Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 128 Publications in Health Care
TOTM There are some new developments in the Federal Trade Commission’s consummated merger case brought against Ovation. Namely, the FTC has lost. TOTM readers may recall . . .
There are some new developments in the Federal Trade Commission’s consummated merger case brought against Ovation. Namely, the FTC has lost. TOTM readers may recall that I spent some time criticizing the Federal Trade Commission’s complaint, back in 2008, in FTC v. Ovation in federal district court in Minnesota. As I described the stylized facts back then…
Read the full piece here.
TOTM Barring some sort of last extension Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act (MMSEA) of 2007 will require all property casualty insurers to report all settlements, awards . . .
Barring some sort of last extension Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act (MMSEA) of 2007 will require all property casualty insurers to report all settlements, awards and judgments that involve a Medicare beneficiary to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Essentially the MMSEA turns subrogation rules on their head by requiring the defendant to notify a third-party if the plaintiff might owe them money. Under subrogation rules a third-party insurer with an interest in a case, think a health insurer who wants to be reimbursed by a defendant for the injuries caused to the insurer’s beneficiary, would have to join the case which of course would require finding out about the case in the first place.
TOTM I share Prof. Ribstein’s concerns about the federalization of corporate governance contained in the Dodd bill. Though Senator Carper wasn’t able, in the end, to . . .
I share Prof. Ribstein’s concerns about the federalization of corporate governance contained in the Dodd bill. Though Senator Carper wasn’t able, in the end, to get the proxy access provisions out of the Dodd Bill, which I think were the most troubling, we did eliminate another of Senator Schumer’s ideas. (The corporate governance provisions of the Dodd bill were taken from Sen. Schumer’s “Shareholder Bill of Rights.”) The initial draft of the Dodd Bill included a restriction prohibiting any publicly traded company from having a staggered board. I suspect we have the good work of Senator Carper and Congressman Castle’s offices to thank for their continued work against that provision. The option to have a staggered board is part of the Delaware brand’s advantage. Nearly 80% of Boards and their shareholders used to embrace the staggered election approach, since then some (but not most) companies’ shareholders have pushed, and been successful, in changing to annual elections under existing rules, a development which Delaware’s freedom-of-contract philosophy embraces. Now roughly 50% of publicly traded firms have staggered boards. I should add…this, like most corporate governance changes, is not exclusively a Delaware issue…as Delaware is home to only 50% of publicly traded companies and 60% of the Fortune 500.
TOTM I’ve recently finished reading Jonathan Baker’s Preserving a Political Bargain: The Political Economy of the Non-Interventionist Challenge to Monopolization Enforcement, forthcoming in the Antitrust Law . . .
I’ve recently finished reading Jonathan Baker’s Preserving a Political Bargain: The Political Economy of the Non-Interventionist Challenge to Monopolization Enforcement, forthcoming in the Antitrust Law Journal.
Baker’s central thesis in Preserving a Political Bargain builds on earlier work concerning competition policy as an implicit political bargain that was reached during the 1940s between the more extreme positions of laissez-faire on the one hand and regulation on the other. The new piece tries to explain what Baker describes as the “non-interventionist” critique of monopolization enforcement within this framework.
TOTM We live in a time of optimism about government’s ability to improve upon the unregulated state of affairs. From health insurance to financial markets to . . .
We live in a time of optimism about government’s ability to improve upon the unregulated state of affairs. From health insurance to financial markets to the types of fats we eat, cars we drive, and sources of energy we consume, there is a sense among our political, media, and academic elites that our privately ordered affairs are out of whack and can be improved by government rules. These elites rarely stop to ask whether the private ordering whose malfunctions they are seeking to correct is, in fact, private; in reality, it’s often not (see, e.g., the role of Fannie and Freddie in creating the housing bubble at the heart of the financial crisis, the role of the tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance in eviscerating the price competition that would constrain health care costs). Rather than asking how government meddling may have contributed to an undesirable situation, the elites usually look for a market failure — some systematic defect in the system of private ordering — and then invoke that failure as the rationale for a governmental fix.
TOTM Yesterday, Todd predicted that Obamacare will result in greater government involvement in heretofore private decisions that impact health. Since the government is now going to . . .
Yesterday, Todd predicted that Obamacare will result in greater government involvement in heretofore private decisions that impact health. Since the government is now going to pay (via insurance subsidies) for many more Americans’ health care, it has a much stronger interest in how they live. So do we taxpayers who must pay for the government’s largesse. As Todd explained…
TOTM Have you ever been tempted to buy a beggar a cup of coffee or a sandwich instead of giving money? If so, you have, like . . .
Have you ever been tempted to buy a beggar a cup of coffee or a sandwich instead of giving money? If so, you have, like a young Anakin Skywalker, taken your first step to the dark side of altruism. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been there too. The reason I offered food instead of (money for) vodka is because I wanted to “help” the beggar. From my lofty perch (that is, sober, housed, and employed), I wanted to impose my values on him. Like a father choosing broccoli instead of ice cream for his kids, I thought I knew better what was good for the beggar — what he really wanted if only his thought processes were rational.
TOTM A number of opponents of Obamacare, such as Wall Street Journal columnist William McGurn, have criticized the President and his people for referring to pending . . .
A number of opponents of Obamacare, such as Wall Street Journal columnist William McGurn, have criticized the President and his people for referring to pending proposals as “health insurance reform” rather than “health care reform.” I suppose these critics think the President is engaging in a sleight of hand in an effort to minimize the significance of the reform proposals — as in, “We’re not reforming the whole health care system, just health insurance. No biggie.” But Mr. Obama is right. This proposal is about insurance rather than the provision of health care itself. And that’s the main problem.
TOTM I wonder if that is on a per pinch basis? I refused to believe this is real language, from a real bill. But Professor Bainbridge . . .
I wonder if that is on a per pinch basis? I refused to believe this is real language, from a real bill. But Professor Bainbridge says it is — and doesn’t pull any punches in describing its drafter (or at least leading proponent) Assemblyman Ortiz in NY as an “officious pig and an ass.” But rest assured, Assemblyman Ortiz assures the good citizens of New York that the bill is really about giving consumers more choice, and “more control over the amount of sodium they intake,” and “the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles.”
