ACE

Tag: technology

  • Understanding the Connected MOM Act: Federal Intervention in State Maternal Health Medicaid Coverage

    Understanding the Connected MOM Act: Federal Intervention in State Maternal Health Medicaid Coverage

    Introduction to Medicaid and Maternal Health Coverage

    Medicaid is a healthcare program designed to cover specific medical costs for individuals with lower incomes and limited resources. While the federal government sets baseline regulations and retains oversight authority over Medicaid programs, states maintain primary responsibility for program administration, which leads to variation in Medicaid coverage across the nation. Many state Medicaid programs offer insurance coverage for pregnant individuals through mechanisms such as presumptive eligibility. Presumptive eligibility allows certain vulnerable populations to receive coverage before their application for Medicaid is fully processed. For example, Iowa’s presumptive Medicaid coverage extends Medicaid benefits to all pregnant applicants while their eligibility is being determined, regardless of the final outcome.

    Maternal health remains a critical concern in the United States, where indicators such as preterm births and maternal mortality have continued to rise despite targeted policy interventions. A key factor in improving maternal health outcomes is access to high-quality prenatal care, yet adequate access to prenatal care is declining. A significant reason that many people cannot access adequate prenatal care is a lack of insurance coverage or sporadic insurance coverage during their pregnancy. Research emphasizes that increasing insurance coverage for pregnant people can improve access to prenatal care, which can improve maternal health outcomes.


    While federal regulations mandate certain Medicaid services, including maternal healthcare, the specifics of maternal health coverage are left largely to the discretion of individual states. For instance, Iowa’s presumptive eligibility for pregnant people continues until the applicant receives a determination of full Medicaid eligibility. In contrast, Minnesota’s hospital-based presumptive coverage for pregnant people only lasts for a month. 

    S.141 and the Scope of Federal Intervention

    Introduced on January 16, 2025, S.141—or the Connected MOM Act—aims to identify and address barriers to Medicaid coverage of health monitoring devices in an effort to improve maternal health outcomes. Given that health monitoring devices can expand access to prenatal care by allowing physicians to remotely monitor health metrics, the bill aims to explore how pregnant people might face challenges in obtaining these devices. The bill proposes investigating state-level obstacles to coverage of remote physiologic devices, which include: 

    • Blood pressure cuffs (used to monitor blood pressure)
    • Glucometers (used to assess blood glucose levels)
    • Pulse oximeters (used to measure blood oxygen saturation)
    • Thermometers (used to track body temperature)

    These devices enable at-home monitoring of key health metrics, facilitating earlier intervention for dangerous pregnancy-related conditions. According to legal experts, such investigative efforts generate data that can inform and support future policy development. S.B. 141, which has received bipartisan support, is currently under review by the Senate Finance Committee.

    Perspectives on S.B. 141 and Federal Medicaid Interventions

    Investigative legislation like the Connected MOM Act allocates funding for evidence-gathering to guide future policy decisions. In this case, the bill aims to collect information on how states manage Medicaid coverage for remote physiologic devices that are critical during pregnancy, with the long-term goal of shaping federal Medicaid policies. While supporters of the Connected MOM Act argue that it will provide necessary insights to catalyze Medicaid expansion for pregnant people, others point to the rules and regulations of Medicaid which make it difficult for the federal government to intervene broadly in state Medicaid programs. Given the structural limits on federal influence over state-run Medicaid programs, broad national reforms are often considered too costly or unlikely to yield systemic change. This dynamic was evident in the fate of H.R. 3055—the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act—which failed to advance beyond the committee stage. Supporters of the Connected MOM Act argue that its incremental, investigative approach will help justify future reforms without being perceived as broad federal overreach. 

    Conclusion

    Each state administers its own Medicaid program, resulting in variations in coverage for certain medical devices, including remote health monitoring devices. Given the importance of these devices in expanding access to prenatal care, S.B. 141 seeks to investigate the best course of action for improving coverage of them across the nation. As it moves through committee, S.B. 141 may give insights on how policymakers can strategically navigate limits on federal power over state health programs.

  • Pros and Cons of S.B. 3732: The Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act

    Pros and Cons of S.B. 3732: The Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act

    Introduction

    The rise in the prevalence of artificial intelligence (AI) has had significant impacts on the environment. This includes the electricity required to power the technology, the release of hundreds of tons of carbon emissions, and the depletion of freshwater resources for data center cooling. For example, AI data centers in the U.S. use about 7,100 liters of water per megawatt-hour of energy they consume. 

    Demand for energy to power AI is rising. One study predicts that AI data centers will increase from about 3% of the US’s energy usage in 2023 to about 8% in 2030. However, there is also a potential for AI to have positive impacts on the environment. AI is a powerful tool in promoting energy transitions, with a 1% increase in AI development corresponding to a 0.0025% increase in energy transition, a 0.0018% decrease in ecological footprint, and a 0.0013% decrease in carbon emissions. Still, the scientific community and general public lack knowledge about the true environmental implications of AI. Senate Bill 3732, or the Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act of 2024, aims to fill this knowledge gap. 

    The Bill

    The Artificial Intelligence Environmental Impacts Act was introduced in February 2024 by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA). A House companion bill, H.R. 7197, was introduced simultaneously by Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA). The bill has four main clauses that instruct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Secretary of Energy, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy to:

    1. Initiate a study on the environmental impacts of AI
    2. Convene a consortium of intellectuals and stakeholders to create recommendations on how to address the environmental impacts of AI
    3. Create a system for the voluntary reporting of the environmental impacts of AI
    4. Report to Congress the findings of the consortium, describe the system of voluntary reporting and make recommendations for legislative and administrative action

    This bill seeks to fill the gaps in existing research by commissioning comprehensive studies of both the negative and potential positive environmental impacts of artificial intelligence. It will also employ experts to guide lawmakers in creating effective future regulation of the AI industry. 

    Arguments in Favor

    Filling Gaps in Knowledge

    A key reason Data & Society, an NYC-based independent research institute, endorsed the bill was to fill existing gaps in research. They highlight the limited understanding of both the depth and scale of the impacts of AI on the environment as key areas that require more research. They also highlight the role of this proposed research initiative in determining how to limit the environmental impacts of AI. Tamara Kneese, a researcher for the organization, highlights that there is a lack of research that seeks to understand “the full spectrum of AI’s impacts,” which this bill would directly address. 

    Increasing Transparency in the Industry

    One of the arguments made by a co-sponsor of the legislation in the House of Representatives, Representative Beyer (D-VA), highlights how this bill would put the United States ahead in AI transparency work. Currently, the industry is not forthright about its environmental impact. For example, OpenAI has released no information about the process to create and train ChatGPT’s newest model, which makes it impossible to estimate its environmental impact. The voluntary reporting system created encourages that information to be reported, allowing for tracking of emissions and increased transparency in the industry. 

    Reducing Environmental Harm

    Another supporter of the bill, Greenpeace, views the bill as a way to protect against the environmental harm of new technology and address issues of environmental injustice. Erik Kojola, Greenpeace USA’s senior research specialist, says that this bill is “a first step in holding companies accountable and shedding light on a new technology and opaque industry”. Others, such as the Piedmont Environmental Council, view it as a step towards the implementation of well-informed regulation of AI. The bill’s fourth provision outlines that recommendations be made to Congress for the implementation of regulations of the industry, based on expert opinion and the research that the bill commissions. 

    Arguments Against

    Lacks Enforcement Mechanisms, Delayed Approach

    Critics argue that the bill relies too heavily on industry compliance by primarily using voluntary emissions reporting. In essence, there is no way of forcing companies to actually report their emissions from the working of the bill. There is also the argument that calling for more research only serves to delay taking concrete action to address climate change. The bill itself does little to stop pollution and usage of freshwater resources, and instead delays any action or regulation until detailed research can be conducted and further recommendations can be made. 

    Ignores AI’s Potential to Help the Environment

    Other critics argue that AI is constantly becoming more efficient and government intervention may hinder that. According to the World Economic Forum, AI is able to both optimize its own energy consumption as well as contribute to facilitating energy transitions. Opponents of S.B. 3732 hold that research should focus on improving efficiency within the industry as opposed to tracking its output to inform regulations. 

    Top-down Approach Sidelines Industry Leaders and Efforts

    Some opponents also critique the bill’s research- and information gathering-heavy approach. Critics argue that S.B. 3732 does little to create accountability within the industry and does not integrate existing measures to increase efficiency. They point to examples that show AI itself is being used to create informed climate change policy through analyzing climate impacts on poor communities and generating solutions. Critics argue that the bill largely ignores these efforts and input from industry leaders who say federal funds should be spent optimizing AI rather than regulating it. 

    Updates and Future Outlook

    While S.B. 3732 and its House companion bill were referred to several subcommittees for review, neither made it to the floor for a vote before the end of the 118th Congress and thus will need to be re-introduced in order to be passed in the future. Should the bill be passed into law, the feasibility of its implementation is uncertain given major funding cuts to key stakeholders such as the EPA under the current administration. Without proper government funding to conduct the research that the bill outlines, the efficacy of this research is likely to be weakened. 

    In addition, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Removing Barriers to American AI Innovation” in January 2025, which calls for departments and agencies to revise or rescind all policies and other actions taken under the Biden administration that are inconsistent with “enhancing America’s leadership in AI.”  In addition to taking an anti-regulation stance on AI, this executive order is the first step in a rapid proliferation of AI data centers that are to be fueled with energy from natural gas and coal. Given this climate, S.B. 3732 and similar bills face an uncertain future in the current Congress.

    Conclusion

    S.B. 3732 responds to the knowledge gap on AI’s environmental impacts by commissioning studies and encouraging reporting of AI-related energy benefits and drawbacks. Supporters of the bill view it as a crucial intervention to fill said information gaps, increase transparency, and address environmental harms through policy recommendations. Some opponents of the bill critique it as a stalling tactic for addressing climate change, while others contend the bill simply looks in the wrong place, focusing on AI industry compliance and existing impacts instead of encouraging innovation in the sector.

  • Understanding Data Privacy Protections: ADPPA and APRA

    Understanding Data Privacy Protections: ADPPA and APRA

    Data privacy is an ongoing concern for Americans. A national study from 2014 found that over 90% of respondents believed they had lost control of how their personal data is used by companies, and that 80% were concerned about government surveillance of online communications. Nearly a decade later, the vast majority of Americans remained concerned and confused about how companies and the government use their personal data. Tech companies like Google, Meta, and Microsoft often collect data about users’ activities, preferences, and interactions on social media platforms and websites. This data can include users’ demographic information, browsing history, location, device information, and social interactions. While a majority of data tracking happens within apps, companies can also employ hard-to-detect tracking techniques to follow individuals across a variety of apps, websites, and devices.  This can make it difficult for users to evade data tracking even when they decline data collection permissions. 

    Background: ADPPA and APRA

    To address longstanding concerns about data privacy, lawmakers proposed The American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA) in 2022. ADPPA aimed to “limit the collection, processing, and transfer of personal data” of consumers while also “generally prohibit[ing] companies from transferring individuals’ personal data without their affirmative express consent.” Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) sponsored the bill. ADPPA passed out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce with almost unanimous support, but was not brought up for a vote before the close of the 117th Congress. Two years later, lawmakers introduced the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA), a similar data privacy bill with more robust mechanisms for data control and privacy. To understand the APRA, it’s crucial to examine the various arguments for and against its predecessor, the ADPPA. 

    Arguments in Favor of the ADPPA

    The push for ADPPA reflected a need to create uniform privacy standards on a federal level. Many businesses and industry groups supported the ADPPA because it would have standardized data privacy policies across the United States through a preemption clause that overrides similar state laws. Supporters argued that this would eliminate the challenge and high cost of enforcing a patchwork of data privacy laws across 20 states. 

    Other proponents applauded the ADPPA’s efforts to maintain civil rights for marginalized users. In a letter to House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA), 48 civil rights, privacy, and consumer organizations highlighted the bill’s provisions to require technology companies to test their algorithms for bias and increase online protections for users under 17 years old. They argued that these provisions, along with limitations on data collection without user consent, would “provide long overdue and much needed protections for individuals and communities.”

    Criticisms of the ADPPA

    Although the ADPPA garnered strong bipartisan support in committee, it ultimately failed to pass. Some experts argued that the bill contained loopholes that could be exploited by companies to avoid compliance, including inadequate provisions addressing data brokers, a limited private right of action, and the potential for gaps in enforcement. The ADPPA’s private right of action clause, which allows individuals and groups to take civil action against tech companies in Federal court for violating the ADPPA’s provisions, drew much debate. While the original bill was rewritten to permit a private right of action beginning two years after the passage of the bill rather than four years, some lawmakers still feared that this two-year delay left a gap in enforcement. As for the data broker question, the ADPPA would have implemented more robust hurdles to the sale of user data, but did not ban the brokerage of sensitive data outright. Given the growing influence of the data brokerage industry, some argued that the ADPPA overlooked a critical component of the data privacy ecosystem by omitting strong regulations on data brokerage. 

    The greatest criticism of the ADPPA concerned its preemption clause. While ADPPA would have supplemented existing data privacy legislation in states like Virginia and Colorado, other states were worried that the implementation of ADPPA would overrule stronger privacy laws at the state level. California lawmakers feared that the ADPPA’s preemption clause would nullify the stricter provisions in the California Consumer Privacy Act, weakening their state’s pre-existing privacy protections. While the ADPPA contains carve-outs for some parts of strict state-level laws and was rewritten to allow the California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce ADPPA compliance, these provisions did not satisfy lawmakers who worried that privacy protections for their constituents would still be rolled back. Ultimately, many cite opposition from Californian legislators as a major reason why the ADPPA failed to pass. 

    The APRA: A New Framework

    In 2024, Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (D-WA) introduced the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) as a new federal framework for data privacy protection. Senator Cantwell had been an outspoken critic of ADPPA’s right to private action. Both ADPPA and APRA contain similar provisions to establish a centralized procedure for users to opt-out of data sharing and to require corporations to collect no more data than is necessary to meet specific needs. Additionally, both bills include a state law preemption clause, with differing exceptions to the state laws they override. APRA’s preemption clause has received similar criticisms to ADPPA’s clause, as California legislators fight for a “floor” for privacy rights rather than a “ceiling.”

    In contrast to the ADPPA, the APRA includes a much broader private right of action, allowing individuals to sue companies for violations immediately. This differs from the ADPPA’s two-year delay on private suits that intended to give businesses time to comply. The APRA also expands the ADPPA’s definition of covered organizations to include agencies that process the sensitive data of over 700,000 connected devices. Additionally, the APRA includes more specific provisions to protect data for users under the age of 17. The APRA is currently undergoing a similar process to its predecessor, and was most recently referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. It will likely take months for decisions to be made regarding the bill’s passage out of committee, but the bill has garnered significant bipartisan support and shows promise in the current Congress. 

    Conclusion

    In today’s digital age, more Americans than ever are concerned about the data they share and how it’s used. With evolving social media algorithms and corporate data collection strategies, bills like the ADPPA and the APRA provide potential routes to stronger protections for user privacy. The debate surrounding both bills centers on balancing the need for a uniform federal standard with the preservation of stronger state laws, and reconciling strict consumer protection with the likelihood of corporate compliance. As lawmakers consider these factors, data privacy bills like the APRA are likely to make progress in coming months.

  • Is Online Voting the Future? Pros, Cons, and Key Considerations

    Is Online Voting the Future? Pros, Cons, and Key Considerations

    Introduction

    As internet technology advances and digital literacy increases, more daily activities such as shopping, learning, and bill paying are moving online. While online voting is currently unavailable for most voters in the United States, experts and researchers are debating its viability. Online voting is conducted remotely from the user’s own device, often through a third-party application. 

    Who Uses Online Voting?

    There are several examples of online voting abroad, especially in Estonia, Switzerland, and Australia. In Estonia, about half of registered voters choose to use the online platform to cast their ballot. Estonian online voting is only available for early voting, and includes the option for voters to change their choice up until the voting deadline.

    Within the U.S., 10 states allow remote voting reserved for specific groups of people. Voters living abroad gain the right to vote remotely through the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), and several states allow voters with disabilities to cast their ballots online as well. Recently, several states opened remote online voting options for local elections in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Pros of Online Voting

    Proponents of online voting say that it would make elections more accessible, and therefore increase voter turnout. Online voting decreases the amount of time it takes to vote—both by removing travel time for those who choose that option, and shortening lines at polling places for those who still opt to vote in person. This in turn has the potential to increase turnout, because long lines at the polling place negatively impact turnout. 

    Advocates contend that online voting will increase flexibility and privacy for voters with disabilities who would normally vote by mail—especially for those with impaired vision. Additionally, online remote voting platforms allow voters to cast their ballots from their own devices, and research suggests this would convince some people to vote who would not do so were the online option unavailable. Indeed, one study shows a 3.5% increase in voter turnout (and another an 8.2% increase) when the online option for voting is available.

    Online voting also has the potential to reduce the costs of elections for governments and voters. One study found online voting to be the most cost-effective form of voting, based on data from Estonian elections. According to the study, since usage of online voting decreases the time people take to vote, it also decreases indirect cost in terms of lost wages from time taken off to vote. As online voting is conducted remotely, it also gets rid of transportation costs from voters physically getting to the polling place. Online voting would also reduce the number of printed ballots needed, which reduces the cost of elections for the government. 

    Online voting could remove some human error from the election process. Supporters argue that online voting could prevent “messy elections” like the 2000 presidential election. There would be no uncertainty from physical counting errors, like the ones that arose in the 2000 election with “hanging chads.” Supporters say that online voting, without confusing physical aspects, would result in higher accuracy. 

    Online voting could also ensure election results are available more quickly to the public, as software and online platforms can count votes nearly instantly, unlike human counters, who require more time. Lastly, online voting could prevent voters from misunderstanding and spoiling (or even mistakenly invalidating, in the case of mail-in voting) their own ballots, therefore streamlining the election process.

    Cons of Online Voting

    The main concern of opponents of online voting is the overall security of an election, chief among these concerns being election fraud. Internet technology is complex and rapidly developing, and cybersecurity measures are often reactive and do not develop as fast as the innovations of hacking themselves. Many are concerned that elections without a paper trail are more vulnerable to election fraud, and that casting ballots over the internet would make recounts (in the event that they are needed) futile, as there would be no physical ballots to recount. Without physical proof of any particular voter’s ballot, it is possible that election fraud could occur and not be noticed, because of the lack of sufficient security protocols. Because of this, there is the possibility that hackers could change votes to manipulate election results. These vulnerabilities raise privacy concerns as well as fraud concerns. Voters’ ballots would also no longer be confidential.

    Opponents are also concerned with the involvement of third-party voting software companies in the election. Online voting is often run by for-profit companies who may value profit over election security. There is evidence of voting software companies lacking adequate security, which would compromise the integrity of an election. There is also the added potential of system failure, in which a crash of the voting software would prevent people from voting, or even invalidate their votes.

    A final potential drawback of online voting is the lack of trust that people have in the results produced from such a platform. Recently, there has been a decline in trust in U.S. elections, and online voting could exacerbate the issue because of the concerns surrounding security, privacy, and accuracy due to the threat of fraud. In the current climate of uncertainty, many believe it may be beneficial to stick with familiar voting methods.

    The Future of Online Voting

    The current election system is not without fault, but would adding online voting to the equation make things better or worse? Despite concerns, more than 300,000 registered U.S. voters used an online platform of some sort to vote in the 2020 elections, and many states have plans to increase the number of voters eligible to vote online in the coming years.