Author: TSA Press

Even
someone
chronically
online
that
tries
to
balance
media
consumption
between
terrifying
governmental
changes
and
celebrity
content
may
not
have
followed

all
the
minutiae
of
the

dueling
lawsuits
between
“It
Ends
With
Us”
co-stars
Blake
Lively
and
Justin
Baldoni.
But…
it
*is*
Hollywood’s
hottest
litigation
with
more
twists
than
an
M.
Night
Shyamalan
movie,
so
even
casual
observers
have
probably
developed
deep
opinions
about
the
case(s).

And
that’s
kinda
the
problem.
As
S.D.N.Y
Judge

Lewis
J.
Liman
told
lawyers
in
a
hearing
this
week,
“You’ve
got
a
lot
in
front
of
the
court
that
gives,
I
think,
the
public
plenty
to
feast
upon.”
Lively’s
legal
team,
led
by
Willkie
Farr
partner
Michael
Gottlieb,
wants
Baldoni’s
attorney
Bryan
Freedman
to
shut
the
hell
up,
saying
the
“harassing
and
retaliatory
media
campaign”
against
his
client
has
continued
with
“almost
daily
media
statements
or
other
releases
to
the
press.”

As

reported
by
NBC
News:

During
the
hearing,
Gottlieb
said
the
attacks
from
both
sides’
playing
out
in
the
media
has
created
an
“arms
race”
with
no
guardrails. Gottlieb
compared
the
dynamic
with
his
adversary,
Freedman,
to
“two
4-year-olds
in
a
playground.”

The
hearing
—
ostensibly
to
discuss
a
case
management
plan,
legal
issues
and
discovery
—
devolved
into
accusations
of
leaks,
harassment
and
retaliation.

But
Baldoni’s
legal
team
was
also
ready
with
accusations
of
their
own:

Attorneys
for
Baldoni,
who
co-starred,
directed
and
adapted
“It
Ends
With
Us,”
went
on
offense
recently,
launching
a
website
linking
to
his
lawsuit
and
168
pages
of
what
he
says
are
hundreds
of
personal
emails,
documents
and
texts
between
the
two,
as
well
as
their
publicists
and
crisis
managers.  

This
feud
began
as
a
battle
for
the
hearts
and
minds
of
the
public,
so
perhaps
it
isn’t
surprising
that,
though
the
case
is
currently
being
heard
in
federal
court,
another
very
real
tussle
is
still
going
on
in
the
court
of
public
opinion.
But
Judge
Liman
is
pretty
annoyed
about
that
—
and
he
threatened
to
move
the
trial
date
up
from
the
currently
calendared
March
2026
if
the
attorneys
couldn’t
stop
taking
the
case
in
front
of
the
peanut
gallery.

And
you
should
*absolutely*
take
Liman
at
his
word
—
he
knows
how
to
maintain
order
in
the
courtroom
despite
exceptionally
trying
circumstances.
Remember
he’s
the
judge
who

sanctioned
Rudy
Giuliani
for
his
own
discovery
shenanigans.
So
he
won’t
be
cowered
by
the
bright
lights
that
this
Hollywood
legal
squabble
brings.
(Also,
his
brother
is

Swingers
director
Doug
Liman
so
to
paraphrase

Shania
Twain,
that
don’t
impress
him
much.)

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

So
much
of
the
coverage
on
Pauline
Newman’s
ordeal
with
her
court
focuses
on
distractions
from
the
heart
of
the
matter:
her
age,
her
constant
efforts
to
simply
do
her
job,
what
have
you.
We
should
really
be
focused
on
the
folks
who
keep
filibustering
and
not
good
enough-ing
her
attempts
to
do
her
job.

ABA
Journal
has
coverage:

Federal
law
does
not
permit
a
97-year-old
federal
appeals
judge
to
unseal
documents
about
her
suspension
absent
consent
of
the
chief
judge
of
her
circuit,
the
U.S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit

ruled
Monday.

Who
is
the
Chief
judge
of
her
circuit?
Kimberly
A.
Moore
of
course
—
the
very
same
person
that
started
all
of
this!
If
only
at
some
point
very
early
on
in
this
now
year
spanning
debacle
someone
had
the
foresight
to
point
out
the
very
clear
due
process
problems
and
absurdities
that
would
arise
from
having
Moore
serve
as
judge,
jury
and
executioner.
Oh
wait,
everyone
did!

We
did,

David
Lat
did,
the

Federalist
Society
did,
but
you
know
the
earliest
predictor
of
all
this?
Franz
Kafka
of
all
people!

It
is
impossible
to
fully
explain
the
the
absurdities
of
the
bureaucratic
requirements
and
delay
this
award
winning
jurist
that’s
regularly
cited
by
the
Supreme
Court
has
gone
through
and
not
feel
the
pull
to
describe
the
situation
as
Kafkaesque,
but
the
term
has
become
watered
down
over
decades
of
misuse.
I
suggest
a
new
term
to
bring
back
the
full
force
of
someone
being
subject
to
baseless
formalities,
bureaucracy
and
delay
—
pulling
a
Kimberly.
As
an
example:
I
got
accused
of
having
a
heart
attack
so
I
went
to
a
doctor
to
prove
that
it
never
happened
and
that
I
was
still
physically
fit,
but
then
the
court
just
ignored
that
and
said
I
was
mentally
unfit.
After
I
went
to
a
world
leading
brain
assessor
or
two
and
tests
showed
that
my
mind
was
actually
in
abnormally
good
shape,
they
still
said
that
that
wasn’t
enough!
Then,
when
I
tried
to
get
the
files
opened
for
an
explanation
on
what
they
put
me
through,
they
said
I
had
to
get
permission
from
the
person
that
has
been
refusing
me
for
years
now.
I
keep
on
getting
Kimberly’d
and
all
people
do
is
question
my
persistence!

For
fear
that
I
too
will
be
accused
of
using
Kafkaesque
incorrectly,
you
can
judge
the
parallels
for
yourself
by
reading

Before
The
Law
here.
Don’t
worry,
it’s
much
shorter
than
The
Metamorphosis.
Swap
out
the
unnamed
man’s
name
for
Pauline
and
you’ll
be
pretty
caught
up
on
what
she’s
been
going
through
for
the
last
two
years.

Federal
Appeals
Judge,
97,
Loses
Bid
To
Unseal
Documents
About
Her
Suspension
[ABA
Journal]

Earlier:

Judicial
Conduct
Committee
Passes
Ball
On
Glaring
Due
Process
Issue
In
Newman
Case

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

When
most
product
teams
hear
the
word
“regulations,”
they
don’t
exactly
cheer.
For
many,
it
feels
like
a
mountain
of
red
tape
standing
between
them
and
a
successful
launch.
But
I
see
regulations
differently
—
not
as
roadblocks,
but
as
opportunities.

Early
in
my
career,
I
realized
that
compliance
wasn’t
just
about
avoiding
fines;
it
could
be
a
powerful
tool
to
build
trust,
drive
innovation,
and
set
products
apart.
With
the
right
mindset,
regulations
can
transform
from
a
burden
into
your
competitive
edge.
Here’s
how
I’ve
flipped
the
script.

Stop
Checking
Boxes
—
Start
Building
Trust

Too
often,
compliance
is
treated
like
a
chore:
check
the
boxes,
meet
the
minimum,
and
move
on.
But
going
beyond
the
basics
can
create
a
real
market
advantage.

Take
privacy
laws
like
GDPR.
Instead
of
burying
our
compliance
efforts
in
the
fine
print,
we
made
them
a
feature.
“Your
data
is
safe
with
us”
wasn’t
just
legal
boilerplate
—
it
became
part
of
our
marketing
story.
We
even
added
features
that
gave
users
more
control
over
their
data
than
the
law
required.
The
result?
Customers
saw
us
as
the
ethical,
user-first
option.

When
your
competitors
only
meet
the
bare
minimum,
you
can
stand
out
by
going
the
extra
mile.

Regulations
Reflect
Values
—
Lean
Into
Them

Every
regulation
exists
for
a
reason,
whether
it’s
to
promote
transparency,
protect
consumers,
or
encourage
sustainability.
By
aligning
with
those
underlying
values,
you
can
connect
with
your
customers
on
a
deeper
level.

For
example,
when
accessibility
standards
required
certain
updates
to
our
product,
we
didn’t
stop
at
compliance.
We
pushed
to
design
an
exceptional
experience
for
all
users.
This
didn’t
just
check
a
legal
box
—
it
won
us
loyalty
from
previously
underserved
markets.

The
lesson?
When
you
embrace
the
intent
behind
the
rules,
you
don’t
just
meet
expectations
—
you
exceed
them.

Seize
The
Opportunities
Others
Avoid

Some
companies
shy
away
from
industries
or
markets
with
heavy
regulations.
But
I’ve
found
that
tackling
these
challenges
head-on
often
creates
a
competitive
edge.

For
example,
a
fintech
team
I
worked
with
hesitated
to
enter
Europe
due
to
PSD2
compliance
requirements.
Instead
of
backing
off,
we
leaned
in,
developing
advanced
compliance
features
that
positioned
us
as
one
of
the
few
players
in
the
market.
It
wasn’t
easy,
but
it
paid
off
with
a
significant
first-mover
advantage.

The
takeaway?
Regulatory
hurdles
aren’t
dead
ends
—
they’re
opportunities
to
differentiate.

Get
Ahead
Of
The
Curve

In
fast-moving
industries
like
AI,
fintech,
or
digital
health,
waiting
for
regulations
to
solidify
can
leave
you
behind.
Proactively
designing
for
likely
standards
not
only
future-proofs
your
product
but
also
positions
you
as
a
leader.

While
working
on
an
AI
tool,
I
anticipated
transparency
laws
were
coming.
By
building
explainability
features
early,
my
team
stayed
ahead
of
the
competition
and
reassured
our
customers
long
before
compliance
became
mandatory.

Staying
ahead
isn’t
just
smart
—
it’s
strategic.

Make
Compliance
Your
Story

Too
often,
compliance
lives
in
the
shadows,
buried
in
fine
print.
But
when
you
bring
it
to
the
forefront,
it
becomes
a
badge
of
trust
and
quality.

I’ve
seen
this
work
for
industries
ranging
from
medical
devices
to
e-commerce.
Highlighting
FDA
approvals
or
accessibility
compliance
didn’t
just
meet
legal
requirements
—
it
became
part
of
their
brand
story.
Customers
valued
those
signals
and
chose
them
over
competitors
who
stayed
silent.

Don’t
hide
your
compliance
efforts.
Celebrate
them
as
proof
of
your
commitment
to
safety,
transparency,
and
trust.

The
Bottom
Line

Properly
setting
up
and
managing
IOLTA
accounts
helps
prevent
the
risk
of
being
disbarred
and
ensures
your
current
and
prospective
clients
can
trust
your
firm
with
their
funds
throughout
their
case. 

However,
between
commingling
prevention
and
client
ledger/reconciliation
management,
the
process
can
be
confusing
and
cumbersome—especially
since
your
time
is
already
limited.
 
In

A
Guide
to
Ensuring
IOLTA
Account
Compliance,
LawPay
will
guide
you
through
the
proper
management
of
IOLTA
accounts
to
help
ensure
your
firm
is
in
full
compliance
at
all
times. 

This
eBook
includes:

• A
  general
  overview
  of
  IOLTA
  account
  management
• Key
  tips
  for
  starting
  and
  managing
  these
   accounts
• How
  LawPay
  can
  help
  your
  firm
  ensure
  compliance

Congratulations
to
White
House
Press
Secretary
Karoline
Leavitt,
whose
tweets
made
it
into
yet
another
legal
filing
yesterday.

This
is
NOT
a
rescission
of
the
federal
funding
freeze.

It
is
simply
a
rescission
of
the
OMB
memo.

Why?
To
end
any
confusion
created
by
the
court’s
injunction.

The
President’s
EO’s
on
federal
funding
remain
in
full
force
and
effect,
and
will
be
rigorously
implemented.

—
Karoline
Leavitt
(@PressSec)

January
29,
2025

Last
week,
Rhode
Island
federal
Judge
John
McConnell
issued
a

TRO
on
Trump’s
anti-woke
spending
cuts,

citing
Leavitt’s
post
as
evidence
that
the
White
House
intended
to
moot
the
pending
litigation
by
rescinding
the
implementation
memo
from
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
while
still
freezing
funds.
That
order
applied
only
to
funding
for
states,
in
response
to
a
complaint
filed
by
20
blue
state
AGs
along
with
the
District
of
Columbia.
(Apparently
red
states
are
only
delighted
to

lose
access
to
Medicaid
portals.)

And
last
night,
Judge
Loren
Alikhan
in
DC
cited
Leavitt
again
in
an

order
granting
a
TRO
to
nonprofits
seeking
to
ensure
access
to
government
funds.

“Within
hours
of
OMB’s
rescission,
White
House
Press
Secretary
Leavitt
announced
that
the
rescission
was
to
have
no
tangible
effect
on
‘the
federal
funding
freeze,’”
the
court
wrote,
noting
that
the
press
secretary’s
tweet
“unambiguously
reflects
that
the
rescission
was
in
direct
response
to
this
court’s
issuance
of
an
administrative
stay
on
January
28.”

By
rescinding
the
memorandum
that
announced
the
freeze,
but
“NOT
.
.
.
the
federal
funding
freeze”
itself,
id.,
it
appears
that
OMB
sought
to
overcome
a
judicially
imposed
obstacle
without
actually
ceasing
the
challenged
conduct.
The
court
can
think
of
few
things
more
disingenuous.
Preventing
a
defendant
from
evading
judicial
review
under
such
false
pretenses
is
precisely
why
the
voluntary
cessation
doctrine
exists.
The
rescission,
if
it
can
be
called
that,
appears
to
be
nothing
more
than
a
thinly
veiled
attempt
to
prevent
this
court
from
granting
relief.

The
government
pinky
swore
that
the
case
became
moot
when
the
OMB
memo
was
withdrawn,
but
Judge
Alikhan
noted
that
multiple
of
the
plaintiffs
were
still
running
into
delays
and
denials
when
seeking
to
access
grant
funds
and
reimbursements.
But
perhaps
more

“Defendants’
plea
for
a
presumption
of
good
faith
rings
hollow
when
their
own
actions
contradict
their
representations,”
she
scoffed.

But
perhaps
more
ominously
for
the
government’s
claims,
she
seemed
to
reject
the
very
premise
of
a
presidential
freeze
on
congressionally-allocated
funds,
observing
that
“Defendants’
actions
appear
to
suffer
from
infirmities
of
a
constitutional
magnitude.
The
appropriation
of
the
government’s
resources
is
reserved
for
Congress,
not
the
Executive
Branch.”
The
court
suggested
that
the
Trump
administration’s
effort
to
effectively
edit
federal
spending
by
refusing
to
obligate
funds
if
they
don’t
accord
with
the
president’s
priorities
—
or
if
they
reward
people
he
doesn’t
like
—
violates
the
Appropriations
Clause
as
well
as
multiple
federal
statutes,
including
the
Impoundment
Act
of
1974
and
the
Administrative
Procedures
Act.

Defendants’
actions
in
this
case
potentially
run
roughshod
over
a
“bulwark
of
the
Constitution”
by
interfering
with
Congress’s
appropriation
of
federal
funds.
U.S.
Dep’t
of
the
Navy,
665
F.3d
at
1347.
OMB
ordered
a
nationwide
freeze
on
pre-existing
financial
commitments
without
considering
any
of
the
specifics
of
the
individual
loans,
grants,
or
funds.
It
did
not
indicate
when
that
freeze
would
end
(if
it
was
to
end
at
all).
And
it
attempted
to
wrest
the
power
of
the
purse
away
from
the
only
branch
of
government
entitled
to
wield
it.
If
Defendants’
actions
violated
the
separation
of
powers,
that
would
certainly
be
arbitrary
and
capricious
under
the
APA.

It
promises
to
be
a
knock-down-drag-out
fight
which
is
also
very,
very
stupid.
Luckily
it’s
only
the
future
of
the
republic
at
stake!

National
Council
of
Nonprofits
v.
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Former
Locke
Lord
partner,
Mark
Scott,
was convicted
in
2019
on
federal
conspiracy
to
commit
bank
fraud
and
conspiracy
to
launder
money
charges.

Last
year,
Scott
was
sentenced
to
10
years
in
prison
for
his
role
in
the
$400
million
cryptocurrency
scheme
and
was
ordered
to
turn
over
$392
million
in
assets.
As
with
most
convictions,
Scott
appealed.

Yesterday,
an

appeals
court
upheld
Scott’s
conviction
and
sentence,
rejecting
Scott’s
claims
that
he
was
unaware
of
the
nature
of
the
OneCoin
fraud.

Scott
left
his
international
mergers
and
acquisitions
and
private
equity
practice
in
Biglaw
to
work
at
OneCoin,
and
prosecutors
say
he
had
a
key
role
in
the
plot
to
launder
$400
million
from
the
cryptocurrency.
According
to
the
government,
Scott
created
shell
companies,
offshore
accounts,
and
fraudulent
investment
funds
on
behalf
of
OneCoin
to
launder
money
in
what
has
been
described
as,
“classic
Ponzi
scheme
with
no
blockchain
or
real
underlying
technology.”

Prosecutors
said
Scott
made
bank
for
his
role
at
OneCoin,
even
bragging
about
making
$50
million
before
he
was
50
years
old.
U.S.
Attorney
Damian
Williams
said,
“Indeed,
Scott
accomplished
his
goal,
but
by
fraud
and
deception,
and
will
now
spend
a
decade
in
prison
and
has
been
ordered
to
forfeit
all
of
his
illegal
proceeds.”

In
2017,
as
the
scheme
was
unraveling
and
the
investigation
into
OneCoin
was
heating
up,
“Cryptoqueen”
Ruja
Ignatova
(the
founder
of
OneCoin)
disappeared
after
boarding
a
plane
to
Athens.
Theories
have

circulated
that
Ignatova
was
murdered
on
the
orders
of
Hristoforos
Nikos
Amanatidis,
known
as
Taki,
an
underworld
figure
also
linked
to
Ignatova’s
escape.
She
remains
on
the

FBI’s
10
most
wanted
list,
and
the
agency
has
said
they
operate
on
the
assumption
Ignatova
is
alive.

Earlier: Former
Biglaw
Partner
Sentenced
To
10
Years
In
Prison
For
Crypto
Scam

Former
Biglaw
Partner
Convicted
In
Cryptocurrency
Scam

Former
Biglaw
Partner
Indicted
On
Charges
Related
To
Cryptocurrency
Ponzi
Scheme

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

What
do
you
do
when
the
facts
and
the
law
aren’t
on
your
side?
Throw
money
at
the
problem!

Tenured
law
school
professor
Ken
Levy
of
Louisiana
State
University
was
suspended
from
teaching
his
students
because
of
comments
he
made
about
state
governor
Jeff
Landry
and
President
Donald
Trump.
Campus
free
speech
advocates
immediately
hounded
the
school
for
penalizing
Prof.
Levy
(as
they
should
have).

A
judge
also
sided
with
Levy,
ordering
the
school
to
let
him
return
to
teaching.
You
might
think
that
the
trouble
would
end
there,
but
that’s
what
you
get
for
expecting
the
school
to
respond
reasonably.

LSU
decided
to
throw
money
at
the
problem
and
appeal
the
judge’s
decision.
And
it
was
crazy
enough
to
work!

WAFB
has
coverage:

The
Louisiana
First
Circuit
Court
of
Appeal
sided
with
LSU
Tuesday,
agreeing
that
the
university
does
not
have
to
immediately
return
embattled
LSU
law
professor
Ken
Levy
to
the
classroom
at
this
time.

The
court
said
an
evidentiary
hearing
must
be
held
before
deciding
whether
a
temporary
restraining
order
(TRO)
previously
issued
by
District
Court
Judge
Don
Johnson
should
be
enforced. 
That
hearing
is
scheduled
for
February
10,
2025.

Johnson
issued
the
TRO
last
week,
ordering
LSU
to
return
Levy
to
the
classroom
immediately.
He
was
set
to
return
to
his
class
Tuesday
afternoon.

Is
this
really
LSU’s
best
use
of
the
money
they
get
from
student
tuition,
donations
and
tax
payers?
What’s
the
endgame
on
going
to
court
so
you
can
punish
a
professor
for
dropping
an
F
bomb
toward
a
governor
or
a
president?
An
earnest
“Hey,
come
on
man”
would
have
been
a
better
play
than
ripping
a
professor
out
of
his
classroom
and
taking
him
to
court
twice
over
such
a
minor
infraction.
I’m
sure
this
falling
out
is
great
for
his
colleagues
morale.
And
what
about
the
students?
If
a
tenured
professor
can
get
in
this
much
trouble
for
an
off-the-cuff
F
you,
what
protections
do
the
students
have
to
speak
their
mind?
This
seems
to
be
a
short
sighted
conflict
—
you’d
expect
a
more
judicious
application
of
spending
and
sense
from
a
law
school.

First
Circuit
Sides
With
LSU
In
Law
Professor
Case
[WAFB]

Earlier:

Judge
Order
Puts
Tenured
Professor
Back
In
Classroom

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

With
President
Donald
Trump
now
in
office
and
a
new
Congress
in
place,
the
Purchaser
Business
Group
on
Health
(PBGH)
released
a

brief
on
Friday
urging
policy
changes
in
two
areas
for
employers:
healthcare
affordability
and
access
to
high-quality
care.

PBGH
is
a
nonprofit
coalition
representing
40
private
employers
and
public
organizations.

“We
welcome
the
new
Congress
and
Administration’s
willingness
to
disrupt
an
industry
that
has
become
increasingly
consolidated,
unresponsive
and
dysfunctional,”
said
Elizabeth
Mitchell,
president
and
CEO
of
PBGH,
in
a
statement.
“The
current
system
does
not
work
for
employers,
families
or
most
health
care
providers
and
the
industry
has
demonstrated
it
will
not
reform
itself
to
deliver
high
quality
care
at
lower
costs.
Legislative
action
is
needed
to
curb
anticompetitive
practices
and
enable
accountability.”

In
these
two
areas,
PBGH
hopes
the
administration
and
Congress
will
take
steps
to
improve
employer
access
to
data,
advance
primary
care
and
mental
health,
and
implement
other
key
actions.

Affordability

Rising
healthcare
costs
have
become
a

major
challenge
for
employers.
In
the
brief,
PBGH
noted
that
commercial
premium
increases
in
2024
greatly
exceeded
general
inflation.
To
make
matters
worse,
the
growing
cost
of
health
benefits
has
negatively
affected
wages,
job
growth
and
business
investment. 

PBGH
argues
that
these
costs
have
largely
been
caused
by
the
“market
power
that
hospitals,
health
systems
and
health
plans
have
gained
through
consolidation.”

To
address
this
issue,
PBGH
asked
for
several
policy
actions,
including
establishing
transparent
billing
requirements
and
supporting
pharmacy
benefit
manager
reform.
For
example,
PBGH
wants
PBMs
to
be
mandated
to
report
drug
pricing
data
to
employers.
The
organization
also
called
on
the
federal
government
to
address
market
consolidation
among
health
systems
and
health
plans.

In
addition,
PBGH
wants
employers
to
have
complete
access
to
their
own
medical
claims
data,
including
data
“on
the
quality
of
health
care
services
at
the
individual
physician
and
facility
level.”
Employers
have
been

struggling
to
access
their
claims
data
from
third
party
administrators,
making
it
difficult
for
them
to
fulfill
their
fiduciary
responsibilities
of
getting
the
best
medical
benefits
for
the
best
price.
Because
of
this
challenge
in
accessing
health
data,
some
employers
have
sued
their
TPAs.  

PBGH
also
called
on
the
government
to
provide
new
resources
for
employers
to
participate
in
direct
contracts
with
providers.

Expanding
access
to
high-quality
care

Currently,
more
than
30%
of
the
$5
trillion
spent
on
healthcare
each
year
is
for
low-value
care,
PBGH
cited
in
the
brief.
And
despite
primary
care
being
one
of
the
best
ways
to
improve
health
outcomes
and
reduce
costs,
less
than
10%
of
total
health
spending
goes
towards
primary
care.

PBGH
urged
the
administration
and
Congress
to
improve
primary
care
and
provider
access
by
allowing
“robust
access”
to
telehealth
and
creating
new
payment
models
for
rural
hospitals,
birth
centers
and
clinics.

In
addition,
the
organization
wants
the
government
to
embrace
a
“holistic
approach
to
wellness,”
including
nutrition
and
social
support.
PBGH
also
wants
the
government
to
expand
access
to
high-quality
maternal
and
postpartum
care.

“The
health
care
market
is
broken.
These
common-sense
reforms
will
go
a
long
way
toward
establishing
fair
competition
and
greater
transparency
will
allow
the
marketplace
to
work
to
better
control
costs
and
improve
access
to
high
quality
care,”
Mitchell
declared.

Photo:
alexsl,
Getty
Images

*
Trump
shuts
down
CFPB
as
part
of
make
America
pay
hidden
bank
fees
again.
[NPR]

*
ABA
says
overturning
wrongful
convictions
should
be
easier.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Berkshire
Hathaway
shifting
work
to
new
firm
following
death
of
Charlie
Munger.
[Barron’s]

*
Court
keeps
federal
funding
freeze
blocked.
[Reuters]

*
Administration
sued
for
handing
over
private
Treasury
data.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
After
the
guaranteed
compensation
window…
[American
Lawyer]

*
Judge
in
Lively-Baldoni
matter
going
to
get
really
tired
of
this.
[Law360]

You
Know
Lawyers
Read
For
A
Living,
Right?:
Folks
keep
getting
caught
using
AI
to
supplement
their
work
without
double
checking
the
results!
University
of
Minnesota
No
Longer
Taking
Applications
For
Assistant
Dean
Position:
The
threats
to
pull
federal
funding
over
DEI
programs
is
chilling
the
hiring
process.
Attorneys
Fleeing
From
Government
Work:
And
are
finding
a
challenging
job
market.
Law
School
Applications
Are
Up!:
Good
luck
making
sense
of
Con
Law
under
this
administration!
And
For
My
Next
Act,
Competent
U.S.
Attorney!:
Ed
Martin
is
really
making
a
show
of
it.