July 2010

Chandler, Grayson oppose FCC's reclassification plan

Reps Ben Chandler (D-KY) and Alan Grayson (D-FL), who each support network neutrality rules, each sent letters to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski to say he should not bring broadband under the more stringent "Title II" legal framework that currently regulates telephone service. Both say Congress, rather than the FCC, should clarify the legal framework around broadband services. The existing framework was cast into confusion in April after a federal appeals court decision struck down an FCC attempt to enforce net neutrality policies.

Publisher argues free access to research violates administration's transparency initiative

Free online access to federally funded research articles defies the White House's open government directive, a journal publisher told House members at a hearing on July 29.

A December 2009 presidential memo on transparency in government instructed federal agencies to abide by the precepts of public disclosure, civic engagement in policymaking and collaboration with the private sector, but not at the expense of national security, privacy or "other genuinely compelling interests." The American Psychological Association, which publishes scientific articles, believes the future of scientific publishing is among the "genuinely compelling interests," Steven Breckler, executive director for science at the association, testified before the House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census and National Archives. The panel invited publishers, scientists, Internet users who have benefited from online research and a federal official to examine the possibility of increasing free online access to scholarly journal articles derived from federally funded research. Breckler said the potential ramifications of open access policies, including one recently established at the National Institutes of Health, include reducing the number of peer reviewed journals, a publishing model where the author must pay to be published, and commercial repackaging of content that otherwise would be protected by copyright.

Evaluating Programs for Efficacy and Cost-Efficiency

Rigorous, independent program evaluations can be key resources in determining whether government programs are achieving their intended outcomes as effectively as possible and at the lowest possible cost. To strengthen program evaluation, the Office of Management and Budget is continuing for FY 2012 the government-wide efforts started in the FY 2011 Budget process including on-line information about existing evaluations. OMB is working with agencies to make information readily available online about all Federal evaluations focused on program impacts that are planned, already underway, or recently completed. A Budget Data Request (BDR) is being issued concurrently to this memo to assist in the completion of this request.

Immediate Review of Information Technology Projects

Federal information technology (IT) projects too often cost more than they should, take longer than necessary to deploy, and deliver solutions that do not meet our business needs. Pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Memorandum 10-25, "Reforming the Federal Government's Efforts to Manage Information Technology Projects," we are undertaking detailed reviews of the highest risk IT projects across the Federal Government to address these systemic problems.

In order to justify future funding for these projects, agencies will need to demonstrate that project risks can be reduced to acceptable levels through actions such as setting proper project scope, defining clear deliverables and mission-oriented outcomes, and putting in place a strong governance structure with explicit executive sponsorship. Projects which do not meet these criteria will not be continued. As part of the FY 2012 Budget formulation process, CIO Council agencies will be required to develop and put in place improvement plans for their highest-risk IT projects. Pursuant to that objective, agencies shall take the following steps:
1. Identify agency high-risk IT projects,
2. Develop improvement plans for these projects, and
3. Present improvement plans in TechStat sessions.

What if we had a news outlet exclusively focused on follow-up journalism?

As a group, reporters are necessarily obsessed with newness, and have always been stalked by The Next Story. There's a fine line, the thinking went, between amplification of a story and advocacy of it; the don't-shoot-the-messenger rhetoric of institutional newsgathering holds up only so long as the messengers in question maintain the appropriate distance from the news they're delivering. And one way to maintain that distance was a structured separation from stories via a framework of narrative containment. Produce, publish, move on. The web, though is changing all that. Digital platforms -- blogs, most explicitly, but also digital journalism vehicles as a collective -- have introduced a more iterative form of storytelling that subtly challenges print and broadcast assumptions of conceptual confinement. For journalists like Josh Marshall and Glenn Greenwald and other modern-day muckrakers, to be a journalist is also, implicitly, to be an advocate. And, so, focusing on the follow-up aspect of journalism -- not just starting fires, but keeping them alive -- has been foundational to their work. Increasingly, in the digital media economy, good journalists find stories. The better ones keep them going. The best keep them burning.

What if we had an outlet dedicated to continuity journalism -- a news organization whose sole purpose was to follow up on stories whose sheer magnitude precludes them from ongoing treatment by our existing media outlets? What if we took the PolitiFact model -- a niche outfit dedicated not to a particular topic or region, but to a particular practice -- and applied it to following up on facts, rather than checking them? What if we had an outlet dedicated to reporting, aggregating, and analyzing stories that deserve our sustained attention -- a team of reporters and researchers and analysts and engagement experts whose entire professional existence is focused on keeping those deserving stories alive in the world?

Guiding Principles for Stage 1 Meaningful Use Adjustments

The changes to meaningful use boiled down to four themes:

  1. Flexibility: We were convinced by commenters that the all-or-nothing approach was not a practical solution for getting the majority of providers on the escalator to meaningful use of EHRs. Building flexibility into the program makes allowances for providers facing a wide variety of external challenges to achieve Stage 1 meaningful use. As a former Surgeon General said about medication adherence, "Medications don't work in patients who don't take them." Likewise, EHRs have no benefits if providers don't implement them.
  2. Simplicity: We increased feasibility of calculating HIT functionality measures by substantially reducing the reporting burden for providers. This was primarily achieved by eliminating manual chart review requirements and using electronic calculation of denominators for the HIT functionality measure denominators.
  3. Consistency: Wherever we could, we tried to align the program requirements—hospitals and professionals, Medicare and Medicaid. Registration for the Medicare incentive programs will begin in January 2011, and State Medicaid agencies will launch any time, beginning in January 2011. With the possible exception of a very limited set of public health functionalities, the Medicare and Medicaid will have the same meaningful use objectives and measures.
  4. Quality & Patient-Centeredness: We always evaluated the three principles above with an eye toward the fundamentals of meaningful use: making care delivery more patient-centered and improving the quality, safety and efficiency of health care. We never lost sight of the laser focus that the meaningful use principle provided: It's not about the technology; it's about transforming health care delivery for the benefit of patients and everybody else involved in their care.

Beyond Cuts: High-Tech 'Band-Aids' Call Doctors

Band-Aids aren't just for cuts anymore. There's a new generation of wireless medical sensors mounted on an adhesive strip. The so-called "smart Band-Aid" can call a doctor and transmit all kinds of physiological information when it detects a problem. All this may eventually save lots of money, and lives. But the technology is so new that federal regulators are still figuring out exactly what kind of rules are necessary to keep the public safe. Even though the technology is cutting edge, it builds on more than a decade of refining the practice of "remote monitoring." That's when health care providers give patients simple-to-use home diagnostic equipment that connects to a network.

Is an Internet sales tax coming?

A movement is slowly building in Washington to banish one of the biggest perks of shopping online: not paying sales tax.

That's because the perk has also cost states as much as $23 billion in lost revenue by some estimates, and they want it back.

Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) enlisted South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds (R) and other state lawmakers to rally support for his proposed Main Street Fairness Act, which would make it easier for states to go after the money. Gov Rounds said that Internet retailers "have a competitive advantage" over in-state businesses, which are required to collect the tax. About 13 states, including Maryland and Virginia, considered bills this year aimed at collecting the tax and employing a variety of strategies, though they met with limited success. Some tried to broaden the definition of the "physical presence" requirement under the Supreme Court ruling to include certain types of advertisers, while others hoped to bill consumers directly for the lost tax. Online retailers that also have brick-and-mortar stores, such as Wal-Mart and Best Buy, already are required to collect sales tax online. But states say a significant number of purchases come from online-only retailers such as Amazon or eBay, which are not required to collect. Delahunt's proposal would essentially give states the blessing to simplify and streamline their tax codes to make it easier for out-of-state retailers (i.e. those on the Internet) to collect the sales tax.

So far, 24 states have already gone through the process, but others have hesitated to undertake the project without congressional authority. The proposal still has a long way to go. Rep Delahunt introduced it on July 1 and it was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. But even if it were to become law tomorrow, states would then have to pass their own legislation simplifying the code. That means any change for you the consumer is still at least a few years out. But no proposal is without opposition.

National Broadband Network is a Defining Issue in Australian Election

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard unveiled an expanded footprint for a planned national high-speed fiber Internet network that will now reach 93% of homes and businesses, up from 90% previously. The network is a defining policy for Gillard's ruling center-left Labor government ahead of an Aug. 21 general election. But the program isn't universally loved, even though it is popular with many voters. Australia's main conservative Liberal-National opposition coalition has questioned the need for such an expensive service and has threatened to scrap the plan if it returns to power. The government says its new network will provide much more than telecom services and aid in the delivery of health and education services to remote communities, among other benefits. The network will offer speeds of 100 megabits per second -- 100 times faster than many Australians experience currently. But opposition leader Tony Abbott argues the network, which the government estimates could cost up to 43 billion Australian dollars ($38.8 billion) to build, is a costly "white elephant" that would create a new nationalized communications monopoly. Tony Smith, the opposition's shadow telecommunications minister, promised to unveil an alternative plan during the election campaign that will deliver "better, reliable and affordable broadband."

Australia begs residents to accept free fiber connection

If your government had decided to install a national, open-access fiber-to-the-home network to 93 percent of all residents, if the installation was free, and if the fiber hookup had no effect on your existing phone or cable service and committed you to nothing... wouldn't you take it?

Not if you live in Tasmania, where the Australian government's ambitious new National Broadband Network is getting underway with its first fiber deployments. The government-created NBN Co. has the right to dig up streets and trench along rights-of-way, but to install that "last-mile" connection to a home or apartment it needs permission -- and Tasmanians have been slow to offer it. According to local news accounts, only half of the homes and business in the first dig zone have given permission to access their property. That led to this week's rather pathetic press release from NBN Co. in which the CEO basically begged "residents and businesses within the Willunga and Kiama First Release Sites to sign up." Those who don't accept the free install when crews pass through their area will need to pay for an install at some later date if they need service from the network. And they will need service, eventually. Under the government's plan, the incumbent telco Telstra will turn over its old copper phone lines to the government, and all of these will be disconnected within eight years. Telstra, along with other telecommunications and Internet companies, will then compete by offering IP phone service and 'Net access through the new fiber network. Consumers can pick their choice of provider.