Andrew Sullivan reaffirms the value of independent blogging.

To contact us Click HERE
After years of selling his traffic-pulling work to corporate enterprises — first The Atlantic and then The Daily Beast — announcing that he's going independent again, he acknowledges what really matters about blogging:

When I first stumbled into blogging over 12 years ago, it was for two reasons: curiosity and freedom. I was curious about the potential for writing in this new medium; and for the first time, I felt total freedom as a writer. On my little blog, I was beholden to no one but my readers. I had no editor to please, no advertiser to woo, no publisher to work for, no colleagues to manage....

For the first time in human history, a writer - or group of writers and editors - can instantly reach readers - even hundreds of thousands of readers across the planet - with no intermediary at all.

And they can reach back....

Is he going independent again to reconnect with these essentials? It's really more about the endless, frustrating search for a workable business model. I guess he wasn't getting enough from big media, in relation to what he gave. And yet, what is the alternative? Making even less? The new experiment is to make his blog into a subscription site. No ads. Sullivan reminds readers of the old adage: "If you're not paying for the product, you are the product being sold." He wants us to pay $19.99 a year. I don't know what his traffic is, but if my readers did that, I'd make $700,000 a year. He has many more readers, but also 7 employees to pay. He's not going to get all his existing readers to fork over $20, and putting up a wall will affect his traffic. But what does traffic matter if you're not selling the "product" of readers' eyes to advertisers? It matters in the way stated above, reaffirming the essentials of blogging.

Hence the purest, simplest model for online journalism: you, us, and a meter. Period. No corporate ownership, no advertising demands, no pressure for pageviews ... just a concept designed to make your reading experience as good as possible, and to lead us not into temptation.

But of course, the new temptation is whatever is needed to keep that subscription money flowing in. And no one has ever figured out what that is. And there's an escape for tight-fisted readers: You don't actually have to pay $20. You can pay whatever you want. Sullivan argues that you should want the writers you read to make money. They deserve to be paid for their work, and they work hard. I agree. And I must say that I like the mechanism he's using: TinyPass.

The point of doing this as simply and as purely as possible is precisely to forge a path other smaller blogs and sites can follow. We believe in a bottom-up Internet, which allows a thousand flowers to bloom, rather than a corporate-dominated web where the promise of a free space becomes co-opted by large and powerful institutions and intrusive advertising algorithms. We want to help build a new media environment that is not solely about advertising or profit above everything, but that is dedicated first to content and quality.

Even though I think Sullivan wants to grow his project into big media, I would love to see this model work. I especially like the way it's set up:

Our particular version will be a meter that will be counted every time you hit a "Read on" button to expand or contract a lengthy post. You'll have a limited number of free read-ons a month, before we hit you up for $19.99. Everything else on the Dish will remain free. No link from another blog to us will ever be counted for the meter - so no blogger or writer need ever worry that a link to us will push their readers into a paywall. It won't. Ever. There is no paywall. Just a freemium-based meter. We've tried to maximize what's freely available, while monetizing those parts of the Dish where true Dishheads reside.

That's really well thought out. I have no idea if he'll make enough to sustain a 7-person staff, but I wish him luck.

And I wonder if Althouse should set up a TinyPass business model like that too. What if I cleared out all the advertising and switched to a system like that?

Paul Krugman is "feeling so despondent."

To contact us Click HERE
Why? "Because of the way Obama negotiated" the fiscal cliff deal.

He gave every indication of being more or less desperate to cut a deal before the year ended....

He did? Funny, Rush Limbaugh kept saying Obama wanted to go over the cliff. It was his preference. The idea was to get rid of the hated Bush tax cuts and the cliff was there as a device to make it possible to blame the GOP. Back to Krugman:

The only thing that might save this situation is the fact that Obama has to be aware just how much is now riding on his willingness to finally stand up for his side; if he doesn’t, nobody will ever trust him again, and he will go down in history as the wimp who threw it all away.

The wimp?! Hey, remember when they were calling Romney a wimp?



That was back in July. Was Romney "just too insecure to be President"? Meade and I were just talking this morning about exactly that. There were 2 crucial points when Romney failed to stand his ground. He crumpled under intimidation. One was when the 47% video leaked out. Romney went beta, instead of doubling down, getting hardcore. The other was during the second debate, when he was going big on Benghazi, and Obama and Candy Crowley performed their check-the-transcript routine, and Romney deflated into oh, am I wrong?

So, anyway... is Obama just too insecure to be President?

"40 years ago, abortion-rights activists won an epic victory with Roe v. Wade..."

To contact us Click HERE
"They've been losing ever since," says the new cover of Time Magazine:



You need a subscription to read the article, but here's a shorter post by the author, Kate Pickert:

The pro-life cause has been winning the abortion war, in part, because it has pursued an organized and well-executed strategy. But public opinion is also increasingly on their side. Thanks to prenatal ultrasound and advanced neonatology, Americans now understand what a fetus looks like and that babies born as early as 24 weeks can now survive....

The prochoice establishment has also been hampered by a generational divide within the cause. Young abortion rights activists today complain that the leaders of feminist organizations, who were in their 20s and 30s when Roe was decided, aren’t eager to pass the torch to a new generation whose activism is more nimble and Internet-based.

In what form are these metaphorical torches passed? When and where do elder leaders step down and cede power to youngsters? If their activism is so "nimble," why can't they grab the power they want? Or is this a special "feminist" theory that the older women ought to get out of the way? Back in the day, expecting older women to get out of the way was regarded as an anti-feminist notion. Well, too bad I don't have a Time subscription or I'd investigate the details of these young activists and their whiny ways.

Wisconsin state senator Glenn Grothman caught up in a flap about Kwanzaa.

To contact us Click HERE
CNN's Ashleigh Banfield and Roland Martin pile on.

Here's Grothman's press release — PDF. I had to wonder why a state senator was attacking a holiday that some people like to celebrate. What business is it of his? He talks about the origins of the holiday (which I haven't independently researched) and asserts that it's not a "real holiday." But so what? It's usually just not a very good idea to make pronouncements about the truth or falsity of other people's religions. He ends the press release with the statement: "Be on the lookout if  a K-12 or college teacher tries to tell your children or grandchildren it's a real holiday."

Okay, is something going on in public schools? Are they celebrating Kwanzaa? That would obviously be wrong — a violation of the Establishment Clause. But Grothman seems to be merely saying that teachers might be teaching about Kwanzaa in perhaps a social studies lesson about the various holidays that are celebrated. I suppose we should be alert to whether teachers are feeding schoolkids inaccurate lessons, but the characterization of Kwanzaa as a holiday isn't an egregiously incorrect fact.

We could go deeply into the subject of what makes a holiday a real holiday and debate about whether Kwanzaa is in or out. It depends on how you define holiday. Or we could debate about what constitutes a sound social studies lesson. We don't want kids to hear that white people celebrate Christmas and black people celebrate Kwanzaa or that Africans arriving in the New World brought a Kwanzaa tradition with them.

Grothman ought to give us the specifics about defective lessons in schools and aim the criticism right there. Don't just tell us to be on the lookout for teachers who might dare to refer to Kwanzaa as a holiday.

"They were both in white, and their dresses were rippling and fluttering as if they had just been blown back in after a short flight around the house."

To contact us Click HERE
I decided to pluck something from Chapter 1 for today's entry in the "Great Gatsby" project. I randomly selected the sentence that appears above. You must believe me that it is indeed random, and yet someone had just emailed me to say he liked the Gatsby project and:

When I was a Harvard Freshman in 58-59, I took the required freshman English class and the instructor was an expert on Gatsby....

At one point while we were reading Gatsby for the class, he remarked "Have you noticed that whenever you see Daisy in the novel, she is wearing white?"

Now, how can my correspondent believe that I randomly picked a sentence with 2 women in white? But, on my purest honor, I did. We're focusing on sentences, so I don't know or care whether Daisy was one of the 2 women. I won't presume, though I will presume that the 2 entities known as "They" are women, given that they are wearing dresses. We must bring our knowledge of what is possible and what is probable to the enterprise of reading, even as we bear down on an isolated sentence. One or both of "them" might be a transvestite male (or a nonhuman), but I'm going to presume 2 women (or girls).

The "they" is perplexing in another, more disturbing way, because it reappears halfway through in "as if they had just been blown back." We're given a simile that asks us to picture the women, in their white dresses, flying around the house at some earlier moment. They — the women — look like they just landed, as their dresses are "rippling and fluttering" from a recent "short flight." But to say "their dresses were rippling and fluttering as if they had just been blown back" is to create ambiguity, the possibility that the "they" was "their dresses," and we might feel called upon to picture the dresses, by themselves, flying around the house before getting blown back onto the 2 erstwhile naked women. The flying-around-the-house image is fantastical, so we can't tap our our knowledge of what is possible and what is probable, and yet, somehow we know it was the women in their dresses who seem as if they'd just flown around the house and gotten blown back in.

I think the problem of 2 possible antecedents for the second "they" is a writing error, and this Gatsby project is premised on the greatness of the sentences. I hate to be the one to have to say a good editing eye would have seen that ambiguity, but the greatness of the sentence-writing doesn't require a complete absence of error, and the logic of the sentence precludes the dresses flying around the house on their own because we can't picture the dresses getting back on the women without losing the "rippling and fluttering" action caused by the flight and landing. So enough of that. Stop picturing naked women waiting while their dresses fly around the house.

It was the women, so magical and light, like birds or butterflies, that flew around the house. They could fly, but they didn't fly far, only around the house which they got blown back into. These women don't have much ambition or power on their own. They are housebound, even though they can fly. They do an orbit of the house and then a breeze sweeps them back in. But here they are, so pretty in their fluttery white dresses. And of course, they only look as if they'd taken that charmingly domestic flight. The truth is they are sitting together in the house, and they haven't been going anywhere. But there is a breeze, a breeze that might blow a butterfly into the house, and it ripples their flimsy dresses.

Time Running Out for Federal Extension of Unemployment Benefits

To contact us Click HERE
As reported in the attached article from Huffington Post, Congress is not scheduled to meet again until this Sunday, December 30.  Unfortunately, by then federally subsidized long-term unemployment insurance will have lapsed - the extension period expires at Midnight on Saturday December 29. 

Things not looking up....

It's a darn shame that Congress has not made this a more primary issue.  To just let the extension lapse, without debate, discussion or public comment, is simply wrong. 

Not Right

Maybe a "miracle" will happen, but it is not looking good for the approximately 2 million people currently receiving these benefits.  Moreover, there are millions more nearing the end of their state benefit period of 26 weeks who were, I am sure, hoping (and planning, most likely) that extended benefits would be there for them so that they would have at least another 6 months to find a job.

UPDATE:  Extension to be approved.

Feds Set to Approve Extension of Unemployment Benefits

To contact us Click HERE

According to HuffPost, Congress has agreed to extendunemployment benefits for an additional year, retroactive to December 28, 2012.
Congress first approved theextra unemployment benefits in 2008, during the worst recession since the GreatDepression, and had prior to this recent action voted to reauthorize them 10times.

11th Time a Charm?

Better Late Than Never?

John A. Gallagher is anemployment lawyer who represents employees in Pennsylvania.

Click Hereif you have questions about any aspect of employment law, from wrongfultermination, to wage and overtime claims, to discrimination and retaliationlaws, to Family and Medical Leave…
Click Hereif you have questions about any aspect of Pennsylvania Unemployment Law, fromwillful misconduct, to voluntary quit, to Referee Hearings, to severanceissues…
Thanks for checking in with us.
 

Banker's One Percent Tip (1%) On $133.54 Check; "Get A Real Job"

To contact us Click HERE


(LAIST) In the food service industry, bad tippers sometimes live on in infamy. Entire books have been written about the plight of the waiter or waitress who gets left pennies that don't come near the standard 15-20% tip that is typical on a dining check.

One diner at a Newport Beach restaurant, however, used a recent $133.54 tab to express his disdain for his server's line of work by leaving a 1% tip and a note: "GET A REAL JOB."

According to the anonymous blogger of a just-launched site called Future Ex-Banker, his boss at a very large corporate bank hates hearing about the "99%" represented by the Occupy movement and shows his hatred by tipping a measly 1%.

To illustrate this, Future Ex-Banker posted a photo of a recent receipt from True Food Kitchen in Newport Beach showing his boss' meager tip and "advice" for a server named Breanna.

The blogger writes: "Mention the “99%” in my boss’ presence and feel his wrath. So proudly does he wear his 1% badge of honor that he tips exactly 1% every time he feels the server doesn’t sufficiently bow down to his Holiness. Oh, and he always makes sure to include a “tip” of his own."

A hostess who picked up the phone at True Food Kitchen said she had heard about the receipt, but she wouldn't say whether it was real or whether the workers remembered a customer like this.

"I am aware, but we have no statement on the issue," she said. "I'm not sure if it's a fake or not."

She did, however, confirm that the restaurant employs a waitress named Breanna, who is listed on the receipt.

Here is a pdf of the Blog from Future Ex Banker: Future Ex Banker Blog

Minnesota Waitress Sues After Police Seize $12,000 'Tip'

To contact us Click HERE

Stacy Knutson, a struggling Minnesota waitress and mother of five, says she was searching for a "miracle" to help her family with financial problems.

But that "miracle" quickly came and went after police seized a $12,000 tip that was left at her table. Knutson filed a lawsuit in Clay County District Court stating that the money is rightfully hers. Police argue it is drug money.

Knutson was working at the Fryn' Pan in Moorhead, Minn., when, according to her attorney, Craig Richie, a woman left a to-go box from another restaurant on the table. Knutson followed the woman to her car to return the box to her.

"No I am good, you keep it," the woman said, according to the lawsuit.

Knutson did not know the woman and has not seen her since, Richie said. Knutson thought it was "strange" that the woman told her to keep it but she took it inside. The box felt too heavy to be leftovers, Ritchie said, so she opened it -- only to find bundles of cash wrapped in rubber bands.

"Even though I desperately needed the money as my husband and I have five children, I feel I did the right thing by calling the Moorhead Police," Knutson said in the lawsuit.

Police seized the money and originally told Knutson that if no one claimed it after 60 days, it was hers. She was later told 90 days, Richie said. When 90 days passed, Knutson was still without the $12,000.
Police told Knutson the money was being held as "drug money" and she would receive a $1,000 reward instead, the lawsuit states. Lt. Tory Jacobson of the Moorhead police said he could not disclose much information about the case because it is an ongoing investigation.

"With turning this money over to us, we initiated an investigation to determine whose money this is," Jacobson told ABC News. "The result has been a narcotics investigation."

Police argue that the money had a strong odor of marijuana and therefore falls under a law that allows for forfeiture of the money because it was in the proximity of a controlled substance, the lawsuit states. But there were no drugs in the box and Richie said he believes this law is not being used correctly.

"Because it was in contact with drugs somewhere along the line, it's somehow drug money," Richie said. "This isn't drug money."

A police dog also performed a sniff test on the money and, according to the dog's handler, discovered an odor.

Two of Knutson's co-workers, along with her son Brandon, were at the Fryn' Pan the night she discovered the money. Her co-workers say they did not smell marijuana.

"I know the smell of marijuana," Nickolas Fronning, a line cook at the Fryn' Pan, said in an affidavit. "I can also assure you that there was no smell of marijuana on the bills or coming from the box."

There was nothing suspicious in the restaurant when the money was found, co-workers said. They don't why it was given to Knutson.

"She was just in the right place at the right time," Tracy Johnson, the assistant manager at the Fryn' Pan, told ABC News.

Knutson's family has had a long financial struggle. She has been a waitress at the Fryn' Pan for 18 years.
"We do everything we can to make ends meet, but often times everything is not covered," she said in the lawsuit.

Knutson's financial woes are well-known in her church, Richie said. She believes that perhaps someone from the church gave her the money through this woman but did not want to be identified.
"Somebody knew she really needed the money and she needed to be helped," Richie said.
Jacobson says it is up to the judge to decide who the money rightfully belongs to.

"The police department doesn't have a decision on either side," Jacobson said. "She did the right thing, we credit her with that. It's certainly not the police department against her. We're actually with her."
But Richie said he firmly believes this is not drug money and it rightfully belongs to Knutson.
"The only thing that smells bad about this is that it's unfair," Richie said. "So that's why we're doing something about it."

Florida Employment Lawyer Group Calls for Abolishing Human Rights Commission

To contact us Click HERE
A statewide association of employment attorneys in Florida released a report today accusing the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) of being dysfunctional, biased and incompetent and calling for the agency to be fixed or abolished.The press release pasted below describes the highly critical study prepared by the Florida Chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association that calls the FCHR a highly politicized “rogue agency” and a “destructive and malignant force” that has trampled on the legal rights of government and private-sector employees for years, with staff and leaders that have acted illegally or ineptly.The link to the article is here

Litigation Concerning the Constitutionality of the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act)

To contact us Click HERE


Jane M. Smith
Legislative Attorney

TheJenkins Act requires out-of-state sellers of cigarettes to register and file areport with the states in which they sell cigarettes listing the name,address, and quantity of cigarettes sold to state residents. In the past,the states would use this information to collect taxes from the buyers directly.However, with the rise of Internet sales of cigarettes, compliance with theJenkins Act was very low, and it was estimated that billions of dollars ofstate and local taxes went unpaid. In 2010, Congress passed the PreventAll Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act), which amends the Jenkins Act, toaddress this problem. The PACT Act requires remote retailers of cigarettes and smokelesstobacco—that is, retailers who sell without an in-person transaction with thebuyer—to pay the state and local taxes of the jurisdiction in which thebuyer receives the goods.

Three remote retailers have challenged the PACT Act in federal courts seekingto enjoin enforcement of the act, claiming that forcing remote sellers topay state and local taxes violates due process. The Supreme Court held in QuillCorp. v. North Dakota that the Due Process Clause of the FourteenthAmendment “requires some definite link, some minimum connection, between astate and the person, property, or transaction it seeks to tax and that theincome attributed to the State for tax purposes must be rationally relatedto values connected with the taxing State.” In Red Earth LLC v. UnitedStates and Gordon v. Holder, the federal district courts for theWestern District of New York and the District of Columbia, respectively,issued preliminary injunctions, concluding that the plaintiffs were likelyto succeed in demonstrating that the PACT Act violates due process becauseit subjects the retailers to the taxing authority of foreign states regardlessof whether they have the required minimum contacts with the taxingjurisdictions. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the RedEarth preliminary injunction, and the United States has appealed thepreliminary injunction issued in Gordon to the U.S. Court of Appeals for theD.C. Circuit. In Musser’s Inc. v. United States, the federal districtcourt for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rejected the due processargument, concluding that because the PACT Act is federal legislation, thedue process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies to states,do not apply. The PACT Act, the Musser’s court determined, is notdifferent in principle from other federal statutes that incorporate statelaws. In any event, the court determined, because the plaintiff tookorders over the Internet, it had minimum contacts in the jurisdictions intowhich it shipped tobacco products.

The Supreme Court stated in Quill: “While Congress has plenary power toregulate commerce among the states and may thus authorize state actionsthat burden interstate commerce, it does not similarly have the power toauthorize violations of the Due Process Clause.” In Gordon, the districtcourt for the District of Columbia characterized the issue as whether one saleinto a taxing jurisdiction satisfied the due process requirement forminimum contacts, and concluded it did not. The U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Second Circuit, in upholding the preliminary injunction in Red Earth,described the issue as a “close question.”


Date of Report: December 7, 2012
Number of Pages: 13
Order Number: R42851
Price: $29.95

To Order:


R42851.pdf to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover cardnumber, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mailor postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Abortion Services and Military Medical Facilities

To contact us Click HERE


DavidF. Burrelli
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy

In1993, President Clinton modified the military policy on providing abortions atmilitary medical facilities. Under the change directed by the President,military medical facilities were allowed to perform abortions if paid forentirely with non-Department of Defense (DOD) funds (i.e., privatelyfunded). Although arguably consistent with statutory language barring the useof Defense Department funds, the President’s policy overturned a formerinterpretation of existing law barring the availability of these services.On December 1, 1995, H.R. 2126, the FY1996 DOD appropriations act, becamelaw (P.L. 104-61). Included in this law was language barring the use offunds to administer any policy that permits the performance of abortions at anyDOD facility except where the life of the mother would be endangered ifthe fetus were carried to term or where the pregnancy resulted from an actof rape or incest. Language was also included in the FY1996 DODAuthorization Act (P.L. 104-106, February 10, 1996) prohibiting the use of DOD facilitiesin the performance of abortions. These served to reverse the President’s 1993policy change. Recent attempts to change or modify these laws have failed.

Over the last three decades, the availability of abortion services at militarymedical facilities has been subjected to numerous changes andinterpretations. Within the last 15 years, Congress has considerednumerous amendments to effectuate such changes. Although Congress, in 1992, passedone such amendment to make abortions available at overseas installations, itwas vetoed. Abortions are generally not performed at military medicalfacilities in the continental United States. In addition, few have beenperformed at these facilities abroad for a number of reasons. First, theU.S. military follows the prevailing laws and rules of foreign countriesregarding abortion. Second, the military has had a difficult time findinghealth care professionals in uniform willing to perform the procedure.

With the enactment of P.L. 104-61 and P.L. 104-106, these questions becamemoot, because now, neither DOD funds nor facilities may be used toadminister any policy that provides for abortions at any DOD facility,except where the life of the mother may be endangered if the fetus were carriedto term. Privately funded abortions at military facilities are permitted whenthe pregnancy was the result of an act of rape or incest.

In 2010, language was added to the Senate version of the FY2011 NationalDefense Authorization Act that would allow any DOD facilities to performprivately funded abortions. As noted, the military follows local laws andpractices to the greatest extent possible. This potential change would notlikely have much of an effect outside of the United States since nations thathost large numbers of U.S. military personnel maintain legal restrictionson abortions. On September 21, 2010, and December 15, 2010, attempts weremade to move this legislation to the Senate floor for a vote. However, dueto disagreements over procedures, cloture votes were taken and failed. The House-passedversion of this legislation does not contain language pertaining to abortion.The FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act became P.L. 111-383 withoutthe Senate provision allowing military facilities to be used to performabortions.

In 2011, attempts to expand coverage for cases of rape and incest and allow forprivately funded abortion were blocked in the Senate.

Language in the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act forFY2013 would expand coverage of government-funded abortions for cases ofrape and incest.


Date of Report: December 13, 2012
Number of Pages: 24
Order Number: 95-387
Price: $29.95

To Order:


95-387.pdf to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover cardnumber, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mailor postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Indian Health Care: Impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)

To contact us Click HERE


Elayne J. Heisler
Analyst in Health Services

OnMarch 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law a comprehensive health carereform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA; P.L.111-148). The law, among other things, reauthorizes the Indian Health CareImprovement Act (P.L. 94-437, IHCIA), which authorizes many programs andservices provided by the Indian Health Service (IHS). In addition, itmakes several changes that may affect American Indians and Alaska Nativesenrolled in and receiving services from the Medicare, Medicaid, and StateChildren’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)—also called Social Security Act(SSA) health benefit programs, and it includes changes to private healthinsurance that may affect American Indians and Alaska Natives and may affect tribesthat offer private health insurance.

IHCIA authorizes many IHS programs and services, sets out the national policyfor health services administered to Indians, and articulates the federalgoal of ensuring the highest possible health status for Indians, includingurban Indians. In addition, it authorizes direct collections from Medicare,Medicaid, and other third-party insurers. Prior to the ACA, IHCIA was last reauthorizedin FY2000, although programs have received appropriations since that time. The ACAreauthorizes IHCIA and extends authorizations of appropriations for IHCIAprograms indefinitely. It amends a number of sections of IHCIA in general,to permit tribal organizations (TOs) and urban Indian organizations (UIOs)to apply for contract and grant programs for which they were notpreviously eligible; to create new mental health prevention and treatmentprograms; and to require demonstration projects to construct modular andmobile health facilities in order to expand health services availablethrough IHS, Indian Tribes (ITs), and TOs. It also made several organizationalchanges to IHS. It requires IHS to establish an Office of Direct Service Tribesto serve tribes that receive their health care and other services directlyfrom IHS as opposed to receiving services through IHS-funded facilities orprograms operated by ITs or TOs. In addition, the law requires IHS todevelop a plan to establish a new area office to serve tribes in Nevada and requiresthe Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to appoint anew IHS Director of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment.

In addition to reauthorizing IHCIA, the ACA includes a number of provisionsthat may affect American Indians and Alaska Natives who have privateinsurance coverage or who receive services through SSA health benefitprograms. With regard to private insurance coverage, the ACA provides aspecial enrollment period for American Indians and Alaska Natives who may enrollin private insurance offered through an exchange and exempts certain AmericanIndians and Alaska Natives from the requirement to obtain privateinsurance coverage. Finally, it excludes tribal health benefits from beingcounted as gross income for tax purposes. With regard to SSA healthbenefit programs, the new law permits specified Indian entities to determine Medicaidand CHIP eligibility and extends the period during which IHS, IT, and TOservices are reimbursed for all Medicare Part B services, indefinitely,beginning January 1, 2010. Prior to the ACA, authority for thesefacilities to receive Medicare Part B reimbursements for certain specifiedservices had expired on January 1, 2010.

This report, one of a series of CRS products on the ACA, summarizes some of thekey changes made in the reauthorization of IHCIA and summarizes otherchanges included in the ACA that may affect American Indian and AlaskaNative health and health care. Another report, CRS Report R41630, TheIndian Health Care Improvement Act Reauthorization and Extension as Enactedby the ACA: Detailed Summary and Timeline, by Elayne J. Heisler, provides adetailed section-by-section summary of the IHCIA Reauthorization andExtension Act of 2009.


Date of Report: December 14, 2012
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R41152
Price: $29.95

To Order:


R41152.pdf to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover cardnumber, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mailor postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.