What are you looking for?

Showing 9 of 79 Results in Insurance

The Administration’s Rigorous Defense of the Affordable Care Act

TOTM In yesterday’s Washington Post, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius makes an impassioned plea for skeptics to reconsider the Affordable Care Act. Secretary Sebelius argues that the . . .

In yesterday’s Washington Post, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius makes an impassioned plea for skeptics to reconsider the Affordable Care Act. Secretary Sebelius argues that the Act will bring down health care costs by, among other things, assisting those who cannot afford health insurance coverage. Although expanding health insurance coverage is a worthy goal, bringing more folks into the health care system could result in higher prices for health care services. The housing market provides a nice example: although subsidized mortgage rates allowed more people to own homes, more buyers eventually meant higher home prices.

Read the full piece here.

Continue reading
Financial Regulation & Corporate Governance

Hans Bader on Abolish Law School Requirement, Keep the Bar Exam?

TOTM Lawyer licensing should not be completely abolished, but it should be made radically easier and cheaper by abolishing the requirement that lawyers attend law school . . .

Lawyer licensing should not be completely abolished, but it should be made radically easier and cheaper by abolishing the requirement that lawyers attend law school to sit for the bar exam, and by only requiring passage of the bar exam for those who handle court cases.  Legal redress should also be made easier by allowing more cases to be brought in small-claims courts.

Read the full piece here.

Continue reading
Financial Regulation & Corporate Governance

Richard Painter on Litigation Financing and Insurance

TOTM Fifteen years ago I published an article urging that non-lawyers be allowed to finance the cost of legal representation in return for a percentage of . . .

Fifteen years ago I published an article urging that non-lawyers be allowed to finance the cost of legal representation in return for a percentage of a judgment or settlement if the plaintiff is successful.    Common law prohibitions on champerty were widely believed at the time to prohibit third parties from buying an interest in litigation.  Few such litigation funding arrangements were available for plaintiffs, and lawyers perhaps predictably looked upon them with disfavor.   See Litigating on a Contingency:  A Monopoly of Champions or a Market for Champerty?, 70 Chicago-Kent Law Review 625-697 (1995) (Symposium on Fee Shifting).

Read the full piece here.

Continue reading
Financial Regulation & Corporate Governance

The non-constitutional problem with a health care mandate

TOTM There’s been much teeth-gnashing following yesterday’s ruling by a Virginia judge that the “individual mandate” portion of Obamacare is unconstitutional.  Among many other places, see . . .

There’s been much teeth-gnashing following yesterday’s ruling by a Virginia judge that the “individual mandate” portion of Obamacare is unconstitutional.  Among many other places, see the ongoing discussion at The Volokh Conspiracy.  I have a quick, non-constitutional response.

Read the full piece here

Continue reading
Antitrust & Consumer Protection

Carl Shapiro on BCBS and the New Merger Guidelines

TOTM Carl Shapiro’s (DOJ) speech at the ABA Fall Forum contains (at least) two interesting tidbits worth highlighting for TOTM readers.  The first is a discussion . . .

Carl Shapiro’s (DOJ) speech at the ABA Fall Forum contains (at least) two interesting tidbits worth highlighting for TOTM readers.  The first is a discussion of the DOJ’s case against Blue Cross Blue Shield, which as discussed here, turns on an economic analysis of the use of most-favored nations clauses in contractual arrangements with hospitals…

Read the full piece here

Continue reading
Antitrust & Consumer Protection

DOJ v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

TOTM This should be an interesting case to watch.  As I’ve discussed, if one excludes policy speeches and restricts focus to enforcement action and activity, it . . .

This should be an interesting case to watch.  As I’ve discussed, if one excludes policy speeches and restricts focus to enforcement action and activity, it has been thus far difficult to distinguish the Obama Antitrust Division from the Bush II Antitrust Division when it comes to single firm or allegedly exclusionary conduct.  But the DOJ’s recent announcement of case against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan looks like the DOJ’s first major “exclusionary” conduct case — despite the fact that it is brought under Section of the Sherman Act rather than Section 2 (there is also a state antitrust law claim).

Read the full piece here

Continue reading
Antitrust & Consumer Protection

McDonald’s, Mini-Meds, and Medical Loss Ratios: What’s to come, and what can Sebelius do about it?

TOTM Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran an article entitled McDonald’s May Drop Health Plan. The article reported that “McDonald’s Corp. has warned federal regulators that . . .

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran an article entitled McDonald’s May Drop Health Plan. The article reported that “McDonald’s Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.” The insurance plan at issue is a so-called “mini-med” plan, which provides limited coverage but at low prices. The Journal reports, for example, that “[a] single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.”

Read the full piece here

Continue reading
Financial Regulation & Corporate Governance

Republicans for Expanding the Tort System?

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.

Read the full piece here

Continue reading
Financial Regulation & Corporate Governance

An Honest Question for Obamacare Supporters

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.

Read the full piece here.

Continue reading
Financial Regulation & Corporate Governance