In the News

The cost of federal flood insurance, including the program’s $20 billion deficit, is “likely dwarfed” by its harmful impacts on natural areas vulnerable to construction, according to a new report. The program, launched 42 years ago as a financial safeguard for threatened homes, is clashing with adaptation policies being prepared for the impacts of climate change, cautions the paper by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University’s School of Law.

A policy research group study has found that the National Flood Insurance Program, a division of FEMA, primarily benefits wealthy homeowners who build in high-risk coastal areas at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. According to the Institute for Policy Integrity’s analysis, “Flooding the Market”, the flood insurance program’s subsidies help wealthy Americans with large beachfront properties or vacation homes in a typical year, and low-income individuals only during severe catastrophes.

“Without net neutrality rules, new technologies could lead to pricing practices that transfer wealth from content providers to ISPs,” warns the Institute for Policy Integrity, “a form of price discrimination that would reduce the return on investment for Internet content—meaning website owners, bloggers, newspapers, and businesses would have less incentive to expand their sites and applications.”

Were you holding your breath until November 20, too? Well, the big day came and went – and no word from the Department of Health and Human Service on their new, expanded ‘provider conscience’ regulations. Advocates widely speculated that the new rule – which has been denounced by women’s health groups.

Richard Revesz, Dean of NYU’s School of Law, and Michael Livermore, Director of the Institute for Policy Integrity sent a letter to OMB Director Jim Nussle in early September, expressing concern that OMB was not asserting “appropriate controls over the regulatory process,” and giving three examples of proposed rules that appeared to violate the Bolten memo. One of the three mentioned is the infamous rule proposed by the Department of Labor on occupational health risk assessment.

10.23.08 : Coverage of IPIs response from OIRA on Bush Administration’s midnight regulations.

“There are many reasons to oppose the new Health and Human Services regulations that would expand provider conscience protections. The new regulations would enable providers not only to refuse to supply but refuse to refer patients for procedures or services the providers opposed, including contraception, abortion, and sexual health care services.”

Pro-choice organizations and women’s groups have rightly been vocal about a recent proposal by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to expand protections for medical professionals who refuse to provide health care services that they object to on moral grounds.

Despite a short 30-day comment period, dozens of interested individuals and organizations provided comments to Asst. Secretary Leon Sequeira about his proposed so-called risk assessment policy. I’ve pulled some of my favorite excerpts for your consideration: