Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Government Regulation”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed2003

Federal government regulation of occupational skin exposure in the USA.

There are at least 14 federal regulations and three agencies that are involved in the regulation of occupational skin exposures in the USA. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires the reporting of health effects information on chemicals, and such information is used to assess the risks of human and environmental exposure. The health effects information and any resulting risk assessments are generally available to the public. A fair amount of this information relates to skin irritation, sensitization, and dermal absorption. The EPA can require the submission of new data necessary for it to carry out its risk assessments, and has the authority to ban hazardous chemicals for certain uses. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the correct labeling of cosmetics and requires safety and efficacy data on new products that are claimed to have preventive or health benefits. Commercial distribution of topical skin-care and protection products, therefore, can be potentially scrutinized by the FDA, which can control the use of hazardous chemicals in such products. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has the most direct contact with workplaces through its field inspection compliance activity, which is directed at the reduction of workplace injuries and illnesses. Our analysis suggests that although considerable amounts of health effects information is generated and available, such information may not always be adequately conveyed to the end users of chemical products. In addition, the most effective and practical means of preventing exposure is often not apparent or generally known. Current regulations may have created a reliance on use of chemical protective equipment that may not always be the best approach to protecting workers. Lack of performance criteria that are measurable has hampered industry from objectively assessing skin exposures. This lack of performance criteria or guidance has also hindered the implementation of prevention strategies and a critical assessment of their effectiveness. Better guidance from regulatory agencies directed at performance-based control of occupational skin hazards is presently needed.

Dermatitis, Occupational↗
PubMed1983

Government regulation of nonhuman primate facilities.

Myriad international, federal, and state laws, regulations, rules, guidelines, and standards directly affect the activities of all nonhuman primate research facilities. Federal regulations alone encompass every aspect of facility operations. They govern the procurement, possession, handling, care, and utilization of nonhuman primates, the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of the facility, and the occupational and environmental protection afforded not only facility personnel, but also the general public. Proper management of a nonhuman primate facility depends on continual monitoring of constantly changing laws and regulations applicable to the type of facility operated and research conducted. An in-house compliance assurance program is necessary to assure conformance with pertinent regulations.

Animal Husbandry↗
PubMed2002

Government relations, government regulations: jumping through the hoops.

Over the last decade, telehealth in Australia has been primarily facilitated and driven by government funding. The government now has a major policy initiative in online health. However, in pursuing the broad initiative there is a danger that some of the smaller components can get lost, and this is probably what has happened to telehealth. There appear to be a number of steps required if telehealth in Australia is to keep up the pace of development that occurred in the 1990s, as we move into what is now being called the era of e-health, involving broadband Internet health service delivery. This area is changing extremely rapidly and is increasingly migrating away from the public sector in Australia, where most of the developmental work has occurred, and into the private sector. Many of the issues that require consideration within the domain of e-health in Australia are also relevant to other countries. E-health will significantly change the way that health-care is practised in future, and it is clear that it is the human factors that are more difficult to overcome, rather than the technological ones.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2002

Government relations, government regulations: jumping through the hoops.

Over the last decade, telehealth in Australia has been primarily facilitated and driven by government funding. The government now has a major policy initiative in online health. However, in pursuing the broad initiative there is a danger that some of the smaller components can get lost, and this is probably what has happened to telehealth. There appear to be a number of steps required if telehealth in Australia is to keep up the pace of development that occurred in the 1990s, as we move into what is now being called the era of e-health, involving broadband Internet health service delivery. This area is changing extremely rapidly and is increasingly migrating away from the public sector in Australia, where most of the developmental work has occurred, and into the private sector. Many of the issues that require consideration within the domain of e-health in Australia are also relevant to other countries. E-health will significantly change the way that health-care is practised in future, and it is clear that it is the human factors that are more difficult to overcome, rather than the technological ones.

Australia↗