Moving CT’s government to transparency

Anarba Groub

In 2008, Tammy Dobbs, a woman with cerebral palsy, moved to Arkansas. She applied to the state to receive help from a caretaker, and after an assessment, Dobbs was allotted the maximum 56 hours of home-care visits per week. During her annual reassessment in 2016, she received a shocking verdict: despite her situation remaining the same, her care would be cut to 32 hours per week.

Dobbs expressed her outrage and shock as the “program she relied on for years fell out from below her.” What changed? The decision-maker. Arkansas began using an algorithm to determine health care allocation. For Tammy, like many relying on that government service, this algorithm was life changing.

Accountability for algorithms: Moving CT’s government to transparency

Next Post

Arbitration - Group of Companies doctrine for inclusion of non-signatories - Supreme Court refers issue to Larger Bench

Dealing with an application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’), the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has doubted the correctness of its earlier decision in the case Chloro Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. Seven Trent Water Purification and number of subsequent decisions […]