Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Public health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

The ACA And The Courts: Litigation's Effects On The Law's Implementation And Beyond.

Abstract: The Affordable Care Act's legacy extends beyond its provision of health insurance to millions of previously uninsured people and its improved consumer protections. It has also had a significant impact on the US legal system. Litigation over the law began on the day of its enactment and has been a constant in the decade since. Although the law has survived these challenges, its effectiveness has been hobbled. Litigation is now being used as a check on the efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act by the administration of President Donald Trump. This article reviews the history of litigation over the Affordable Care Act, how the law generally has been shaped by this litigation, and what this experience might mean for the future of health reform efforts.

The Dual Epidemics of Tuberculosis and AIDS

Abstract: 0 ver the past decade, the shifting patterns of popular and professional attention to the HIV epidemic together with vigorous advocacy by AIDS activists and others have had a profound impact on our conception of infectious diseases and of the public policies most appropriate to their containment. Transmitted through intimate contact, typically between consenting adults, HIV infection results in a disease for which there is no cure at present. These facts dictate the biomedical foundations for the public health strategy for limiting the spread of HIV; at this time, strategies for slowing the epidemic must depend almost exclusively on preventing transmission through mass behavioral change. Thus, the public health approach to AIDS has focused on education, counseling and voluntary testing. Because of great efforts on the part of gay organizations, proponents of civil liberties and their liberal allies, as well as the pragmatic concerns of prudent public health officials, efforts to control AIDS-especially during the epidemic’s first decade-were voluntaristic at their core. But tuberculosis is not HIV infection. As an airborne disease that can be casually transmitted and for which there is now a cure, TB has evoked a very different strategy of control, one based on the compulsory historical traditions of public health. Indeed, many of the core elements of the tradition of public health practice were shaped by the experience of tuberculosis early in this century. Routine unconsented-to screening, mandatory treatment, compulsory hospitalization and quarantine have all been employed in the confrontations with tuberculosis. A reflection of the biology of the disease, such policies were also a reflection of an earlier moment in history when contemporary conceptions of the relationship between the individual and the state had not yet taken shape, a moment when the conceptions of due process and equal protection that emerged in the late 1960s and 1970s had not yet transformed the fundamentals of our constitutional law. While attention both at home and abroad has been riveted on the HIV epidemic, and resources to control HIV have risen dramatically in the United States and throughout much of the world (however inadequate such resources, especially in developing countries, remain) we have until very recently tended to ignore tuberculosis. In the United States, we proceeded over the past two decades as if tuberculosis were on the verge of elimination, permitting the public health infrastructure, so crucial to the control of TB, to atrophy. Supports for TB testing and treatment in many localities were largely dismantled. On a global level, the disjunction between resources and need was even more striking: one third of the world’s population is infected with mycobacterium tuberculosis; eight million cases of tuberculosis occur annually; three

How broad are state physician health program descriptions of physician impairment

Abstract: Physician health program websites in 23 states provide many descriptions of possible physician impairment. This study sought to determine whether these descriptions are so broad that almost everyone might potentially be suspected of being impaired given these descriptions. The authors randomly selected 25 descriptions of impairment and then presented them anonymously online to members of the general population in full-time employment through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (N = 199). Half of the respondents randomly received a narrowly worded version, and half received a broadly worded version of the survey questions. In the narrowly worded version of the survey, 70.9% of respondents endorsed at least one description of impairment, and 59.2% endorsed more than one. In the broadly phrased version, 96.9% endorsed at least one description, and 95.8% endorsed more than one. These respondents endorsed a median of 10 out of 25 (40%) descriptions. These findings call into question whether these descriptions really identify persons with poor performance or who pose a high risk of substantial, imminent harm to self or others in the workplace. They also demonstrate the extent to which these descriptions could potentially be misapplied and brand almost anyone as impaired.

Complex Dispute Resolution: Volume III: Introduction and Coda: International Dispute Resolution

Abstract: The Complex Dispute Resolution series collects essays on the development of foundational dispute resolution theory and practice and its application to increasingly more complex settings of conflicts in the world, including multi-party and multi-issue decision making, negotiations in political policy formation and governance, and international conflict resolution. Each volume contains an original introduction by the editor, which explores the key issues in the field. All three volumes feature essays which span an interdisciplinary range of fields, law, political science, game theory, decision science, economics, social and cognitive psychology, sociology and anthropology and consider issues in the uses of informal and private processes, as well as more formal and public processes. The essays question whether the development of universal theoretical insights about conflict resolution is possible with variable numbers of parties and issues and in multi-cultural and multi-jural settings. Each volume also presents a coda, summarizing key issues in the field and suggesting further avenues for research.The third volume (and the introductory essay here) applies foundational dispute resolution theories and practices to a wide variety of transnational, international and transcultural dispute settings. The essays explore the uses of formal diplomacy, political negotiation processes, formal international adjudication in a variety of tribunals, public and private arbitration, mediation processes, and a new set of hybrid processes. The introductory essay and chapters here also describe and interrogate new forms of international conflict handling, if not “resolution,” in modern forms of transitional and restorative justice, truth and reconciliation commissions, as well as hybrid tribunals. Some of the essays critique the tensions between the need for formal prosecution, punishment and adjudication of grievous wrongs, as in genocides and human rights violations and the needs and desires of societies and individuals to “move on” or create ways of re-integrating or restoring peace, as well as justice, in post-conflict situations. The question of whether “alternative” forms of justice and process are consistent with efforts to create international “rule of law” regimes is also queried. The Coda and other essays also explore whether there are necessarily cultural variations in conflict resolution, restorative and retributive or punitive justice. As with volumes I and II in this series, some of the classic works in the field of international dispute resolution are presented, while the idea of whether there are “universal” theories and practices of dispute resolution, across cultures and contexts is examined by the series editor and a number of authors.

The Feasibility of Litigation Markets

Abstract: This article attempts to link theoretical scholarship about litigation risk markets with a real-world examination of how such markets actually work in practice. Part I briefly describes the state of academic discourse on litigation finance, noting the questions scholars have asked and answered regarding the feasibility and desirability of a market in litigation risk. Part II then analyzes the practical workings of at least one litigation finance company — describing how an actual market mechanism evolved, what obstacles it faced, and where it fit within broader, albeit nascent, markets. Finally, Part III links the two projects, relying on practical experience to provide answers to the questions scholars have asked and raising new questions scholars had not previously considered.