There may or may not be health care reform in the offing, but it seems fairly clear that the future still looks rather bright for health care related employment.
Despite a national unemployment rate holding steady for these last two months at 9.7%, in February, according to the Wall St. Journal “the health care sector added 12,000 jobs. That continues the series of monthly job gains that has made health care an economic bright spot since the start of the recession.”
And so it is. That series of monthly Health Care job gains amounts to 658,000 since the start of the recession in December, 2007. To put this in perspective, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy has shed 8.4 million jobs during that same time period.
And the impact for Health Law practitioners? I covered this ground last year after the Wall St. Journal had reported that
Health care saw a net gain of 419,000 jobs in 2008 and its growth outlook continues to be strong through 2016, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
But as we’ve exceeded that added job total now by more than 50%, and the bar exam was just again administered, it may be worth reiterating:
What might one expect to be the effect of this relatively sanguine state of affairs for Health Care employment on Health Law practitioners?
In the well written and informative words of Professor Jennifer Bard, J.D., M.P.H (I highly recommend the article, “I’m Interested in Health Law- Now Where Can I Get a Job?” to anyone who may be considering a career in Health Law),
Health care is a trillion-dollar industry[1]that has grown exponentially over the past 10 years with very little sign of slowing. The demand for legal services has tracked the growth of the industry,[2] and, as a result, attorneys calling themselves “health lawyers” have grown from a small core of specialists to a large and diverse group of individuals who are as likely to specialize in bond issuance and tax planning as in torts or food and drug law. Moreover, the increasing regulation of health care has created substantial need for lawyers specializing in compliance with a vast array of federal, state and local regulations. Where 15 years ago most health law was done by small, specialized law firms, today many of the nation’s biggest law firms have thriving health law practices.
Significantly, although officially published in the Winter of 2009 (14 New York State Bar Association Health Law Journal 73 (2009)), Professor Bard first published those words to SSRN in February of 2008–prior to the onset of the Obama Administration and the rising priority of Health Care Reform and regulatory enforcement. Because of these rising priorities, her words are no less true than when they were written, and have arguably gained an even greater currency since.
In an article this month in The American Lawyer, “Drug Supplement. New federal regs demand more health care lawyers,” Rachel Breitman points out the following:
Ever since President Barack Obama gave health care reform a prime spot on his agenda, hospital, pharmaceutical, medical device, and insurance interest groups have been digging in, with the expectation of a battle to come-the kind that requires lawyers.
Changes have already begun. New federal regulations like a genetic discrimination shield law and new digital privacy security standards have been enacted. The U.S. Department of Justice and Health and Human Services launched a healthcare task force in May. “There’s going to be more oversight about how companies spend government grant funds for research and clinical trials,” says Frederick Robinson, the head of Fullbright & Jaworski’s Washington, D.C., health law practice, which advises clients like Zimmer, Inc., and Walgreen Company. “Also, as health care providers apply for stimulus funds, there will be new compliance challenges to get the money.”
As a result, law firms have a new appetite for health care lawyers.
Seton Hall University School of Law’s Leuven-Geneva Program in Health, Intellectual Property and International Law combines a broad-based introduction to the laws, policies and institutions of the European Union (EU) with a unique, interdisciplinary examination of cutting-edge issues in intellectual property, pharmaceutical development and global public health.
The Program will consist of two courses. European Union Law, a two-credit course, will be taught mainly at the Leuven Institute in Leuven, Belgium and will include a special trip to Luxembourg to visit the European Court of Justice. Students will also visit some of the main EU institutions in Brussels, such as the European Parliament and Commission.
The goal of this part of the Program is to introduce students to the essential principles and institutions of the EU and to explore firsthand the challenges facing this unique confederation of different languages and cultures. For the Geneva component of the Program, students will study Health and Intellectual Property Law in a Global Environment, a four-credit course, co-taught by one intellectual property law professor and one health law professor. The course will be conducted in collaboration with Geneva-based international organizations involved in health and intellectual property law issues, including the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, the World Trade Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Students will work on a series of case studies related to the work of these organizations, both in the classroom and in on-site meetings with organizational representatives. In addition to students from the Seton Hall Program, the Geneva component of the Program will also be open to students from the University of Zurich Ph.D. program in Biomedical Ethics and Law.
More information about the program is available here: http://law.shu.edu/Students/academics/studyabroad/Geneva/index.cfm
Seton Hall Law School’s Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy is set to launch a new online program in Health & Hospital Law. The new Graduate Certificate in Health & Hospital Law is a non-degree program designed for individuals who seek in-depth knowledge about legal, regulatory, and ethical issues related to health care delivery. Taught exclusively online, it offers students nationwide a targeted immersion in key substantive issues along with the practical skills necessary to research and communicate effectively about the law.
The intensive program is geared to busy professionals who want to cover a significant amount of material in a relatively short period of time. The program is open to students who have earned a baccalaureate degree from an accredited college or university. It is specifically designed to meet the needs of mid- to senior-level professionals in the health care industry, but highly motivated students from other backgrounds are also welcome to apply. It is not necessary to have prior academic or work experience in health care in order to do well in the program.
The first class begins April 18, 2010 and applications are being accepted now. Additional information is available at: law.shu.edu/onlinecertificate
The Senate has passed its version of a Health Reform bill, 60-39. The votes were cast, with Vice President Joseph Biden presiding, at 7:00 am on Thursday, December 24th. The Washington Post reports that
Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), who is 92 and ailing, bellowed when his name was called: “Mr. President, this is for my friend Ted Kennedy. Aye.”
Aye indeed.
Washington Monthly notes that a number of Republican Senators, many of whom in recent months had formerly brushed aside the issue of constitutionality for the provision for insurance mandates, have experienced a change of direction– if not heart– and have openly challenged that which they formerly embraced.
For an explanation of the mandate’s constitutionality, Washington Monthly cites this article, “Is it Unconstitutional to Mandate Health Insurance?” by Professor of Law and Public Health, Wake Forest University, Mark Hall–which originally appeared here on Health Reform Watch, and was later cited by the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein among numerous others.
Photo by Waldo Jaquith via Flickr
Sometimes gesturing toward a good idea is worse than ignoring it. Section 2537 of the House reform bill (HR 3967) would create a demonstration project supporting medical-legal partnerships. Medical-legal partnerships are a great thing. So why is Section 2537 bad?
Medical-legal partnerships (”MLPs”) help the poor and ignored get well. Look at a couple of examples.
Refnely Jaime. Refnely was a 3-year old who kept getting sick — pneumonia, rashes, and weight loss. Her doctors realized that her problems related to her poorly maintained, vermin-infested housing, and referred her and her mother to the Medical-Legal Partnership in Providence, Rhode Island. The attorney there, with the law on her side, prevailed on the landlord to bring the building up to code. Refnely’s health was restored through enforcement of sanitary laws.
Norris Nicholson. Norris’s diabetes, coronary artery disease, arthritis, and other chronic conditions kept him from working. His doctors prescribed medication to keep him well, but he couldn’t afford them. Uninsured, it was either food or medicine; he had applied for disability-based Medicaid coverage, but was denied. He was referred to the Southern Illinois Law and Health Project. After another denial, his attorney filed a legal action, and the court found Norris disabled and ordered Medicaid coverage. He can now both eat and take his medicine.
Photo by Chicago Man via Flickr
MLPs were the 1993 brainchild of Dr. Barry Zuckerman, a pediatrician at Boston Medical Center. He recognized that some debilitating and expensive illnesses persist notwithstanding the smart, compassionate work of doctors, due to the crushing disadvantages of socioeconomic circumstance. He partnered with an attorney to address the legal needs of his patients that stood in the way of their good health. The idea became a movement, and there are now over 180 such partnerships around the country — a great achievement, but a drop in the bucket compared to the need.
So why is Section 2537 bad? It provides for funding of MLPs to “assist patients and their families” to improve health outcomes, and enhance the treatment and prevention of chronic conditions. The problem lies in Section 2537(c)(1), which prohibits using the funding “for any medical malpractice or other civil action or proceeding.“ The malpractice prohibition makes some sense — but no other civil action or proceeding? Norris’s attorney asked very nicely that he be approved for Medicaid coverage, but the government said no. Without resort to litigation, Norris would still be choosing between drugs and medicine. And if Refnely’s attorney had not been able to threaten enforcement of sanitary codes, her landlord would still be content to see her dodging rats and mice.
MLPs can save lives and money. On many occasions, a lawyer or paralegal can achieve these goals without litigation by helping a patient understand a government program, or by explaining the law to a landlord. But on occasion it is necessary to enforce the law — something for which non-poor people routinely seek legal advice. Section 2537 gestures to MLPs, but ties their hands. Leave in the malpractice bar — MLPs often steer clear of these matters in any case — but let the advocates to their jobs.
Tim Greaney, Saint Louis University School of Law
The House Judiciary Committee’s vote (20-9) to send H.R. 3596 , to the floor has been heralded by proponents as providing a significant spur to competition in health insurance. Sorry to rain on this parade, but there is less here than meets the eye.
The bill would repeal, but only in part, the McCarran-Ferguson Act’s limited exemption from antitrust law for health and malpractice insurers. The bill narrows McCarran’s reach, providing that “nothing in that act shall be construed to permit insurers “to engage in any form of price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocations in connection with the conduct of the business of providing health insurance coverage or coverage for medical malpractice claims or actions.” A Senate bill with broader effect was the subject of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.
Although, as I’ve argued elsewhere, competition in health insurance markets has been less than robust, the case law reveals only a handful of instances in which the exemption protected anti-competitive conduct in the health care sector. The most prominent example, Ocean State Physicians Health Plan, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, 883 F.2d 1101 (1st Cir. 1989), involved an HMO’s challenge to the exclusionary effect of the dominant insurer’s pricing policy and its offering a rival HMO product. Ironically, this conduct would not appear to be covered by H.R. 3596 and hence would remain immune from antitrust scrutiny. In addition, the Supreme Court has narrowly interpreted McCarran-Ferguson requirement that only the “business of insurance” is exempt; hence insurers’ actions vis a vis providers is not exempt. Moreover, it appears that health insurers do not engage in the kind of activities that are most clearly protected by McCarran-Ferguson, viz. joint forecasts of future medical costs and cooperative ratemaking.
Despite these reservations, repeal is not altogether a bad idea. Most antitrust authorities agree McCarran-Ferguson is not needed to protect pro-competitive conduct, which already is well-insulated under modern antitrust doctrine. For example, the Antitrust Modernization Commission (a blue ribbon –and very mainstream– panel that examined antitrust policy a few years ago) concluded that McCarran-Ferguson immunity was unnecessary to accomplish the Act’s goal of allowing insurers to collect, aggregate, and review data on losses so that they can better set their rates to cover their likely costs. Insurance companies, it found, “would bear no greater risk than companies in other industries engaged in data sharing and other collaborative undertakings.” When insurers engage in anti-competitive collusion “they appropriately [should] be subject to antitrust liability.” Moreover in insurance lines other than health, such as property/casualty, the exemption may protect collective price fixing with few offsetting benefits for consumers.
It is also noteworthy that the Department of Justice stopped short of endorsing repeal.
Assistant Attorney General Varney testified as follows:
In sum, the Department of Justice generally supports the idea of repealing antitrust exemptions. However, we take no position as to how and when Congress should address this issue. In conjunction with the Administration’s efforts to strengthen insurance regulation and states’ role in setting and enforcing policies, the Department supports efforts to bring more competition to the health insurance marketplace that lower costs, expand choice, and improve quality for families, businesses, and government.
This carefully-worded statement (”in conjunction with …efforts to strengthen insurance regulation and states role in setting and enforcing policies“) seems to signal that the Justice Department is worried about hamstringing state regulatory efforts by allowing parallel antitrust scrutiny of insurance industry practices. But I would have expected the Antitrust Division to take precisely the opposite position. Perhaps the strongest argument for repeal of McCarran-Ferguson (and also redefining the state action doctrine) is that a system that relies on extensive state-based insurance regulation (and perhaps state-run exchanges) risks undermining the consumer benefits of competition should regulators become beholden to insurer or provider interests. If history is a guide, this is a legitimate concern.
I was given the honor of moderating a panel on Non-Profit Organizations and Health Law at the ASLME Conference at Seton Hall Law last Friday. After listening to the panelists speak about the benefits and detriments of working in non-profit health law, I was left pondering the potential job opportunities in the field. The speakers, Keri Logosso of Wynona’s House and Bryn Whittle of the Community Health Law Project, both discussed their journeys toward their respective careers as health lawyers. One of the women characterized herself as a “non-practicing” attorney, whose original career goal was to become a doctor; the other said she was had never expected to be a trial advocate, but through the eventual twists and turns of her career history found herself representing low-income, disabled New Jersey residents. Through the narratives of their personal success stories, Ms. Logosso and Ms. Whittle imparted helpful advice for the future health lawyers in the audience.
When did you know you wanted to be a health lawyer? Both of the panelists spoke of the moments in their lives when they realized that combining their passion for serving and healing others with their interest in legal issues was what they wanted from their careers. Though this was not an epiphany they had early on, both women found that their career choices had come full circle in that each of their prior work experiences led to the eventual goal of practicing health law. That sort of incremental realization certainly gives hope to those of us who are still unsure as to career paths.
How do I get hired in the field of non-profit health law? Both speakers addressed the characteristics of ideal candidates for jobs in the field of non-profit health law. While those characteristics included such traditional requirements as past experience in the field, willingness to learn, and strength in knowledge of health law issues– some non-traditional factors also came up:
1. An aspiring health lawyer needs to have the tenacity that will take him past the initial crush of being turned down from fellowship opportunities or legal work at an advocacy organization. Other opportunities will arise which will ultimately allow one to work towards the goal– but you have to remain open to them.
2. The recent health law graduate should be willing to take not only that work that ideally interests him but any work that could potentially be of use later on in his career. Jobs you originally think might not interest you greatly could be career changers as was the case for both of these panelists.
3. The trained health lawyer must build connections at every step of his career. Ms. Whittle stressed the importance of getting your name out and building contacts for when you might need references or recommendations.
4. Finally, the health law student must be tenacious. The best way to get a job is by making that extra call or writing that additional letter. Also, the health law graduate should not be afraid to reach out to government leaders. Ms. Logosso stated that students should call their local elected officials to inquire about available work. Such techniques helped her once secure the position of Governor Corzine’s Health Policy Advisor.
5. The health law graduate should not shy away from trying out private law opportunities. Ms. Logosso said that in such private sector work there are often opportunities to perform high-level pro-bono work and to gain the necessary experiences to develop your strengths as a lawyer.
What’s the competition like? With all that has been happening in the field of health law, it is certainly an opportune time to be looking for a job in the field. The health law world is experiencing change on a unparalleled level. Such changes will require regulatory, compliance, and litigation advocates in unprecedented numbers as the dust settles on pending reform legislation. Lawyers, at all levels, will help define the fine print. As we posted a few months ago, according to American Lawyer magazine, Health Law jobs are already on the rise.
Having said that, it was also said that competition in the public sector can be stiff– and one needs to prepare oneself fully in order to successfully compete. The inspiring stories of Ms. Logosso and Ms. Whittle demonstrated, however, that it is certainly not impossible to get a job as a public interest health lawyer, and that one may work towards the dream job over a period of time– gaining at each turn the skills and experience requisite for that job of all jobs. It all brought to mind for me that famous quote from Warren Buffet: “I don’t look to jump over 7-foot bars: I look around for 1-foot bars that I can step over.”
The American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics (ASLME) and
Seton Hall University School of Law will co-sponsor the Third Annual Student Health Law Conference on Friday, October 16, 2009 in Newark, New Jersey, from 8:30AM to 5:00PM.
This conference, which is attended by law students from law schools throughout the country, seeks to expose law students to the myriad career paths for attorneys in health and life sciences. The conference provides an introductory session on health law, panels on a variety of employment opportunities in health law, and a networking reception with the conference speakers. Career paths that will be represented include academia, compliance, private firms, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, drug and device companies, health insurers, and hospitals. Speakers for this year’s conference have been chosen for their health law expertise and background.
The format of the conference is a series of panels focused around a particular kind of health law career. Each panel is approximately one hour long and comprised of two to four panelists. Students will have the opportunity to explore nontraditional employment opportunities across the health law spectrum, receive support and guidance from professionals familiar with the experience needed for various careers as well as recruitment and hiring processes, and network with health law attorneys.
Click
here for more information.
Photo by David Monniaux
Some highlights from around the health care blogosphere and elsewhere:
1. Is there a Deal to be Made on Health Care? An Interview With Sen. Lindsey Graham (Ezra Klein) — Klein provides an interesting interview with Senator Graham where the conservative Senator appears to stand for reasoned debate and dialogue regarding reform initiatives, but begging the question as to whether Graham will follow through on his promise of reaching across the aisle.
2. Op-Ed: A Practicing Doctor’s Prescription for Health Care Reform — The Health Care Blog ran an interesting op-ed by physician Jordan Shlain, who discusses the role of personal responsibility in reforming our health care system.
3. Health care debate turns vile with Nazi analogy — University of Pennsylvania Bioethicist Arthur Caplan provides a unique insight into the dangers associated with the recent vitriol surrounding the health reform debate.
4. Google’s First Quarter Lobbying Report - As noted in a recent HRW post, Google is playing a significant role in the drive for personal health records. While not necessarily a demonstration of Google’s fight against the regulation of vendors like Google Health, the sixth page of the report does indicate that the company has spent big bucks lobbying Congress on–you guessed it–personal health records.
5. In case you missed it — HRW’s own Seton Hall Law Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Kathleen M. Boozang in The Health Care Blog: “AHLA on the Stark Law and its Revision: a Good Step Towards Holistic & Ethical Reform.” (Originally posted here on HRW, then picked up by THCB).
HRW Wild card pick:
6. Hans Rosling shows the best stats you’ve ever seen — For those of you a little weary of the current health reform debate in the U.S., and who haven’t yet seen Rosling’s jaw-dropping 2006 presentation, it is definitely worth a look. TED has many other fantastic videos on topics that can certainly provide insights that might well be applicable to the U.S. health care debate.
Viejos Comiendo Sopa, Francisco de Goya, 1819-1823
[Ed. note: Today's post comes from Danielle Y. Alvarez. She is a Seton Hall Law student and a graduate of NYU, where she majored in Political Science. Ms. Alvarez is a research assistant to Dean Kathleen M. Boozang, and a former legal assistant to the Augulius Law firm.]
State and federal legislatures won’t fix the health care system by themselves, which is why a recent Third Circuit decision is a welcome tool to fight substandard long-term residential care. A few enforcement officials have been aggressively creative in using false claims act theories to pursue providers of substandard health care (See here and here). In short, the government claims that the submission of a bill to Medicare for services that were so bad they were the equivalent of no care at all is a false claim for which the government should be reimbursed and recover penalties. And now the Third Circuit has recognized that the provision of such substandard care violates an individual’s civil rights.
In Grammer v. Kane, a nursing home resident’s child sued the nursing home, operated by Allegheny County in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, alleging the home’s failure to provide adequate care caused her mother to develop ulcers, become malnourished and develop sepsis, from which she died. Plaintiff invoked 42 U.S.C. §1983 to argue that the nursing home had violated decedent’s civil rights by breaching a duty to provide the standards of care delineated by the Federal Nursing Home Reform Amendments (FNRA), contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA). The district court granted the nursing home’s motion to dismiss, finding that FNRA merely sets forth requirements for nursing homes to comply with but does not grant the deceased rights that are enforceable under §1983. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and remanded, concluding that FNRA grants Medicaid recipients like the deceased rights whose violation can be remedied under §1983.
Congress passed FNRA in 1987 to address the substandard conditions in nursing homes that participated in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. FNRA sets forth various quality and residents’ rights standards to which the nursing homes must adhere in order to be paid by the federal government. And yet, as everyone knows, the problems persist. And so it should be a welcome outcome that the Third Circuit held that FNRA unambiguously confers federal rights upon Medicaid recipients in nursing homes, which gives rise to an action under §1983 which imposes liability on every person who, under color of state law, deprives another of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 42 U.S.C. §1983 (2009).
To determine that FNRA affords protection under §1983, the court applied a three factor test set forth by the Supreme Court in Blessing: first, the court determined that Congress intended FNRA to protect personal rights of Medicaid beneficiaries and nursing home residents rather than the nursing homes themselves; second, the court found that the rights asserted are not so “vague or amorphous” that their enforcement would strain judicial resources; third, the court concluded that the statutory language is sufficiently mandatory in nature with its repeated use of “must” such as “a nursing facility must provide services and activities to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident.” See Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997); 42 U.S.C. §1396r(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Furthermore, the court found Congressional intent to create a right of action through rights-creating language, legislative history, statutory structure and Congress’ failure to set forth a more comprehensive remedial scheme. Thus, the Third Circuit recognized individual rights conferred by FNRA that are presumably enforceable under §1983.
District Judge Stafford, sitting by designation, wrote a dissenting opinion finding that FNRA is Spending Clause legislation which does not confer upon funding beneficiaries individual rights to sue funding recipients. The dissent highlighted specific statutory language to conclude that FNRA focuses on what nursing homes must do in order to receive federal funds rather than focusing on the individuals who benefit from the federal funds. Absent unambiguous Congressional intent to the contrary, FNRA does not grant nursing home residents individual rights to sue nursing homes under §1983 for alleged violations of FNRA. As such, the dissent argued that the District Court properly granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss.
Tags: 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Blessing v. Freestone, Civil Rights, Elderly, FNRA, Grammer v. Kane, Health Care Reform, Health Reform, Medicare, Nursing Homes, Third Circuit
"Law," a mosaic by Frederick Dielman (1847-1935)
Over the course of the current recession, Health Care jobs have been an almost singular bright spot amidst almost continuous reports of employment loss. As we posted back in January of this year in “Health Care Jobs Up & Expected to Stay that Way,” The Wall Street Journal then reported that
“Health care saw a net gain of 419,000 jobs in 2008 and its growth outlook continues to be strong through 2016, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most recent report again shows Health Care jobs to be one of the few bright spots in an otherwise bleak employment picture (to see the current health care employment numbers, click here, look at the column furthest to the right, and then scroll down towards the bottom and stop when you no longer see continuous minus signs).
What might one expect to be the effect of this relatively sanguine state of affairs for Health Care employment on Health Law practitioners?
In the well written and informative words of Professor Jennifer Bard, J.D., M.P.H (I highly recommend the article, “I’m Interested in Health Law– Now Where Can I Get a Job?” to anyone who may be considering a career in Health Law),
Health care is a trillion-dollar industry[1]that has grown exponentially over the past 10 years with very little sign of slowing. The demand for legal services has tracked the growth of the industry,[2] and, as a result, attorneys calling themselves “health lawyers” have grown from a small core of specialists to a large and diverse group of individuals who are as likely to specialize in bond issuance and tax planning as in torts or food and drug law. Moreover, the increasing regulation of health care has created substantial need for lawyers specializing in compliance with a vast array of federal, state and local regulations. Where 15 years ago most health law was done by small, specialized law firms, today many of the nation’s biggest law firms have thriving health law practices.
Significantly, although officially published in the Winter of 2009 (14 New York State Bar Association Health Law Journal 73 (2009)), Professor Bard first published those words to SSRN in February of 2008–prior to the onset of the Obama Administration and the rising priority of Health Care Reform and regulatory enforcement. Because of these rising priorities, her words are no less true than when they were written, and have arguably gained an even greater currency since.
In an article this month in The American Lawyer, “Drug Supplement. New federal regs demand more health care lawyers,” Rachel Breitman points out the following:
Ever since President Barack Obama gave health care reform a prime spot on his agenda, hospital, pharmaceutical, medical device, and insurance interest groups have been digging in, with the expectation of a battle to come–the kind that requires lawyers.
Changes have already begun. New federal regulations like a genetic discrimination shield law and new digital privacy security standards have been enacted. The U.S. Department of Justice and Health and Human Services launched a healthcare task force in May. “There’s going to be more oversight about how companies spend government grant funds for research and clinical trials,” says Frederick Robinson, the head of Fullbright & Jaworski’s Washington, D.C., health law practice, which advises clients like Zimmer, Inc., and Walgreen Company. “Also, as health care providers apply for stimulus funds, there will be new compliance challenges to get the money.”
As a result, law firms have a new appetite for health care lawyers.
[1] See U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services,
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp#TopOfPage (last visited Dec. 1, 2007). The United States Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that in 2005 the U.S. spent $2.0 trillion on health care. This equals $6,697 per person.
[2] aareahttp://law.case.edu/student_life/journals/health_matrix/141/rothstein.pdf. (last visited Dec. 1, 2007). (In reflecting on the growth of health law over the past 50 years, Professor Mark Rothstein writes that
in the last fifty years, law has become an integral (if not universally welcomed) part of medicine. Physician practices are now concerned with privacy notices, informed consent documents, and advanced directives. At most hospitals, expanded in-house legal departments have been joined by related departments of risk management, regulatory compliance, and health information privacy and security. 213.
