A also identifies a great deal of information about the causes of errors which allows the specific and effective policy solutions. That policy solutions. They are challenges to improving accuracy and a vast and complex system whose main system is to educate children, not administer the meal programs. The School Meal Programs operate in nearly 100000 schools nationwide and theres wide variation. Their staffing and resources and technological capacities vary widely. Theres also variation in what children get meals in the lunchroom or classroom and have fiscal checks who is in which category. Small rural schools have different operational and administrative capacities in larger districts assert hundreds of thousands of students. Meal tracking systems can range from paper to stateoftheart software. Schools are not really set up to do the the eligibility determinations at the Public Benefit programs do. The step program for medicaid have teams of professional eligibility workers who spend a
About the eligibility requirements of the current child nutrition assistance cadre of programs as they exist today . I think the important thing when youre talking about reducing errors and improper payment which is i think we all agree is a very important endeavor is to create a culture where a culture of compliance with the rules. We want the rules to be followed. I dont think the rules themselves are the problem i think its helping people understand them and there are lots of different people involved in the system. Its families when theyre filling out applications, its schools when theyre running programs, its states when theyre administering them. So i think that kind of day in and day out work is whats most important to reduce errors and reduce improper payments in the program. I would second that and also add its important to as a former president once famously stated, its important to not only trust but verify. I would add to that and say its important to trust and verify in a
Has put in place knew rules for prime institutional funds that get rid of the fixed dollar value. They will have net asset values that will reduce run risk. That aside to allow firms to impose fees something that could create Financial Stability risk that we need to watch. The so called Triparty Repo market which is a major source of shortterm wholesale funding, that contained great risks. We have taken steps important steps to mitigate. Central counterparties a thrust of reform has been to try to move as many derivative contracts as possible into central counterparties to have them. By central counterparties something that serves to reduce risk and complexity and enhance Financial Stability but when these entities themselves become systemic and clearly need supervision something that you have mentioned in imf work is that we have a major growth of open ended mutual funds where you have funds that are investing in highly illiquid assets. The industries are promised immediate liquidity.
Industry which is common that, is career ending. Its going to be examined in a very detailed way. So the usual attack or feeling about our technology is actually the fda is extraordinarily conservative and resistant to allowing these sorts of things through. And, in fact, if i looked at the pressure that the pharmaceutical industry could bring to bear on the fda and sort of the heft of big pharma is far bigger than biotech like monsanto. It really surprises me that you think the fda is captured in the sense that it, you know, will allow junk science as you claim it to be to be the basis for regulatory approvals. And most of the people, those kinds of scientists that i referred to that, you know, they look at that stuff and they would have no problem at all saying its totally garbage because not everybody is captured by the monsantos in the world. Let me get a question in the center here. Get the boom over here. You brought references to high Blood Pressure and autism. I can draw the sa
To be true. Just a clarification. This idea talking points. One of the reasons why some of these things may occur as arguments again and again is that theyre actually right. Okay . There are many people that are saying these things. Theyre not using them as talking points. And this is a possibility to consider the same arguments are made generally with other groups there. Theyre well trodden paths. The second thing is i really think its a little disingeneralous to say you have nothing against genetically modified organism its they were tested enough. I heard the same thing with environmentalism and stuff. Actually, not you personally necessarily, but everything is being done to prevent the kinds of testing that you would require in order to certify that something is safe. It is absolutely impossible to prove that something is safe. You can show that you cant see any damage from it given the kinds of test thats are done. You cannot make that proof. In fact, whether field trials are ripp