The DePaul Journal of Health Care Law is a student-run peer-reviewed journal published by the DePaul University College of Law. Founded in 1996, the JHCL publishes articles analyzing the legal complexities of the rapidly evolving health care world on topics of interest to health care practitioners, legal researchers, scholars and health care professionals. The editors welcome submission of manuscripts on health law topics, as well as on topics in the broader field of health care where matters of ethics, medical practice or economics have legal implications.
If you are interested in publishing a recent work, we invite you to contact us with your submission as soon as possible. Submissions should be accompanied by a CV and submitted to DePaul.JHCL@gmail.com. The JHCL is not currently accepting student-authored pieces.
The Jaharis Health Law Institute is accepting applications for a Faculty Fellow in Health Law and Intellectual Property. We will be starting interviews in the coming weeks, so please get all applications in ASAP.
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
By Wendy Netter Epstein
Earlier this month, CVS announced plans to buy Aetna— one of the nation’s largest health insurers—in a $69 billion deal. Aetna and CVS pitched the deal to the public largely on the promise of controlling costs and improving efficiency in their operations, which they say will inhere to the benefit of consumers. The media coverage since the announcement has largely focused on these claims, and in particular, on the question of whether this vertical integration will ultimately lower health care costs for consumers—or increase them. There are both skeptics and optimists. A lot will turn on the effects of integrating Aetna’s insurance with CVS’s pharmacy benefit manager services.
But CVS and Aetna also flag another potential benefit that has garnered less media attention—the promise in combining their data. CVS CEO Larry Merlo says that “[b]y integrating data across [their] enterprise assets and through the use of predictive analytics,” consumers (and patients) will be better off. This claim merits more attention. There are three key ways that Merlo might be right. Continue reading
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.
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