Health Law and Policy Commons^™

Confine Is Fine: Have The Non-Dangerous Mentally Ill Lost Their Right To Liberty? An Empirical Study To Unravel The Psychiatrist’S Crystal Ball, Donald H. Stone

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article will examine the reverse trend in civil commitment laws in the wake of recent tragedies and discuss the effect of broader civil commitment standards on the care and treatment of the mentally ill. The 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, and the 2012 Aurora movie theatre shooting have spurred fierce debates about the dangerousness of mentally ill and serve as cautionary tale about what happens when warning signs go unnoticed and opportunities for early intervention missed. This piece will explore the misconception about the role medication and inpatient civil commitments should play in prevention …

Due Process And Local Administrative Hearings Regulating Public Nuisances: Analysis And Reform., Alex Cameron

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

A Judicial And Economic Analysis Of Attorney's Fees In Trust Litigation And The Resulting Inequitable Treatment Of Trust Beneficiaries., Charles Epps Ipock

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract Forthcoming.

Removal Of Independent Executors: Examining The Standard In Texas After The Addition Of Material Conflict Of Interest To Section 149c Of The Texas Probate Code., Elizabeth R. Kopecki

St. Mary's Law Journal

The State of Texas permits independent executors to operate with minimal court supervision. This allows executors to administer an estate with as little cost and delay as possible. Sometimes executors abuse this limited supervision and fail to manage estates properly. Fortunately, there are particular circumstances outlined in the Texas Probate Code which allow courts to step in and remove these harmful executors. Since the adoption of section 149C to the Texas Probate Code, grounds for removal have remained relatively specific. Recently, the legislature has added a new ground: “material conflict of interest.” Though no bright-line rule exists, there is precedent …

Excerpts From Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion In Nfib V. Sebelius, Wilson Huhn

Akron Law Faculty Publications

In NFIB v. Sebelius the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of all but one of the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The opinion of Chief Justice Roberts is the controlling opinion in all respects. This is an editted summary of the Chief Justice's opinion.

Revitalizing Informed Consent And Protecting Patient Autonomy: An Appeal To Abandon Objective Causation, Evelyn Tenenbaum

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Advancing Health Law & Social Justice In The Clinic, The Classroom And The Community, John J. Ammann

All Faculty Scholarship

Law school clinics are paramount to developing law school graduates who embrace their “special responsibility for the quality of justice,” as well as their role in ensuring equal access to justice for marginalized, impoverished and underserved members of society. This responsibility permeates every aspect of lawyering, especially the practice of health law. This article explores, first, how clinics and social justice fit into the practice of health law and into the training of future health law attorneys and policymakers. Second, it defines social justice in the context of health and, finally, it provides examples that demonstrate how we can, and …

Pursuing High Performance In Rural Health Care, A. Clinton Mackinney, Keith J. Mueller, Andrew F. Coburn, Jennifer P. Lundblad, Timothy D. Mcbride, Sidney D. Watson

All Faculty Scholarship

In 2001, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) called for transformation of the United States health care system to make it safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable.1 The journey toward these six aims in public policy and the private sector is underway, but fundamental challenges detailed by the IOM remain. Patients are injured at alarming rates, wide variation in care exists across geographies, patients complain of insensitive and/or inaccessible health care providers, health care costs are nearly twice that in other developed countries, and nearly 50 million Americans lack health insurance. As a result, our health care is often fragmented, …

Racial Disparities In Accessing Health Care And Health Status, Ruqaiijah Yearby

All Faculty Scholarship

Point (Overview): Interpersonal and institutional racial biases are the principal reasons for racial disparities in accessing health care and disparities in African Americans’ health status, which can only be addressed by acknowledging and putting an end to interpersonal and institutional racial bias in the health care system that adversely affects the health status African-Americans.

Counterpoint (Overview): The irrational structure of health care, which is based on ability to pay, rather than need is the main cause of racial disparities in health, which will not be equalized until the structure of the health care system is fixed or when African Americans’ …

Insights From A National Conference: "Conflicts Of Interest In The Practice Of Medicine", David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

All Illnesses Are (Not) Created Equal: Reforming Federal Mental Health Insurance Law, Stacey A. Tovino

Faculty Articles

This article is the second, and most important, installment in a three-part series that presents a comprehensive challenge to lingering legal distinctions between physical and mental illness. The basic impetus for this historical, medical, and legal project is a belief that there exists no rational or consistent method of distinguishing physical and mental illness in the context of health insurance law. The first installment in this series narrowly inquired as to whether a particular set of disorders, the postpartum mood disorders, are or should be classified as physical or mental illnesses in a range of health law contexts. This second …

Further Support For Mental Health Parity Law And Mandatory Mental Health And Substance Use Disorder Benefits, Stacey A. Tovino

Faculty Articles

In this Article, I provide additional support for my recent proposal (All Illnesses Are (Not) Created Equal: Reforming Federal Mental Health Insurance Law, Harvard Journal on Legislation, Vol. 49, forthcoming 2012.) to extend federal mental health parity law and mandatory mental health and substance use disorder benefits to all public healthcare program beneficiaries and private health plan members. I begin by examining health-related doctrine outside the context of mental health insurance law, including disability discrimination law, civil rights and human rights law, health information confidentiality law, healthcare reform law, and child and adult health and welfare law, and …

Interview With Oliver Lewis, Executive Director Of The Mental Disability Advocacy Center, Human Rights Brief

Human Rights Brief

No abstract provided.

The Conflict Surrounding Universal Access To Hiv/Aids Medical Treatment In South Africa, Kaila C. Randolph

Human Rights Brief

No abstract provided.

Beyond Separation In Federalism Enforcement: Medicaid Expansion, Coercion, And The Norm Of Engagement, Charlton C. Copeland

Articles

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius may be known, in both the popular and academic commentaries, as the case about the Affordable Care Act's Individual Mandate provision. History may record it as one of the most significant cases in the jurisprudence of cooperative federalism. In invalidating part of the Medicaid Expansion provision, the Roberts Court became the first to invalidate a federal spending statute as unconstitutionally coercive of state governments. This decision has the potential to impact federal-state cooperative arrangements such as No Child Left Behind, and others far beyond the health care context.

This Article argues that lack …

Debate: The Contraception Mandate And Religious Freedom, Steven D. Smith, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

No abstract provided.

Miami's Medical-Legal Partnership: Preparing Lawyers And Physicians For Holistic Practice, Jonel Newman

Articles

No abstract provided.

Affordable Care Act Litigation: The Supreme Court And The Future Of Health Care Reform, Lawrence O. Gostin, Kelli K. Garcia

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Florida v. HHS, a lawsuit brought on behalf of 26 states challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Supreme Court will determine the future direction of health care reform in the United States. During the unprecedented 5-1/2 hours of oral arguments, the Court will hear 4 issues: the individual purchase mandate, severability, the Medicaid expansion and the Anti-Injunction Act.

The states challenging the ACA maintain that the purchase mandate uniquely penalizes individuals for failing to purchase insurance. Uninsured individuals, however, rarely do nothing. Instead, they self-insure, rely on family, and cost-shift to …

Marketing Pharmaceuticals: A Constitutional Right To Sell Prescriber-Identified Data?, Lawrence O. Gostin

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Pharmaceutical companies have strong economic interests in influencing physician-prescribing behaviors. They advertise direct-to-the-consumer and to the physician. Beyond general marketing, manufacturers promote their drugs to physicians through “detailing”—sales representatives (“detailers”) visiting medical offices to persuade physicians to prescribe their products.

By law, pharmacies receive specific information with every prescription, including the physician’s name, the drug, and the dose. Pharmacies sell these records to Prescription Drug Intermediaries (data miners), who use advanced computing to analyze prescriber-identified information (which physicians prescribe what drugs, in what dose, and with what prescribing patterns). Data miners, in turn, lease sophisticated reports to pharmaceutical companies to …

The Limits Of Government Regulation Of Science, John D. Kraemer, Lawrence O. Gostin

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The recent controversy over the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity’s (NSABB) request that Science and Nature redact key parts of two papers on transmissible avian (H5N1) influenza reveal a troubled relationship between science and security. While NSABB’s request does not violate the First Amendment, efforts to censor the scientific press by force of law would usually be an unconstitutional prior restraint of the press absent a compelling state interest. The constitutional validity of conditions on grant funding to require pre-publication review of unclassified research is unclear but also arguably unconstitutional.

The clearest case where government may restrict publication is …