scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

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 & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper presents a rebuttal of the main arguments underlying the call for voluntary self-deferral and responds to Larry Gostin's testimony and writing because he has set forth the clearest articulation in favor of such a policy.
Abstract: On February 21-22, 1991, the Centers for Disease Control convened an Open Meeting on the Risk for Transmission of Bloodborne Pathogens to Patients During Invasive procedures in Atlanta, Georgia. Over 80 organizations testified at that meeting. Almost without fail, every organization testified against the use of mandatory HIV testing to screen out HIV-infected surgeons and dentists from practice. Various groups and individuals, however, advocated that HIV-infected professionals should voluntarily restrict themselves from selected procedures and/or should voluntarily disclose their HIV status to their patients.1 Larry Gostin, the Executive Director of the American Society of Law and Medicine, argued that HIVinfected health care workers should voluntarily self-defer from selected invasive procedures.2 I believe that the approach of voluntary self-deferral has legal and practical flaws and is not the appropriate public policy for the CDC to adopt. This paper, therefore, presents a rebuttal of the main arguments underlying the call for voluntary self-deferral. Although various organizations and individuals have argued in favor of voluntary self-deferral, I have chosen to respond to Gostin’s testimony and writing because I believe that he has set forth the clearest articulation in favor of such a policy. Thus, I believe the debate on this issue would be best advanced by an analysis of his work. My comments track the question and answer format that Gostin used in a recent article on this issue.3

6 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: A structured response to questions about why and should the PPACA have done more to change the rules of malpractice liability, blending a discussion of politics and policy.
Abstract: A frequent claim among critics of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is that they would have been more likely to support “real health care reform” if it included malpractice reform. Indeed, many Republicans argued that health care spending and defensive medicine could be controlled only if the PPACA included comprehensive malpractice reform. The final version of the PPACA, however, included only two minor provisions related to medical malpractice. Why did the PPACA not emphasize malpractice reform as a more important component of health care reform? Should the PPACA have done more to change the rules of malpractice liability? What kinds of changes might make sense? We provide a structured response to these questions, blending a discussion of politics and policy.

6 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present the first empirical examination of giving to § 501(c)(4) organizations, which have recently become central players in U.S. politics.
Abstract: This Article presents the first empirical examination of giving to § 501(c)(4) organizations, which have recently become central players in U.S. politics. Although donations to a 501(c)(4) are not legally deductible, the elasticity of c(4) giving to the top-bracket tax-price of charitable giving is -1.29, very close to the elasticity for charities. Donor responses to benefits for which they are not eligible may reflect the low salience of legal limitations or deliberate over-claiming. Alternately, firms’ strategic responses to tax changes, such as fundraising, may drive the result. I find evidence consistent with all these explanations. 501(c)(4) fundraising is highly responsive to the value of the deduction, with an elasticity of -2.3, but does not fully explain changes in donation behavior. These results imply the U.S. is currently granting much larger subsidies to c(4) firms than is generally understood, and that subsidies for charity cause previously unobserved pressures on competing c(4)s.

6 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that preemption claims are an effort to shed an important source of market discipline - the threat of liability for visiting unjustifiable harm on others - a discipline that regulation cannot itself provide.
Abstract: Daily front-page stories recounting the failure of defibrillators, pacemakers, heart stents and infusion pumps have raised questions about the adequacy of FDA regulation of medical devices. At the same time, lower courts are struggling to apply the Supreme Court's ruling in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr to determine the preemptive reach of the Medical Device Amendments ("MDA"). This article explores the repercussions of Medtronic and argues that Congress' use of words like "requirements" in regulatory statutes should be seen as references to positive state law only, and should not be read, absent an explicit command by Congress, to subsume state law damage actions. The lower courts' confusion over Medtronic's preemption rule may have been sown by the complexity of the opinion itself. Fairly read, Medtronic's preemption rule is narrow, requiring specific and conflicting requirements for a device imposed by both state and federal law. General tort duties do not trigger preemption because they do not impose requirements specific to a given device. The article also explores the Executive Branch's current efforts to push its tort reform agenda by pressing broad preemption arguments in private tort litigation. The article argues that courts should be wary of such efforts and suggests that, by working to shield industry from tort liability, the Administration has given the public reason to question whether the FDA is serving the interests of the public or the industry it regulates. Finally, the article argues that preemption claims are an effort to shed an important source of market discipline - the threat of liability for visiting unjustifiable harm on others - a discipline that regulation cannot itself provide. Judges reviewing preemption claims should evaluate industry's preemption claims in light of the overall regulatory and liability context. Medical devices are an illustration of the inadequacy of relying on regulation alone. The MDA was passed in response to several notorious medical device failures, failures which were brought to light through product liability litigation. Since the MDA became law, the medical device industry has been extensively regulated by the FDA. But the FDA alone cannot exert sufficient discipline on the marketplace to ensure an adequate margin of safety for medical devices, a fact that the agency, at least until recently, itself acknowledged.

5 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article explains how EBC became such an important part of American health policy, and evaluates the likely impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“PPACA”) on EBC, concluding that PPACA is likely to have a range of unintended consequences.
Abstract: Employment-based health insurance is the Rodney Dangerfield of health policy: it gets no respect. Prominent health policy scholars and the media routinely condemn the linkage between employment and health insurance. Liberals view the existence of employment-based coverage (“EBC”) as the major stumbling block to instituting a one-payer system. From the opposite end of the political spectrum, free market enthusiasts attack EBC for distorting decisions about employment and coverage, and obscuring the true cost of health care. Employers are lukewarm about their role in the health insurance market; as the former head of General Motors aptly observed, “when I joined GM 28 years ago, I did it because I love cars and trucks. I had no idea I’d end up working as a health care administrator.” EBC may not get much respect, but it is a fundamental and long-standing reality of American health policy. Approximately 160 million Americans obtain their health insurance through their place of employment, or the place of employment of an immediate family member. This article explains how EBC became such an important part of American health policy, and evaluates the likely impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“PPACA”) on EBC. It concludes that PPACA is likely to have a range of unintended consequences.

5 citations


Authors

Showing all 585 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Lawrence O. Gostin7587923066
Michael J. Saks381555398
Chirag Shah343415056
Sara J. Rosenbaum344256907
Mark Dybul33614171
Steven C. Salop3312011330
Joost Pauwelyn321543429
Mark Tushnet312674754
Gorik Ooms291243013
Alicia Ely Yamin291222703
Julie E. Cohen28632666
James G. Hodge272252874
John H. Jackson271022919
Margaret M. Blair26754711
William W. Bratton251122037
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
American University
13K papers, 367.2K citations

78% related

Brookings Institution
2.7K papers, 135.3K citations

78% related

London School of Economics and Political Science
35K papers, 1.4M citations

78% related

Bocconi University
8.9K papers, 344.1K citations

75% related

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
1.9K papers, 118K citations

75% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202174
2020146
2019115
2018113
2017109
2016118