Disaggregation of public health data by race and ethnicity is critical to understanding health disparities and driving progress toward health equity. While the federal government updated the minimum set of categories federal agencies must use when collecting race and ethnicity data, implementation of these standards remains uncertain. Additionally, federal standards set a floor; states can adopt laws requiring additional data collection specific to their population. As of May 2025, 13 states have passed laws to require disaggregation of race and ethnicity. One state – New York – is implementing the Asian and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (NHPI) Data Disaggregation Law. Challenges include finding effective pressure points for the state agencies that are required to update data and helping agencies access funding for necessary changes. In California, the 2024 Latine and Indigenous Health Disparities Act builds on previous data disaggregation legislation for the Asian and NHPI community in California. Challenges with the bill’s adoption included pressure to narrow the agencies affected by the law and creating an appropriate implementation timeline. Key considerations in the adoption of a state data disaggregation law or policy include educating policymakers about the importance of data disaggregation, determining the scope of the policy, and preparing for implementation.

When returning to their communities after incarceration, individuals face elevated rates of mortality and other poor health outcomes. The reentry period provides a critical opportunity for interventions to improve health, but, historically, a prohibition on federal Medicaid coverage during incarceration has created barriers to care after release. To address these barriers, many states have applied for Medicaid section 1115 reentry waivers to expand access to Medicaid coverage for certain pre- and post-release services. These waivers present an important opportunity to improve care access during reentry, but, if driven by carceral entities, they run the risk of replicating carceral systems that harm health. This article advocates for an alternative approach: centering the perspectives of people with lived experience of incarceration in all aspects of waiver design, implementation, and evaluation. Drawing on personal and professional experience, the authors explore the value of centering lived experience in health policy and identify successes, challenges, and lessons learned from California’s waiver. This article also explores the importance of centering lived experience in information sharing and privacy practices in waiver implementation. Across these areas, waivers driven by lived experience can promote dignity, autonomy, and wellbeing, dismantling carceral approaches that reinforce stigma, erode trust, and perpetuate inequities.

Every US state requires drivers to pass a knowledge and skills examination before obtaining their driver’s license. Surprisingly little is known about the progression of people through the examination process. To date, no research has been conducted on the proportion of individuals who pass from one stage of the driver examination process to the next compared to those who fail and are required to be reexamined. The purpose of this study was to follow the progression of a cohort of new drivers in Washington State as they advanced through the driver examination process. We reviewed driving records for 2,604 teens who started a driver education course in 2024. Of those who attempted the knowledge test at least once, 96 percent passed their knowledge test and 85 percent passed their skills exam. There were significant differences in pass and fail rates by sex, race, and household income. The overwhelming majority of new drivers passed both the knowledge and skills exams after two attempts. The fact that teenagers have a high risk of crashing in the first year of licensure suggests that the full safety potential of the knowledge and skills exams are not being realized.

In this response to the four contributions to the Critical Forum on Crucibles of Power: Smolensk Under Stalinist and Nazi Rule, Michael David-Fox reflects on how our own twenty-first century crisis of liberalism may provoke new engagements with the twentieth-century age of extremes. His dialogue with commentators and critics is grouped into four areas. The first concerns how to reconceive the old comparison between Stalinism and Nazism in terms of entanglements and the non-synchronous life cycles of revolutionary regimes of far Left and far Right. The second is an explanation and defense of power and power relations as the work’s overarching focus, acknowledging decisions that entailed in terms of the research agenda. The third represents an intervention into a controversy over evidence, the Mints Commission interviews on the Great Patriotic War, and the utility of memoirs. The last section unpacks and refines the author’s approach to the concepts of choice, decision-making, and agency.

This paper argues that Kant’s theory of truth in the first Critique offers a qualified correspondence account that integrates key insights from both coherence and correspondence theories of truth. By distinguishing between formal and material conditions of truth, Kant shows that truth cannot be defined in real terms. The paper identifies two fundamental requirements any theory of truth must meet – objectivity and epistemic accessibility. It shows how rationalism fails to fulfil them, while Kant’s transcendental idealism transforms the correspondence relation into an epistemic one. In doing so, Kant provides a moderate realist account of truth that avoids both scepticism and dogmatism.