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.

Should Patients Use Online Reviews to Pick Their Doctor? Lessons from Illinois and Indiana

Abstract: How accurate and useful are online reviews of physicians? At a basic level, do online reviews meaningfully differentiate physicians with problematic medical malpractice (med mal) and disciplinary records from physicians with clean records? We compare the online reviews of 221 “Questionable physicians” from Illinois and Indiana (each of whom had multiple paid med mal claims and disciplinary sanctions) with matched control physicians with clean med mal and disciplinary records. Across five prominent online rating services, we find small, mostly insignificant differences in the star ratings and written reviews of Questionable versus control physicians, and only modest correlation in the ratings of the same physicians across different rating services. Online rating services also fail to capture the information provided by physicians’ med mal and disciplinary records; the only rating service that reports on med mal claims and disciplinary actions (Healthgrades) misses more than 90% of these actions. Patients that want to avoid Questionable physicians should not rely on online rating services to help them do so. Our findings also raise serious questions about the utility of patient-generated quality measures in evaluating physician performance.

Ready or Not, Here It Comes: Navigating Congress and Caring for the Wounded and Their Family Members During War Time

Abstract: Just prior to the outbreak of the War on Terror, the Department of Defense was focused on the somewhat, mundane aspects of managing the world’s largest military. Issues of importance to military families such as improving child care, upgrading housing, and bettering schools were front and center. Unfortunately, there was little impetus to consider roles and responsibilities for the injured and their families during war time and beyond.

What Consensus? Ideology, Politics and Elections Still Matter

Abstract: This article, which was prepared for an ABA Antitrust Section Panel, discusses the role of ideology and politics in antitrust enforcement and the impact of elections in the last twenty year on enforcement and policy at the federal antitrust agencies. The article explains the differences in antitrust ideologies and their impact on policy preferences. The article then uses a database of civil non-merger complaints by the DOJ and FTC over the last three Presidential administrations to analyze changes in the number, type and other characteristics of antitrust enforcement. It also discusses change in vertical merger enforcement and other antirust policies such as amicus briefs, reports and guidelines. The article concludes that elections do matter and that the impact of elections on the DOJ and FTC has differed significantly.

Don't Forget the Standard Deduction

Abstract: The presidential candidates this campaign season are a diverse group with a wide range of tax policy proposals, but they agree unanimously about one thing: the need to limit itemized deductions. Sadly, however, none of their proposals tackles how limits on itemized deductions would affect the other side of the equation — the standard deduction — which is also very much in need of reform.

Governing and Deciding Who Governs

Abstract: In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that, "Campaign finance restrictions that pursue other objectives [than eradicating quid pro quo corruption or its appearance], we have explained, impermissibly inject the Government 'into the debate over who should govern.' And those who govern should be the last people to help decide who should govern."This passage sounds great — after all, who could object to an attempt to purge official self-dealing, especially in the election-law context? And therein lies its insidiousness: this rousing language masks a programmatic attempt by Roberts and his colleagues to distance themselves rhetorically from the structures and processes of governance and thereby to justify their privileged place above the other branches with regard to such issues.This essay, written for the University of Chicago Legal Forum's 2014 "Does Election Law Serve the Electorate?" symposium, identifies and unpacks two distinct distancing strategies exemplified in that passage. First, the Court's use of the first-person plural ("we have explained") posits a trans-temporal unified identity for the Court, which is implicitly contrasted with the shifts and vagaries of mere electoral politics. Part I examines this judicial self-presentation by contrasting the treatment of corruption in Caperton, on the one hand, and Citizens United and McCutcheon, on the other. Second, Roberts's implicit contrasting of the Court with "those who govern" serves to suggest that the Court is somehow removed from the arena of partisan politics. Part II discusses this claim with reference to Bush v. Gore, Shelby County, and election-law disputes surrounding the 2014 midterms.The conclusion considers what these rhetorical distancing strategies get the Court, and what a critical evaluation of them gets us.