Pre-pandemic, employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) covered 175 million workers and their dependents, the equivalent of 49% of the country’s total population. ESI, a valuable tax preference to employer and employee alike, spurred worker job dependence on employers resulting in access to healthcare dependent upon continued employment. With the advent of the pandemic and the dramatic increase in unemployment, the number of uninsured increased by more than 2.7 million people. Then, unemployment proliferated further by an unprecedented exit from the workforce dubbed the “Great Resignation.” Over 47 million Americans voluntarily quit their jobs in a movement characterized as a general labor strike. The pandemic opened the floodgates to workers’ concerns about COVID safety in the workplace, wage stagnation despite increases in the cost of living, enduring job dissatisfaction, and increased demand for a remote-working environment. Data shows that the unemployed shifted to the Affordable Care Act marketplace or to the public payer option, Medicaid, for coverage. This shift signals a change, post-pandemic, away from the destabilizing system of access to care based on employment and unwanted job dependence and provides a policy argument favoring the more stabilizing influence of public insurance options in the health insurance market.

While physician-assisted suicide legislation is being drafted and passed across the United States, a gray-area continues to exist in regard to the legality of a lay person’s assistance with suicide. Several high-profile cases have been covered in the media, namely that of Michelle Carter in Massachusetts and William Melchert-Dinkel in Minnesota, but there is also a growing volume of anonymous pro-suicide materials online. Pro-suicide groups fly under the radar and claim to help those desiring to take their own lives. This paper aims to identify the point at which an individual or group can be held civilly or criminally liable for assisting suicide and discusses how the First Amendment can be used to shield authors from such liability.

Medicaid plays a significant role in the health care space, providing insurance coverage to nearly one quarter of the U.S. population. In recent years, managed care organizations have taken on an increasingly prominent role in the Medicaid space, and in many instances have become the sole insurance option for Medicaid recipients. The scale and method of implementation for managed care programs has varied widely from state to state. This Note discusses the many methods by which a state can enact managed care within its Medicaid program, and summarizes the challenges with assessing the success of such programs. It proposes a uniform approach to managed care reporting requirements designed to increase transparency and accountability across state lines, and in turn ensure quality care for Medicaid managed care beneficiaries.

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization made it drastically harder for women to access abortions. The Dobbs decision has had a disproportionate impact on women who are incarcerated or on some form of community supervision such as probation or parole. This Note analyzes a potential right to an abortion for women involved in the criminal justice system, even those living in states that have banned or deeply restricted abortion access after the Dobbs decision. In doing so, this Note looks for different constitutional avenues to protect incarcerated women’s right to an abortion, including under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Debates over the effectiveness, constitutionality, and fairness of medical malpractice damage caps are as old as the laws themselves. Though some courts have struck down damage caps under state constitutional provisions, the vast majority hesitate to invalidate malpractice reform legislation. Instead, statutory interpretation offers a non-constitutional method of challenging the broad scope of damage caps without fully invalidating legislative efforts to curtail “excessive” malpractice liability. This Note examines the term “health care providers” in construing malpractice reform laws and identifies two predominant forms of statutory interpretation that state courts apply. In doing so, this Note offers recommendations for courts and legislatures to best balance the goals of the malpractice reform movement with patients’ interests in recovery for medical injuries.

This Note explores an alarming, decades-old trend that has received renewed attention from enforcement agencies and the media: nursing homes suing family members and friends ("relatives") for residents’ unpaid bills. As justification, nursing homes point to “responsible party” clauses within admission agreements signed by relatives during the admission process. Undeterred by the 1987 Federal Nursing Home Reform Act’s (FNHRA) prohibition on requiring relatives to act as financial guarantors in exchange for residents’ admission, nursing homes use carefully worded “responsible party” clauses to obtain virtually the same result: relatives’ total liability for residents’ unpaid balances. Relatives are frequently caught off-guard by these lawsuits; many who sign admission agreements do so without a proper understanding of the potential liability they are assuming and have limited (if any) access to residents’ assets. This problem is aggravated by several aspects of the admission process that disadvantage relatives, such as the stressful and emotional nature of admission, the complicated language in admission agreements, and the inadequate—at times, misleading—guidance provided by nursing homes. This Note examines the tension between the FNHRA’s financial protections for relatives and nursing homes’ admission practices and use of “responsible party” clauses. Furthermore, this Note proposes solutions aimed at better informing relatives of the legal risks associated with “responsible party” clauses.