Live Blogging: The Globalization of Health Care, Legal and Ethical Issues

By Holly Fernandez Lynch

This afternoon the Petrie-Flom Center co-hosted a panel discussion (with the HLS Library and the Harvard Global Health Institute) of Glenn Cohen‘s new edited volume out from Oxford University Press, The Globalization of Health Care: Legal and Ethical Issues.  Panelists were Professor Cohen, Sue Goldie, and Neel Shah; Einer Elhauge served as moderator.  This isn’t quite *live* blogging because the event just finished, but here were some of the highlights:

  • Professor Cohen began by describing the book and its contents, noting the theme that health care is becoming global – just like everything else.  The book is broken up into five sections:
    1. Medical Tourism: This is the phenomenon of patients traveling abroad for the primary purpose of getting care, in order to save on costs or to access procedures and technologies that are not available in their home country. The number of medical tourists is high (for example in 2010, nearly a million Californian’s traveled to Mexico for care), as are the profits (it’s been estimated that India’s revenues from medical tourism are around $2.2B annually).  This section of the book addresses a variety of related issues, including lessons about accreditation and safety for medical tourists, insurance coverage and encouragement for services abroad (and travel costs), media coverage of medical tourism, distributional justice issues in terms of diverting access to care for local patients, and legal questions related to tourism for services that may be illegal in a patient’s home country. Continue reading

Einer Elhauge on “Obamacare and the Theory of the Firm”

Einer Elhauge, Petrie Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Founding Director of the Petrie-Flom Center, has a new essay on “Obamacare and the Theory of the Firm” in the forthcoming book The Future of Health Care Reform, Malani and Schill, eds. (University of Chicago, 2014).

Abstract:

Health care fragmentation today raises costs and worsens health outcomes. The theory of the firm indicates that cost and quality problems could be addressed by permitting greater vertical integration among complementary health care providers. The puzzle is why such integration does not occur. The answer is that a host of regulatory and payment laws create artificial obstacles to such integration. Various provisions in Obamacare could and should be used to lift these obstacles and allow health care integration that could potentially save tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Health Law Year in P/Review Video

If you couldn’t make it to our inaugural session on Health Law Year in P/Review, co-hosted by the Petrie-Flom Center and the New England Journal of Medicine, you’re in luck!  You can watch the video here:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/media/2013/02/01_pf.mov

Topics and speakers included:

The ACA and Health Care Reform

Contraceptives Coverage and Personhood Amendments

Immigrants’ Access to Health Care

Affirmative Action and Medical School Admissions

Gene Patenting

Tobacco and Obesity Policy and the First Amendment

Summary and Wrap Up

Closing Remarks from Dean Martha Minow

Elhauge on Solving the Patent Settlement Puzzle

Founding Director of the Petrie-Flom Center, Professor Einer Elhauge, has just published an article with co-author Alex Krueger on an issue that the Supreme Court just granted certiorari on in FTC v. Watson: the proper antitrust analysis of reverse payment patent settlements.  In such settlements, the alleged infringer receives a payment and agrees to stay out of the market for a number of years.  Such settlements have been particularly prevalent in the pharmaceutical industry that has such a large effect on health care costs. The appellate courts have all recognized that such settlements have anticompetitive potential to exclude entry for far longer than merited by the probability of patent victory.  However, the courts have split on whether to find these settlements presumptively anticompetitive or lawful if within the formal scope of a non-sham patent.  The latter courts have focused on the possibility that a settlement might not exclude entry for longer than merited by the probability of patent victory and the administrative difficulty of conducting case-by-case inquiries into that probability.  Professor Elhauge’s article seeks to solve this puzzle by showing that case-by-case inquiries are unnecessary when the reverse payment amount exceeds the patent holder’s future anticipated litigation costs, because one can infer that such settlements will exclude entry for longer than merited by that probability of patent victory, whatever that probability may be.

Bill of Health Interview with Einer Elhauge on Health Care Reform

As you have already heard a few times on this blog, Professor Einer Elhauge, the Petrie-Flom Center’s Founding Faculty Director and Petrie Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, has a new book out on health care reform called Obamacare on Trial.  The book collects various essays that Prof. Elhauge published in popular media outlets, along with several postscripts, and it has received all sorts of glowing praise.

Prof. Elhauge has graciously agreed to answer some questions for us in the first ever Bill of Health e-interview.  Check it out:

Bill of Health: So, first things first, did the Supreme Court get it right in NFIB v. Sebelius?

Prof. Elhauge: The Supreme Court got the tax issue right, and I think the Medicaid expansion as well, but I think the Supreme Court got the commerce clause issue totally wrong.  Worse, the way they got it wrong portends trouble for the future.

Bill of Health: What were you most surprised by in the SCOTUS decision?

Prof. Elhauge: The fact that a majority of the Supreme Court was willing to use a methodology that clearly expanded judicial discretion to overrule the political branches, and that no one really ever called them on it either on the Supreme Court or in the briefing.

Bill of Health: You’ve noted that you didn’t originally take the constitutional challenges to the Affordable Care Act seriously.  Why do you think they were able to gain such traction?

Prof. Elhauge: I think the big problem was that the government never directly rebutted either the claim that purchase mandates were unprecedented or the dreaded broccoli hypothetical.  Instead they tried to evade the question, I guess because they thought it was unfavorable to them, but the iron rule of litigation is that if you don’t discuss your problematic issues, then you leave your opponents to be the only one that discusses them, and they are sure to frame them in the way most unfavorable to you. The government’s unwillingness to engage this issue left the Supreme Court with the entirely false impression that Obamacare fundamentally changed the relationship between the individual and government, and that thus the government faced a heavy burden to justify the health insurance mandate.  I think the government should’ve directly argued that in fact federal purchase mandates were not at all unprecedented, but rather that health insurance mandates went all the way back to the framers, who adopted two health insurance mandates in the 1790s in Congresses that had many framers on them.  The government should’ve also pointed out that the argument that courts can, in the name of “limiting principles”, create brand-new restrictions on congressional power that have no basis in the Constitution in order to restrain the possibility that Congress might exercise a power in a silly way, like adopting a broccoli mandate, amounts to a remarkable usurpation of political power by the judicial branches.  One could equally say that because Congress might pass silly laws like a law prohibiting the purchase of broccoli, the federal courts should impose a new constitutional limit that prevents Congress from ever restricting commerce. Or because Congress might tax 100% of our income to buy broccoli or go to war to get more broccoli, the Supreme Court should invalidate Congress’s power to tax or declare war.  The “limiting principles” argument that was employed here ironically has no limiting principle and looks benign but is actually a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Continue reading

Video from Obamacare on Trial Panel Discussion

Video is now available from Einer Elhauge‘s recent Obamacare on Trial book talk and panel discussion with Glenn CohenAbbby MoncrieffSanford Levinson, and John McDonough.  Check it out:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/media/2012/11/01_ms.mov

There’s also a new review of the book by the National Law Review available here.

Twitter Round-Up: What Our Bloggers Are Tweeting About (10/28-11/3)

By Casey Thomson
[Ed. Note: Several of our bloggers are active on Twitter.  In a new feature, we'll be posting some highlights of their tweets each week so you can stay in the know - or think about following them directly!]
  • Dan Vorhaus (@genomicslawyer) linked to Bloomberg’s article on the current underutilization of genetic tests for Lynch Syndrome, responsible for potentially 3% of all cases of colon cancer. Authors Langreth and Lauerman note that the lack of testing is but one example of the tendency to avoid such tests due to “doctors’ ignorance and financial disincentives.” (10/29)
  • Daniel Goldberg (@prof_goldberg) shared Iona Heath’s article on the problematic nature of current breast cancer screening awareness programs, discussing how women are not given enough information to decide if the potential treatments that follow are indeed worth the psychological devastation often invoked. (10/30)
  • Michelle Meyer (@MichelleNMeyer) retweeted an editorial on medical genetic paternalism. The post by Razib Khan discussed how physicians deciding whether to tell parents about unforeseen genetic test results of their children can be considered not only an act of malpractice, but also morally wrong. (10/30)
  • Einer Elhauge (@elhauge) linked to a new review of his acclaimed book, Obamacare On Trial by the National Law Review. (10/31)
  • Daniel Goldberg also tweeted a review by Boddice of Javier Moscoso’s new book, Pain: A Cultural History. (10/31)
  • Arthur Caplan (@ArthurCaplan) linked to news about China’s promised initiative to reduce the dependence on death row inmates for organs. A new national organ donation system, based on a system previously piloted by the Red Cross Society of China, could take effect as soon as early 2013. (11/2)
  • Arthur Caplan also posted on the Vatican’s announcement to hold its second “International Adult Stem Cell Conference,” revisiting this complicated issue. (11/2)
  • Arthur Caplan additionally linked to a report on the debate and complications regarding feeding tube use, as published by Krieger of Mercury News. (11/2)

TOMORROW: Einer Elhauge’s Obamacare on Trial – Book Talk and Panel Discussion

Obamacare on Trial

Book talk and panel discussion by Einer Elhauge, Carroll and Milton Petrie Professor of Law, Harvard Law School (and founding director of the Petrie-Flom Center)

Panelists:

Thursday, Nov. 1, 2012, 6:00 pm

Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East A

Harvard Law School

1585 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA

Sponsored by the Harvard Law School Library

Upcoming Event: 11/01/12 Obamacare on Trial – Book talk and panel discussion with Einer Elhauge

Obamacare on Trial

Book talk and panel discussion by Einer Elhauge, Carroll and Milton Petrie Professor of Law, Harvard Law School (and founding director of the Petrie-Flom Center)

Panelists:

November 1, 2012, 6:00 pm

Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East A

Harvard Law School

1585 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA

Sponsored by the Harvard Law School Library