American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

/pdf/current-index-to-legal-periodicals-8re353ze53.pdf

Current index to legal periodicals

In recent years, a great deal has been written about a `constructivist' approach in International Relations, which argues that international reality is socially constructed by cognitive structures ...

Seizing the Middle Ground:: Constructivism in World Politics

Patients with chronic illness often receive care from multiple providers in multiple settings and require coordination of their complex care. This report assesses the quality of the coordination of care, describes barriers to coordinated care, and discusses some solutions to improve care coordination in the United States.

/pdf/coordinating-care-a-perilous-journey-through-the-health-care-1igh9lgl3a.pdf

Coordinating Care — A Perilous Journey through the Health Care System

OBJECTIVES: To test whether an intervention designed to encourage older patients and their caregivers to assert a more active role during care transitions can reduce rehospitalization rates. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental design whereby subjects receiving the intervention (n 5 158) were compared with control subjects derived from administrative data (n 5 1,235). SETTING: A large integrated delivery system in Colorado. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older admitted to the study hospital with one of nine selected conditions. INTERVENTION: Intervention subjects received tools to promote cross-site communication, encouragement to take a more active role in their care and assert their preferences, and continuity across settings and guidance from a transition coach. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of postdischarge hospital use at 30, 60, and 90 days. Intervention subjects’ care experience was assessed using the care transitions measure. RESULTS: The adjusted odds ratio comparing rehospitalization of intervention subjects with that of controls was 0.52 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5 0.28–0.96) at 30 days, 0.43 (95% CI 5 0.25–0.72) at 90 days, and 0.57 (95% CI 5 0.36–0.92) at 180 days. Intervention patients reported high levels of confidence in obtaining essential information for managing their condition, communicating with members of the healthcare team, and understanding their medication regimen. CONCLUSION: Supporting patients and caregivers to take a more active role during care transitions appears promising for reducing rates of subsequent hospitalization. Further testing may include more diverse populations and patients at risk for transitions who are not acutely ill. JA m Geriatr Soc 52:1817–1825, 2004.

/pdf/preparing-patients-and-caregivers-to-participate-in-care-3ygygkgwbr.pdf

Preparing patients and caregivers to participate in care delivered across settings: The care transitions intervention

The Internet is perhaps the defining technology of the emerging twenty-first century. This article examines the infrastructure that comprises the “network of networks” and the spatial patterns that...

/pdf/the-economic-geography-of-the-internet-s-infrastructure-4m3v7yzvhc.pdf

The Economic Geography of the Internet’s Infrastructure

http://front.sjtu.edu.cn/datacomm/reader/Lessons%20from%20broadband%20development.pdf

Lessons from broadband development in Canada, Japan, Korea and the United States

Falling through the cracks

/pdf/adjusting-the-horizontal-and-vertical-in-telecommunications-4k3kxjz384.pdf

Adjusting the Horizontal and Vertical in Telecommunications Regulation: A Comparison of the Traditional and a New Layered Approach

Since its inception the Internet has generated positive networking externalities, widespread access and seamless connectivity through a combination of TCP/IP routing technologies and widespread network interoperability. During this promotional period, Internet Service Providers ("ISPs") appeared to have a keen interest in collaboration seemingly without concern for profit maximization and without regard for operator size, traffic volume and flow of traffic. ISPs coordinated traffic primarily at quasi-public network access points and exchanges, in much the same was as two local exchange carriers receive and hand off traffic at "Meet Points" to secure wide area call access. Growing service demand, congestion at quasi-public interconnection sites and commercialization of the industry have motivated major ISPs and large volume users to pursue more reliable, quasi-private network interconnection. Private peering arrangements promote security, reliability and higher service quality. They add robustness and new, faster and higher capacity routing options. But on the other hand private peering arrangements help create a hierarchy of networks and users while previously generated positive networking externalities arose from a flat, democratic, 'sender keep all "network of networks."' This paper will examine the evolution of ISP interconnection arrangements with an eye toward determining the consequences resulting from the migration from sender-keep-all, zero cost interconnection arrangements to commercially driven ones modeled closely after conventional telecommunication carrier-to-carrier interconnection agreements. While private peering will enhance quality of service and network reliability, it may trigger the same sort of parity and cost of access concerns raised by competitive local exchange carriers and other market entrants. The paper concludes that Internet interconnection and cost of access have begun to raise the same sort of questions raised by local and interexchange carrier interconnection.

Without Public Peer: The Potential Regulatory and Universal Service Consequences of Internet Balkanization

Recent double digit billion dollar mergers of telecommunications firms consolidate both market share and market leadership by incumbent operators such as Verizon. These companies seek to exploit technological and market convergence by offering a triple play package of wired and wireless telephone service, video and Internet access. As well they need to develop new profit centers to compensate for declining revenues and market shares in traditional services such as wireline telephony. While incumbent telecommunications operators have pursued new market opportunities, these ventures have not abandoned core management philosophies, operating assumptions and business strategies. Longstanding strategies for recovering investments, using a telecommunications template greatly contrast with the means by which information processing and content providers achieve profitability. Internet ventures have come up with many different business models including ones that offer free, subsidized or deliberately underpriced access as well as regularly increasing value propositions to consumers, e.g., more options for the same price. Incumbent telecommunications firms rarely deviate from a rigid cost recovery structure that identifies cost causers. Internet and telecommunications business models rarely jibe, even though convergence and business transactions puts incumbent telecommunications firms in market leadership positions. Having such dominant market share now makes it likely that incumbent telecommunications firms will attempt to imprint their business models and their mindsets on Internet markets. Recently senior managers of several incumbent carriers have expressed displeasure with the apparent inability of their companies to recover the sizable investment in broadband Internet access. With an eye toward recouping these investments, the companies have announced plans to replace, or offer alternatives to unmetered All You Can Eat Internet access and to oppose any initiative that restrains their pricing and operational flexibility. The incumbent telecommunications companies characterize their new Internet pricing plans as offering "greater choice" to consumers. Different pricing points based on throughput caps makes sense to a "Bellhead" corporate officer who thinks he or she can identify cost causers and capture rents that otherwise would accrue to content providers. However, the Internet seamlessly blends content and conduit, making it difficult to identify the cost causer. This article will examine Bellhead business models incorporating metering and other traditional cost recovery strategies with an eye toward determining what constitutes reasonable price discrimination and what represents an unfair trade practice or an anticompetitive strategy. The article will consider whether and how Bellhead management strategies will jeopardize the serendipity and positive networking externalities that have accrued when users can freely "surf the web" and content providers can bundle user sought content with advertising. Different pricing points based on throughput caps makes sense to Bellhead corporate officers who think they can capture rents that otherwise would accrue to content providers. The article also will examine the clash of Bellhead and Nethead cultures with an eye toward identifying the stakes involved when Internet access pricing and interconnection primarily follows a telecommunications infrastructure cost recovery scheme in lieu of different commercial relationships favored by most Internet ventures. The article concludes that most Bellhead cost recovery models are lawful even though they will reduce for most consumers the real or perceived value proposition offered by an unmetered monthly Internet access subscription.

/pdf/network-neutrality-or-bias-handicapping-the-odds-for-a-3z60guo994.pdf

Rob Frieden

Papers

Lessons from broadband development in Canada, Japan, Korea and the United States

Falling through the cracks

Adjusting the Horizontal and Vertical in Telecommunications Regulation: A Comparison of the Traditional and a New Layered Approach

Without Public Peer: The Potential Regulatory and Universal Service Consequences of Internet Balkanization

Network Neutrality or Bias?--Handicapping the Odds for a Tiered and Branded Internet