Health Law and Policy Commons^™

The Federalism Challenges Of Protecting Medical Privacy In Workers' Compensation, Ani B. Satz

Indiana Law Journal

Under current law, injured workers face a Hobson’s choice: They may file for workers’ compensation or maintain their medical privacy. The reason for this is that § 164.512(l) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s Privacy Rule (HPR) is widely misinterpreted by courts and legislatures as a wholesale waiver of privacy protections for injured workers. Section 164.512(l) excludes workers’ compensation from federal privacy protections that may frustrate the efficient administration of workers’ compensation claims. As the history and intent behind the HPR indicate, § 164.512(l) is premised on the assumption that states will protect workers’ privacy by creating and …

North Carolina State Board Of Dental Examiners V. Ftc: Aligning Antitrust Law With Commerce Clause Jurisprudence Through A Natural Shift Of State-Federal Balance Of Power, Marie Forney

Indiana Law Journal

The Supreme Court’s holding in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC (NC Dental)1 in February 2015 demonstrates a natural shift in the balance of power from the states to the national government. As the country’s interstate and international economy has become more integrated, federal authority has likewise expanded.2 And although the federalism dichotomy has undergone periodic back-and-forth “swings” since the nation’s founding, the end result has been a net increase in federal power. NC Dental exemplifies this trend toward increasing national au-thority through the organic development of interstate commerce.

Abortion, Informed Consent, And Regulatory Spillover, Katherine A. Shaw, Alex Stein

Indiana Law Journal

The constitutional law of abortion stands on the untenable assumption that any state’s abortion regulations impact citizens of that state alone. On this understand-ing, the state’s boundaries demarcate the terrain on which women’s right to abortion clashes with state power to regulate that right.

This Article uncovers a previously unnoticed horizontal dimension of abortion regulation: the medical-malpractice penalties imposed upon doctors for failing to inform patients about abortion risks; the states’ power to define those risks, along with doctors’ informed-consent obligations and penalties; and, critically, the possi-bility that such standards might cross state lines. Planned Parenthood v. Casey and other …