On February 22, 2018, join DePaul University, located in downtown Chicago, for The Jaharis Symposium on Health Law and Intellectual Property: Technological and Emergency Responses to Pandemic Diseases.
Hosted by DePaul University’s Mary and Michael Jaharis Health Law Institute and the Center for Intellectual Property Law and Information Technology (CIPLIT®), this one day conference will focus on “best practices” in response to emerging pandemic diseases.
Connect with keynote speakers Lawrence Gostin–University Professor and Faculty Director, O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University– and Richard Wilder–Associate General Counsel, Global Health Program, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They will be joined by other esteemed panelists during this timely and important discussion.
The Jaharis Health Law Institute is now accepting applications for a Faculty Fellow in Health Law and Intellectual Property!
Established in 1984 and supported by the Mary and Michael Jaharis Health Law Institute (JHLI), DePaul’s health law program has consistently ranked among the top in the nation. JHLI offers students coursework that reflects the diversity of health law from community health to high-tech health care, making DePaul a leader in the education of future generations of health law partners, policy makers and critical thinkers.
About the Fellowship:
An endowment at the DePaul University College of Law funds a faculty fellowship program for scholars to create and disseminate scholarship and teach courses where two dynamic legal fields are increasingly intersecting—intellectual property and health law. The fellowship is designed to encourage scholars interested in entering a career in legal academia in these fields. The Jaharis Faculty Fellow will work with and be mentored by faculty from DePaul’s nationally-ranked Mary and Michael Jaharis Health Law Institute (JHLI) and Center for Intellectual Property Law & Information Technology (CIPLIT®). Continue reading
Block grants are all the rage. Take the latest G.O.P. proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act: the Graham-Cassidy bill. It proposes to replace the current system and instead give grants to the states, essentially taking the funds the federal government now spends under the ACA for premium subsidies and Medicaid expansion and give those funds to the states as a lump sum with little regulation.
There is a complicated formula by which the bill proposes divvying up this money among the states. Many think the formula is unfair, that it benefits red states over blue states, and that it just flat isn’t enough money. These are incredibly important concerns. But let’s put them to the side for just a moment and consider the theory behind block granting. Is there any world, for instance assuming that the amount and allocation of the funding could be resolved (probably crazy talk), in which switching to block granting may actually improve upon the status quo?
Proponents of block granting health care make two main arguments. First, it will reduce costs. By block granting Medicaid and the ACA subsidies, we end the blank check open entitlement that these programs have become and give states more skin in the game. Second, these cost savings will come from empowering states to innovate. States will become more efficient, improve quality, and solve their own state-specific problems.
These arguments have an understandable appeal. But how will states really react to providing health care coverage on a budget? Continue reading
By Wendy Netter Epstein
The cost-sharing reduction payments are an essential component of the ACA. These payments reduce out-of-pocket costs for lower income enrollees so that individuals can actually use their insurance coverage and not be prevented from seeking care because of a high deductible or a copay they can’t afford. President Trump has been threatening since he took office to end these payments. And there is at least some possibility that he has the authority to do (see House v. Price).
Politically speaking, Trump’s goal in threatening to end these payments is either to hasten what he sees as the inevitable demise of Obamacare—or at least to use the threat of ending the payments to hold the feet to the fire of those who have resisted “repeal and replace.” Either way, Democrats have widely condemned Trump’s threats and the instability they cause in the market. Continue reading