7184 research outputs found
Sort by
404 Provider Not Found: Contributions and Solutions to Inadequate Provider Networks for Behavioral Health Care
Get PDFDespite the efforts of policymakers, access to in-network behavioral health care services has continued to lag relative to other types of health care. Many psychiatrists, for example, do not accept insurance, limiting access to their services to only those individuals who can afford to pay out of pocket. Several factors contribute to insurance networks’ paucity of behavioral health care providers, including low insurance reimbursement for behavioral health care services, inadequate regulation and enforcement, provider shortages, and a lack of access to telehealth services. To maximize the utility of existing regulatory structures, states should take an outcome-oriented enforcement approach that principally monitors appointment wait times to evaluate how well insurance networks meet their enrollees’ behavioral health needs. Additionally, policymakers should aim to strengthen internet infrastructure, broaden scopes of practice to encompass telehealth services, establish quantitative reimbursement minimums for some services, foster early interest in behavioral health careers, and adjust federal loan repayment programs to maximize recruitment to the behavioral health care workforce. Finally, lawmakers should create tax incentives to encourage behavioral health care providers to accept insurance
Jurisdiction at Work: Specific Personal Jurisdiction in FLSA Collective Actions After \u3cem\u3eBristol-Myers Squibb\u3c/em\u3e
Get PDFIn Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (BMS), eighty-six California residents and five hundred ninety-two nonresidents from thirty-three different states, who had originally filed eight separate complaints, used ordinary party joinder rules to file a mass tort action in California state court, alleging that Bristol-Myers Squibb’s blood-thinning drug made them sick. The Supreme Court held in 2017 that the California state court did not have specific personal jurisdiction over the national pharmaceutical company because its contacts with California were insufficient in relation to the claims by nonresident plaintiffs. Although BMS was a mass action filed in state court, its applicability to other forms of aggregate litigation was left open by the Court. As a result, a growing split among the courts has emerged regarding BMS’s effect on the claims of out-of-state plaintiffs in collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). To date, three United States Courts of Appeals have addressed the issue, reaching disparate results, while disagreements among the district courts cut across courts within the same judicial districts and circuits. This divided landscape highlights the need for further guidance from Congress and the Supreme Court to define the scope of specific personal jurisdiction in collective actions. This Note argues that to protect workers’ rights, promote uniformity and judicial efficiency across the nation, deter forum shopping, and support federalism, the Supreme Court, Congress, or both should formulate a clear rule granting district courts specific personal jurisdiction over employers in FLSA collective actions with respect to the claims of nonresident plaintiffs
Career Journey from Physician to Law Student
No full textAbayomi Jones, M.D., J.D. (candidate), discusses her career journey from her practice as a physician to her decision to enter law school as a first year student in 2021 with a goal of addressing policies that contribute to health inequities
