In a new policy brief, Advancing Healthcare Technology, The Buckeye Institute urges lawmakers to create a “regulatory sandbox” so that AI innovators can develop new medical technologies in a flexible, safe regulatory environment that lowers costs and cuts red tape. An AI healthcare sandbox “will allow healthcare providers, AI developers, and policymakers to collaborate and responsibly test novel technologies related to drug development, medical imaging, disease diagnosis, gene therapy, medical research, and health data management...” 

The Buckeye Institute commented after the Ohio House passed House Bill 96—Ohio’s biennial budget, which now goes to the Ohio Senate for consideration. “The budget passed by the Ohio House includes several good policies that prioritize the needs of Ohio’s K-12 students, improve Ohio’s higher education system, and put reasonable guardrails on the state’s ever-growing Medicaid program. However, this budget assumes a rosy financial picture that is not certain.”
 

The Buckeye Institute filed public comments with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services supporting Ohio’s 1115 Medicaid Work and Community Engagement Waiver application that, if approved, will allow the state to implement work and education requirements for healthy adult Ohioans younger than 55 who receive Medicaid benefits. “Medicaid work and education requirements, which only apply to healthy working-age adults, help people stay connected to the workforce and find good paying jobs.”

The Buckeye Institute filed its appeal in Flannery v. Eckenwiler with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on behalf of Eric Flannery, the owner of The Big Board, a neighborhood bar and grill located in our nation’s capital. Flannery v. Eckenwiler charges that members of the 6C Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) conspired to protest the renewal of The Big Board’s liquor license to punish Mr. Flannery because he spoke out against D.C.’s pandemic-era shutdown orders.
 

The Buckeye Institute testified before the Ohio House Finance Committee on the policies in Ohio Substitute House Bill 96—Ohio’s biennial budget. In the testimony, The Buckeye Institute noted that the House version of the state budget “offers a mixed bag of belt-tightening, policy improvements, and missed opportunities...” House Bill 96, unfortunately, “fails to address tax expenditures or close tax loopholes…and adds a series of new earmarks.”

The Buckeye Institute testified before the Ohio House Judiciary Committee on the policies in Ohio House Bill 5, which takes another step to “balance due process, individual freedom, and the need for robust criminal law enforcement.” In the testimony, The Buckeye Institute applauded lawmakers for their “commitment to prudent, commonsense criminal justice policies and reforms,” many of which The Buckeye Institute championed.

The Buckeye Institute testified before the Ohio Senate Education Committee on policies in Ohio Senate Bill 127, which, if adopted, would help turn around chronically underperforming public schools. “Ohio has tolerated mediocre performance in its lowest-scoring public schools for far too long,” and Senate Bill 127 uses “data-driven benchmark for standardizing school closures and taking measurable actions to turn around failing schools.”

The Buckeye Institute commented after Governor Mike DeWine signed Ohio Senate Bill 1 into law. “The policies in Senate Bill 1 will ensure a diverse intellectual environment for all students and accountability for faculty, and they will cut administrative bloat to focus universities on graduating students who are gainfully employed. These are much-needed reforms that were long overdue.”

The Buckeye Institute commented on the newly released jobs report from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, saying, “Better news came in the payroll survey, which revised January job numbers up by 5,000 and reported that 25,000 new private-sector jobs were added in February. These gains are a bright spot for the Ohio job market.”

The Buckeye Institute filed its second amicus brief in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (previously Braidwood Management v. Becerra) with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Affordable Care Act violated the U.S. Constitution when it elevated the Preventative Services Task Force from its purely advisory role to make it a rule-making body without also reforming how members of the task force were appointed and confirmed.