Recent news about e-cigarette misuse has fueled both public misperception and policy responses that are likely to have unintended consequences. As the US vaping market continues to evolve, policymakers face the tricky challenge of safeguarding the potential for positive public health outcomes from e-cigarettes, which offer a lower-risk alternative to traditional cigarettes, while ensuring reasonable protections against youth use.
Is the tax code sufficiently progressive? The answer depends not only on the values of the person answering the question, but it also is a surprisingly tricky empirical exercise. What counts as income and who pays the corporate tax? How should one measure households?
There is currently a debate among policy analysts and commentators about whether the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) was “pro-family.”
There is a hot debate in many countries over youth use of e-cigarettes, electronic devices that deliver nicotine to consumers without the deadly tar found in the smoke from traditional cigarettes. Although nicotine is not a carcinogen, it is still bad for developing brains and should not be used by young adults or pregnant women. At the same time, e-cigarettes offer real advantages over traditional tobacco products for smokers who are otherwise unable to quit.
The market for biologic drugs in the United States is large and growing. Total US biologic sales in 2018 is estimated to have been $125 billion, an increase of 50 percent since 2014.
Recently, several physicians and health policy analysts took to the Health Affairs blog to propose what was, to anyone who has been following biosimilars for the last decade or more, a surprising and concerning idea: that biosimilars should be abandoned.
A Giving USA report released last week shows that US households’ charitable donations in 2018 experienced the largest decline since the Great Recession. We hate to say we told you so, but we told you so.
Over the last two years, the United States has scaled back Obama-era climate change policies, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and rolling back climate-related regulations. But it has not pursued alternative ways to address the risk climate change poses to our environment and our economy.
It is encouraging to see more and more fellow Republicans shed the reflexive skepticism about climate change that has characterized the GOP for years. Now, Republicans need to offer solutions.
With the government reopened (at least for now), Speaker Nancy Pelosi is poised to begin advancing her party’s policy agenda. High on the list will be the loosely-defined Green New Deal, a federal spending program that will cost $2 trillion, $5.7 trillion, or more, and move the electric power sector to complete reliance on renewable energy sources.