{"title":"The Stage Was Set for Disaster: For-Profit Nursing Homes, Federal Law, and COVID-19","authors":"D. Papke","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3869211","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3869211","url":null,"abstract":"For-profit nursing homes came to dominate nursing-home care in the United States in the second half of the twentieth century, especially after the passage of Medicare and Medicaid legislation in the 1960s. However, for-profit nursing homes on average provided inferior care when compared to state-run and nonprofit nursing homes. Congress attempted to address the problems in nursing homes in the final decades of the twentieth century, but massive statutes and abundant regulations served mostly to legitimize the problematic for-profit nursing home. COVID-19 then tragically underscored the flaws in the legally sanctioned for-profit nursing home as a major socio-legal institution in American life.","PeriodicalId":174210,"journal":{"name":"Marquette University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130462951","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Turning a Short-Term Fling into a Long-Term Commitment: Board Duties in a New Era","authors":"Nadelle Grossman","doi":"10.36646/mjlr.43.4.turning","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.43.4.turning","url":null,"abstract":"Corporate boards face significant pressure to make decisions that maximize profits in the short run. That pressure comes in part from executives who are financially rewarded for short-term profits despite the long-term risks associated with those profit-making activities. The current financial crisis, where executives at AIG and numerous other institutions ignored the long-term risks associated with their mortgage backed securities investments, arose largely because those executives were compensated for the short-term profits generated by those investments despite their longer-term risks. Pressure on boards for short-term profits also comes from activist investors who seek to make quick money off of trading in stocks whose prices overly reflect short-term firm values.\u0000\u0000Yet this excessive focus on producing short-term profits runs counter to the interests of non-short-termist investors, other corporate constituents, as well as our economy and society as a whole in creating corporate enterprises that are profitable on an enduring basis. Once again, the current financial crisis provides a lens through which we can see the distressing impact-both to individual businesses as well as to the entire US community-of an excessive focus on short-term profits.\u0000\u0000I propose a solution to address this problem of short-termism. Under my proposal, directors would be required to make decisions that are in the long-term best interest of stockholders and the corporation under their fiduciary duties. I explain in the Article why I propose fixing the short-termism problem through fiduciary duties as well as how, practically, my proposal would be implemented.","PeriodicalId":174210,"journal":{"name":"Marquette University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"226 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115227723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Great Transformation of Regulated Industries Law","authors":"Joseph D. Kearney, T. Merrill","doi":"10.2307/1123301","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1123301","url":null,"abstract":"The nation's approach to regulating its transportation, telecommunications, and energy industries has undergone a great transformation in the last quarter-century. The original paradigm of regulation, which was established with the Interstate Commerce Act's regulation of railroads beginning in 1887, was characterized by legislative creation of an administrative agency charged with general regulatory oversight of particular industries. This approach did not depend on whether the regulated industry was naturally competitive or was a natural monopoly, and it was designed to advance accepted goals of reliability and, in particular, non-discrimination. By contrast, under the new paradigm, which is manifested most clearly in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the goals of regulation have become the promotion of competition and maximization of consumer choice. The role of agencies has been reduced to monitoring access and pricing of 'bottleneck' monopolies such as the local telecommunications loop and electricity distribution systems.Having described this transformation in six core common carrier and public utility industries-railroads, airlines, trucks, telecommunications, electricity, and natural gas-the Article sets out on a quest to find its causes. No consistent pattern of institutional leadership can be discerned in any of the three types of government actors with the power to compel change: the regulatory agencies, the courts, and the Congress. This suggests that the causes are rooted in deep-seated economic and social forces, such as technological changes, and chain reactions that have emerged as regulatory reform in one industry segment has spread to another segment. The Article concludes that the two most persuasive explanations are that key interest groups have discovered that regulatory change is in their interests, and that an ideological consensus has emerged among economists and other policy elites that the original paradigm entails risks of regulatory failure that exceed the risks of market failure under the new paradigm.","PeriodicalId":174210,"journal":{"name":"Marquette University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1998-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130998255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}