Suchergebnisse

Section 7 of the Charter has given the courts the powerful tool of substantive review. This instrument allows the courts to go beyond procedural review to examine the merits of legislation. This ability to intrude on what has been regarded as the exclusive jurisdiction of legislatures has attracted powerful critics. The courts have ignored some opponents and have used substantive reviews. The steps have been tentative but important. If the courts continue to use and indeed broaden substantive review, then section 7 will be the source of new rights which will enable Canada to become a society of truly meaningful equality. *** L'article 7 de la Charte procure aux cours de justice un puissant instrument en matière de révision substantielle. Celui-ci permet non seulement de réviser l'aspect procédural de la législation, mais également de réviser le mérite de celle-ci. Cette capacité de participer dans ce que l'on considère comme le domaine exclusif de la branche législative fut critiquée vivement. Les cours de justice ont toutefois ignoré ces opposants et utilise la révision substantielle. Les développements ont été timides mais néanmoins important. Si les cours continuent à utiliser et augmenter la portée de la révision substantielle, l'article 7 deviendra le fondement de nouveaux droits qui permettront au Canada de devenir une société égalitaire véritable.

Book review of Executive Legislation: Delegate Law Making By the Executive Branch by John Mark Keyes and published by Butterworths (Toronto), 1992. (308 pp.)

IMPORTANCE: With the goal of ending the HIV epidemic in the United States, access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is essential to help curb new HIV infections. There has been differential uptake of PrEP by region, with the South lagging behind other regions. Discriminatory benefit design (benefit design that prevents or delays people with complex or expensive conditions from obtaining appropriate treatment) through prior authorization requirements could be a systemic barrier that contributes to the decreased PrEP uptake in the South. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether there are regional disparities in prior authorization requirements for combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine for qualified health plans (QHPs) and to assess whether any QHP characteristics explain the disparities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This design was a cross-sectional study of QHPs offered in the 2019 Affordable Care Act Marketplace. The QHPs studied included all Affordable Care Act–compliant individual and small-group market plans in the United States. EXPOSURES: The primary exposure was the 4 census regions (Northeast, West, Midwest, and South). Additional covariates included other plan characteristics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Prior authorization requirement for combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine at the QHP level. RESULTS: In total, 16 853 QHPs were analyzed (18.2% in the Northeast, 19.5% in the West, 25.0% in the Midwest, and 37.3% in the South). Overall, 18.9% of QHPs required prior authorization for combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine. This percentage varied by region, with 2.3%, 6.2%, 13.3%, and 37.3% of plans requiring prior authorization in the Northeast, West, Midwest, and South, respectively. Compared with QHPs in the Northeast, QHPs in the South were 15.89 (95% CI, 12.57-20.09) times as likely to require prior authorization, whereas the Midwest and West were 5.69 (95% CI, 4.45-7.27) and 2.65 (95% CI, 2.02-3.47) times as likely, respectively. Other plan ...