Seton Hall law review最新文献

Rethinking the Refugee: From Migrant Hierarchies to Migration as a Human Right 重新思考难民：从移民等级到作为人权的移民

Seton Hall law review Pub Date : 2026-01-01 DOI: 10.60095/jrjb4827

Roni Amit

引用次数: 0

State regulatory efforts in protecting a surrogate's bodily autonomy. 国家在保护代孕母亲身体自主权方面的监管努力。

Seton Hall law review Pub Date : 2019-01-01

Alexus Williams

引用次数: 0

The History and Political Economy of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. 哈奇-韦克斯曼修正案的历史和政治经济学。

Seton Hall law review Pub Date : 2019-01-01

Erika Lietzan

引用次数: 0

A Farewell to Falsity: Shifting Standards in Medicare Fraud Enforcement. 告别虚假:医疗保险欺诈执法标准的转变。

Seton Hall law review Pub Date : 2019-01-01

Isaac D Buck

{"title":"A Farewell to Falsity: Shifting Standards in Medicare Fraud Enforcement.","authors":"Isaac D Buck","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"For the better part of a decade, Americans have had a front-row seat to a fervent and turbulent debate over the future of their health care system. The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), the most comprehensive health reform effort since the mid-1960s, ushered in a new era in health law and policy, granting millions of Americans access to health care. After multiple legal challenges and congressional efforts that ultimately failed to slay the law, the ACA had become entrenched by the end of the Obama administration, even though pieces of the law had failed to work exactly as planned. Now, with the surprising election of President Donald Trump, reenergized Republicans are targeting the law once more, and it suddenly appears more vulnerable than ever. Dynamic uncertainty again permeates the national debate. Although most powerful protections of the ACA may evaporate--no small event, to be sure--the value-based era which it unleashed seems here to stay. Indeed, this era--focused on efficiency, standardization, and quality within American medicine--has just begun to bear fruit. Illustrated prominently by recent changes to Medicare that alter how the program pays its doctors for services they provide to its beneficiaries, America is moving away from the old strictures of fee-for-service medicine. At the same time, traditional legal tools, and particularly the federal government’s most prominent anti-fraud tool, the civil federal False Claims Act (FCA), seem to be facing new limits. This has been recently evident in medical necessity-based fraud cases, and particularly highly publicized fights that have targeted the burgeoning industry of hospice care. This Article tracks this development, ultimately arguing that the move to \"reimbursement-based regulation\" may be a positive step in finally reining in the worst excesses of American health care. But it also cautions against the deceptive simplicity of allowing medical heterogeneity and clinical complexity to prevent application of America’s most powerful anti-fraud tools to its medical industry. Just because reimbursement policy has shifted to shoulder some of the regulatory burden of overtreatment does not mean that health care fraud--like fee-for-service medicine--should be confined to the past. In the end--and regardless of whatever legislation the national debate surrounding American health care produces--American medicine must adequately address its susceptibility to overtreatment, its incentives toward financial excess and waste, and its inability to push providers and entities into adopting more efficient practices. Medicare is finally moving quickly to bring about effective changes, and the program is seeking clarity in the midst of a period of tremendous uncertainty for American health care.","PeriodicalId":80168,"journal":{"name":"Seton Hall law review","volume":"49 1","pages":"1-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36789420","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}

引用次数: 0

Rational Patient Apathy. 理性的病人冷漠。

Seton Hall law review Pub Date : 2019-01-01

Barbara A Noah, René Reich-Graefe

{"title":"Rational Patient Apathy.","authors":"Barbara A Noah, René Reich-Graefe","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"Patients with serious or life-threatening illness are frequently asked to make complex, high-stakes medical decisions. The impact of anxiety, low health literacy, asymmetric information and inadequate communication between patients and health care providers, family pressures, rational apathy by health care providers, cognitive biases of both patients and health care providers, and other factors make it quite difficult for patients in these circumstances to process and comprehend the strategic uncertainty and resultant risks and benefits of, and alternatives to, whatever therapeutic or life-prolonging treatment physicians are offering. All of these factors render the classic goal of \"informed consent\" unachievable in all but the rarest of circumstances: The effort to discuss and evaluate strategic uncertainty, its rational reduction into risks and benefits, and alternatives of treatment for purposes of optimizing decisional outcomes will have genuine intrinsic value only for ultra-rational patients (and physicians). In addition to these alterable barriers to rational decision-making--i.e., barriers that can, in theory, be overcome by ultra-rational patients and physicians with sufficient time and persistent inquiry--there is a second decision-making realm in which the added complexities of bounded rationality, clinical uncertainty and, in particular, of overall Knightian uncertainty provide insurmountable, unalterable barriers to confident rational decision-making. Within this more fundamental human realm of irreducible uncertainty, even ultra-rational, good-Bayesian decision-makers can never confidently calculate a highest-utility treatment option. In order to better describe this secondary realm of unalterable barriers to rational patient choice, including its usually subversive effect on end-of-life decisional behavior, by both average, minimally-rational patients and ultrarational patients, we coin the terms \"rational patient apathy\" and, relatedly, \"rational patient ignorance.\" Given that confronting the absolute uncertainty inherent in facing one's mortality is cognitively, psychologically and emotionally daunting, and thus largely left unexplored and unpracticed by most patients for most of their healthier decisional lives, rational patient apathy at the sudden onset of a serious or life-threatening illness overwhelmingly defaults to negative decision-making: an affirmative choice to not make any balanced decision on the merits but rather to remain rationally ignorant of some or all aspects of the choice situation. In the context of this persistent patient avoidance of substantive decision-making, empirical evidence demonstrates frequent reversion to a quantity-over-quality approach, allowing health care providers to \"do everything\" until continued medical intervention reaches the point of obvious medical or economic futility. As a result—and as a largely discounted trade-off of choosing to avoid decisional burdens through non-careful","PeriodicalId":80168,"journal":{"name":"Seton Hall law review","volume":"49 3","pages":"535-628"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37246137","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}

引用次数: 0

Two for the Price of One?: FMLA leave requests as requests for ADA Accommodations. 买一送一?: FMLA休假请求作为ADA住宿请求。

Seton Hall law review Pub Date : 2019-01-01

Omar Debs

引用次数: 0

The History and Political Economy of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. 哈奇-瓦克斯曼修正案的历史与政治经济学。

Seton Hall law review Pub Date : 2018-03-15 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.3140141

Erika Lietzan

{"title":"The History and Political Economy of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments.","authors":"Erika Lietzan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3140141","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3140141","url":null,"abstract":"Reform of the Hatch–Waxman generic drug framework is in the air. Scholars, consumer advocacy groups, regulated industry, and policymakers are engaged in heated debate about perceived shortcomings in the scheme, flaws, and unexpected loopholes. Changes in how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) implements the law, as well as changes to the law itself, are under serious consideration. These policymaking discussions take place against a backdrop of shared assumptions about the origins and nature of the original Hatch–Waxman legislation — assumptions that this Article claims are wrong. Convention wisdom holds that the Hatch–Waxman legislation was a delicate compromise privately negotiated and endorsed by the affected industries — and one that benefitted both sides. When the law is viewed through the lens of public choice theory, however, the truth is more nuanced, and the balance of benefits and costs different. By design the benefits would largely flow to one group, the generic companies, while the costs would be borne by the other group, the innovating companies. The public stood to both gain (earlier access to cheaper drugs) and lose (reduced flow of innovative drugs, if economic models were accurate). Its interests were championed by a legislative entrepreneur (Henry Waxman) as well as Public Citizen, however, which focused on the gain rather than the loss. The economic interests of the generic companies, which invested heavily in passage of the legislation, aligned with the interests of Public Citizen, and the combination of their forces made passage inevitable. Curiously, there have been few published histories of the Hatch–Waxman Amendments since the accounts written contemporaneously by participants in the policymaking process. Scholars, third–party opinion–shapers, and policymakers considering reform proposals need a clearer understanding of the history and the constraints under which the Hatch–Waxman Amendments were in fact brokered. This Article steps into the gap by offering a contextualized history of the statute and describing its political economy.","PeriodicalId":80168,"journal":{"name":"Seton Hall law review","volume":"49 1 1","pages":"53-127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49416871","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}

引用次数: 1

Revolutionizing the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. 革新2008年精神健康平等和成瘾公平法案。

Seton Hall law review Pub Date : 2017-01-01

Benjamin D Heller

引用次数: 0

GMOs, genetically modified organisms or genuinely mixed opinions? A reasonable Consumer’s understanding of the terms "GMO" and "non-GMO," and the struggle to set a Standard. 转基因生物，转基因生物，还是真正的众说纷纭?合理的消费者对“转基因”和“非转基因”术语的理解，以及制定标准的努力

Seton Hall law review Pub Date : 2017-01-01

Nicholas J Kromka

引用次数: 0

Biotechnology and Consumer Decision-Making. 生物技术与消费者决策。

Seton Hall law review Pub Date : 2017-01-01

Joanna K Sax

{"title":"Biotechnology and Consumer Decision-Making.","authors":"Joanna K Sax","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"Society is facing major challenges in climate change, health care and overall quality of life. Scientific advances to address these areas continue to grow, with overwhelming evidence that the application of highly tested forms of biotechnology is safe and effective. Despite scientific consensus in these areas,\u0000consumers appear reluctant to support their use. Research that helps to understand consumer decision-making and the public’s resistance to biotechnologies such as vaccines, fluoridated water programs and genetically engineered food, will provide great social value. This article is forward-thinking in that it suggests that important research in behavioral decision-making, specifically affect and ambiguity, can be used to help consumers make informed choices about major applications of biotechnology. This article highlights some of the most controversial examples: vaccinations, genetically engineered food, rbST treated dairy cows, fluoridated water, and embryonic stem cell research. In many of these areas, consumers perceive the risks as high, but the experts calculate the risks as low. Four major thematic approaches are proposed to create a roadmap for policymakers to consider for policy design and implementation in controversial areas of biotechnology. This article articulates future directions for studies that implement decision-making research to allow consumers to appropriately assign risk to their options and make informed decisions.","PeriodicalId":80168,"journal":{"name":"Seton Hall law review","volume":"47 2","pages":"433-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"34863841","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}

引用次数: 0