Flick the Switch Board: Get Plugged into the Latest UK Guidance on EEE and WEEE
Waste treatment, recycling and take back obligations in relation to electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) and waste of such electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) have long been a focus area for EU regulators, and now we are seeing increased enforcement in the United Kingdom. Although the European Union and United Kingdom are largely aligned in some intention behind the reuse, recycling and recovery obligations applicable to electronic brands, there are also notable differences in implementation which companies should be alive to when operating across both jurisdictions.
To assist with this, the Environment Agency of the United Kingdom recently published four sets of guidance on EEE and WEEE, namely:
Guidance on when EEE becomes WEEE for the purposes of the UK WEEE regulations, to properly classify and manage waste;
Guidance for waste operators and exporters on how to classify some items of WEEE, waste components and wastes from their treatment in England, focusing on identifying hazardous chemicals and persistent organic pollutants;
Guidance on shipping WEEE into and out of England from 1 January 2025; and
Guidance on reporting the placing of EEE on the UK market.
We highlight some key points for consumer electronics brands in this alert.
WHAT PRODUCTS DOES THE NEW GUIDANCE APPLY TO?
EEE is broadly defined as any product that is dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields to work properly, and which is designed for use with a voltage rating of 1,000 volts or less for alternating current and 1,500 volts or less for direct current.
This definition therefore includes a wide variety of consumer products, such as large and small household appliances, information technology and telecommunications equipment, lighting, tools, toys, leisure and sports equipment, medical devices and many others. The most recent guidance notes are therefore relevant to many consumer products. For the latest UK guidance on what qualifies as EEE under the regulations, see here.
1. Guidance on When EEE Becomes WEEE
The primary aim of this guidance is to help companies, that hold EEE they no longer need, to prevent that EEE from inadvertently becoming WEEE. These parties include EEE producers as well as treatment facilities, collection facilities, producer compliance schemes and waste carriers. According to the legal definition of WEEE, any EEE which the holder discards, intends to discard or is required to discard becomes WEEE.
However, the guidance provides that EEE intended to be reused can avoid becoming WEEE if all the reuse conditions as described in the latest guidance are satisfied. This is relevant as it could potentially avoid triggering WEEE obligations in some cases (such as registering and reporting the EEE as WEEE, organising or financing its collection, treatment and recycling and so forth).The reuse requirements for this exemption are:
The EEE is reused for the same purpose for which it was designed (the use must not be subordinate or incidental to the original use);
The previous holder intended for it to be reused;
No repair, or no more than minor repair, is required to it when it is transferred from the previous holder to the new holder, and the previous holder knows this;
Any necessary repair is going to be done;
Its use is lawful; and
It is not managed in a way that indicates that it is waste, for example, it is not transported or stored in a way that could cause it to be damaged.
Ultimately, the assessment of whether a substance or object is waste should be made by taking into account all the relevant circumstances.
2. Guidance on How to Classify Some Items of WEEE, Waste Components and Wastes From Their Treatment in England, Focusing on Identifying Hazardous Chemicals and Persistent Organic Pollutants
This guidance is relevant to waste operators and exporters who must classify all the WEEE leaving their premises by way of a waste transfer note or a consignment note.
Certain types of WEEE are known to include hazardous chemicals or persistent organic pollutants, and guidance on classifying such waste has already been produced by the UK Environment Agency previously.
However, there are certain items of WEEE which require the producer or distributor to carry out a self-assessment, for which guidance is provided. These include:
Office equipment – non-household types such as photocopiers and printers;
Medical devices – Category 8;
Monitoring and control instruments – Category 9; and
Automatic dispensers – Category 10.
3. Guidance for Importing and Exporting WEEE
This third guidance, which is intended to ensure compliance with environmental regulations and proper waste management practices, requires companies that are exporting or importing WEEE into or from England, to notify all WEEE shipments for recovery in the European Union and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries using new codes for hazardous and non-hazardous WEEE. Some of the existing waste shipment classification codes will cease to exist from the beginning of 2025. In addition, the guidance reiterates that hazardous WEEE and wastes must not be shipped to non-OECD countries. It is also noted that if any EEE is being exported with a purpose of reusing it, such EEE should not be classified as waste. For any WEEE to be exported out of the United Kingdom, the import requirements of a destination country should also be carefully considered.
4. Guidance on Reporting the Placing of EEE on the UK Market
This guidance details the duty to report how much EEE you place on the market either to your producer compliance scheme or on the WEEE online service if you are a small producer. Placing on the market refers to when EEE becomes available for supply or sale in the United Kingdom. This occurs by sale, loan, hire, lease or gifting of EEE by UK manufacturers, UK distributors, importers and customers. It is important to understand the regulatory obligations at each level of the supply chain and to what extent those can be transferred by way of contractual clauses. This does not encompass EEE products which are made or imported in the United Kingdom and then exported without being placed on the UK market.
If you have placed EEE on the UK market, you must keep accurate records to report the amount of EEE tonnage you placed on the market and exported. Evidence can be taken in the form of invoices, delivery notes and export documentation like bills of lading, customs documents and receipts. You must report your business-to-consumer (B2C) EEE quarterly, and your business-to-business (B2B) EEE annually.
PRACTICAL TIPS
The recent UK guidance on EEE and WEEE is helpful in clarifying certain aspects of its reuse, classification and associated export and import requirements. EEE brands or companies dealing with such equipment should familiarise themselves with these latest rules to ensure compliance, at the risk of prosecution and an unlimited fine from a magistrates’ court or Crown Court. As a first step, producers should consider:
If anticipating the reuse of EEE, make sure they satisfy all of the reuse conditions to avoid it becoming WEEE;
Reviewing their current processes for classifying and handling EEE and WEEE;
Specific classification lists and guidance applicable to the particular WEEE they have or handle;
Before exporting or importing WEEE or its components, verify the requirements for notification of transit and destination countries; and
Keep accurate records of the amount of EEE placed on the UK market and report quarterly for B2C or annually for B2B.
A Brief Reminder About the Florida Information Protection Act
According to one survey, Florida is fourth on the list of states with the most reported data breaches. No doubt, data breaches continue to be a significant risk for all business, large and small, across the U.S., including the Sunshine State. Perhaps more troubling is that class action litigation is more likely to follow a data breach. A common claim in those cases – the business did not do enough to safeguard personal information from the attack. So, Florida businesses need to know about the Florida Information Protection Act (FIPA) which mandates that certain entities implement reasonable measures to protect electronic data containing personal information.
According to a Law.com article:
The monthly average of 2023 data breach class actions was 44.5 through the end of August, up from 20.6 in 2022.
While a business may not be able to completely prevent a data breach, adopting reasonable safeguards can minimize the risk of one occurring, as well as the severity of an attack. Additionally, maintaining reasonable safeguards to protect personal information strengthens the businesses’ defensible position should it face an government agency investigation or lawsuit after an attack.
Entities Subject to FIPA
FIPA applies to a broad range of organizations, including:
• Covered Entities: This encompasses any sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, or other legal entity that acquires, maintains, stores, or uses personal information…so, just about any business in the state. There are no exceptions for small businesses.
• Governmental Entities: Any state department, division, bureau, commission, regional planning agency, board, district, authority, agency, or other instrumentality that handles personal information.
• Third-Party Agents: Entities contracted to maintain, store, or process personal information on behalf of a covered entity or governmental entity. This means that just about any vendor or third party service provider that maintains, stores, or processes personal information for a covered entity is also covered by FIPA.
Defining “Reasonable Measures” in Florida
FIPA requires:
Each covered entity, governmental entity, or third-party agent shall take reasonable measures to protect and secure data in electronic form containing personal information.
While FIPA mandates the implementation of “reasonable measures” to protect personal information, it does not provide a specific definition, leaving room for interpretation. However, guidance can be drawn from various sources:
Industry Standards: Adhering to established cybersecurity frameworks, such as the Center for Internet Security’s Critical Security Controls, can demonstrate reasonable security practices.
Regulatory Guidance: For businesses that are more heavily regulated, such as healthcare entities, they can looked to federal and state frameworks that apply to them, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Entities in the financial sector may be subject to both federal regulations, like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and state-imposed data protection requirements. The Florida Attorney General’s office may offer insights or recommendations on what constitutes reasonable measures. Here is one example, albeit not comprehensive.
Standards in Other States: Several other states have outlined more specific requirements for protecting personal information. Examples include New York and Massachusetts.
Best Practices for Implementing Reasonable Safeguards
Very often, various data security frameworks have several overlapping provisions. With that in mind, covered businesses might consider the following nonexhaustive list of best practices toward FIPA compliance. Many of the items on this list will seem obvious, even basic. But in many cases, these measures either simply have not been implemented or are not covered in written policies and procedures.
Conduct Regular Risk Assessments: Identify and evaluate potential vulnerabilities within your information systems to address emerging threats proactively.
Implement Access Controls: Restrict access to personal information to authorized personnel only, ensuring that employees have access solely to the data necessary for their roles.
Encrypt Sensitive Data: Utilize strong encryption methods for personal information both at rest and during transmission to prevent unauthorized access.
Develop and Enforce Written Data Security Policies, and Create Awareness: Establish comprehensive data protection policies and maintain them in writing. Once completed, information about relevant policies and procedures need to shared with employees, along with creating awareness about the changing risk landscape.
Maintain and Practice Incident Response Plans: Prepare and regularly update a response plan to address potential data breaches promptly and effectively, minimizing potential damages. Letting this plan sit on the shelf will have minimal impact on preparedness when facing a real data breach. It is critical to conduct tabletop and similar exercises with key members of leadership.
Regularly Update and Patch Systems: Keep all software and systems current with the latest security patches to protect against known vulnerabilities.
By diligently implementing these practices, entities can better protect personal information, comply with Florida’s legal requirements, and minimize risk.
CA Legislators Charge That Privacy Agency AI Rulemaking Is Beyond Its Authority
As we have covered, the public comment period closed on February 19th for the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) draft regulations on automated decision-making technology, risk assessments and cybersecurity audits under the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “Draft Regulations”). One comment that has surfaced (the CPPA has yet to publish the comments), in particular, stands out — a letter penned by 14 Assembly Members and four Senators. These legislators essentially charged the CPPA for being over its skis, calling out “the Board’s incorrect interpretation that CPPA is somehow authorized to regulate AI.”
And these lawmakers did not stop there. They questioned the Draft Regulations based on their projected costs on businesses:
While we recognize CPPA’s role in the regulatory setting, the CPPA must avoid operating in a vacuum when developing regulations. You voted to move these regulations forward with the knowledge they will cost Californians $3.5 billion in first year implementation, with ongoing costs of $1.0 billion annually for the next 10 years, and 98,000 initial job losses in California. That is nothing to say of the adverse impact on future investment and jobs noted by the analysis that will get moved to other states, or the startups that will get developed elsewhere….
It is also important to note that California could face a $2 billion deficit in 2025, as recently reported by the Legislative Analyst Office. Your votes to move these regulations forward are unlikely to help California’s fiscal condition in 2025 and, in fact, stand to make the situation much worse. We urge you to take a broader view and redraft all of your regulations to minimize its costs to Californians. Moving forward, the CPPA must work responsibly with other branches of government to get these regulations right in order to avoid significant and irreversible consequences to California. [Emphasis added.]
All of this said, it should not be construed that Privacy World disapproves of robust risk assessments as a best practice and as practically necessary for sound information governance and to ensure legal compliance. However, there is a difference between guidance and compulsion, and it seems that this debate is happening at the highest level in Sacramento, which is timely given the CPPA Board is about to select a new Executive Director to lead the CPPA. There is no doubt that California has been, and remains, the leader in consumer privacy protection, and CPPA Board and staff have the best interest of California and its citizens in mind. It is exactly these kinds of comments, however, that will help the CPPA achieve its goals and follow its mission.
California Governor’s Executive Order on Disaster Unemployment Assistance for Child Care Providers in Los Angeles
On February 11, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order to support childcare providers impacted by the recent wildfires in Los Angeles. This order ensures that those affected are aware of their eligibility for Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) and receive the necessary support to apply.
In addition to supporting individual workers, the EDD offers several disaster-related services to employers affected by emergencies. These services are designed to provide financial relief and support business continuity during challenging times.
Employers directly impacted by a disaster can request up to a two-month extension to file their state payroll reports and deposit payroll taxes without penalty or interest.
The EDD collaborates with Local Assistance Centers and Disaster Recovery Centers established by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) or federal authorities to provide comprehensive support to affected businesses.
Employers can also access information about Disability Insurance (DI) and Paid Family Leave (PFL) benefits for their eligible workers, ensuring that employees who are unable to work due to disaster-related reasons receive the necessary financial support.
Brain Injury Prevention: Strategies for Keeping Yourself and Loved Ones Safe
When it comes to brain injuries, prevention is the best strategy. Whether you’re a parent, an athlete, or someone who enjoys an active lifestyle, understanding how to protect yourself and your loved ones from brain injuries is crucial. Here are some key strategies to help keep you safe.
Understanding Brain Injuries
First, let’s define what a brain injury is. A brain injury can occur from a bump, blow, or jolt to the head, which can disrupt normal brain function. These injuries can range from mild concussions to more severe traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Awareness of the risks is the first step in prevention.
Wear Appropriate Safety Gear
One of the simplest ways to protect yourself is by wearing the right safety gear when participating in sports and activities. This includes:
Helmets: Always wear a helmet when biking, skateboarding, or participating in contact sports. The helmet should fit properly and meet safety standards.
Protective Pads: For sports like hockey or football, wearing pads can provide additional protection to your head and body.
Create a Safe Home Environment
Here are some simple ways to make your home safer:
Clear Pathways: Keep walkways and stairs clear of clutter. This can help prevent falls, which are a common cause of brain injuries, especially in older adults.
Install Handrails: Make sure that stairways have sturdy handrails and consider grab bars in bathrooms.
Lighting: Use bright lighting in hallways and staircases to prevent accidents in low-light conditions.
Educate Yourself and Others
Understanding the signs of a brain injury can lead to early detection and treatment. Be aware of symptoms like:
Confusion or disorientation
Headaches
Nausea or vomiting
Balance issues
Teach your family members, especially children, about the importance of reporting any head injuries, even if they seem minor.
Encourage Safe Practices in Sports
If you or your loved ones participate in sports or recreational activities, promoting safe practices is essential:
Follow the Rules: Encourage following the game rules and regulations intended to protect players.
Play Smart: Teach athletes to avoid reckless behavior and to speak up if they feel unwell after a hit.
Be Mindful While Driving
Motor vehicle accidents are a leading cause of brain injuries. Below are a couple of ways to drive safely:
Buckle Up: Always wear your seatbelt and ensure that all passengers do the same.
Avoid Distractions: Keep your eyes and focus on the road—put away your phone and limit distractions.
Lead a Healthy Lifestyle
A healthy lifestyle can contribute to better brain health:
Exercise Regularly: Regular physical activity can help improve balance and coordination, reducing the risk of falls.
Stay Hydrated: Being hydrated supports overall brain function.
Healthy Diet: A balanced diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and omega-3 fatty acids can promote brain health.
Conclusion
By taking proactive steps to prevent brain injuries, you can protect yourself and your loved ones from potentially life-altering consequences. If you or someone you know has suffered a brain injury due to someone else’s negligence, don’t hesitate to reach out for legal help. Stay safe, and remember that a little prevention goes a long way!
Accessibility Law in Canada: Cross-Country Disability Access Legislation
Some jurisdictions in Canada are subject to accessibility legislation that sets disability access standards, such as for provincially regulated organizations operating in the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba and for federally regulated industries (such as telecommunications, transportation, etc.).
These laws generally do not provide a direct right of action for alleged violations of disability access standards. Rather, recourse is available through other legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, including human rights legislation in every Canadian jurisdiction.
Quick Hits
Organizations that are provincially regulated in Ontario and/or Manitoba, and/or organizations that are federally regulated (e.g., telecommunications, railways, etc.) are currently subject to accessibility legislation.
Provincially regulated private-sector organizations in other Canadian provinces and territories are not currently subject to accessibility standards legislation.
For federally regulated organizations, the Accessible Canada Act (ACA) requires development of an accessibility plan in consultation with people with disabilities and annual reporting on progress. The next deadline, for private-sector organizations to file their second progress report, is June 1, 2025.
In Ontario, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) applies to all organizations and requires compliance reporting every three years. The next deadline is December 31, 2026.
In Manitoba, the Accessibility for Manitobans Act sets accessibility standards for all organizations. The next deadline is for meeting information and communication standards by May 1, 2025.
Provincial Accessibility Legislation
Ontario has Canada’s oldest and most fulsome accessibility legislation: the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA). Organizations operating in Ontario are required to meet the standards set out in the AODA and its regulations. Every three years, organizations covered by the AODA must submit a report regarding their compliance to the Ontario Ministry of Seniors and Accessibility. The next reporting deadline is December 31, 2026.
Manitoba was next to enact accessibility legislation with the establishment of the Accessibility for Manitobans Act in 2013. Organizations are currently subject to accessibility standards under the legislation and were required to meet those standards for customer service in 2018 and employment in 2022.
The next deadlines are to meet the information and communication standards by May 1, 2025 (some specific public-sector organizations had earlier deadlines) and the transportation standard by January 1, 2027 (with the exception of accessibility upgrades to existing buses operated by conventional transit operators). Standards for the design of outdoor public spaces are in development.
Several other provinces have enacted accessibility legislation under which accessibility standards will or may apply to private-sector employers once established by regulation at some point in the future.
British Columbia’s Accessible British Columbia Act (2021) currently applies only to school districts, educational institutions, municipalities, health authorities, and other public-sector organizations, who were required to comply by September 1, 2024.
Saskatchewan’s Accessible Saskatchewan Act (2023) currently applies only to the government of Saskatchewan.
Accessibility legislation in New Brunswick (the 2024 Accessibility Act), Newfoundland and Labrador (2021’s An Act Respecting Accessibility in the Province), and Nova Scotia (Accessibility Act (2017)) do not yet impose accessibility standards on organizations, as regulations are still in development.
Several other provinces and territories do not have accessibility legislation at this time: Alberta, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Prince Edward Island.
Federal Accessibility Legislation
Notably, federally regulated organizations (e.g., telecommunications, railways, etc.) operating in any Canadian province or territory are subject to the federal Accessible Canada Act (ACA), regardless of whether the jurisdiction has separate provincial accessibility legislation.
Under the ACA, organizations are required to develop an accessibility plan that identifies barriers to accessibility in seven priority areas (including employment, the built environment, communication, information technology, procurement, design and delivery of programs and services, and transportation). Organizations are required to consult with people with disabilities in preparing their plans, which should outline the actions that are being taken to address the identified barriers.
Private-sector organizations were required to publish their first accessibility plans by June 1, 2023. Annual progress reports setting out what has been done to address the identified barriers were required to be published in June of each of the next two years (i.e., June 1, 2024) for the first progress report and June 1, 2025, for the second progress report. The following year, by June 1, 2026, organizations are required to publish a new accessibility plan, and the reporting cycle continues. Governmental organizations have their deadlines one year before private-sector organizations.
U.S. Courts Can Recognize a Foreign Judgment Even Without Personal Jurisdiction
A recent federal court decision underscores a critical point for parties seeking to enforce foreign judgments in the U.S.: recognition of a foreign judgment does not require personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In Cargill Financial Services International, Inc. v. Taras Barshchovskiy, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recognized a $123.94 million English judgment against a Ukrainian businessman, despite his lack of ties to New York. This ruling reaffirms that judgment creditors can gain access to U.S. discovery tools—among the most expansive in the world—before establishing jurisdiction over a debtor or its assets. With similar judgment recognition laws in many other U.S. states, this decision may influence courts nationwide and shape future cross-border enforcement strategies.
Case Details
In January 2021, Cargill initiated arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules, citing Barshchovskiy’s failure to repay debts under several agreements. The LCIA consolidated these proceedings, resulting in a December 2022 award favoring Cargill for $123,940,459.55. Barshchovskiy contested the award under Section 68 of the English Arbitration Act, but the English Commercial Court dismissed his claims in May 2023. Following this, Cargill sought enforcement of the award, culminating in the English High Court’s judgment in January 2024.
Proceedings in New York
Cargill then filed a case in the New York State Supreme Court seeking to enforce the English judgment in the U.S. Due to difficulties locating Barshchovskiy, the court approved alternative service methods, such as email and Facebook. After service, Barshchovskiy removed the case to federal court and filed for dismissal, citing insufficient service and failure to state a claim for relief. The court denied his motion in September 2024, finding the alternative service appropriate given the impracticality of traditional methods.
Summary Judgment and Recognition
Cargill moved for summary judgment to recognize the English judgment under New York’s Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgments Act (CPLR Article 53). Barshchovskiy opposed, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The court explained that recognizing a foreign judgment does not require personal jurisdiction over the defendant, as it simply converts the foreign judgment into a New York judgment. The court noted that enforcing that New York judgment would, however, require Cargill to establish the court’s jurisdiction over Barshchovskiy or his property.
Implications
This ruling highlights the difference between recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Recognition can proceed without personal jurisdiction over the defendant, whereas enforcement actions require such jurisdiction. Recognition is not a mere procedural hurdle to clear on the way to enforcement, however. As the court explained, “one of the primary purposes of judgment recognition [is] to give the judgment creditor the right to use the tools of the court to locate the judgment creditor’s assets.” These tools include the various methods authorized by U.S. courts for the discovery of documents and information. The scope of discovery in U.S. courts is typically far more extensive than in non-U.S. jurisdictions and can thus provide a powerful tool in enforcing foreign judgments.
Although the decision relied on New York law governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, the specific New York statute is based on the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgments Act, a version of which 36 other U.S. states have also enacted. Given this fact, as well as New York’s prominence as a leading pro-arbitration jurisdiction, the Cargill decision is likely to be influential in other U.S. jurisdictions.
The decision is Cargill Financial Services International, Inc. v. Taras Barshchovskiy, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case No. 24-cv-5751 (Feb. 18, 2025).
The “Gold Card”: Analyzing the Latest Immigration Innovation
In public remarks on Tuesday February 26th, President Trump spoke about a proposal for a new type of U.S. visa, a “Gold Card”. While the President did not go into details, he suggested that this new visa could be issued to companies or to individuals for $5 million per card. Other members of the administration suggested that this new status will replace the existing EB-5 investor visa program. If the administration chooses to pursue implementing this new visa, the proposal will have to go through multiple stages of development including congressional legislation to update the Immigration and Nationality Act, making President Trump’s statement about availability within weeks unlikely.
If this proposal does become law, the United States will join several other countries with “Golden Visa” programs, including Portugal, the UAE, Dominica, and Thailand. These programs are designed to attract foreign investment by granting residency or citizenship in exchange for substantial financial contributions, such as investments in real estate, business, or government bonds. The U.S. program differs as it is designed to pay off the U.S. debt rather than create jobs through investment. If this program becomes law, it will be the most expensive Golden Visa in the world.
There is a significant tax benefit attached to this Gold Card proposal. Wealthy foreign nationals tend to avoid becoming U.S. permanent residents and/or U.S. citizens to avoid U.S. taxation on their worldwide income. To attract future Gold Card holders, the administration says the U.S. will not tax them on their worldwide income, but only on their U.S. income. This will give Gold Card holders a benefit not provided to current permanent residents or U.S. citizens. It is unclear if the idea is for this benefit to continue if they choose to become U.S. citizens or is only available to those who remain in Gold Card status.
Iowa Governor Signs Law Making State the First to Remove Gender Identity Protections From Civil Rights Code
On February 28, 2025, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed legislation making the state the first to remove antidiscrimination protections for gender identity from its civil rights code.
Quick Hits
Iowa Governor Reynolds signed a bill into law that removes “gender identity” as a protected class under the state’s civil rights code.
The law further defines gender as binary, requires birth certificates to indicate sex, and restricts teaching about “gender theory” from kindergarten through sixth grade.
The enactment further amends the law to specifically state that “separate accommodations are not inherently unequal.”
Senate File (SF) 418, which takes effect on July 1, 2025, removes “gender identity” as a protected class in the Iowa Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in employment, wages, public accommodations, housing, education, and credit practices. The new law makes it more difficult for transgender individuals to bring claims alleging discrimination or harassment in state court. Furthermore, the amended law states that “separate accommodations are not inherently unequal.”
The governor’s signature came one day after state lawmakers approved the legislation on February 27, 2025. The legislation was fast-tracked through the state legislature, passing both the Iowa House and Senate in less than a week after it was introduced on February 24, 2025.
“It is common sense to acknowledge the obvious biological differences between men and women. In fact, it is necessary to secure genuine equal protection for women and girls,” Governor Reynolds said in a statement.
In recent years, Iowa has enacted laws that prevent doctors from administering gender-affirming care to individuals under the age of eighteen, ban transgender students from using school bathrooms that do not correspond with their sex at birth, and prohibit transgender students from participating in girls’ high school sports and women’s college athletics.
SF 418 makes several other key changes to Iowa state law regarding sex and gender, rejecting the idea of gender identity as separate from biological sex. Specifically, the law defines “sex” in statutes as “the state of being either male or female as observed or clinically verified at birth” and defines “female” and “male” based on reproductive systems that produce ova and sperm, respectively. The law further asserts that the term “gender” should be considered synonymous with sex and not “gender identity, experienced gender, gender expression, or gender role.”
The law also requires birth certificates to include a designation of the sex of the person, and it removes a provision allowing for a new birth certificate to be established based on a notarized affidavit by a licensed physician stating that the person’s sex designation has changed due to surgery or other treatment.
Additionally, the bill impacts school curricula, prohibiting schools from providing any program, curriculum, test, survey, questionnaire, promotion, or instruction related to “gender theory” or sexual orientation to students in kindergarten through sixth grade.
Next Steps
Iowa is now the first state to remove protections for gender identity from its civil rights code. The Iowa law comes amid a new push at the federal level since President Trump took office to define “sex” as binary and immutable, including with EO 14168, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
The administration has further sought to limit the Supreme Court of the United States’ holding in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, in which the Court held that the firing of an employee because of the employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity constituted unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Amid the changes in federal guidance and state law, employers should remember that Bostock remains good law and states, “The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.” (Emphasis added.)
White House Policy Aims to Reshape Foreign Investment in the United States
What Happened
On February 21, 2025, President Trump issued a National Security Memorandum on America First Investment Policy (the Foreign Investment Memo) outlining the administration’s foreign direct investment policy, including initiatives for a regulatory “fast track” process, additional scrutiny for Chinese investors, and key changes to reviews by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), including CFIUS’s use of national security agreements.
The Bottom Line
The Foreign Investment Memo represents an explicit shift in how the United States regulates foreign direct investment. Going forward, partners and allies are likely to see some regulatory burdens ease while investors from China and other countries identified as adverse will see significantly expanded restrictions. Federal agencies have been directed to establish new rules that will specifically target Chinese investment in the United States and new or expanded restrictions on US outbound investment in China in sensitive or emerging technologies. The memo also suggests that the government may reconsider Chinese companies’ access to US capital markets.
The Foreign Investment Memo calls for expanding CFIUS jurisdiction over real estate and greenfield projects. At the same time, the Foreign Investment Memo directs the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and others to reduce barriers to foreign investment from countries that are not identified as foreign adversaries and specifically directs CFIUS to limit the use of national security agreements, which has grown in recent years. Companies and other investors from outside of the United States should carefully consider these changes, which will impact foreign direct investment in the United States going forward.
The Full Story
Upon taking office on January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a Memorandum on America First Trade Policy calling for, among other things, “a robust and reinvigorated trade policy that promotes investment and productivity, enhances our Nation’s industrial and technological advantages, [and] defends our economic and national security.” The issuance of the February 21, 2025, Foreign Investment Memo builds on the January 20 statement by aiming to both promote investment from US allies while at the same time preserving and expanding regulatory controls on investment in the United States from, and investment by US persons in, “foreign adversary” countries—defined in the Foreign Investment Memo as the People’s Republic of China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macau Special Administrative Region; the Republic of Cuba; the Islamic Republic of Iran; the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; the Russian Federation; and the regime of Venezuelan politician Nicolás Maduro.
Inbound Investment Promotion for Non-Adverse Countries
The Foreign Investment Memo aims to promote investment from countries that are US allies or other friendly countries in the ways described below, with a number of open questions as to how the policy will manifest for foreign investors.
The Foreign Investment Memo directs federal agencies to implement a “fast track” investment process consisting of expedited national security reviews in some cases and expedited environmental reviews for large investments.
Who is eligible for the “fast track” for national security reviews?
This “fast track” process will apply for “specified allies and partner sources” in US businesses involved with US advanced technology and other important areas. The Foreign Investment Memo does not detail which “specified allies and partner sources” will be eligible for this “fast track” process. The existing CFIUS rules exempt investors from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom from certain mandatory filing requirements (but maintain CFIUS jurisdiction to review controlling investments from these investors on a non-mandatory basis). Whether these countries will be the starting point for a list of “specified allies and partner sources” or whether government policy will be something else entirely will ultimately be answered by federal agencies’ implementation of these principles.
What will the “fast track” mean for national security reviews?
The current CFIUS rules already provide a less onerous filing option for foreign investors known as a “declaration.” This process has been available for filers since 2020 under the CFIUS rules promulgated under the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA). In practice, declarations are used for less complex reviews with limited national security implications. At present, the decision of whether to make a filing with CFIUS as a short-form declaration or long-form notice depends on the foreign investor’s own assessment of whether obtaining CFIUS clearance is likely through the declaration process. The Foreign Investment Memo directs the US Secretary of the Treasury (Treasury), in consultation with the US Secretary of State, the US Secretary of Defense, the US Secretary of Commerce, the United States Trade Representative, and the heads of other executive departments and agencies as deemed appropriate by Treasury and in coordination with other members of CFIUS, to take actions to implement the “fast track,” including the promulgation of new rules and regulations. Accordingly, significant implementation of the “fast track” will likely be detailed in forthcoming rulemakings by the US Department of the Treasury. In the meantime, the Foreign Investment Memo is likely to inform CFIUS reviews within the existing regulatory framework. Additionally, the Foreign Investment Memo directs that the “fast track” will be conditioned on requirements that the specified foreign investors avoid partnering with foreign adversaries.
What about the “fast track” for environmental reviews?
The Foreign Investment Memo directs the Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency to carry out expedited environmental reviews for any investment over $1 billion in the United States. Although included in the Foreign Investment Memo, environmental reviews are not traditionally a part of foreign direct investment regulation in the United States and the inclusion of this element in the Foreign Investment Memo appears to be a part of the administration’s broader policy to reduce environmental regulatory and permitting requirements.
The Foreign Investment Memo calls for an end to certain CFIUS practices with respect to mitigation agreements.
CFIUS has the authority to negotiate, enter into or impose any agreement, condition or order with any party to mitigate national security risk arising from a covered transaction or covered real estate transaction. In recent years, CFIUS has increasingly relied on these “mitigation agreements” to address perceived national security risks with open-ended obligations for investors. As of 2023 year-end, CFIUS was engaged in the ongoing monitoring 246 mitigation agreements and had begun to assess civil monetary penalties on investors for alleged violations of mitigation agreement conditions. CFIUS practitioners have anecdotally observed that the increasing use of mitigation agreements may in some cases dissuade foreign investors from making non-mandatory filings with CFIUS. Our prior coverage tracking the increasing reliance on mitigation agreements through CFIUS’s annual reports to Congress is available here.
The Foreign Investment Memo acknowledges that the increasing use of mitigation agreements creates uncertainty and administrative burdens for investors and directs that mitigation agreements going forward should consist of concrete actions that companies can complete within a specific time, rather than perpetual compliance obligations.
Inbound Investment Restrictions for China
The Foreign Investment Memo reaffirms and expands on existing US foreign direct investment policy and regulation with respect to investors from “foreign adversaries.” Given that the “foreign adversary” countries identified in the Foreign Investment Memo (other than China) are generally subject to significant economic sanctions that in practice render investment in the United States illegal or impractical, the most significant changes under the Foreign Investment Memo concern China as described below.
Expanding CFIUS jurisdiction over real estate and greenfield investments.
The Foreign Investment Memo announces that the new administration will take steps to protect US farmland and real estate near sensitive facilities such as military, ports and shipping terminals, as well as expand CFIUS authority over “greenfield” investments in order to restrict foreign adversary access to US sensitive technologies, including artificial intelligence and “emerging and foundational” technologies. This announcement aligns with recent actions to expand the scope of real estate under CFIUS jurisdiction, including a rule making late last year that expanded the list of sensitive facilities triggering CFIUS jurisdiction, and efforts by the US Congress and several US states to limit Chinese investments in US agricultural real estate. Notably, the Foreign Investment Memo calls for Treasury to expand CFIUS authority regarding “greenfield” investments to restrict access to US sensitive technologies indicates that the current exception for “greenfield” investments may be limited by a future rulemaking to provide CFIUS with additional authority over investments in potential new businesses that involve US sensitive or emerging and foundational technologies.
Expanding restrictions on investments in US critical infrastructure.
The Foreign Investment Memo provides as a general policy that the United States should not allow China to “take over” US critical infrastructure and states that “for investment in US businesses involved in critical technologies, critical infrastructure, personal data, and other sensitive areas (referred to under the current CFIUS rules as ‘TID US businesses’), restrictions on foreign investors’ access to United States assets will ease in proportion to their verifiable distance and independence from the predatory investment and technology-acquisition practices of [China] and other foreign adversaries or threat actors.” The Foreign Investment Memo specifies that the administration will use CFIUS to restrict China-affiliated persons from investing in US technology, critical infrastructure, healthcare, agriculture, energy, raw materials or other strategic sectors.
In practice, the explicit targeting of China with respect to foreign direct investment does not represent a deviation from current CFIUS practice. CFIUS has historically aggressively scrutinized Chinese investment in US critical infrastructure and technology. Under current CFIUS rules, mandatory filings are required for certain investments in TID US businesses involved in “emerging and foundational” technologies as identified by the US Department of Commerce. In implementing the Foreign Investment Memo, it is likely that Treasury will promulgate rules to expand mandatory filing requirements and potentially promulgates the first CFIUS rules that call out foreign investors from specific countries, crystallizing existing practice into regulations for Chinese investors.
Expanding barriers for Chinese investors.
As noted above, CFIUS has increasingly relied on mitigation agreements in recent years to allow foreign investment to move forward while limiting national security concerns. In practice, investors from China came to expect mitigation agreements in many circumstances where CFIUS was willing to consider mitigation and accepted such conditions as a palatable alternative to having the transaction blocked. Although anecdotal reports indicate that CFIUS has been less willing to rely on mitigation agreements with Chinese investors in recent years, the Foreign Investment Memo’s policy of ending mitigation agreements with ongoing monitoring compliance obligations may remove this option altogether if risks cannot be mitigated by concrete actions within set times.
Outbound Investment Restrictions
The Foreign Investment Memo also addresses US outbound investment in China and Chinese owned entities. Announcing that the administration will use all necessary legal instruments to further deter US persons from investing in China’s military-industrial sector, the Foreign Investment Memo lays out four tools to discourage US investment in China:
Sanctions. Currently, US sanctions on China restrict equity investment in publicly traded companies identified by Treasury as comprising part of China’s military-industrial complex. The Foreign Investment Memo states that the administration will consider actions to deter US investment in China through the imposition of sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) through the blocking of assets of identified individuals or entities or through expanding the existing sanctions on China. The Foreign Investment Memo does not itself impose sanctions or announce that sanctions will be imposed. Nonetheless, the administration is signaling that it will consider expanded economic sanctions as a viable means to deter US investment in China’s military-industrial sector.
Outbound Investment Rules. On January 2, 2025, new regulations promulgated by Treasury in accordance with Executive Order 14105 went into effect that regulate US outbound investment in China’s semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies and artificial intelligence sectors (the Outbound Investment Rules). Our prior coverage of the Outbound Investment Rules is available here. The Foreign Investment Memo states that the new administration is reviewing Executive Order 14105 (as directed in the January Memorandum on America First Trade Policy) and indicates that the purpose of this review will be to expand the Outbound Investment Rules to restrict investment in additional sectors such as biotechnology, hyper-sonics, aerospace, advanced manufacturing, directed energy and other areas implicated by China’s national “Military-Civil Fusion” strategy. The administration considers that the sectors covered by the Outbound Investment Rules should be regularly reviewed and updated and that additional investment types should be addressed by the rules. The Foreign Investment Memo specifically calls out private equity, venture capital, greenfield investments, corporate expansions and investments in publicly traded securities, from sources including pension funds, university endowments and other limited-partner investors. Accordingly, it is reasonable to anticipate that the Outbound Investment Rules will expand under this policy.
US Capital Markets. Notably, the current Outbound Investment Rules include exceptions for certain publicly traded securities. The Foreign Investment Memo appears to target this exception where it states that Chinese companies “raise capital by: selling to American investors securities that trade on American and foreign public exchanges; lobbying United States index providers and funds to include these securities in market offerings; and engaging in other acts to ensure access to United States capital and accompanying intangible benefits.” The Foreign Investment Memo further directs Treasury, in consultation with other federal agencies and law enforcement, to provide a written recommendation on the risk posed to US investors based on the auditability, corporate oversight, and evidence of criminal or civil fraudulent behavior for all foreign adversary companies currently listed on US exchanges.
Trade. The Foreign Investment Memo announces that the administration will review whether to suspend or terminate the 1984 United States-The People’s Republic of China Income Tax Convention, which the memorandum states is partly responsible, along with China’s admission to the World Trade Organization, for offshoring resulting in the deindustrialization of the United States and the technological modernization of China’s military. This appears to align the Foreign Investment Memo within the new administration’s broader trade policy toward China and signals further efforts by the administration to incentivize the de-linking of US firms from China.
Notably, although the Foreign Investment Memo mentions protecting US personal data, it does not mention the new restrictions related to cross-border data transfers (the Bulk Data Transfer Rules) scheduled to go into effect on April 8, 2025, which restrict or in some cases prohibit sharing certain US personal data with Chinese companies.
Considerations
The implementation of the steps outlined in the Foreign Investment Memo will have the greatest impact on Chinese investors and other foreign investors with ties to China seeking to invest in the United States. However, these steps will generally lead to expanded diligence and related compliance obligations on both foreign and US investors broadly.
Exchanging the SEC: Previewing the Next Four Years
The election of President Trump means a changing of the guard at the US Securities and Exchange Commission. President Trump has nominated Paul S. Atkins, a former SEC commissioner, as chairman of the agency, and he is currently working through the Senate confirmation process. Once confirmed, we anticipate a shift in SEC policy on a number of key areas during Chairman Atkins’s term.
A New Majority Takes Control
With the recent resignations of two Democratic commissioners in January, Republicans now hold a 2-1 majority at the SEC. The two Republican commissioners—Mark Uyeda (the current acting SEC chairman) and Hester Peirce—both previously served on then-Commissioner Atkins’s personal staff at the SEC as his counsel and have long-standing relationships with him. Both Acting Chairman Uyeda and Commissioner Peirce often viewed policy and enforcement issues differently than former SEC chair Gary Gensler and frequently dissented from key rulemakings and enforcement cases during Gensler’s term.
Uyeda and Peirce’s many dissenting statements from actions taken under the Gensler SEC likely preview a shift in public policy preferences for the SEC over the next four years, and Acting Chairman Uyeda has already put in place key senior personnel and set in motion a process to unwind several initiatives undertaken during Chair Gensler’s term. President Trump’s many recent executive orders seeking to reorient the executive branch also help to set the tone for the new Republican SEC majority. Mr. Atkins’s own public statements and professional activities over the years further suggest that he will approach many issues differently than his predecessor.
The SEC’s remit is large, and Chairman Atkins will no doubt focus on a range of reforms to the SEC’s processes for rulemaking and enforcement, as well as a potential redesign of the agency’s overall organization. By providing a sampling of various topics, we hope to illustrate the broader approach the SEC is likely to take over the next four years. Below we discuss several representative areas where we expect a change in the reconstituted SEC.
A Survey of Select Priorities
Climate Reporting Rule
In March 2024, the SEC adopted sweeping and controversial climate disclosure rules for public companies. A series of petitioners brought judicial challenges around the country to the SEC’s climate rules, and the cases were consolidated before the federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The SEC has voluntarily stayed compliance with the rules while the litigation remains pending.
The ascendant SEC majority does not support the current climate rule. The two sitting Republican commissioners each dissented when the SEC adopted the rules, and they have called for the SEC to return to traditional notions of financial materiality when undertaking future rulemaking. Paul Atkins has in the past also been skeptical of the SEC’s efforts in the climate area.
The case challenging the climate rule is now fully briefed, but the Eighth Circuit has not yet scheduled oral argument. Acting Chairman Uyeda in early February instructed the SEC staff to petition the court to delay scheduling oral argument in light of the change in administrations. The SEC could eventually abandon defense of the rule, but a group of Democratic state attorneys general has intervened in the case and would likely seek to continue to defend the current rule.
Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of the litigation process, the SEC is instead likely to commence a process to repeal the rule through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Prior judicial precedent makes clear that an agency may repeal a rule in this manner, and lays out the procedure to do so. Ironically, a Fifth Circuit case decided during Chair Gensler’s term concerning a challenge to his efforts to repeal several rules governing proxy advisors provides a roadmap to proceed. Under the caselaw, the SEC may change course with a new administration, but if the new policy is based on facts different from those underlying the prior policy, a more detailed explanation of that rationale is required in the SEC adopting release.
Cryptocurrency and Digital Assets
President Trump campaigned heavily on the promise that he would reform the federal government’s restrictive view on cryptocurrency and digital assets, and he issued an executive order overhauling the federal approach to the digital asset sector. Immediately after President Trump’s inauguration, and even before the President’s executive order, the SEC announced the formation of a new Crypto Task Force. The task force is led by Commissioner Hester Peirce and draws on staff from around the agency. Its mission is to “collaborate with Commission staff and the public to set the SEC on a sensible regulatory path that respects the bounds of the law.” It will also coordinate with other state and federal agencies, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The SEC press release announcing the task force’s creation is somewhat critical of the agency’s prior approach to regulating digital assets, noting that the agency “relied primarily on enforcement actions to regulate crypto retroactively and reactively, often adopting novel and untested legal interpretations along the way.” The press release observed, “Clarity regarding who must register, and practical solutions for those seeking to register, have been elusive.” The announcement concludes, “The SEC can do better.” This sort of self-criticism at the SEC, even on a change in administrations, is atypical.
In a wide-ranging public statement entitled “The Journey Begins,” SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce previewed next steps for the SEC’s Crypto Task Force and provided a 10-point, nonexclusive agenda for the SEC Crypto Task Force:
providing greater specificity as to which crypto assets are securities;
identifying areas both within and outside the SEC’s jurisdiction;
considering temporary regulatory relief for prior coin or token offerings;
modifying future paths for registering securities token offerings;
updating policies for special purpose broker-dealers transacting in crypto;
improving crypto custody options for investment advisers;
providing clarity around crypto lending and staking programs;
revisiting SEC policies regarding crypto exchange-traded products;
engaging with clearing agencies and transfer agents transacting in crypto; and
considering a cross-border sandbox for limited experimentation.
The SEC’s efforts continue to pick up pace. The SEC withdrew controversial Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 on custody of crypto assets. The news media has widely reported on reassignment of key personnel in the agency’s specialized enforcement unit focusing on Crypto Assets and Cyber, which has formally been renamed the Cyber and Emerging Technology Unit. Further, the SEC has dismissed or delayed prosecution of its enforcement cases against several prominent cryptocurrency businesses. While these developments will be welcomed by the cryptocurrency industry, they will also expect a major SEC rulemaking push on digital assets under Chairman Atkins.
Cybersecurity Reporting on Form 8-K
Cybersecurity is another area where Chair Gensler was active in SEC rulemaking and enforcement, and where Uyeda and Peirce were sometimes critical. In July 2023, for example, the SEC adopted rules requiring public companies to report material cybersecurity incidents on Form 8-K under new Item 1.05. Since reporting became required in December 2023, 26 separate companies have disclosed material cybersecurity incidents under this requirement. Of course, far more than 26 public companies have had to respond to cybersecurity incidents of one kind or another since December 2023. Very few companies are therefore reaching the conclusion that these events were material for SEC reporting purposes.
Unlike climate and crypto where we anticipate further SEC rulemaking, we assign a low probability to any organized effort to repeal the cybersecurity Form 8-K reporting requirement. Though compliance with the rules is moderately burdensome for companies in the midst of a cybersecurity incident, there are far more burdensome reporting rules (compensation disclosure and analysis, for example), and the SEC will likely prioritize other matters on its rulemaking agenda. It is possible that the new chair will instruct the SEC staff to release additional interpretive guidance on cybersecurity reporting under Form 8-K, but the SEC staff has already made an extensive effort to discourage companies from making immaterial Form 8-K filings under Item 1.05, both through comment letters and other staff interpretive guidance. So, Item 1.05 is an artifact of the Gensler era that is likely to survive.
Other Future Rulemaking
As alluded to above, over the next four years we also expect the SEC to change direction on rulemaking. It is doubtful whether many items on the SEC’s Fall 2024 rule list under the Regulatory Flexibility Act involving priorities of former Chair Gensler will see further action. For example, the rule list includes placeholders for proposals on topics such as “Corporate Board Diversity,” “Human Capital Management Disclosure,” and “Enhanced Disclosures by Certain Investment Advisers and Investment Companies about Environmental, Social, and Governance Investment Practices.” We do not expect the SEC to take further action on these or similar matters. Instead, in addition to the matters discussed above, we expect the SEC to focus its rulemaking resources on other topics that have been priorities of prior Republican administrations. Such topics include facilitating capital raising, expanding the definition of “accredited investor”, reform of the shareholder proposal process under SEC Rule 14a-8, and matters related to capital market structure.
Enforcement
The change in SEC leadership will also lead to a shift in SEC enforcement priorities and an enhanced focus on protecting retail investors. A frequent area where Uyeda and Peirce dissented from enforcement actions under prior Chair Gensler concerned cases where the majority sought to expand existing law or otherwise apply SEC precedent creatively. The SEC under Gensler brought several novel cases alleging failures of disclosure controls and procedures or internal controls over financial reporting in cases involving cybersecurity incidents, for example. Rather than continue to push the envelope, we expect the SEC to return to more traditional areas of enforcement.
To this end, we anticipate that SEC enforcement in the coming years will prioritize cases alleging investor fraud where there are clear misstatements or omissions of material facts. Other core SEC enforcement priorities such as insider trading, accounting fraud, Ponzi schemes, affinity frauds and other scams impacting retail investors will also likely see greater emphasis. Cases alleging only technical rule violations without investor harm or pursuing cutting-edge theories of liability are likely to be less common.
ESG enforcement is a specific area where we expect SEC priorities to shift. Under the prior administration, the SEC brought several greenwashing enforcement cases, for example. Commissioners Uyeda and Peirce were especially critical of greenwashing cases that focused on alleged failures in corporate controls or other technical violations of the law without clear fraud. Over the next four years, we expect the SEC to bring fewer cases of this kind.
Site-Neutral Medicare Proposals Currently on the Table: Considerations for Stakeholders
Site-neutral payment policies aim to standardize payments for healthcare services regardless of the site of care. Last Congress, lawmakers considered a number of Medicare site-neutral policies, ranging from ones addressing single services to broader policies that would adjust payments across multiple services and care settings. Some of these policies have also been presented as options to reduce federal spending, including on mandatory healthcare programs.
If Congressional Republicans decide to pursue cuts in Medicare spending, site-neutral policies may well be considered. In this +Insight, we review and categorize recent Medicare site-neutral policy proposals and suggest considerations to guide analysis of these policies’ potential impact.
DOWNLOAD REPORT