Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Pharmaceutical Industry
- All Subjects: Sarbanes-Oxley
- All Subjects: Accounting Regulations
- All Subjects: SOX
- Creators: Agne, Sara
- Creators: Felthouse, Karis Renee
- Member of: Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection
Description
This project will explain the positive impact and effectiveness of Sarbanes-Oxley on corporate responsibility, and through that lens, examine how to make certain subchapters of Title 42, "the Sunshine Act", concerning healthcare fund tracking more transparent and without conflicts of interest. There will be an analysis of the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in corporate America and the impact it had on corporate responsibility. There will be a comprehensive review of the history of both the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Sunshine Act, along with their origins, stakeholders, and impact on their respective industries. Suggestions to improve certain current United States Code subchapters and subsequent regulations will be announced considering the success that has come from Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley.
ContributorsRogers, Anne Marie (Author) / Brian, Jennifer (Thesis director) / Agne, Sara (Committee member) / School of Accountancy (Contributor) / Hugh Downs School of Human Communication (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
Given its impact on the accounting profession and public corporations, Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(SOX) is a widely researched regulation among accounting scholars. Research typically focuses on the impact it has had on corporations, executives and auditors, however, there is limited research that illustrates the impact SOX may have on average Americans. There were several US criminal code sections that resulted from the passing of SOX. Statute 1519, which is often referred to as the "anti-shredding provision", penalizes anyone who "knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to" obstruct a current or foreseeable federal investigation. This statute, although intended to punish behavior similar to that which occurred in the early 2000s by corporations and auditors, has been used to charge people beyond its original intent. Several issues with the crafting of the statute cause its broad application and some litigation even reached the Supreme Court due to its vague wording. Not only is the statute being applied beyond the intent, there are other issues that legal scholars have critiqued it for. This statute is far from being the only law facing these issues as the same issues and critiques are found in the 14th amendment. Rewriting the statute seems to be the most effective way to address the concerns of judges, lawyers and defendants regarding the statute. In addition, Congress could have passed this statute outside of SOX to avoid being seen as overreaching if obstruction of justice related to documents was actually an issue outside of corporate fraud.
ContributorsGonzalez, Joana (Author) / Samuelson, Melissa (Thesis director) / Lowe, Jordan (Committee member) / School of Accountancy (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
Biosimilar pharmaceuticals are new lower-cost drugs awaiting large-scale approval within the United States (U.S). Biosimilar pharmaceuticals or simply biosimilars, are complex, large-molecule, and biologically-derived drugs that are deemed molecularly similar to currently approved reference biologics. Biologics and biosimilars both treat a wide range of conditions with no clinically meaningful difference between them. However, numerous states, with help from large pharmaceutical companies lobbying, are passing legislation complicating the prescribing and dispensing process for biosimilars by mandating a "notification" or "communication" requirement. The notification requirement requires pharmacists to contact prescribers when dispensing an interchangeable biosimilar in place of its reference biologic. This type of mandate is not only unprecedented in current U.S. pharmaceutical law, but it also incentivizes pharmacists to dispense more expensive biologics in place of biosimilars. The notification or communication requirement also falsely gives consumers the appearance that biosimilars are more dangerous in comparison to other types of biological medicines. These two factors, pharmacist hesitation and consumer distrust, serve as barriers to successful biosimilar market entry. High research and development costs and forecasted poor sales inhibit biosimilar companies from making the investment in innovating new drugs. The lack of investment in research and development prevents new biosimilars from entering the market to compete with currently approved biologics. In turn, current biosimilar legislation is reducing pharmaceutical competition and increasing drug prices. Information Measurement Theory supports the notion that in climates without competition (caused by a lack of transparency) sparks low quality and high costs. Transparency and improved biosimilar market conditions can be achieved through repealing the large pharmaceutical company backed notification requirement.
ContributorsFelthouse, Karis Renee (Author) / Kashiwagi, Dean (Thesis director) / Kashiwagi, Jacob (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Film, Dance and Theatre (Contributor) / School of Sustainability (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05