Monday, January 30, 2012
On December 21, the Obama Administration released a new “mercury rule” to cut emissions of mercury, arsenic, and other toxic air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired power plants. Last week, the Administration made a stunning decision to stop the Keystone XL Pipeline project, reported here.
But the reality is that the Obama Administration has sided with industry on many environmental decisions. As recently as September 2, President Obama bowed to the demands of congressional Republicans and some business leaders and withdrew a proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone, the main ingredient of smog See article here.
In July, the Administration issued a rule that exempts broad categories of industrial solid waste from regulation under the Clean Air Act (including scrap plastics, spent solvents and industrial sludges) if they are burned for energy by the company that generates them. Environmentalists have filed a lawsuit challenging the rule as a dangerous loophole that will release harmful toxins into the air.
Also this year, the Administration has been criticized by environmentalists for a Department of Energy investment in a multibillion dollar coal fired power plant in Mississippi, for its refusal to ban the harmful food additive BPA, and approval of offshore oil development plans, to name a few examples.
Recent decisions may indicate that Obama is willing to make politically risky decisions to protect the environment. But his overall record indicates that his Administration does not always side with environmentalists.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Floridians who saw pale, overstressed law professors revive themselves over the semester break are now seeing a larger wave of perhaps $10,000,000 in television spending by pale, overstressed “campaign media consultants” in the runup to the Jan. 31 primary between Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum. With Florida’s massive Medicare and Medicaid populations, it’s a good time to look amidst the campaign rhetoric for specifics to answer the question:“If not Obamacare, which you detest, which alternatives to the PPACA would you adopt?”
I have more than a little interest in the subject, as West expects me to write a 2012 update to my textbook, Healthcare Rulemaking Guide (shameless plug omitted). The real test of a lawbook author is not history or process, it is prognostication of the future. The writer must tell the reader what she or he will need to know in 4-6 months, given the long lead time of production and marketing at large publishers. So I have been tuning in to the preferences expressed by the campaigns. Obama has his, of course, so one must focus on the phenomena emerging from the GOP side. The Supreme Court’s 5 separate issues will stand or fall as they may; I am looking past them to the Republican alternative formats and attempting to cover their alternative among the options for 2012-2013’s edition.
Killing the universal mandate is of course a way for the health insurance giants to simultaneously lose purchasers and declare the tradeoff elements of PPACA “inoperative” as the balance had been struck for insurers’ support in early 2010. And doing what Tea Party leadership in the governor’s office of states like Ohio want, the death of the “Insurance Exchanges” model, is apparently popular with the conservatives who champion the rights of states to be free of federal controls (with the exception of those absolutely necessary controls on states that impinge on “job creators”). The 2,200 pages of PPACA contain many small provisions for which lobbyists fought successfully and these are unlikely to be undone.
But what will President Gingrich’s CMS do with Medicare cost controls in place of the “radical change” that PPACA provides? Which health insurer’s lobbyist is closest to the ear of the former Speaker; what is Humana’s desire for squeezing physicians while AMA lobbyists are pressing for loosening controls on prescribers? Everyone is against fraud, everyone who voted in the South Carolina primary was for middle class family values, but what specific statutory changes will follow the de-funding of the PPACA compromise? Romney has spoken in generic terms of citizens (note the distinction from the much-bashed immigrants) being free to purchase private insurance that is aided by some form of state directions. President Santorum will protect the sperm, the egg, and everything before birth, but is vague about governmental aid in paying for the care of the child thereafter.
Surely there is a Tampa GOP convention platform committee maven who is busy scribing the party’s specific plans for funding affordable health care “when The People rise up and end the nightmare of Obamacare”. Is there a health law prof out there who aspires to be that maven – if so, can you please share with us how your RomRichOrum candidacy will change the details of the PPACA bargain for the better?-James T. O'Reilly
Here is a fascinating post from Jason Schafren, blogging as the Healthcare Economist about the ad hoc bundling that Medicare foists upon its contracted physicians and other suppliers. At least for many of the services Schafren lists, the service of the assistant, extender, derivative supplier, etc., is, in fact reimbursed, no matter how low. But, as John Goodman notes, Medicare will not reimburse primary care physicians if they want to treat co-morbidities during the same office visit. Is it any wonder, then, that physicians are now in the practice of asking patients to make separate appointments for treating those comorbidities? As Goodman states:
Medicare has strict rules about how tasks can be combined. For example, “special needs” patients typically have five or more comorbidities — a fancy way of saying that a lot of things are going wrong at once. These patients are costing Medicare about $60,000 a year and they consume a large share of Medicare’s entire budget. Ideally, when one of these patients sees a doctor, the doctor will deal with all five problems sequentially. That would economize on the patient’s time and ensure that the treatment regime for each malady is integrated and consistent with all the others.
Under Medicare’s payment system, however, a specialist can only bill Medicare the full fee for treating one of the five conditions during a single visit. If she treats the other four, she can only bill half price for those services. It’s even worse for primary care physicians. They cannot bill anything for treating the additional four conditions.
All hail inefficiency! Now, couple depressed gross reimbursement (based on number of complaints) with a base reimbursement system that is biased against primary care physicians, and you have two elements of a perfect storm brewing against primary docs and their willingness to remain in a system that seems decidedly set against them. Why do doctors, no matter how well-meaning and public-spirited, continue to put up with this financial abuse?
(H/t to Goodman’s post forthe reference to the Healthcare Economist blog.)-Jeff Hammond
For anyone who regularly or occasionally needs to communicate legal topics to nonlawyers, I recommend Peter D. Jacobson's reflective column on the topic in the Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics. Here are a few quotes from the piece reflecting his perspective:
What I want public health students to learn is very different from my approach to teaching law students. For one thing, the key objective for the former is for future health care executives/public health policymakers to understand the role law plays in their strategic decision-making environment. In contrast, law students need to know how the health care system works to provide effective legal advice and representation. . . .
[I]t is not important to me whether [non-law] students can remember the elements of a medical liability claim or the elements of an antitrust action five years later. Much more important is that they leave the class with a sense of how to think about the law in meeting their day-to-day and long-term responsibilities.
One central goal of the class is to ensure familiarity "with key terms and concepts of how the legal system operates." The idea is to assure that those interacting with attorneys know the right questions to answer, developing some sympathy for the necessarily ambiguous aspects of client advising:
Because of the rapid changes in how heath care is organized, financed, and delivered, [executives often] cannot expect clear answers from their attorneys. Understanding the law’s inherent ambiguity is an important goal for future health care executives to comprehend. That way, they will not feel overly confident that they can address legal challenges on their own.
Joan Robinson once called economics a valuable course of study, if only to avoid being fooled by economists. A similar point could be made about law teaching outside the law school; as Jacobson notes, at their best, "students become increasingly comfortable with how to use the law to advance their strategic objectives while simultaneously realizing the law’s limitations."
Jacobson also mentioned a great exam question he recently asked:
In an increasingly competitive market, it seems timely to re-examine the legal system’s oversight of the health care enterprise. What public accountability function should the legal system provide in either the transition to a market-driven system or in a world with accountable health care organizations (ACOs) and health insurance exchanges? Does the trend toward consolidation require new ways of thinking about the legal system’s role? If so, what approaches would you recommend?
Those are questions we'd all do well to ponder. [FP]
Friday, January 27, 2012
Amy Monahan, Fairness Versus Welfare in Health Insurance Content Regulation, SSRN/Ill. L.Rev.
Alex Stein, Toward a Theory of Medical Malpractice, SSRN/Iowa L.Rev.
Pieter Cohen, Assessing Supplement Safety — The FDA's Controversial Proposal, NJEM
Sharon Long et al, Massachusetts Health Reforms: Uninsurance Remains Low, Self-Reported Health Status Improves As State Prepares To Tackle Costs, Health Affairs
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Sam Baker, Court Angst for Left Over Healthcare, The Hill, Jan. 18, 2012 (here).
Supporters of President Obama’s healthcare reform have lost the high level of confidence they once displayed that the Supreme Court would throw out constitutional challenges to the law’s individual mandate.
Many liberals and some Democratic leaders initially waved off lawsuits challenging the law’s individual mandate, saying the suits were “frivolous” political stunts.
But that tone has shifted significantly since the Supreme Court devoted nearly six hours to arguments in the case—a modern record. That the high court would set aside so much time for the landmark case suggests that the justices certainly don’t see the challenges as a waste of time.
The law’s critics were also encouraged that the justices agreed to hear arguments against its Medicaid expansion. That part of the suit does not meet the criteria the court usually uses when deciding which cases to consider.
David Sherfinski, Bill Would Add Virginia to Health Care Opponents, Wash. Times, Jan. 17, 2012 (here).
A Virginia lawmaker is pushing legislation to add the state to an interstate compact that would exempt members from President Obama’s health care overhaul—a budding movement that’s providing states across the country with another constitutional weapon to combat the landmark law.
. . . [U]nder [the bill] Virginia would join other states collectively seeking to create their own health care policies through federal block grants and shield themselves from any conflicting federal law or regulation. . . .
Four other states — Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma and Missouri — already have approved measures that put the compact into law, and legislation is pending in at least 12 others . . . . For a compact to take effect, it needs at least two member states and congressional approval.
Enabled by the “Compact Clause” in Article 1 of the Constitution, interstate compacts generally are used to solve cross-border problems such as transportation. About 200 compacts are currently in effect. In the Washington area, the Metrorail system is one example. But the health care compact would be the first to explicitly protect states from federal law.
Jonathan D. Rockoff & Mia Lamar, Medivation, Pfizer End Work on Alzheimer’s Drug, Wall St. J., Jan. 18, 2012 (here).
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Paul A. Lombardo published an essay "Legal Archaeology: Recovering the Stories behind the Cases" in the Fall 2008 issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics. It reminded me of the wonderful chapters in this volume of "health law stories." Here are some excerpts that may be of interest:
Every lawsuit is a potential drama: a story of conflict, often with victims and villains, leading to justice done or denied. Yet a great deal, if not all, that we learn about the most noteworthy of lawsuits — the truly great cases — comes from reading the opinion of an appellate court, written by a judge who never saw the parties of the case, who worked at a time and a place far removed from the events that gave rise to litigation.
Rarely do we admit that the official factual account contained in an appellate opinion may have only the most tenuous relationship to the events that actually led the parties to court. The complex stories — turning on small facts, seemingly trivial circumstances, and inter-contingent events — fade away as the “case” takes on a life of its own as it leaves the court of appeals.
How can a law professor correct this bias? Here are some of Lombardo's suggestions:
The best starting point for doing legal archaeology is the case record itself. We all begin our investigation of cases by reading an appellate opinion. With some extra effort, we can retrieve the records and briefs that the judges relied on as they wrote that opinion. Of course, the case record that is printed for submission to an appellate tribunal will include only a small portion of the documents that make up the lawsuit’s paper trail.
Much of the material contained in the case record is now filed electronically, and for recent cases, may be available on the Web. But even for most pre-Internet cases, finding the proper repository for all these records is not difficult. A visit to your school’s reference librarian with copies of the articles referenced here should get you started.
Lombardo also suggests consulting newspapers and magazines, professional journals, and material generated by the parties and their lawyers. Though some students may complain of "reading overload," skillful editing can make the effort to contextualize the cases well worth everyone's while. I also anticipate that internet archives of particular helpful case studies will accumulate over time.
Selected References from Lombardo
P. Brooks and P. Gewirtz, eds., Law’s Stories: Narrative and Rhetoric in the Law (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997).
J. L. Maute, “The Value of Legal Archaeology,” Utah Law Review 2000, no. 2 (2000).
D. L. Threedy, “Legal Archaeology: Excavating Cases, Reconstructing Context,” Tulane Law Review 80, no. 4 (2006)
C. Geertz, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture,” in The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays.[FP]
Friday, January 20, 2012
Ashutosh Avinash Bhagwat, Sorrell v. IMS Health: Details, Detailing, and the Death of Privacy, SSRN/Vermont L.Rev.
James Bennett, Pandering for Profit: The Transformation of Health Charities to Lobbyists, SSRN
Andrew Koppelman, Bad News for Everybody: Lawson and Kopel on Health Care Reform and Originalism, SSRN/Yale Journal Online
Reza Mirnezami et al, Preparing for Precision Medicine, NEJM
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Perceptive analysis by Karen Davis over on the Commonwealth Fund Blog, here.
While the recession has played an important role in the reduced utilization of health care services, the efforts made over the last decade to transform health care delivery may also have contributed to slower spending growth. Private sector initiatives have been encouraging hospitals and physicians to adopt improved safety methods, reach performance benchmarks, and reorganize care to achieve greater value. Private insurers and Medicaid have begun to pay for care differently, creating opportunities for new models of health care delivery.
Difficult questions abound. How much of this shift can be credited to the Affordable Care Act? Will the Act be able to control expected insurance cost increases? Is this the beginning of cost bending or the end?
Monday, January 16, 2012
Robert Pear reports in the New York Times about the recently proposed rules that will require drug and device manufacturers to disclose payments and gifts to physicians. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services released the proposed regulations in December, and comment is due by February 17.
Disclosure often is an important first step in discouraging inappropriate payments from industry, but it is rarely an adequate step. Indeed, some physicians respond to disclosure requirements with a greater willingness to accept gifts from drug and device companies. The government needs to follow up with additional steps, including prohibitions on certain kinds of payments.
And the government can look to professional guidelines that have been in effect for more than twenty years in formulationg stricter regulations. For the AMA guidelines that were subsequently adopted by PhRMA, see the original guidelines and an update that were published in the Food and Drug Law Journal.
During the year after her husband’s assassination, Coretta Scott King made several visits to Charleston, S.C., where hospital aides at what was then the Medical College of South Carolina were involved in a protracted fight for decent wages. After a 113-day strike, the union won an agreement that led to wage increases and new grievance procedures.
The campaign was led by Mary Moultrie, a South Carolina native . . . In Moultrie’s telling, the gains that the union won lasted only for a few years. Because South Carolina is a right-to-work state, the union couldn’t manage to maintain much strength. But Moultrie didn’t give up: She was still organizing as recently as 2008.
A fascinating story, with historical documents at the link. [FP]
Saturday, January 14, 2012
The health law section at AALS put on a truly outstanding program. Jennifer Bard posted on the speakers and topics here, and I'd wanted to do a post reporting on the program. But there was so much there that I'll try to draft a post on each speaker, or at least a column from the Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics that reflects her or his approach. Fortunately, as Bard reported, "the Indiana University Robert H. Mckinney School of Law’s Health Law Review has agreed to print pieces about these programs as well as the proceedings of the panel in a Spring 2012 volume."
The first speaker was Prof. Charity Scott, Catherine C. Henson Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Law, Health & Society at Georgia State University College of Law. Her presentation, "Collaborating with the Real World: Opportunities for Developing Skills and Values in Health Law," was a terrific mix of high level observation, on-the-ground experiences, practical examples from her own health law program, and articles she edited as editor of the Teaching Health Law column of the JLME. Scott noted that experiential learning can happen in time slots ranging from an hour to a day to a semester or year, so any committed professional can fit some opportunities into their schedule at some point. She particularly focused on how students could help attorneys, doctors, and community members solve pressing problems. In coming weeks, I'll blog on some of the particular programs she mentioned.
[FP]; Simulposted at Health Reform Watch.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Thanks to Katharine and the other editors here at the Health Law Profs Blog for having me as a guest blogger this month. During the month, I look forward to sharing a few thoughts with you about health care delivery and finance. As an initial foray, take a look at these two posts, one from KevinMD.com about how prospective application of the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) will affect the take home pay of physicians, and the other from Chicago health lawyer Scott Becker’s Orthopedic, Spine, and Pain Management Review about broader policy issues involved with the application of the SGR. As you might be aware, when President Obama signed the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act on December 23, 2011, the imposition of SGR was stayed for only two months. Unless once again modified by Congress, its formula is set to ratchet down physician payments at the beginning of March this year.
If there is one idea I’d like for you to get from this post, it’s that: sometimes the law erects barriers that can inhibit people from doing the very things that the law (and lawmakers) really want that person to do. In the case of health care, the SGR is such a barrier. It’s the infamous and very complicated “governor” on the growth of physician’s fees paid for by Medicare. Its formula is based, in part, on the growth (or lack thereof) of gross domestic product in the broader economy. Because Medicare payment rates are already thought to be low, Congress has consistently delayed the application of the Sustainable Growth Rate, which if applied, would downwardly adjust doctors’ fees. To be fair, SGR theoretically could generate a positive update if the variables in its formula lined up just right. Nevertheless, SGR is distinctive in that it “remembers” past cuts that its formula generated, yet Congress postponed. Thus, if they were ever to be imposed, the cuts mandated by SGR would be massive.
However, at the same time that Congress wants to manage the growth of physician fees, it really wants Americans to have better access to primary care physicians. For example, Congress knew that primary care physicians are both valuable to Americans’ health, yet they are underpaid. Hence, it provided in the Affordable Care Act for a significant (yet temporary) 10% upward adjustment in fees for certain primary care services (see ACA § 5501(a)(1)).
Congress is playing a grand game of chicken with its contracted doctors. Congress has enticed physicians to keep playing the game with a 10% fee increase, yet it consistently swerves at the last minute when it pulls back the SGR cuts. Physicians have every right to be skittish about such gamesmanship from Congress. It is no wonder that groups like the AARP and the AMA couch the SGR as a healthcare access issue. They know that doctors will discontinue their participation in Medicare if the SGR is ever imposed.
It is therefore time for Congress to bite the proverbial bullet and fix the SGR once and for all. Two commentators recently estimated that it will cost upwards of $300 billion to set Medicare physician reimbursement on the right track. (see Mark Harkins and Erica Stocker, “Congressional Dysfunction Imperils Health Care System,” BNA Health Care Policy Report, January 6, 2012). Although the right thing to do, it seems implausible in an age of eye-popping deficits and breathtaking defense cuts that the doctors would get $300 billion. Without such a fix, they are forced to be content with their heads being saved from the guillotine every few months.
It would be irresponsible to lay all of physicians’ money woes at the feet of the SGR. As an article from CNNMoney pointed out last week, there are several factors that complicate doctors’ quests for profitability: hassles with private payers, overhead costs, and the nature of fee-for-service reimbursement, in which payers are incentivized to package many services into one. In fact, it would probably be irresponsible for any particular physician to blame real time, balance-the-ledger, pay the employees right now(!!!) woes on the possibility of SGR being imposed and thus driving the fees so low that she will have to declare bankruptcy or go out of business. No, SGR is contingent. It looms in the shadows. It lurks in the corners scaring doctors of what might come next. But, if imposed, it will be disastrous for doctors’ practices, as ably described by Dr. Matthew Mintz in his KevinMD.com post. But it hasn’t been imposed since 2002, as Bob Herman points out in the Becker article. One wonders, though, when the infamous other shoe will drop. And if it ever does, one must also soberly wonder how many doctors will leave Medicare and the practice of medicine altogether.
The Health Law Prof Blog extends a warm welcome to our guest blogger for January, Professor Jeff Hammond. Here is his short bio:
Jeff Hammond is an Associate Professor of Law at Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law in Montgomery, Alabama. He received his B.A. in English from Harding University in 1997. Jeff is an alumnus of Emory University’s joint-degree program in law and religion, earning the Master of Theological Studies degree from Emory’s Candler School of Theology and the Doctor of Law degree from Emory’s School of Law in 2001. From 2001 to 2007, Jeff practiced exclusively in the area of health law while working for two large firms in Nashville, Tennessee. Jeff’s research interests in health law include finance and delivery issues and fraud and abuse issues. He’s also written in the area of law and bioethics, with an article about legal protections due to persons in the minimally conscious state. Jeff is also interested in the intersection of law and Christian theology. Jeff’s other published articles include one about the reemerging trend of “cash only” physicians and another about compliance norms for chronically diseased Medicare beneficiaries. His current projects include pieces about the Stark Law, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and a companion piece to the “cash only doctors” article about private contracting in the Medicare program.
By Thomas L. Hafemeister, J.D., Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., University of Virginia School of Law
An interesting article just appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine that asserts that “[a]lthough major components of [The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA)] do not go into effect until 2014, the fate of the ACA depends on the outcome of four key events in 2012.”
Provided by the Department of Health Management and Policy and the Department of Political Science at the University of Michigan, the four identified events are (1) 2012 state legislative sessions, “the vast majority of which” will occur between January and June, (2) the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA, expected by the end of June, (3) “the June 29 deadline for applications for the final federal grant that states can obtain to support establishment of a health insurance exchange,” and (4) the Presidential, Congressional, and state elections (including the heads of the departments of insurance in three states) on November 6.
The article proceeds to anticipate various potential outcomes associated with these events. Of particular note, comments in response to this article may be posted through January 18. The article can be found here.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Although many law schools, both in the United States and to a lesser extent abroad, hire faculty members other than their own to teach summer school, this has always been a haphazard process. Given the success of sharing information about entry level teaching jobs over at Prawfs Blawg, establishing a general clearinghouse for law school summer teaching positions is likely to provide a great benefit for both law faculty and law schools across the country and the world. The Health Law Prof Blog has agreed to host the clearinghouse by posting all of the notices of teaching opportunities, in all subjects, for the Summer of 2012.
I hope this becomes a valuable resource for law professors and law schools.
Jennifer S. Bard
Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development
Texas Tech University School of Law
Please share the following information in your announcement and send it for posting on the Health Law Profs Blog to either Jennifer Bard at firstname.lastname@example.org or Katharine Van Tassel at email@example.com:
(a) the name of your school; (b) the name of the chair of your summer hiring committee and that person's contact information; (c) any particular subject areas in which your school is looking to hire; (d) the dates that the summer class(es) will be taught; and, (e) any other information you think might be relevant.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Glenn Cohen, Selling Bone Marrow — Flynn v. Holder, NEJM
Karen Sokol, The Underrecognized Role of Tort Law in the U.S. Healthcare System, SSRN/Hamline J. Pub. Policy
Elizabeth Weeks Leonard, The Rhetoric Hits the Road: State Resistance to Affordable Care Act Implementation, SSRN/U. Rich. L.Rev.
Einer Elhauge, The Irrelevance of the Broccoli Argument against the Insurance Mandate, NEJM
Monday, January 2, 2012
AALS Annual Meeting Panel - "Reaching Out Beyond the Classroom: Health Law Professors Interacting with the Real World"
The AALS Section on Law, Medicine and Healthcare invites all who are attending the AALS Annual Meeting to come to the Section's panel entitled "Reaching Out Beyond the Classroom: Health Law Professors Interacting with the Real World" which is being presented in close cooperation with the Section on Clinical Legal Education.
Health Law professors have long utilized the principles of experiential learning in their classes. This panel presents a sampling of the many different ways that health law professors are reaching out of the classroom and helping their students experience the real world.
The Call for Papers associated with this panel generated so many interesting and innovative programs that the Indiana University Robert H. Mckinney School of Law’s Health Law Review has agreed to print pieces about these programs as well as the proceedings of the panel in a Spring 2012 volume. The Panel includes the following:
Moderator and Speaker: Jennifer S. Bard, Alvin R. Allison Professor of Law, Director, Health Law and J.D./M.D. Program, Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development, Texas Tech University School of Law.
Speaker: Charity Scott, Catherine C. Henson Professor of Law, Director, Center for Law, Health & Society, Georgia State University College of Law. “Collaborating with the Real World: Opportunities for Developing Skills and Values in Health Law.”
Speaker: Marshall B. Kapp, Director, Center for Innovative Collaboration in Medicine & Law, Professor, Department of Geriatrics. Florida State University College of Law. “Innovative Collaboration in Medicine and Law: The Ivory Tower as a Strategic Advantage.”
Speaker: Wendy E. Parmet, Northeastern University School of Law, Assoc. Dean for Academic Affairs & Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law. “Health Law Coops -Views from Inside & Outside the Law School.”
Speaker: JoNel Newman, University of Miami School of Law, Associate Professor of Clinical Education, Director, Health and Elder Law Clinic. “Medical-Legal Partnerships in an Academic Setting.”
Speaker: Sallie T. Sanford, University of Washington School of Law. “Hyenas at the Gates: Teaching Problem-Based Health Care Law and Ethics in Rural Ethiopia.”
The Program will be held on Saturday, January 7, 2012 at 8:30 -- 10:15 a.m. and is currently scheduled to be in the Maryland Suite A, Lobby Level, Washington Marriott Hotel. The LMH Section's Business Meeting will be held at the conclusion of the Program.