healthcarereimagined

Envisioning healthcare for the 21st century

  • About
  • Economics

Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy

Posted by timmreardon on 08/31/2022
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment


JULY 09, 2021PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote the interests of American workers, businesses, and consumers, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  
    A fair, open, and competitive marketplace has long been a cornerstone of the American economy, while excessive market concentration threatens basic economic liberties, democratic accountability, and the welfare of workers, farmers, small businesses, startups, and consumers.
     The American promise of a broad and sustained prosperity depends on an open and competitive economy.  For workers, a competitive marketplace creates more high-quality jobs and the economic freedom to switch jobs or negotiate a higher wage.  For small businesses and farmers, it creates more choices among suppliers and major buyers, leading to more take-home income, which they can reinvest in their enterprises.  For entrepreneurs, it provides space to experiment, innovate, and pursue the new ideas that have for centuries powered the American economy and improved our quality of life.  And for consumers, it means more choices, better service, and lower prices. 
     Robust competition is critical to preserving America’s role as the world’s leading economy.
     Yet over the last several decades, as industries have consolidated, competition has weakened in too many markets, denying Americans the benefits of an open economy and widening racial, income, and wealth inequality.  Federal Government inaction has contributed to these problems, with workers, farmers, small businesses, and consumers paying the price.
     Consolidation has increased the power of corporate employers, making it harder for workers to bargain for higher wages and better work conditions.  Powerful companies require workers to sign non-compete agreements that restrict their ability to change jobs.  And, while many occupational licenses are critical to increasing wages for workers and especially workers of color, some overly restrictive occupational licensing requirements can impede workers’ ability to find jobs and to move between States.
     Consolidation in the agricultural industry is making it too hard for small family farms to survive.  Farmers are squeezed between concentrated market power in the agricultural input industries — seed, fertilizer, feed, and equipment suppliers — and concentrated market power in the channels for selling agricultural products.  As a result, farmers’ share of the value of their agricultural products has decreased, and poultry farmers, hog farmers, cattle ranchers, and other agricultural workers struggle to retain autonomy and to make sustainable returns.
     The American information technology sector has long been an engine of innovation and growth, but today a small number of dominant Internet platforms use their power to exclude market entrants, to extract monopoly profits, and to gather intimate personal information that they can exploit for their own advantage.  Too many small businesses across the economy depend on those platforms and a few online marketplaces for their survival.  And too many local newspapers have shuttered or downsized, in part due to the Internet platforms’ dominance in advertising markets.
     Americans are paying too much for prescription drugs and healthcare services — far more than the prices paid in other countries.  Hospital consolidation has left many areas, particularly rural communities, with inadequate or more expensive healthcare options.  And too often, patent and other laws have been misused to inhibit or delay — for years and even decades — competition from generic drugs and biosimilars, denying Americans access to lower-cost drugs.
     In the telecommunications sector, Americans likewise pay too much for broadband, cable television, and other communications services, in part because of a lack of adequate competition.  In the financial-services sector, consumers pay steep and often hidden fees because of industry consolidation.  Similarly, the global container shipping industry has consolidated into a small number of dominant foreign-owned lines and alliances, which can disadvantage American exporters.
     The problem of economic consolidation now spans these sectors and many others, endangering our ability to rebuild and emerge from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with a vibrant, innovative, and growing economy.  Meanwhile, the United States faces new challenges to its economic standing in the world, including unfair competitive pressures from foreign monopolies and firms that are state-owned or state-sponsored, or whose market power is directly supported by foreign governments.
     We must act now to reverse these dangerous trends, which constrain the growth and dynamism of our economy, impair the creation of high-quality jobs, and threaten America’s economic standing in the world. 
     This order affirms that it is the policy of my Administration to enforce the antitrust laws to combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony — especially as these issues arise in labor markets, agricultural markets, Internet platform industries, healthcare markets (including insurance, hospital, and prescription drug markets), repair markets, and United States markets directly affected by foreign cartel activity.
     It is also the policy of my Administration to enforce the antitrust laws to meet the challenges posed by new industries and technologies, including the rise of the dominant Internet platforms, especially as they stem from serial mergers, the acquisition of nascent competitors, the aggregation of data, unfair competition in attention markets, the surveillance of users, and the presence of network effects.
     Whereas decades of industry consolidation have often led to excessive market concentration, this order reaffirms that the United States retains the authority to challenge transactions whose previous consummation was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) (Sherman Act), the Clayton Antitrust Act (Public Law 63-212, 38 Stat. 730, 15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) (Clayton Act), or other laws.  See 15 U.S.C. 18; Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911). 
     This order reasserts as United States policy that the answer to the rising power of foreign monopolies and cartels is not the tolerance of domestic monopolization, but rather the promotion of competition and innovation by firms small and large, at home and worldwide.
     It is also the policy of my Administration to support aggressive legislative reforms that would lower prescription drug prices, including by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, by imposing inflation caps, and through other related reforms.  It is further the policy of my Administration to support the enactment of a public health insurance option.
     My Administration further reaffirms the policy stated in Executive Order 13725 of April 15, 2016 (Steps to Increase Competition and Better Inform Consumers and Workers to Support Continued Growth of the American Economy), and the Federal Government’s commitment to the principles that led to the passage of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921 (Public Law 67-51, 42 Stat. 159, 7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) (Packers and Stockyards Act), the Celler-Kefauver Antimerger Act (Public Law 81-899, 64 Stat. 1125), the Bank Merger Act (Public Law 86-463, 74 Stat. 129, 12 U.S.C. 1828), and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104, 110 Stat. 56), among others.   

Sec. 2.  The Statutory Basis of a Whole-of-Government Competition Policy. 
     (a)  The antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act (Public Law 63-203, 38 Stat. 717, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), are a first line of defense against the monopolization of the American economy.
     (b)  The antitrust laws reflect an underlying policy favoring competition that transcends those particular enactments.  As the Supreme Court has stated, for instance, the Sherman Act “rests on the premise that the unrestrained interaction of competitive forces will yield the best allocation of our economic resources, the lowest prices, the highest quality and the greatest material progress, while at the same time providing an environment conducive to the preservation of our democratic political and social institutions.”  Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 4 (1958).
     (c)  Consistent with these broader policies, and in addition to the traditional antitrust laws, the Congress has also enacted industry-specific fair competition and anti-monopolization laws that often provide additional protections.  Such enactments include the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (Public Law 74-401, 49 Stat. 977, 27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), the Bank Merger Act, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417, 98 Stat. 1585), the Shipping Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-237, 98 Stat. 67, 46 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.) (Shipping Act), the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-88, 109 Stat. 803), the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act (Public Law 108-164, 117 Stat. 2024, 15 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376) (Dodd-Frank Act).
     (d)  These statutes independently charge a number of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to protect conditions of fair competition in one or more ways, including by:
          (i)    policing unfair, deceptive, and abusive business practices;
          (ii)   resisting consolidation and promoting competition within industries through the independent oversight of mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures;
          (iii)  promulgating rules that promote competition, including the market entry of new competitors; and
          (iv)   promoting market transparency through compelled disclosure of information.
     (e)  The agencies that administer such or similar authorities include the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Surface Transportation Board.
     (f)  Agencies can influence the conditions of competition through their exercise of regulatory authority or through the procurement process.  See 41 U.S.C. 1705.
     (g)  This order recognizes that a whole-of-government approach is necessary to address overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in the American economy.  Such an approach is supported by existing statutory mandates.  Agencies can and should further the polices set forth in section 1 of this order by, among other things, adopting pro‑competitive regulations and approaches to procurement and spending, and by rescinding regulations that create unnecessary barriers to entry that stifle competition.

Sec. 3.  Agency Cooperation in Oversight, Investigation, and Remedies. 
     (a)  The Congress frequently has created overlapping agency jurisdiction in the policing of anticompetitive conduct and the oversight of mergers.  It is the policy of my Administration that, when agencies have overlapping jurisdiction, they should endeavor to cooperate fully in the exercise of their oversight authority, to benefit from the respective expertise of the agencies and to improve Government efficiency.
     (b)  Where there is overlapping jurisdiction over particular cases, conduct, transactions, or industries, agencies are encouraged to coordinate their efforts, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, with respect to:
          (i)    the investigation of conduct potentially harmful to competition;
          (ii)   the oversight of proposed mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures; and
          (iii)  the design, execution, and oversight of remedies.
     (c)  The means of cooperation in cases of overlapping jurisdiction should include, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law:
          (i)    sharing relevant information and industry data;
          (ii)   in the case of major transactions, soliciting and giving significant consideration to the views of the Attorney General or the Chair of the FTC, as applicable; and
          (iii)  cooperating with any concurrent Department of Justice or FTC oversight activities under the Sherman Act or Clayton Act.
     (d)  Nothing in subsections (a) through (c) of this section shall be construed to suggest that the statutory standard applied by an agency, or its independent assessment under that standard, should be displaced or substituted by the judgment of the Attorney General or the Chair of the FTC.  When their views are solicited, the Attorney General and the Chair of the FTC are encouraged to provide a response to the agency in time for the agency to consider it in advance of any statutory deadline for agency action.

Sec. 4.  The White House Competition Council.  
    (a)  There is established a White House Competition Council (Council) within the Executive Office of the President.
     (b)  The Council shall coordinate, promote, and advance Federal Government efforts to address overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in or directly affecting the American economy, including efforts to:
          (i)    implement the administrative actions identified in this order;
          (ii)   develop procedures and best practices for agency cooperation and coordination on matters of overlapping jurisdiction, as described in section 3 of this order;
          (iii)  identify and advance any additional administrative actions necessary to further the policies set forth in section 1 of this order; and
          (iv)   identify any potential legislative changes necessary to further the policies set forth in section 1 of this order.
     (c)  The Council shall work across agencies to provide a coordinated response to overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in or directly affecting the American economy.  The Council shall also work with each agency to ensure that agency operations are conducted in a manner that promotes fair competition, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
     (d)  The Council shall not discuss any current or anticipated enforcement actions.
     (e)  The Council shall be led by the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council, who shall serve as Chair of the Council.
     (f)  In addition to the Chair, the Council shall consist of the following members:
          (i)     the Secretary of the Treasury;
          (ii)    the Secretary of Defense;
          (iii)   the Attorney General;
          (iv)    the Secretary of Agriculture;
          (v)     the Secretary of Commerce;
          (vi)    the Secretary of Labor;
          (vii)   the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
          (viii)  the Secretary of Transportation;
          (ix)    the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; and
          (x)     the heads of such other agencies and offices as the Chair may from time to time invite to participate.
     (g)  The Chair shall invite the participation of the Chair of the FTC, the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission, the Chair of the Federal Maritime Commission, the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Chair of the Surface Transportation Board, to the extent consistent with their respective statutory authorities and obligations.
     (h)  Members of the Council shall designate, not later than 30 days after the date of this order, a senior official within their respective agency or office who shall coordinate with the Council and who shall be responsible for overseeing the agency’s or office’s efforts to address overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition.  The Chair may coordinate subgroups consisting exclusively of Council members or their designees, as appropriate.
     (i)  The Council shall meet on a semi-annual basis unless the Chair determines that a meeting is unnecessary.
     (j)  Each agency shall bear its own expenses for participating in the Council.

Sec. 5.  Further Agency Responsibilities.  
     (a)  The heads of all agencies shall consider using their authorities to further the policies set forth in section 1 of this order, with particular attention to:
          (i)   the influence of any of their respective regulations, particularly any licensing regulations, on concentration and competition in the industries under their jurisdiction; and
          (ii)  the potential for their procurement or other spending to improve the competitiveness of small businesses and businesses with fair labor practices.
     (b)  The Attorney General, the Chair of the FTC, and the heads of other agencies with authority to enforce the Clayton Act are encouraged to enforce the antitrust laws fairly and vigorously.
     (c)  To address the consolidation of industry in many markets across the economy, as described in section 1 of this order, the Attorney General and the Chair of the FTC are encouraged to review the horizontal and vertical merger guidelines and consider whether to revise those guidelines.
     (d)  To avoid the potential for anticompetitive extension of market power beyond the scope of granted patents, and to protect standard-setting processes from abuse, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Commerce are encouraged to consider whether to revise their position on the intersection of the intellectual property and antitrust laws, including by considering whether to revise the Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments issued jointly by the Department of Justice, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology on December 19, 2019.
     (e)  To ensure Americans have choices among financial institutions and to guard against excessive market power, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Comptroller of the Currency, is encouraged to review current practices and adopt a plan, not later than 180 days after the date of this order, for the revitalization of merger oversight under the Bank Merger Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (Public Law 84-511, 70 Stat. 133, 12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) that is in accordance with the factors enumerated in 12 U.S.C. 1828(c) and 1842(c).
     (f)  To better protect workers from wage collusion, the Attorney General and the Chair of the FTC are encouraged to consider whether to revise the Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals of October 2016.
     (g)  To address agreements that may unduly limit workers’ ability to change jobs, the Chair of the FTC is encouraged to consider working with the rest of the Commission to exercise the FTC’s statutory rulemaking authority under the Federal Trade Commission Act to curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.
      (h)  To address persistent and recurrent practices that inhibit competition, the Chair of the FTC, in the Chair’s discretion, is also encouraged to consider working with the rest of the Commission to exercise the FTC’s statutory rulemaking authority, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, in areas such as:
          (i)    unfair data collection and surveillance practices that may damage competition, consumer autonomy, and consumer privacy;
          (ii)   unfair anticompetitive restrictions on third-party repair or self-repair of items, such as the restrictions imposed by powerful manufacturers that prevent farmers from repairing their own equipment;
          (iii)  unfair anticompetitive conduct or agreements in the prescription drug industries, such as agreements to delay the market entry of generic drugs or biosimilars;
          (iv)   unfair competition in major Internet marketplaces;
          (v)   unfair occupational licensing restrictions;
          (vi)   unfair tying practices or exclusionary practices in the brokerage or listing of real estate; and
          (vii)  any other unfair industry-specific practices that substantially inhibit competition.
     (i)  The Secretary of Agriculture shall:
           (i)    to address the unfair treatment of farmers and improve conditions of competition in the markets for their products, consider initiating a rulemaking or rulemakings under the Packers and Stockyards Act to strengthen the Department of Agriculture’s regulations concerning unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices and undue or unreasonable preferences, advantages, prejudices, or disadvantages, with the purpose of furthering the vigorous implementation of the law established by the Congress in 1921 and fortified by amendments.  In such rulemaking or rulemakings, the Secretary of Agriculture shall consider, among other things:
               (A)  providing clear rules that identify recurrent practices in the livestock, meat, and poultry industries that are unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive and therefore violate the Packers and Stockyards Act;
               (B)  reinforcing the long-standing Department of Agriculture interpretation that it is unnecessary under the Packers and Stockyards Act to demonstrate industry-wide harm to establish a violation of the Act and that the “unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive” treatment of one farmer, the giving to one farmer of an “undue or unreasonable preference or advantage,” or the subjection of one farmer to an “undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect” violates the Act;
               (C)  prohibiting unfair practices related to grower ranking systems — systems in which the poultry companies, contractors, or dealers exercise extraordinary control over numerous inputs that determine the amount farmers are paid and require farmers to assume the risk of factors outside their control, leaving them more economically vulnerable;
               (D)  updating the appropriate definitions or set of criteria, or application thereof, for undue or unreasonable preferences, advantages, prejudices, or disadvantages under the Packers and Stockyards Act; and
               (E)  adopting, to the greatest extent possible and as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, appropriate anti-retaliation protections, so that farmers may assert their rights without fear of retribution;
          (ii)   to ensure consumers have accurate, transparent labels that enable them to choose products made in the United States, consider initiating a rulemaking to define the conditions under which the labeling of meat products can bear voluntary statements indicating that the product is of United States origin, such as “Product of USA”;
          (iii)  to ensure that farmers have greater opportunities to access markets and receive a fair return for their products, not later than 180 days after the date of this order, submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, with a plan to promote competition in the agricultural industries and to support value-added agriculture and alternative food distribution systems through such means as:
               (A)  the creation or expansion of useful information for farmers, such as model contracts, to lower transaction costs and help farmers negotiate fair deals;
               (B)  measures to encourage improvements in transparency and standards so that consumers may choose to purchase products that support fair treatment of farmers and agricultural workers and sustainable agricultural practices;
               (C)  measures to enhance price discovery, increase transparency, and improve the functioning of the cattle and other livestock markets;
               (D)  enhanced tools, including any new legislative authorities needed, to protect whistleblowers, monitor agricultural markets, and enforce relevant laws;
                 (E)  any investments or other support that could bolster competition within highly concentrated agricultural markets; and
                 (F)  any other means that the Secretary of Agriculture deems appropriate;
          (iv)   to improve farmers’ and smaller food processors’ access to retail markets, not later than 300 days after the date of this order, in consultation with the Chair of the FTC, submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, on the effect of retail concentration and retailers’ practices on the conditions of competition in the food industries, including any practices that may violate the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Robinson-Patman Act (Public Law 74-692, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U.S.C. 13 et seq.), or other relevant laws, and on grants, loans, and other support that may enhance access to retail markets by local and regional food enterprises; and
          (v)    to help ensure that the intellectual property system, while incentivizing innovation, does not also unnecessarily reduce competition in seed and other input markets beyond that reasonably contemplated by the Patent Act (see 35 U.S.C. 100 et seq. and 7 U.S.C. 2321et seq.), in consultation with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, enumerating and describing any relevant concerns of the Department of Agriculture and strategies for addressing those concerns across intellectual property, antitrust, and other relevant laws.
     (j)  To protect the vibrancy of the American markets for beer, wine, and spirits, and to improve market access for smaller, independent, and new operations, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Chair of the FTC, not later than 120 days after the date of this order, shall submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, assessing the current market structure and conditions of competition, including an assessment of any threats to competition and barriers to new entrants, including:
          (i)    any unlawful trade practices in the beer, wine, and spirits markets, such as certain exclusionary, discriminatory, or anticompetitive distribution practices, that hinder smaller and independent businesses or new entrants from distributing their products;
          (ii)   patterns of consolidation in production, distribution, or retail beer, wine, and spirits markets; and
          (iii)  any unnecessary trade practice regulations of matters such as bottle sizes, permitting, or labeling that may unnecessarily inhibit competition by increasing costs without serving any public health, informational, or tax purpose.
     (k)  To follow up on the foregoing assessment, the Secretary of the Treasury, through the Administrator of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, shall, not later than 240 days after the date of this order, consider:
          (i)    initiating a rulemaking to update the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau’s trade practice regulations;  
          (ii)   rescinding or revising any regulations of the beer, wine, and spirits industries that may unnecessarily inhibit competition; and
          (iii)  reducing any barriers that impede market access for smaller and independent brewers, winemakers, and distilleries.
     (l)  To promote competition, lower prices, and a vibrant and innovative telecommunications ecosystem, the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission is encouraged to work with the rest of the Commission, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to consider:
          (i)    adopting through appropriate rulemaking “Net Neutrality” rules similar to those previously adopted under title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (Public Law 73-416, 48 Stat. 1064, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, in “Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet,” 80 Fed. Reg. 19738 (Apr. 13, 2015);
          (ii)   conducting future spectrum auctions under rules that are designed to help avoid excessive concentration of spectrum license holdings in the United States, so as to prevent spectrum stockpiling, warehousing of spectrum by licensees, or the creation of barriers to entry, and to improve the conditions of competition in industries that depend upon radio spectrum, including mobile communications and radio-based broadband services;
          (iii)  providing support for the continued development and adoption of 5G Open Radio Access Network (O-RAN) protocols and software, continuing to attend meetings of voluntary and consensus-based standards development organizations, so as to promote or encourage a fair and representative standard-setting process, and undertaking any other measures that might promote increased openness, innovation, and competition in the markets for 5G equipment;
          (iv)   prohibiting unjust or unreasonable early termination fees for end-user communications contracts, enabling consumers to more easily switch providers;
          (v)    initiating a rulemaking that requires broadband service providers to display a broadband consumer label, such as that as described in the Public Notice of the Commission issued on April 4, 2016 (DA 16–357), so as to give consumers clear, concise, and accurate information regarding provider prices and fees, performance, and network practices;
          (vi)   initiating a rulemaking to require broadband service providers to regularly report broadband price and subscription rates to the Federal Communications Commission for the purpose of disseminating that information to the public in a useful manner, to improve price transparency and market functioning; and
          (vii)  initiating a rulemaking to prevent landlords and cable and Internet service providers from inhibiting tenants’ choices among providers.
     (m)  The Secretary of Transportation shall:
          (i)    to better protect consumers and improve competition, and as appropriate and consistent with applicable law:
               (A)  not later than 30 days after the date of this order, appoint or reappoint members of the Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection to ensure fair representation of consumers, State and local interests, airlines, and airports with respect to the evaluation of aviation consumer protection programs and convene a meeting of the Committee as soon as practicable;
               (B)  promote enhanced transparency and consumer safeguards, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, including through potential rulemaking, enforcement actions, or guidance documents, with the aims of:
                     (1)  enhancing consumer access to airline flight information so that consumers can more easily find a broader set of available flights, including by new or lesser known airlines; and
                     (2)  ensuring that consumers are not exposed or subject to advertising, marketing, pricing, and charging of ancillary fees that may constitute an unfair or deceptive practice or an unfair method of competition;
               (C)  not later than 45 days after the date of this order, submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, on the progress of the Department of Transportation’s investigatory and enforcement activities to address the failure of airlines to provide timely refunds for flights cancelled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;
               (D)  not later than 45 days after the date of this order, publish for notice and comment a proposed rule requiring airlines to refund baggage fees when a passenger’s luggage is substantially delayed and other ancillary fees when passengers pay for a service that is not provided;
               (E)  not later than 60 days after the date of this order, start development of proposed amendments to the Department of Transportation’s definitions of “unfair” and “deceptive” in 49 U.S.C. 41712; and
               (F)  not later than 90 days after the date of this order, consider initiating a rulemaking to ensure that consumers have ancillary fee information, including “baggage fees,” “change fees,” and “cancellation fees,” at the time of ticket purchase;
          (ii)   to provide consumers with more flight options at better prices and with improved service, and to extend opportunities for competition and market entry as the industry evolves:
               (A)  not later than 30 days after the date of this order, convene a working group within the Department of Transportation to evaluate the effectiveness of existing commercial aviation programs, consumer protections, and rules of the Federal Aviation Administration;
               (B)  consult with the Attorney General regarding means of enhancing effective coordination between the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation to ensure competition in air transportation and the ability of new entrants to gain access; and
               (C)  consider measures to support airport development and increased capacity and improve airport congestion management, gate access, implementation of airport competition plans pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 47106(f), and “slot” administration;
          (iii)  given the emergence of new aerospace-based transportation technologies, such as low-altitude unmanned aircraft system deliveries, advanced air mobility, and high-altitude long endurance operations, that have great potential for American travelers and consumers, yet also the danger of early monopolization or new air traffic control problems, ensure that the Department of Transportation takes action with respect to these technologies to:
               (A)  facilitate innovation that fosters United States market leadership and market entry to promote competition and economic opportunity and to resist monopolization, while also ensuring safety, providing security and privacy, protecting the environment, and promoting equity; and
               (B)  provide vigilant oversight over market participants.
     (n)  To further competition in the rail industry and to provide accessible remedies for shippers, the Chair of the Surface Transportation Board (Chair) is encouraged to work with the rest of the Board to:
          (i)    consider commencing or continuing a rulemaking to strengthen regulations pertaining to reciprocal switching agreements pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11102(c), if the Chair determines such rulemaking to be in the public interest or necessary to provide competitive rail service;
          (ii)   consider rulemakings pertaining to any other relevant matter of competitive access, including bottleneck rates, interchange commitments, or other matters, consistent with the policies set forth in section 1 of this order;
          (iii)  to ensure that passenger rail service is not subject to unwarranted delays and interruptions in service due to host railroads’ failure to comply with the required preference for passenger rail, vigorously enforce new on-time performance requirements adopted pursuant to the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-423, 122 Stat. 4907) that will take effect on July 1, 2021, and further the work of the passenger rail working group formed to ensure that the Surface Transportation Board will fully meet its obligations; and
          (iv)   in the process of determining whether a merger, acquisition, or other transaction involving rail carriers is consistent with the public interest under 49 U.S.C. 11323-25, consider a carrier’s fulfillment of its responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. 24308 (relating to Amtrak’s statutory rights).
     (o)  The Chair of the Federal Maritime Commission is encouraged to work with the rest of the Commission to:
          (i)    vigorously enforce the prohibition of unjust and unreasonable practices in the context of detention and demurrage pursuant to the Shipping Act, as clarified in “Interpretive Rule on Demurrage and Detention Under the Shipping Act,” 85 Fed. Reg. 29638 (May 18, 2020);
          (ii)   request from the National Shipper Advisory Committee recommendations for improving detention and demurrage practices and enforcement of related Shipping Act prohibitions; and
          (iii)  consider further rulemaking to improve detention and demurrage practices and enforcement of related Shipping Act prohibitions.
     (p)  The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall:
          (i)     to promote the wide availability of low-cost hearing aids, not later than 120 days after the date of this order, publish for notice and comment a proposed rule on over-the-counter hearing-aids, as called for by section 709 of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (Public Law 115-52, 131 Stat. 1005);
          (ii)    support existing price transparency initiatives for hospitals, other providers, and insurers along with any new price transparency initiatives or changes made necessary by the No Surprises Act (Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 2758) or any other statutes;
          (iii)   to ensure that Americans can choose health insurance plans that meet their needs and compare plan offerings, implement standardized options in the national Health Insurance Marketplace and any other appropriate mechanisms to improve competition and consumer choice;
          (iv)    not later than 45 days after the date of this order, submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Director of the Domestic Policy Council and to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, with a plan to continue the effort to combat excessive pricing of prescription drugs and enhance domestic pharmaceutical supply chains, to reduce the prices paid by the Federal Government for such drugs, and to address the recurrent problem of price gouging;
          (v)     to lower the prices of and improve access to prescription drugs and biologics, continue to promote generic drug and biosimilar competition, as contemplated by the Drug Competition Action Plan of 2017 and Biosimilar Action Plan of 2018 of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including by:
               (A)  continuing to clarify and improve the approval framework for generic drugs and biosimilars to make generic drug and biosimilar approval more transparent, efficient, and predictable, including improving and clarifying the standards for interchangeability of biological products;
               (B)  as authorized by the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-8, 135 Stat. 254, 42 U.S.C. 263-1), supporting biosimilar product adoption by providing effective educational materials and communications to improve understanding of biosimilar and interchangeable products among healthcare providers, patients, and caregivers;
               (C)  to facilitate the development and approval of biosimilar and interchangeable products, continuing to update the FDA’s biologics regulations to clarify existing requirements and procedures related to the review and submission of Biologics License Applications by advancing the “Biologics Regulation Modernization” rulemaking (RIN 0910-AI14); and
               (D)  with the Chair of the FTC, identifying and addressing any efforts to impede generic drug and biosimilar competition, including but not limited to false, misleading, or otherwise deceptive statements about generic drug and biosimilar products and their safety or effectiveness;
          (vi)    to help ensure that the patent system, while incentivizing innovation, does not also unjustifiably delay generic drug and biosimilar competition beyond that reasonably contemplated by applicable law, not later than 45 days after the date of this order, through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, write a letter to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office enumerating and describing any relevant concerns of the FDA; 
          (vii)   to support the market entry of lower-cost generic drugs and biosimilars, continue the implementation of the law widely known as the CREATES Act of 2019 (Public Law 116-94, 133 Stat. 3130), by:
               (A)  promptly issuing Covered Product Authorizations (CPAs) to assist product developers with obtaining brand-drug samples; and
               (B)  issuing guidance to provide additional information for industry about CPAs; and
          (viii)  through the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, prepare for Medicare and Medicaid coverage of interchangeable biological products, and for payment models to support increased utilization of generic drugs and biosimilars.
     (q)  To reduce the cost of covered products to the American consumer without imposing additional risk to public health and safety, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall work with States and Indian Tribes that propose to develop section 804 Importation Programs in accordance with the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173, 117 Stat. 2066), and the FDA’s implementing regulations.
     (r)  The Secretary of Commerce shall:
          (i)    acting through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), consider initiating a rulemaking to require agencies to report to NIST, on an annual basis, their contractors’ utilization activities, as reported to the agencies under 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(5);
          (ii)   acting through the Director of NIST, consistent with the policies set forth in section 1 of this order, consider not finalizing any provisions on march-in rights and product pricing in the proposed rule “Rights to Federally Funded Inventions and Licensing of Government Owned Inventions,” 86 Fed. Reg. 35 (Jan. 4, 2021); and
          (iii)  not later than 1 year after the date of this order, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission, conduct a study, including by conducting an open and transparent stakeholder consultation process, of the mobile application ecosystem, and submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, regarding findings and recommendations for improving competition, reducing barriers to entry, and maximizing user benefit with respect to the ecosystem.
     (s)  The Secretary of Defense shall:
          (i)    ensure that the Department of Defense’s assessment of the economic forces and structures shaping the capacity of the national security innovation base pursuant to section 889(a) and (b) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283, 134 Stat. 3388) is consistent with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order;
          (ii)   not later than 180 days after the date of this order, submit to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, a review of the state of competition within the defense industrial base, including areas where a lack of competition may be of concern and any recommendations for improving the solicitation process, consistent with the goal of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-369, 98 Stat. 1175); and
          (iii)  not later than 180 days after the date of this order, submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, on a plan for avoiding contract terms in procurement agreements that make it challenging or impossible for the Department of Defense or service members to repair their own equipment, particularly in the field.
     (t)  The Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, consistent with the pro-competition objectives stated in section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act, is encouraged to consider:
          (i)   commencing or continuing a rulemaking under section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act to facilitate the portability of consumer financial transaction data so consumers can more easily switch financial institutions and use new, innovative financial products; and
          (ii)  enforcing the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in consumer financial products or services pursuant to section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act so as to ensure that actors engaged in unlawful activities do not distort the proper functioning of the competitive process or obtain an unfair advantage over competitors who follow the law.
     (u)  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, through the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, shall incorporate into its recommendations for modernizing and improving regulatory review required by my Memorandum of January 20, 2021 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), the policies set forth in section 1 of this order, including consideration of whether the effects on competition and the potential for creation of barriers to entry should be included in regulatory impact analyses.
     (v)  The Secretary of the Treasury shall:
          (i)   direct the Office of Economic Policy, in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, and the Chair of the FTC, to submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, not later than 180 days after the date of this order, on the effects of lack of competition on labor markets; and
          (ii)  submit a report to the Chair of the White House Competition Council, not later than 270 days after the date of this order, assessing the effects on competition of large technology firms’ and other non‑bank companies’ entry into consumer finance markets.

Sec. 6.  General Provisions. 
     (a)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
     (b)  Where not already specified, independent agencies are encouraged to comply with the requirements of this order.
     (c)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
          (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
          (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
     (d)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

EO link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/

CISA Seeks Software Engineers to Build New Registrar for .Gov Domain – Nextgov

Posted by timmreardon on 08/31/2022
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

By MARIAM BAKSHAUGUST 31, 2022 02:09 PM ET

The agency is taking new hiring authorities out for a spin in the recruitment effort to make state and local government websites more secure

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is looking for cybersecurity talent to work in-house on managing and expanding use of the .gov address—the top level domain reserved for government entities.

“This won’t actually be once in a lifetime! I expect this to be the first of several engineering/design/product hires to in-source this work to government leads,” CISA Technologist Cameron Dixon wrote Tuesday in tweets about the new and coming vacancies CISA recently posted to USAJobs.

CISA took over management of the .gov domain from the General Services Administration last spring under the Dotgov Act of 2020. The law requires the federal government to make space freely available on the domain for state, local, tribal and territorial governments, in the interest of them reaping benefits such as two-factor authentication and other security measures.

“The power of free is on display, but it’s also evidence of what happens when a security-critical asset is treated like one and marketed properly,” Dixon, who will be working with the new recruits, said in April, touting 20% growth in CISA’s domain approval over the year.

CISA is now using the Department of Homeland Security’s new Cyber Talent Management System—which has gotten off to a slow start—and related power to lure high-demand software engineers into the .gov program.

Dixon cited the department’s new authorities in explaining an approach to qualification and compensation that seeks to determine and prioritize merit over government tenureand other traditional evaluation methods. There is no degree requirement to qualify for the job, for example. 

Other perks include a pay range of $128,250 to $141,750 per year, depending on experience and expertise, and complete geographic flexibility. There is also no security clearance requirement—which can slow or kill applications—but candidates will have to undergo a standard background investigation and pass a drug test.

Article link: https://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2022/08/cisa-seeks-software-engineers-build-new-registrar-gov-domain/376564/

DIU’s director tried to overcome a calcified defense innovation system. It beat him. Now what? – Breaking Defense

Posted by timmreardon on 08/30/2022
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

By Bill Greenwalt on August 29, 2022 at 2:20 PM

Everyone in Washington seems to agree the Pentagon needs to change how it does acquisition — and yet, the system never seems to change. The latest to exit DC after trying is Mike Brown, who retires this week as the head of the department’s commercial technology office. In a new op-ed, Bill Greenwalt of AEI argues that Brown may have been doomed from the start, and wonders whether DoD really is ready for acquisition modernization.

This upcoming Friday is Michael Brown’s last day as the Director of the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU). Over his four-year term, the former Symantec CEO was given a hard lesson in the ways of Washington.

Tasked with trying to access the tantalizing fruits of Silicon Valley for DoD, Brown made slow but steady progress, as outlined in the group’s annual reports [PDF]. These victories were hard earned, considering DIU was actively undermined from its inception seven years ago. It has suffered from a lack of funding and flexibility that limited non-traditional experimentation and the scaling of technologies, an acquisition bureaucracy stuck in a 1970s mindset, and monopolistic entrenched defense companies supported by government advocates who continue to put up roadblocks to the emergence of any SpaceX-like new entrants that could threaten existing weapons franchises.

And yet, Brown was able to do enough that when the Biden administration came into office, he was nominated for the department’s top acquisition job — only to have to withdraw when the Inspector General’s office said that ruling on an incredibly thin complaintfilled by an ex-DIU employee could take up to a year to investigate.

In his waning days of his government service, Breaking Defense published an interview with Brown in which he described “a critical lack of support from Pentagon leadership” that hindered his ability to bring new innovation into the Pentagon. That statement should set off alarm bells for anyone who believes reform is needed at the department.

DoD leadership seems to believe that rather than effectively use DIU, it can continue to conduct “innovation theater” and check the box on its non-traditional private sector outreach through misguided efforts such as a singular focus on the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program. The just-under $2 billion that DoD spends on SBIR in miniscule, thinly spread tranches is a trifling amount compared to the $400 billion that venture capitalists have recently spent on innovation, the $150 billion in “dry powder” that is still waiting to be invested, or the $1.8 trillion private equity industry that is a barely tapped resource for DoD. Those multi-trillion-dollar sources of finance and innovative companies are what DIU was established in the first place to leverage, but unfortunately it looks like DoD would rather spend its time on low-end $100,000 SBIR projects that rarely, if ever, transition into useful capability.

RELATED: Lawmakers propose changes to SBIR as program renewal deadline nears

The exasperated throwing in of the towel by Brown should be a wakeup call after his years of frustration dealing with a system that is just not conducive to change. The lack of champions to disrupt the status quo is demoralizing, and the resulting costs to US national security will be profound and immense.

Here’s the important thing: this was not how 2022 was supposed to unfold. DoD was given broad acquisition authorities in 2015 and 2016 through the leadership of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees — Sens. John McCain and Jack Reed, and Reps. Mac Thornberry and Adam Smith — specifically so that new capabilities could be developed and deployed to counter our growing defense technological inferiority. I should know: as a key staffer for McCain during these negotiations, I had a front-row seat as we crafted the language.

The establishment of DIU was a complementary effort to these reforms. Established by then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter in 2015, DIU (then DIUx) would be the bridge to the creative destruction, decentralization, and the innovation incentives residing in the non-defense portion of the private sector. It was no accident that DIU reported directly to the secretary, in order to escape the torrent of bureaucracy and corrupting influences that underline the defense acquisition system. In hindsight, DIU was probably given a death sentence several years later when Secretary Jim Mattis moved it from a direct report to being under the Undersecretary for Research and Engineering (R&E).

Now, the downgrade in importance of DIU seems to be continuing, with the current Pentagon’s approach to finding a new DIU director that speaks volumes about how the organization is currently valued.

An absolutely nonsensical formal notice and application process, reminiscent of how to fill a GS-9 analyst position, was recently announced by R&E to fill the spot. Past DIU directors were individually recruited by the administration and hired using the Highly Qualified Expert exemption to federal personnel rules. No substantive CEO type is going to fill out an SF-171 equivalent or send in his or her resume to apply for a government job. It’s enough to make one wonder if the convoluted search process isn’t set up specifically so that the types of people that will respond are precisely the ones who will be uniquely unqualified for the job. It boggles the mind that the Biden administration doesn’t know a single good Silicon Valley veteran that it can reach out to directly and entice into serving.

All of this has consequences. DoD, through its neglect, is turning its back on the disruptive opportunities from the commercial and non-traditional innovation sector. We are not innovating at speed, and the forces of the acquisition status quo are winning. Rather than go where the innovation is, DoD is doubling down on a bureaucratic, risk-averse, and time-intensive system that puts us at greater risk to being outmaneuvered if China continues to embrace commercial technologies and dominate advanced manufacturing.

RELATED: Pentagon’s tech chief promises stronger budget, support for DIU

In light of the Department’s actions, our last best hope may reside in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s own shift away from the private sector to favor his party bureaucracy and bring back communistic state planning and control. If he moves quickly in that direction, it could then level the playing field by destroying innovation on the Chinese side as well. Needless to say, wishing for the Chinese to become better communists should not be the default US defense innovation strategy.

Secretary Carter had a good idea with DIU, but he and his successors underestimated what it would really take to partner with Silicon Valley and non-traditional commercial industries and never expended the political capital to overcome the inevitable countervailing forces to reform. The takeaway, unless dramatic change occurs: If you are an innovative, non-traditional venture capital backed company, it is time to recognize that you will never be able to compete and scale up in the defense market because of DoD practices. So why bother? It’s not about acquisition or contracting authorities any longer. Congress reformed those. Now, it’s about DoD culture, using those authorities, and a history of not encouraging competition.

For now, we can only thank Mike Brown for his service and wish he would have had a dozen like-minded political appointees and military leaders supporting him over the years. A great opportunity was missed. The Pentagon can’t afford more such mistakes.

Bill Greenwalt, long the top Republican acquisition policy expert on the SASC, also served as deputy defense undersecretary for industrial policy. A member of the Breaking Defense Board of Contributors, he’s now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Article link: https://breakingdefense-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/breakingdefense.com/2022/08/dius-director-tried-to-overcome-a-calcified-defense-innovation-system-it-beat-him-now-what/amp/

A Dangerous WebMapping Racially and Ethnically Motived Violent Extremism – RAND

Posted by timmreardon on 08/29/2022
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

by Heather J. Williams, Luke J. Matthews, Pauline Moore, Matthew A. DeNardo, James V. Marrone, Brian A. Jackson, William Marcellino, Todd C. Helmus

  • Related Topics:
  • Domestic Terrorism,
  • Global Security,
  • Network Analysis,
  • Social Media Analysis,
  • Terrorism Threat Assessment,
  • Violent Extremism

According to the U.S. Intelligence Community, racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists are among the most lethal domestic violent extremists and the “most likely to conduct mass-casualty attacks against civilians.”[1]

Key Takeaways

  • The United States is overwhelmingly responsible for REMVE discourse online.
  • Although global coordination is important and there are lessons to be learned from international partners, the primary need is for robust national strategies to counter REMVE, foremost inside the United States.
  • Unlike U.S. counter-jihadist strategies, a counter-REMVEstrategy that focuses on organizations or individuals likely will not work because the REMVEmovement is diffuse and leaderless.
  • Security mechanisms—namely law enforcement and intelligence tools—will not be sufficient to deal with the REMVE movement in the United States. Intervention strategies will need to be multifaceted because of the scale and complex nature of far-right extremism and its intersections with protected civil rights.
  • Compared with the broad deplatforming approaches used to counter jihadist activity online, a more-targeted approach to deplatforming, potentially combined with counter-REMVEmessaging interventions, might be viable and at least partially effective in preventing radicalization and violence.

Racially and Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremism: The Basics

Racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism (REMVE) refers to a loosely organized movement of individuals and groups that espouse some combination of racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, misogynistic, and homophobic ideology. REMVE actors see their race or ethnicity under threat and promote the use of or engage in violence against a given population group. The majority of REMVE actors are motivated by cultural nationalism or White supremacy—beliefs that Caucasian or “Aryan” peoples represent superior races, and that “White culture” is superior to other cultures. Many REMVE actors also are motivated by White nationalism, which overlaps with White supremacy: Adherents espouse the belief that the White race is superior to others, and White nationalism emphasizes defining a country or region by White racial identity and promoting the interests of White people exclusively and at the expense of non-White populations.

More-common terms related to REMVEinclude far-right extremism, right-wing terrorism, radical right, or extreme right, which are used more frequently in literature and by other countries. Although these terms are not synonymous, they are used somewhat interchangeably and often without precise definitions. These terms also can be applied to political parties and movements that participate in political systems and do not engage in violence directly, particularly in Europe, where many parliamentary systems have formal far-right parties that participate in elections.

The U.S. State Department commissioned the RAND Corporation to produce a comprehensive network analysis of the White Identity Terrorist Movement (WITM) and REMVE in response to a congressional requirement from the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act.[2] The analysis—which sought to identify key actors, organizations, and supporting infrastructure and the relationships and interactions between them—is intended to inform a U.S. government strategy to counter REMVE.

REMVE Characteristics

  • Focused on violence by non-state actors
  • Often xenophobic, anti-Semitic, racist, misogynistic, and homophobic
  • Often motivated by White supremacy

What the Existing Literature Says

About Unifying Factors

  • Although race or identity can be unifying concepts, REMVE actors typically are far from homogenous—they have disparate networks, political parties, and groups that are active within national borders.
  • Accelerationism—a concept supporting the total collapse of the current system as a necessary precursor to a new extreme-right sociopolitical reality—has fostered an operational alliance among otherwise ideologically diverse far-right adherents.
    • Most of the accelerationist chatter that appears on such platforms as Telegram is inspirational in nature rather than organized; this chatter is meant to encourage lone actors to take whatever actions are necessary to hasten violence and the collapse of the status quo.

About Trends

  • Although right-wing extremism has been increasing both online and offline, the movement is largely online. There are more-limited instances of offline activity and violence.
  • There has been a shift toward a post-organizational landscape that is made up of decentralized networks of small cells and lone actors.

About Transnational Dynamics

  • Internationalization of the REMVEmovement has accelerated across the West in recent years; online messaging and social media platforms contribute to the spread of far-right extremist ideologies. However, much of the far-right discourse in online conversations stays within national boundaries.
  • REMVE concerns are generally local and domestically focused, although online REMVE actors in different countries share many of the same sentiments, especially about anti-immigration tropes.

About Recruitment

  • Mainstreaming—for example, sharing messages on Twitter that mingle extremist views with mainstream messages (e.g., using hashtags) or that normalize extremist perspectives using humor or satire—is the most common recruitment tactic.
  • In-person recruitment activities often are centered around festivals, concerts, and other events, such as those related to the mixed martial arts scene.

About Training

  • In the United States, REMVE groups conduct both field-based paramilitary training and online security training. Some groups encourage their members to seek organized, professional training; this includes urging group members to join the U.S. military.
  • Both Russia and Ukraine have attracted extremists interested in training. Neo-Nazis (who are mostly Russian, but some are American) have trained and fought with militias, such as the Azov Battalion, in Ukraine. The Russian Imperial Movement organizes training through its armed wing, the Imperial Legion.

About Fundraising

  • Most funding is obtained through legal, public means. Major funding sources (both in dollar amount and number of organizations and transactions) include crowdfunding, private donations, and commercial activities. How much revenue groups are raising and what portion of those revenues—and from what sources—go toward violent activities remain poorly researched.
  • Little evidence exists of extensive funding of REMVE causes through trafficking or criminal activity. The groups themselves are not sanctioned or labeled as terrorist organizations and thus are not inherently illegal.
Charlottesville, Copyright 2017, Fights, Guns, Injuries, Lee Park, Nazis, Police, Political Rally, Politics, Protests, Rodney Dunning, Unite the Right, Violence, White Nationalists

Photo by Rodney Dunning/Flickr

Analysis of Online REMVE Networks

RAND researchers analyzed over 27 million sampled messages across six social media platforms and from over 2 million users around the world, and they developed a network map with groups of relatively well-connected individuals (i.e., network communities). They assessed the size of these network communities, the interconnections among them both within and across platforms, the content of their discussions (including potentially violent sentiment and mentions of White supremacist organizations), and the locations of users.

Networks Are Dominated by Users in the United States

The authors sampled messages using key terms connected to White supremacy and xenophobia. They translated the keyword “white genocide” into 20 languages common in Europe.

Across the six social media platforms that RAND researchers examined, Twitter REMVE communities are the largest. Twitter also provides direct information about user-supplied locations, and most Twitter REMVEnetwork communities appear to be dominated by users in the United States. Furthermore, most geolocated network connections on Twitter are within single countries and have little observed transnational network connectivity. The authors considered whether this was true for networks generally by looking at social network comparators of general religious discourse or specifically Christian discourse on Twitter and found that these trends—dominated by users in the United States and within-country focused—were particularly true for REMVE networks.

Fringe and Niche Platform Content Is More Indicative of Violence

The authors used a published technique that determines dark triad psychometric scores using social media word-use patterns. The dark triad is a set of personality traits (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) that has been shown through survey research to correlate with violent behaviors. The researchers found that user groups on platforms that are considered more fringe and niche generally exhibited higher dark triad scores than did user groups on more-mainstream platforms, such as Twitter. Twitter, on average, has less severe dark triad language, but it still has an incredibly high number of users. Twitter’s highest-scoring dark triad community has more than 300,000 individual users; this is a larger number of users than all the users of REMVE-heavy fringe platforms combined (i.e., Gab, Stormfront, Telegram).

Some Communities Are Likely Shifting Platforms

The authors analyzed lexical similarities among platforms to identify when communities might shift to or interact with platforms with more-permissive content rules. This helped them understand how communities might (1) reconstitute themselves if deplatformed by mainstream social media platforms or (2) push newcomers to more-extreme and explicit centers of discourse.

Lexical similarities of a community on Gab suggest that it overlapped with the approximately 300,000-member Twitter community with the highest dark triad scores. On Gab, more-hardcore REMVEdiscourse is readily observable because Gab does not engage in any content moderation. The authors found that Reddit communities also exhibited high levels of dark triad scores, and subreddits (conversation threads) that made more mention of dedicated White supremacy organizations tended to have more network connections than those without such mentions. Thus, despite content moderation efforts on mainstream platforms, such as Twitter and Reddit, REMVE communities appear to be sustained by and even interacting with communities on more-fringe platforms that have more-extreme content.

German-Language Content on Telegram

Language usage allows for inferences even when direct location data is unavailable. The authors found nearly all the content on each platform was in English, except for on Telegram, where content was mostly in English but approximately 29 percent was in German. This is highly suggestive of a strong German national presence on that particular platform, which could be related to Telegram’s general popularity in Germany and the appeal of a platform that more effectively conceals locations, given Germany’s strict hate-speech laws.

Country-Specific Analyses

In consultation with the State Department, researchers identified ten countries that they assessed on REMVE trends: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Russia, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Canada and the United Kingdom were selected because these countries featured prominently in the network analysis—after the United States, they had the highest number of geolocated REMVE users among the countries examined in the study. Germany and the Nordic states of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were chosen because they are European countries where REMVE is known to be of concern and interest. Australia and New Zealand are countries where REMVEhistorically has not been an issue of major concern despite White nationalist sentiment in both countries; however, these threats are seen as growing in these countries. Russia was selected because of its role in producing and proliferating REMVE material and providing haven to REMVE groups, and Ukraine was selected because of the country’s potential to attract REMVE-oriented foreign fighters. Overarching lessons from these case studies are presented in the following sections.

The REMVE Threat

Nationalist, White supremacist, anti-Semitism, xenophobic, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant sentiment are all motivating factors for far-right extremism in the studied countries. In many of these countries, there are formalized far-right parties to which proponents of these sentiments might gravitate. These parties operate on the margin, which keeps them out of the political and sociocultural mainstream. But their presence as acknowledged political parties also works to keep them nonviolent.

Major Attacks

Across the studied countries, there have been few lethal attacks, and those that have occurred mostly have been perpetrated by lone actors. The authors did note that reliable data on attacks were not available for all countries.

National Efforts

Except in Russia, the studied countries have broadly scoped counter-extremism efforts in place. In addition to more-punitive measures, such as hate speech laws and bans on REMVE groups, many countries are using more–socially based prevention strategies, such as immigrant integration programs and community engagement initiatives that are aimed at preventing radicalization.

Study Methods

The analytic approach centered on two key activities:

  • A review of the existing literature on REMVE: specifically, material related to European countries, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. Sources had to be published between 2016 and 2021 and address contemporary trends, which the authors defined as occurring in the past ten years.
  • A new analysis of REMVE social connections and discourse on six social media platforms: Reddit, Twitter, Gab, Ruqqus, Telegram, and Stormfront.

The research team drew on material from both the literature review and the network analysis to develop ten country-specific case studies, which could offer lessons for U.S. policymakers.

Notes

  • [1] Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Domestic Violent Extremism Poses Heightened Threat in 2021, Washington, D.C., March 1, 2021, p. 1.
  • [2] Public Law 116-283, William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, January 1, 2021. Although the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act refers to both WITM and REMVE, this brief uses the latter term because the use of WITM is relatively uncommon and it is no longer used in government.
  • REPORTMapping White Identity Terrorism and Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent ExtremismJun 7, 2022 Heather J. Williams, Luke J. Matthews, et al.

Article link: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RBA1841-1.html?

Strategic Intent for Cyber Ready Memorandum Released – DON CIO

Posted by timmreardon on 08/29/2022
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

On August 4, 2022, Secretary Del Toro released a Strategic Intent for Cyber Ready memorandum that provides guidance for transforming the Department of the Navy’s approach to cybersecurity by pivoting from a compliance mindset to a dynamic model rooted in the philosophy of readiness and currency. This shift to a preemptive and active Cyber Ready state builds on the DON’s Information Superiority Vision, and will improve the DON’s cyber defenses while also speeding the process of acquiring cyber secure systems.

Cyber Ready is a continuous state of cybersecurity awareness, where the right to operate is earned and managed every day. A Cyber Ready posture ensures secure delivery of information into the right hands at the right time, through the acquisition and deployment of systems that are designed to be cyber secure.

To transition from the current compliance-based approach for cybersecurity to Cyber Ready, DON will pursue the following seven lines of effort (LOEs):

  1. Cyber Metrics: Measure cybersecurity holistically with a risk and readiness Zero Trust mindset. 
  2. Build on Risk Management Framework (RMF) Reform. Accelerate the Authority to Operate (ATO) process with automation and leverage inheritance models to reduce the allocated control sets that programs are responsible and accountable for.
  3. Cyber Currency: Move to an ongoing ATO that is maintained through Cyber Currency.
  4. Adversarial Assessment. Adopt a “trust but always verify” mindset (leverage automated penetration testing, audits, and data from continuous monitoring).
  5. Data Analytics: Democratize insight by providing visibility into the Cyber Ready posture to those who need to know the risks they are assuming.  
  6. Acquisition Changes: Provide programs the tools to develop systems that are “born” Cyber Ready and remain ready through Cyber Currency.
  7. Workforce: Deliver ongoing training to keep the acquisition and cyber workforce informed on the current processes and tools. 

Within 30-days of this memo, the DON Chief Information Officer (CIO), Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Information Warfare and Enterprise Services, and DON Deputy CIOs for both the Navy and Marine Corps will appoint leads and supporting organizations for each of the LOEs.

Read Strategic Intent for Cyber Ready.

TAGS: CISO: Cybersecurity, Cybersecurity, IA, InfoSharing, Strategy, Workforce

Related Policy

Strategic Intent for Cyber Ready

DON Migration to Windows 11 Operating System

DON Cybersecurity Manual

DON Best Practices for Public Use of Wi-Fi

DON RMF Reciprocity 

View More

Related News

Stronger Industry Engagement Needed to Bolster Cybersecurity

The DON CIO is on LinkedIn

DON Migration to Windows 11 Operating System Must Occur Prior to Oct. 2025

CNO Releases Navigation Plan 2022

Missed the 2022 DON IT East Conference?

View More

Related CHIPS Magazine

How U.S. Cyber Command, NSA Are Defending Midterm Elections: One Team, One Fight

SECNAV Visits FNMOC

CHIPS Act Advances DoD’s Emphasis on Microelectronics

CISA Releases New Insight on Preparing Critical Infrastructure for the Transition to Post-quantum Cryptography

Partnership in Action: Croatian, U.S. Cyber Defenders Hunting for Malicious Actors

View More

Related Resources

Chief of Naval Operations Navigation Plan 2022 

Featured Articles: July – Sept. 2022

PII Breach Reporting Resources 

Featured Articles: April-June 2022

DON CIO FY 22 Campaign Plan

View More

Lawmakers Float FITARA Changes as Scores Get Dragged Down by Missing Data – Nextgov

Posted by timmreardon on 08/28/2022
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

By CHRIS RIOTTAJULY 29, 2022

The cyber scores were unreliable due to incomplete data, witnesses told lawmakers.

Two things can be true about the 14th Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) scorecard at the same time: Many federal agencies are struggling to achieve their IT goals, and the removal of certain methodologies and a lack of available data impacted scores. 

The House Oversight Committee discussed the latest scores on Thursday morning as grades were released for the 24 agencies featured in the biannual scorecard tracking progress on IT modernization efforts and federal cyber priorities. Only one agency earned an overall “A” grade, as eleven agencies received a “C+” score and seven landed in the “B” range. Eight agencies saw their scores decrease, while 15 remained unchanged. 

Chief information officers testified the vast majority of agencies suffered low or failing marks in the cyber category in part due to a lack of available data for cybersecurity cross-agency priority goals. The latest scorecard relied on incomplete data from inspector general reports as the Office of Management Budget has failed to track the metrics since the previous White House administration.

“I want to be real clear: The issue isn’t the scorecard, the issue is the data provided in order to have a score,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations and an original co-sponsor of the FITARA legislation, said at the hearing. “One of the consequences, unfortunately, for the lack of data from OMB was that we had to rely only on the IG data, which is not complete.”

“As a result, every agency took a hit in the score,” he added. “But it wasn’t because there was a flaw in the design of the scorecard – it was because of a lack of compliance with the data.”

Government Accountability Office Director of IT and Cybersecurity Carol Harris agreed with those remarks and noted that the rest of the scorecard reflected an accurate representation of how agencies were progressing across categories like transparency and risk management, agency CIO authority enhancements, modernizing government technology, the transition off Networx and portfolio review savings.

Related articles

FITARA 14 sees just one overall A and stagnant grades

“I think that the challenge in this particular iteration is with cyber, because there is only one metric available for us to utilize,” she said. “I do believe that is not an accurate reflection of where agencies are at with cyber.”

Defense Department CIO John Sherman defended his agency after it received one of the lowest marks out of the entire scorecard, telling the committee: “We are better than the D+ we have on this scorecard.”

Defense earned “D” scores for its agency CIO authority enhancements and portfolio review savings, and was the only agency to receive an incomplete mark for the cyber category.

OMB “acknowledged mistakes” and agreed to work with the committee, Connolly said, hinting at a September hearing featuring the agency’s CIO to establish deadlines and ensure committee staff had the necessary data for the next iteration of the scorecard.

Harris and the panel of CIOs also offered recommendations for the next iteration of the scorecard throughout the hearing, including adding categories to track progress on the transition away from legacy systems. The committee also detailed a new data center consolidation methodology after previously announcing plans to sunset the Data Center Optimization Initiative methodology.

“It is time to shift this metric to make it more focused and relevant,” Connolly said. “While all agencies achieved their self-determined federal data center closures, a small handful of agencies have yet to complete their planned closures—even though we are rapidly closing in on the already twice extended consolidation reporting requirement date.”

The chairman added that the goal of the new metric is to “ensure agencies think strategically about their costly data center use” and “incentivize the closure of underutilized data centers.”

The committee has credited the scorecard with saving taxpayers an estimated $24 billion since it was first released in November 2015, helping agencies reduce wasteful spending while tracking progress and providing accountability on government-wide IT performance and cyber posture.

Article link: https://www.nextgov.com/cxo-briefing/2022/07/lawmakers-float-fitara-changes-after-scores-dragged-down-missing-data/375119/

The Need for Electronic Health Records to Support Delivery of Behavioral Health – JAMA

Posted by timmreardon on 08/26/2022
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

August 4, 2022

Alison N. Huffstetler, MD1; John Epling, MD, MSEd2; Alex H. Krist, MD, MPH1,3

Author Affiliations Article Information

JAMA. 2022;328(8):707-708. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.13391


n its report Implementing High-Quality Primary Care, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine called for “designing information technology that better serves the patient, family, and interprofessional care teams.”1 The report recommended that digital health systems should be person-centered, ensure equitable access and use, and simplify the user experience, and called for vendors to be held accountable for whether their systems achieve these goals. The need for person-centered, simplified experience in digital health crosses several domains, including delivery of preventive services. Historically, digital health platforms have implemented strategies to improve some preventive health domains such as cancer screening but have not comprehensively addressed preventive services of behavioral and social needs.

To accomplish digital health goals, it is essential to adhere to several of the key principles outlined in the report. First, digital health systems need to make it easy for clinicians to deliver national guidelines and quality recommendations. While there is debate on some guidelines and quality goals, for most, there is clear agreement on what standard care should be. Digital health systems need to have these guidelines and goals embedded as standard functionality and not require local tailoring and configuration. Second, digital health systems need to make information actionable for clinicians and patients. This can occur through automated delivery of screening instruments to patients before office visits, built-in scoring of screening instruments, alerts and reminders for patients and clinicians when care is needed, and educational material to engage and activate patients.2Third, digital health systems need to be easy to use; they should be intuitive for users, easily accessible, and not require complex workflows to enter and retrieve data.

Electronic health records (EHRs) and their associated patient portals are the foundation of the digital health environment. EHRs are a powerful tool for clinicians to access patient information, document and order care, and be alerted of recommended services, including behavioral preventive health services, such as for depression, intimate partner violence, and unhealthy alcohol use. The EHR has become such an essential tool for care that much of a clinician’s patient care time is spent working in the EHR, accounting for more time than spent face to face with the patient.3 Fundamentally, this means that the content in the EHR and how it is presented to clinicians can change how clinicians care for their patients, positively or negatively. Screening for preventable conditions is necessary for high-quality care; however, behavioral and mental health screenings are less commonly addressed during clinical encounters and are underresourced in the EHR.4

A national quality improvement initiative to improve primary care management of unhealthy alcohol use highlights some essential changes needed from EHRs to meet the National Academies’ digital health recommendation. In this initiative, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded 6 primary care networks to provide practice facilitation for 125 practices to improve screening and counseling for unhealthy alcohol use.5 Unhealthy alcohol use is an important cause of preventable death. Screening and counseling are recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), are easily delivered in primary care, and have demonstrated improvements in health outcomes but are sorely underdelivered in routine practice.4

To date, practice facilitation has been provided to 67 practices. This included assembling practice champions to review and assess their current workflow, identification of EHR resources for delivering care, and development of a workflow to better support recommended care. Of the 67 practices, 40 had 3 versions of a large, widely distributed EHR administered by their health system. The 3 versions of this EHR had 6 different pathways to document alcohol use, using 4 different screening questionnaires, only 1 of which was recommended by the USPSTF.

No health system’s EHR scored the responses, had an alert to show the patient was due for screening, or had a feasible way for informatics staff to automate sending the screener to patients outside of a visit. In these EHRs, between 2 and 8 clicks were needed for clinical staff to administer the screening when the patient arrived for a visit and another 2 to 8 clicks were needed for the clinicians to review the information. In 1 health system, the electronic workflow was so cumbersome, taking nearly 12 clicks to administer and 12 to review, that the system implemented a paper system to deliver the service.6,7

These examples highlight the lack of alignment between standard EHR functionality and evidence-based care. Most health systems have had to improve EHR pathways through substantial tailoring after the baseline EHR was implemented. Local tailoring is valuable and necessary for meeting the needs of communities and practices; the balance of standardization and tailoring is ambitious and critical. However, tailoring must begin from an evidence-based, guideline-driven foundation that is easily accessible. No health system would intentionally customize their EHR by requiring multiple clicks to reach a recommended screening instrument. Customization should not be required to make widely accepted, evidence-based guidelines usable by clinicians. Further, standard EHR functionality should include patient-oriented screening, ideally allowing for patients to complete screening prior to their visit, make the results easily visible to the clinician, and, importantly, score and identify the results as abnormal if indicated. This should be accomplished with a minimal amount of user effort and few clicks.

The EHR also should have programmed alerts that are automatically satisfied by patient completion and clinician review. Standard functions should include a registry to identify noncompleted screenings and to track patients who screen positive. Customization should not be required for essential functionality but should be allowed for more specific choices, eg, decisions on which recommended screening instruments to use and which educational material or local resources and programs to include. In several large EHRs, immunization alerts and smoking status reminders have been optimized to ensure quick access and ease of completion.8 Cancer screening alerts, such as for colon cancer, and automated completion are standard in most EHRs, but because of the complex nature of behavioral health recommendations EHRs are often inadequately structured to provide support for patient completion and improvement of patient outcomes.9

EHR vendors and hospital systems have worked to improve the digital health interface over the past decade. Many of the basic principles for better serving patients, families, and interprofessional care teams have been operationalized for more conventional biomedical services such as procedures and laboratory results. However, the experience with EHR-based alcohol screening highlights a large gap in EHR functionality for health behaviors, mental health, and social needs. Health behaviors, mental health, and social needs contribute more to health and well-being than conventional biomedical services,10 but clinician influence on these issues can be challenging because of inadequate identification through screening, lack of resources, and social stigma. The challenge for digital health is to account for the several components of behavioral health interventions. These preventive services are multistep processes that include screening for risks and then addressing identified needs through counseling or referral to services. The EHR must mirror the multistep process and adapt as patient data are entered to provide counseling and referral support as at-risk individuals are identified, thereby ensuring the intervention is fully delivered. Use of these tools should autosatisfy full completion of the preventive service. Behavioral health and preventive services affected by social determinants should take priority in EHR redesign. Some health systems have made great strides to customize the EHR to address social needs, but these innovations are not standard across systems.

Admittedly, addressing EHR usability and interoperability across vendors is difficult. The US Office of the National Coordinator for Healthcare Information Technology (ONC) has been assisted in this effort by the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, which includes requirements for usability and interoperability reporting by EHR vendors. But much more can be done. The ONC current EHR certification process, currently voluntary, could be made mandatory. There could be further requirements developed as part of this certification for better standard implementation of preventive service reminders and management tools. EHR companies would then compete, not on availability of what should be basic functionality, but on usability details and client service.

A refocus is needed in digital health to a move away from best business practices that help EHR vendors and health systems and move toward best health-related practice, including delivery of behavioral health preventive services, that improves care for patients and makes work easier for clinicians.

Article Information

Corresponding Author: Alison N. Huffstetler, MD, Department of Family Medicine and Population Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, One Capitol Square, 830 E Main St, Room 637, Richmond, VA 23219 (alison.huffstetler@vcuhealth.org).

Published Online: August 4, 2022. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.13391

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This work was funded by grant 1R18HS027077-01 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Dr Huffstetler).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality had no role in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Information: Dr Epling was a member of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) from 2016-2020; Dr Krist was a member of the USPSTF from 2014-2019 and served as chair from 2020-2021.

References

1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Implementing High-Quality Primary Care: Rebuilding the Foundation of Health Care. Published 2021. Accessed July 29, 2022. https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/implementing-high-quality-primary-care

2. Krist AH, Woolf SH. A vision for patient-centered health information systems. JAMA. 2011;305(3):300-301. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.2011
ArticlePubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

3. Young RA, Burge SK, Kumar KA, Wilson JM, Ortiz DF. A time-motion study of primary care physicians’ work in the electronic health record era. Fam Med. 2018;50(2):91-99. doi:10.22454/FamMed.2018.184803PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

4. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening and behavioral counseling interventions to reduce unhealthy alcohol use in adolescents and adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;320(18):1899-1909. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.16789
ArticlePubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

5. EvidenceNow: managing unhealthy alcohol use. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Published March 2021. Accessed July 29, 2022. https://www.ahrq.gov/evidencenow/projects/alcohol/index.html

6. Huffstetler AN, Kuzel AJ, Sabo RT, et al. Practice facilitation to promote evidence-based screening and management of unhealthy alcohol use in primary care: a practice-level randomized controlled trial. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21(1):93. doi:10.1186/s12875-020-01147-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

7. Unhealthy alcohol use: preliminary results. Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Family Medicine and Population Health. Accessed July 14, 2022. https://uauvirginia.squarespace.com/preliminary-results

8. Willis VC, Thomas Craig KJ, Jabbarpour Y, et al. Digital health interventions to enhance prevention in primary care: scoping review. JMIR Med Inform. 2022;10(1):e33518. doi:10.2196/33518PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

9. Guiriguet C, Muñoz-Ortiz L, Burón A, et al. Alerts in electronic medical records to promote a colorectal cancer screening programme: a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66(648):e483-e490. doi:10.3399/bjgp16X685657PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

10. Braveman P, Gottlieb L. The social determinants of health: it’s time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Rep. 2014;129(suppl 2):19-31. doi:10.1177/00333549141291S206PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref

Article link: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2795185?

Army undersecretary reviewing network modernization portfolio, wants ‘big bets’ – Breaking Defense

Posted by timmreardon on 08/25/2022
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

By Jaspreet Gill and Andrew Eversden on August 24, 2022 at 2:16 PM

WASHINGTON and ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. — The US Army has launched a portfolio review of its entire network modernization portfolio and is looking to place “big bets” on future battlefield network technologies, the service’s No. 2 official said this week.

“It’s too early to kind of draw any conclusions,” Undersecretary of the Army Gabe Camarillo told reporters on Tuesday at Aberdeen Proving Ground. “So we’re kind of in the middle of it right now. 

“But the goal is to rationalize our investment and the requirements that we have in all of these areas, from enterprise all the way to the tactical edge. And I think if I would characterize it, the focus is on building foundational investments that are going to enable the Army to be part of the joint force and to do everything that we have to do as part of our national defense strategy.”

For several years, the Army has been working to modernize its network to be more secure and resilient as the service shifts to Multi-Domain Operations and contributes to the Pentagon’s Joint All-Domain Command and Control initiative. Network modernization is among the service’s six modernization priorities.

Camarillo did not go into depth during his comments Tuesday, during a visit to Aberdeen Proving Ground. But speaking Wednesday at a Potomac Officer’s Club event, he added that the portfolio review, which will end in the fall, will focus on four areas: network operations; cloud adoption; the transport layer, which includes tactical radios and satellite communications; and the common operating environment. The review is being led by the service’s chief information officer and G-6.  

RELATED: Army Official Predicts ‘Much More Rapid Movement’ To The Cloud Over The Next Year

“Some of the questions that we’re examining as part of the reviews include, for instance, how do we implement a hybrid and multi-cloud approach combining…private and public sector cloud computing resources to meet Army security and resilience requirements, while at the same time promoting competition among different teams?” Camarillo said.

“How do we assist our migration across the enterprise by resourcing those common services that are required to do migration activities that are absolutely essential?” he continued. “How do we work with the private sector and other agencies to develop a strategy for migrating to the cloud and deliver the developing requirements that deliver the best value and effectiveness to the Army?”

The review was prompted by the several different Program Evaluation Groups, or PEGS, in the service, which is how the Army segments its budgets, Camarillo told reporters during the Potomac Officers Club event. But the goal isn’t to reallocate funding lines within the budget or realign organization responsibilities. 

Instead, Camarillo said he hopes the review will allow the service to identify areas where it can invest in next-generation requirements and make sure the service is accelerating its efforts appropriately.

“I think what we are trying to do is look at our current requirements for many of those capabilities,” he said. “And to the extent that there is duplication, or if there are opportunities to perhaps streamline and accelerate the requirements development process so that we can get to the next-generation leap ahead, that’s what we’re looking at.” 

During his trip of Aberdeen, Camarillo received demonstrations of the network modernization work underway by the Network Cross-Functional Team, Program Executive Office for Command, Control, Communication-Tactical and PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors. Camarillo told reporters that during his visit he was pushing the network team at Aberdeen to focus on future requirements and network needs.

“I’ve challenged the team here today: What can we do in terms of looking at next generation requirements? You know, big bets, whether it’s in the transport layer, all of our tactical radios, what do we need to do to get the next generation of evolution,” Camarillo told reporters before departing the installation.

Those big bets, according to a fact sheet, include increasing network resiliency, securing data, unified network operations, weaving together a data fabric and completing the service’s C5ISR Modular Suite of Standards program, a platform that will allow soldiers to plug in cards embedded with networking and electronic warfare capabilities.

IT acquisition, however, has always been a pain point for the Department of Defense and the services are always looking to find ways to speed up IT buys. To achieve the big bets, Brig. Gen. Jeth Rey, director of the Network Cross-Functional Team, told reporters Tuesday that the service needs to continue to explore new ways that acquisition process can be sped up — an area where Army senior leaders could help.

“We all have to come back to the under after today’s engagement with him: is there something we can do differently to acquire IT equipment in the processes that we currently have,” Rey said. “In the acquisition process, is there something that he can help with to put that particular technology into the hands of the user, a little bit faster? So I think we owe a ‘come back’ to him on what part of the process needs to be adjusted, or something new introduced.”

Article link: https://breakingdefense-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/breakingdefense.com/2022/08/army-undersecretary-reviewing-network-modernization-portfolio-wants-big-bets/amp/

A New US Data Privacy Bill Aims to Give You More Control Over Information Collected About You—And Make Businesses Change How They Handle Data – Nextgov

Posted by timmreardon on 08/25/2022
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

By ANNE TOOMEY MCKENNA The ConversationAUGUST 24, 2022 10:22 AM ET

The American Data and Privacy Protection Act appears to be major bipartisan privacy legislation

Data privacy in the U.S. is, in many ways, a legal void. While there are limited protections for health and financial data, the cradle of the world’s largest tech companies, like Apple, Amazon, Google, and Meta (Facebook), lacks any comprehensive federal data privacy law. This leaves U.S. citizens with minimal data privacy protections compared with citizens of other nations. But that may be about to change.

With rare bipartisan support, the American Data and Privacy Protection Act moved out of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce by a vote of 53-2 on July 20, 2022. The bill still needs to pass the full House and the Senate, and negotiations are ongoing. Given the Biden administration’s responsible data practices strategy, White House support is likely if a version of the bill passes.

As a legal scholar and attorney who studies and practices technology and data privacy law, I’ve been closely following the act, known as ADPPA. If passed, it will fundamentally alter U.S. data privacy law.

ADPPA fills the data privacy void, builds in federal preemption over some state data privacy laws, allows individuals to file suit over violations and substantially changes data privacy law enforcement. Like all big changes, ADPPA is getting mixed reviews from media, scholars and businesses. But many see the bill as a triumph for U.S. data privacy that provides a needed national standard for data practices.

WHO AND WHAT WILL ADPPA REGULATE?

ADPPA would apply to “covered” entities, meaning any entity collecting, processing or transferring covered data, including nonprofits and sole proprietors. It also regulates cellphone and internet providers and other common carriers, with potentially concerning changes to federal communications regulation. It does not apply to government entities.

ADPPA defines “covered” data as any information or device that identifies or can be reasonably linked to a person. It also protects biometric data, genetic data and geolocation information.

ADPPA would apply to “covered” entities, meaning any entity collecting, processing or transferring covered data, including nonprofits and sole proprietors. It also regulates cellphone and internet providers and other common carriers, with potentially concerning changes to federal communications regulation. It does not apply to government entities.

ADPPA defines “covered” data as any information or device that identifies or can be reasonably linked to a person. It also protects biometric data, genetic data and geolocation information.

a city street view with a young woman looking down at her phone in focus while passersby are out of focus
Protected data includes your location. Christoph Hetzmannseder/Moment via Getty Images

The bill excludes three big data categories: deidentified data, employee data and publicly available information. That last category includes social media accounts with privacy settings open to public viewing. While research has repeatedly shown deidentified data can be easily reidentified, the ADPPA attempts to address that by requiring covered entities to take “reasonable technical, administrative, and physical measures to ensure that the information cannot, at any point, be used to re-identify any individual or device.”

HOW ADPPA PROTECTS YOUR DATA

The act would require data collection to be as minimal as possible. The bill allows covered entities to collect, use or share an individual’s data only when reasonably necessary and proportionate to a product or service the person requests or to respond to a communication the person initiates. It allows collection for authentication, security incidents, prevention of illegal activities or serious harm to persons, and compliance with legal obligations.

People would gain rights to access and have some control over their data. ADPPA gives users the right to correct inaccuracies and potentially delete their data held by covered entities.

The bill permits data collection as part of research for public good. It allows data collection for peer-reviewed research or research done in the public interest – for example, testing whether a website is unlawfully discriminating. This is important for researchers who might otherwise run afoul of site terms or hacking laws.

The ADPPA also has a provision that tackles the service-conditioned-on-consent problem– those annoying “I Agree” boxes that force people to accept a jumble of legal terms. When you click one of those boxes, you contractually waive your privacy rights as a condition to simply use a service, visit a website or buy a product. The bill will prevent covered entities from using contract law to get around the bill’s protections.

LOOKING TO FEDERAL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE LAW FOR GUIDANCE

The U.S.’s Electronic Communications Privacy Act can provide federal law makers guidance in finalizing ADPPA. Like the ADPPA, the 1986 ECPA legislation involved a massive overhaul of U.S. electronic privacy law to address adverse effects to individual privacy and civil liberties posed by advancing surveillance and communication technologies. Once again, advances in surveillance and data technologies, such as artificial intelligence, are significantly affecting citizens’ rights.

ECPA, still in effect today, provides a baseline national standard for electronic surveillance protections. ECPA protects communications from interception unless one party to the communication consents. But ECPA does not preempt states from passing more protective laws, so states can choose to provide greater privacy rights. The end result: Roughly a quarter of U.S. states require consent of all parties to intercept a communication, thus providing their citizens increased privacy rights.

ECPA’s federal/state balance has worked for decades now, and ECPA has not overwhelmed the courts or destroyed commerce.

NATIONAL PREEMPTION

As drafted, ADPPA preempts some state data privacy legislation. This affects California’s Consumer Privacy Act, although it does not preempt the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act or state laws specifically regulating facial recognition technology. The preemption provisions, however, are in flux as members of the House continue to negotiate the bill.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/S8D7I-FGKOM?wmode=transparent&start=0The federal bill could end up preempting parts of California’s tougher state data privacy law.

ADPPA’s national standards provide uniform compliance requirements, serving economic efficiency; but its preemption of most state laws has some scholars concerned, and California opposes its passage.

If preemption stands, any final version of the ADPPA will be the law of the land, limiting states from more firmly protecting their citizens’ data privacy.

PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AND ENFORCEMENT

ADDPA provides for a private right of action, allowing people to sue covered entities who violate their rights under ADPPA. That gives the bill’s enforcement mechanisms a big boost, although it has significant restrictions.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the tech industry oppose a private right of action, preferring ADPPA enforcement be restricted to the Federal Trade Commission. But the FTC has far less staff and far fewer resources than U.S. trial attorneys do.

ECPA, for comparison, has a private right of action. It has not overwhelmed courts or businesses, and entities likely comply with ECPA to avoid civil litigation. Plus, courts have honed ECPA’s terms, providing clear precedent and understandable compliance guidelines.

HOW BIG ARE THE CHANGES?

The changes to U.S. data privacy law are big, but ADPPA affords much-needed security and data protections to U.S. citizens, and I believe that it is workable with tweaks.

Given how the internet works, data routinely flows across international borders, so many U.S. companies have already built compliance with other nations’ laws into their systems. This includes the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation – a law similar to the ADPPA. Facebook, for example, provides E.U. citizens with GDPR’s protections, but it does not give U.S. citizens those protections, because it is not required to do so.

Congress has done little with data privacy, but ADPPA is poised to change that.

Anne Toomey McKenna, Visiting Professor of Law, University of Richmond

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Article link: https://www.nextgov.com/ideas/2022/08/new-us-data-privacy-bill-aims-give-you-more-control-over-information-collected-about-youand-make-businesses-change-how-they-handle-data/376245/

Federal Experts Want More Visibility Into the FedRAMP Process

Posted by timmreardon on 08/25/2022
Posted in: Uncategorized. Leave a comment

Both vendors and Federal officials said today they want more visibility into the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) process, which certifies the security of cloud technologies for Federal government use and is operated by the General Services Administration (GSA).

During FCW’s FedRAMP Summit today, Lou Giglio, head of Federal government sales at Zoom, explained that from the vendor side, communication with the Federal government in regards to the FedRAMP process can be difficult.

“If the FedRAMP office could provide a primary point of contact to someone who has no more than three to five packages in process at the time, that would sure be helpful,” Giglio recommended. “All the automation in the world is not going to solve for not having that primary POC for that information exchange.”

From the Federal government side, David Catanoso, director of the Enterprise Cloud Solutions Office at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) – and who is now responsible for application hosting cloud-native solutions – also agreed more visibility would be beneficial.

“From our side, more visibility into the process in terms of where a particular FedRAMP certification is in the pipeline and how soon we could expect the certification to be in place,” would be helpful, Catanoso said.

“I was talking to a vendor yesterday where we’re trying to use a technology that they’re adding to their product that we already have under contract, but we can’t use these new features until we get the FedRAMP certification,” he explained. “And so we’re trying to plan around that, but it’s kind of an unknown timeline. It’s hard for us to make plans for that. So, that would just be helpful to get more visibility into that.”

Catanoso went on to say that when it comes to the VA’s cloud-related products, one of the criteria the agency uses is whether it is FedRAMP certified or not – which further illustrates the need for visibility into the process.

“If it’s not, it doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t consider a product, but it adds time to the process and we’d have to invest resources either to potentially sponsor a FedRAMP certification or see if another agency is in the process,” he said. “That goes back to my suggestion about getting better visibility to what’s in flight, because that would help us understand where the market’s going to be in six to 12 months from now and help us plan.”

“It’s a complex process, but we try to do our best with market research to kind of be evaluating what’s out there to best serve our veterans,” he added.

Article link: https://www.meritalk.com/articles/federal-experts-want-more-visibility-into-the-fedramp-process/

Posts navigation

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →
  • Search site

  • Follow healthcarereimagined on WordPress.com
  • Recent Posts

    • By Barring Profits on Basic Coverage, Switzerland Keeps Insurers from Denying Care – Commonwealth Fund 10/19/2026
    • Patients’ Perspectives on AI in Primary Care – Commonwealth Fund 09/11/2026
    • Bitcoin Mining Energy Footprint 08/06/2026
    • Closing the AI Hype Gap 08/05/2026
    • Why Artificial Intelligence is Neither Artificial, Nor Intelligent 07/31/2026
    • Agentic AI, explained 07/05/2026
    • Heeding the pope’s call to ensure AI protects human dignity – MIT Sloan Management 06/01/2026
    • Association between Wealth and Mortality in the United States and Europe – New England Journal of Medicine 05/30/2026
    • U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2026 – The Commonwealth Fund 05/30/2026
    • Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah’s remarks on Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical “Magnifica humanitas” 05/28/2026
  • Categories

    • Accountable Care Organizations
    • ACOs
    • AHRQ
    • American Board of Internal Medicine
    • Big Data
    • Blue Button
    • Board Certification
    • Cancer Treatment
    • Data Science
    • Digital Services Playbook
    • DoD
    • EHR Interoperability
    • EHR Usability
    • Emergency Medicine
    • FDA
    • FDASIA
    • GAO Reports
    • Genetic Data
    • Genetic Research
    • Genomic Data
    • Global Standards
    • Health Care Costs
    • Health Care Economics
    • Health IT adoption
    • Health Outcomes
    • Healthcare Delivery
    • Healthcare Informatics
    • Healthcare Outcomes
    • Healthcare Security
    • Helathcare Delivery
    • HHS
    • HIPAA
    • ICD-10
    • Innovation
    • Integrated Electronic Health Records
    • IT Acquisition
    • JASONS
    • Lab Report Access
    • Military Health System Reform
    • Mobile Health
    • Mobile Healthcare
    • National Health IT System
    • NSF
    • ONC Reports to Congress
    • Oncology
    • Open Data
    • Patient Centered Medical Home
    • Patient Portals
    • PCMH
    • Precision Medicine
    • Primary Care
    • Public Health
    • Quadruple Aim
    • Quality Measures
    • Rehab Medicine
    • TechFAR Handbook
    • Triple Aim
    • U.S. Air Force Medicine
    • U.S. Army
    • U.S. Army Medicine
    • U.S. Navy Medicine
    • U.S. Surgeon General
    • Uncategorized
    • Value-based Care
    • Veterans Affairs
    • Warrior Transistion Units
    • XPRIZE
  • Archives

    • October 2026 (1)
    • September 2026 (1)
    • August 2026 (2)
    • July 2026 (2)
    • June 2026 (1)
    • May 2026 (12)
    • April 2026 (4)
    • March 2026 (9)
    • February 2026 (6)
    • January 2026 (8)
    • December 2025 (11)
    • November 2025 (9)
    • October 2025 (10)
    • September 2025 (4)
    • August 2025 (7)
    • July 2025 (2)
    • June 2025 (9)
    • May 2025 (4)
    • April 2025 (11)
    • March 2025 (11)
    • February 2025 (10)
    • January 2025 (12)
    • December 2024 (12)
    • November 2024 (7)
    • October 2024 (5)
    • September 2024 (9)
    • August 2024 (10)
    • July 2024 (13)
    • June 2024 (18)
    • May 2024 (10)
    • April 2024 (19)
    • March 2024 (35)
    • February 2024 (23)
    • January 2024 (16)
    • December 2023 (22)
    • November 2023 (38)
    • October 2023 (24)
    • September 2023 (24)
    • August 2023 (34)
    • July 2023 (33)
    • June 2023 (30)
    • May 2023 (35)
    • April 2023 (30)
    • March 2023 (30)
    • February 2023 (15)
    • January 2023 (17)
    • December 2022 (10)
    • November 2022 (7)
    • October 2022 (22)
    • September 2022 (16)
    • August 2022 (33)
    • July 2022 (28)
    • June 2022 (42)
    • May 2022 (53)
    • April 2022 (35)
    • March 2022 (37)
    • February 2022 (21)
    • January 2022 (28)
    • December 2021 (23)
    • November 2021 (12)
    • October 2021 (10)
    • September 2021 (4)
    • August 2021 (4)
    • July 2021 (4)
    • May 2021 (3)
    • April 2021 (1)
    • March 2021 (2)
    • February 2021 (1)
    • January 2021 (4)
    • December 2020 (7)
    • November 2020 (2)
    • October 2020 (4)
    • September 2020 (7)
    • August 2020 (11)
    • July 2020 (3)
    • June 2020 (5)
    • April 2020 (3)
    • March 2020 (1)
    • February 2020 (1)
    • January 2020 (2)
    • December 2019 (2)
    • November 2019 (1)
    • September 2019 (4)
    • August 2019 (3)
    • July 2019 (5)
    • June 2019 (10)
    • May 2019 (8)
    • April 2019 (6)
    • March 2019 (7)
    • February 2019 (17)
    • January 2019 (14)
    • December 2018 (10)
    • November 2018 (20)
    • October 2018 (14)
    • September 2018 (27)
    • August 2018 (19)
    • July 2018 (16)
    • June 2018 (18)
    • May 2018 (28)
    • April 2018 (3)
    • March 2018 (11)
    • February 2018 (5)
    • January 2018 (10)
    • December 2017 (20)
    • November 2017 (30)
    • October 2017 (33)
    • September 2017 (11)
    • August 2017 (13)
    • July 2017 (9)
    • June 2017 (8)
    • May 2017 (9)
    • April 2017 (4)
    • March 2017 (12)
    • December 2016 (3)
    • September 2016 (4)
    • August 2016 (1)
    • July 2016 (7)
    • June 2016 (7)
    • April 2016 (4)
    • March 2016 (7)
    • February 2016 (1)
    • January 2016 (3)
    • November 2015 (3)
    • October 2015 (2)
    • September 2015 (9)
    • August 2015 (6)
    • June 2015 (5)
    • May 2015 (6)
    • April 2015 (3)
    • March 2015 (16)
    • February 2015 (10)
    • January 2015 (16)
    • December 2014 (9)
    • November 2014 (7)
    • October 2014 (21)
    • September 2014 (8)
    • August 2014 (9)
    • July 2014 (7)
    • June 2014 (5)
    • May 2014 (8)
    • April 2014 (19)
    • March 2014 (8)
    • February 2014 (9)
    • January 2014 (31)
    • December 2013 (23)
    • November 2013 (48)
    • October 2013 (25)
  • Tags

    Business Defense Department Department of Veterans Affairs EHealth EHR Electronic health record Food and Drug Administration Health Health informatics Health Information Exchange Health information technology Health system HIE Hospital IBM Mayo Clinic Medicare Medicine Military Health System Patient Patient portal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act United States United States Department of Defense United States Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Upcoming Events

Blog at WordPress.com.
healthcarereimagined
Blog at WordPress.com.
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    healthcarereimagined
    Join 149 other subscribers

    Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.

  • healthcarereimagined
    View site in Reader
    Manage subscriptionsSign upLog in
    Report this content
    Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...