Search

Pharmaceutical companies charge high prices for branded products, but in most instances the research that results in these drugs is supported financially by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or [...]

Over the past few decades, retirement savings has shifted from a defined-benefit model to a defined-contribution model. If we look at the major social welfare programs operated by the federal [...]

ABSTRACT The Medicare and Medicaid programs are not serving the needs of their target populations as well as they could. Democrats believe that Medicaid can be improved with more money [...]

The article examines the constitutionality of the U.S. federal court's independent exercise of inherent powers (IP) in multidistrict litigations (MDL) despite the lack of authorization by Congress. Also cited are the claim by the Supreme Court that the Constitution allows the use of IP in the exercise of judicial power under Article III, and the need to ensure the parties' due process rights when exercising IPs.

The article examine the practice of forced fee transfers in Multi-District Litigations (MDLs) and whether the law of restitution and unjust enrichment supports such fee awards. It argues that MDL procedures often violate the law and judges regulate fees more aggressively in MDLs than in other types of litigation. It further highlights that judges in MDLs has the authority to override the contractual entitlements of individually retained plaintiffs attorneys (IRPAs).

(June 6, 2019), https://www.kff.org/medicare /fact-sheet/medicare-advantage/#:~:text=Medicare%20Advantage%20Enrollment,Advantage%20plans%20(Figure%201) ("In 2019, the majority of the 64 million people on Medicare are covered by traditional Medicare, but one-third (34%) are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans."). In addition, we note the incoherence of the claim made by M4A proponents that Medicare does not incur expenditures like marketing and the payment of profits - when the reality is that those expenditures are a standard feature of Medicare Advantage plans. D. M4A will Lower Health Care Spending M4A's proponents argue incessantly that Medicare spends less than private insurance to purchase the same services - and imply that it will be a straightforward step to impose those prices on providers once everyone is enrolled in M4A. B. M4A is Popular A significant part of the appeal of M4A is its supposed popularity. [Extracted from the article]

In an effort to reduce the amount of compensation available to persons injured by medical malpractice and other torts, opponents of the civil justice system are proposing to limit claimants' recovery for future care expenses to the maximum annual out-of-pocket limit under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which in 2015 is $6600. The article explains that the proposal is based on unreliable assumptions about the ACA; misunderstands the scope of the ACA's out-of-pocket limit; is unworkable; and would be bad public policy by reducing the quality of health care, shifting costs from tortfeasors to taxpayers, imposing additional losses on innocent claimants, and subverting the democratic process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An essay is presented which provides a critique of the treatment of insurers' defense-related responsibilities in the American Law Institute's (ALI's) proposed "Principles of the Law of Liability Insurance" book, and it mentions how the ALI is converting this book into a Restatement of the law treatise. The legal rights and duties of liability insurance carriers are examined, along with penalties, remedies for breach of contract, and an insurer's duty to defend.

Little is known about the economics of plaintiff-side law firms, which typically work on a contingency fee basis. We begin here to fill that gap. We report on the fees received by 124 plaintiff-side personal injury firms located in four states (Illinois, Texas, and two additional undisclosed states). At all of the firms, cases with modest fees may help to keep the lights on, but occasional " blockbuster" cases account for an overwhelming percentage of earned fees. A one-third contingency fee is the most common arrangement but is not always collected ex post; when recoveries are low, firms often reduce or waive their fee. We also estimate the impact of various statutory contingency fee caps on these firms; the effect varies, depending on cap design and case- mix. But, many contingency fee caps dramatically affect the economics of plaintiff-side personal injury practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an obituary for Museum of Modern Art film preservationist Mary Lea Bandy.