the need to define rigorously “hazard” are discussed. Definition of hazard must include consideration of recurrence interval, impact pressures in the run-out zone, and limitations of displaying this type of data on available topographic maps, all in relation to types of impact, i.e. to moving or stationary objects in relatively sparsely populated terrane. Additional critical needs facing Rocky Mountains states are itemized: (i) standardized mapping legends for different scales; (ii) establishment of an avalanche cadastre; (iii) systematic reporting of climax events; (iv) development of an historical archive; (v) public awareness; (vi) attention to legal aspects of the avalanche equivalent of the hundred-year flood, and its legal testing.

Avalanche-Hazard Mapping and Zoning Problems in the Rocky Mountains, with Examples from Colorado, U.S.A.

AbstractAvalanche-hazard mapping as a basis for land-use decision-making was not undertaken systematically in Colorado until 1974. Passage of Colorado House Bill 1041 required counties to map areas subject to snow avalanche, landslide, debris flow, and mountain flood at 1 : 24 000, and funds were provided. This legislation induced several approaches: work undertaken directly by the Colorado Geological Survey; private contract work; mapping by the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) funded by a NASA research grant. This latter effort produced 37 individual 1 : 24 000 map sheets of Hinsdale, Ouray, San Juan, and San Miguel counties, San Juan Mountains. This emphasized problems of scale and degree of cartographic accuracy. Swiss, Austrian, and French experience, together with the actual Colorado mapping experience, facilitated further definition of problems facing the Rocky Mountains slates, both in terms of resolution of actual mapping problems, and of using such developing experience to influence the decision-making process. Two mapping attempts are described: (i) development of a combined hazard map for a mountain type area, indicating the difficulties of, and need for, combining hazard assessment of avalanche and other physical processes that frequently overlap; (ii) consideration of avalanche-zoning problems in a wilderness area. Finally, scale limitations and the need to define rigorously “hazard” are discussed. Definition of hazard must include consideration of recurrence interval, impact pressures in the run-out zone, and limitations of displaying this type of data on available topographic maps, all in relation to types of impact, i.e. to moving or stationary objects in relatively sparsely populated terrane. Additional critical needs facing Rocky Mountains states are itemized: (i) standardized mapping legends for different scales; (ii) establishment of an avalanche cadastre; (iii) systematic reporting of climax events; (iv) development of an historical archive; (v) public awareness; (vi) attention to legal aspects of the avalanche equivalent of the hundred-year flood, and its legal testing.

House Staff and the National Labor Relations Act

THE CONGRESS of the United States has failed to pass legislation that would accord physicians-intraining (by convention called residents, house officers, or house staff) a status comparable to that of other hospital personnel. Such a designation of residents as employees is controversial since it is contrary to a 1976 ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which stated that residents are to be considered students for the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act. During the proceedings of the 95th Congress, Representative Frank Thompson (Democrat, NJ) introduced and sponsored House Bill 2222, which would have amended the National Labor Relations Act to include residents. Because of a busy congressional schedule, House Bill 2222 did not receive final action. I believe it is extremely important to inform physicians about the importance of this legislative issue. Today, more than 80% of the financial support for graduate medical education is derived from

The Effect of Test Selection on Title I Project Impact

(USOE) employees to respond to their perceptions of congressional intent, and (4) the willingness of personnel in state departments of education and local educational agencies to furnish evaluative data. Thus, I preface my discussion of technical analyses with some observations on related policy issues and, as most policy analysts would demand, provide an alternative to that portion of the RMC evaluation system I call into question. The genesis of this analysis is a small portion of the Education Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-380. Section 151 was introduced by Rep. Victor Vesey as a floor amendment to House Bill 69 and was passed by the House without benefit of hearings or comment from the Administration or the public. In my judgment it contains a mixture of good and bad law that is reflected in the best and worst features of USOE's response to its provisions. Section (e) requires the Commissioner of Education to provide such technical and other assistance as may be necessary to State educational agencies to enable them to assist local educational agencies in the

Multiphasic Health Testing-Reply

In Reply.— On May 19, 1977, the governor of Florida signed into law Committee Substitute for House Bill 371, which places into the statute books the necessary regulations and licensing procedures for multiphasic health testing centers. My constituents wanted these centers kept open; therefore, it became necessary to enact legislation to insure the safe and effective operation of these centers. This new law provides for a medical director, who is a licensed Florida physician qualified to interpret ECGs, to interpret the results of the tests. All advertisements, reports, and pamphlets must contain the following disclaimer: Health screening tests may or may not alert you and your doctor to serious medical problems and are not intended as a substitute for a physician's examination. Blood samples are forwarded from the center to a licensed clinical laboratory under the name of the medical director, and reports are returned to him for interpretation. Many

A Revised Theory of Winning in House-Senate Conferences

The question, “Who wins in House-Senate conferences?” has largely been answered for recent Congresses. But the question, “Why does the Senate win?” has not been adequately answered. The research reported here presents and tests some necessary conditions of a theory that provides an answer to this question. The Senate wins because it is most frequently the second acting chamber and, because it has constitutionally derived power over House decisions, giving it the capacity to get the adjustments it makes in House bills accepted in conference. In the minority of cases in which the Senate acts first, the House “wins” in conference. Unlike earlier attempts to explain conference outcomes, the theory proposed here is consistent with the overall pattern of House dominance in the legislative process.

A Revised Theory of Winning in House-Senate Conferences

The question, “Who wins in House-Senate conferences?” has largely been answered for recent Congresses. But the question, “Why does the Senate win?” has not been adequately answered. The research reported here presents and tests some necessary conditions of a theory that provides an answer to this question. The Senate wins because it is most frequently the second acting chamber and, because it has constitutionally derived power over House decisions, giving it the capacity to get the adjustments it makes in House bills accepted in conference. In the minority of cases in which the Senate acts first, the House “wins” in conference. Unlike earlier attempts to explain conference outcomes, the theory proposed here is consistent with the overall pattern of House dominance in the legislative process.

Federal Alert—new legislation

RETURN TO ISSUEPREVNewsNEXTFederal Alert—new legislationThis C&EN report lists new legislation introduced between Jan. 5 and Feb. 4. Senate and House bills are listed under areas of interest by bill number, primary sponsor, and the committee to which the bill has been referred. (Since the bills were introduced, the Senate has reorganized and a number of committees have disappeared. Thus committees listed are a "best guess" as to where the bills will end up.)Cite this: Chem. Eng. News 1977, 55, 8, 24Publication Date (Print):February 21, 1977Publication History Published online7 November 2010Published inissue 21 February 1977https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-v055n008.p024Copyright © 1977 AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETYArticle Views3Altmetric-Citations-LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InReddit PDF (450 KB) SUBJECTS:Energy,Natural resources Get e-Alerts

1977 Act Changes Community Development Block Grant Program

Abstract Note: At the time of the August congressional recess the conference committee for the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977 had reached con-census on major features of the legislation, but re-mained deadlocked over a Senate proposed “impaction adjustment” to the CDBG funding distribution for-mula to provide additional funds for communities with high concentrations of older housing units. Funds for the impaction adjustment would come from the authorizations provided for a supplemental urban development action grant (UDAG) program. It is virtually certain that the issue will be resolved and that Community Development legislation will be signed into law in the early fall. Based upon the House and Senate bills, the major features of the A c t are apparent at this time. Readers should check the accuracy of this report for possible changes in conference and/or floor amendment prior to final passage.