Category: News Feeds

Intellectual
property
expert
Mark
Lemley
is
done
working
for
Facebook.
The
Stanford
Law
professor
represented
Facebook
in
the
copyright
case
brought
on
behalf
of
creators
claiming
the
social
media
giant
infringed
their
IP
while
training
its
large
language
model,
in
a
case
that
could
have
profound
implications
for
generative
AI’s
future
prospects.
And
while
Lemley
still
hopes
Facebook
prevails
on
principle,
he’s
done
associating
himself
with
the
company’s
“descent
into
toxic
masculinity
and
Neo-Nazi
madness.”

And
he
made
this
announcement
on
Facebook.

And
by
descent
into
Neo-Nazi
madness,
we’re
talking
about

policies
like
these
leaked
to
The
Intercept:

Overall
the
restrictions
on
claims
of
ethnic
or
religious
supremacy
has
been
eased
significantly.
The
document
explains
that
Meta
now
allows
“statements
of
superiority
as
long
as
the
statements
do
not
refer
to
inferiority
of
another
[protected
characteristic]
group
(a)
on
the
basis
of
inherent
intellectual
ability
and
(b)
without
support.”
Allowable
statements
under
this
rule
include
“Latinos
are
the
best!”
and
“Black
people
are
superior
to
all
others.”
Also
now
acceptable
are
comparative
claims
such
as
“Black
people
are
more
violent
than
Whites,”
“Mexicans
are
lazier
than
Asians,”
and
“Jews
are
flat
out
greedier
than
Christians.”
Off-limits,
only
because
it
pertains
to
intellectual
ability,
is
the
example
“White
people
are
more
intelligent
than
black
people.”

There’s
a
certain
irony
in
the
fact
that

this
policy
has
cost
Facebook
its
lawyer
in
a
case
against
comedian
Sarah
Silverman,
who
famously/infamously
had
a
routine
lampooning
the
idea
that
proclaiming
love
for
an
ethnic
group
is
the
same
as
denigrating
that
group.

A
sanctimonious
segment
of
the
legal
profession
harps
on
the
idea
that
“everyone
is
entitled
an
attorney.”
Except
no
one
is
entitled
to

you
as
an
attorney.
Frankly,
no
one
is
entitled
to
anything
in
a
civil
case
and
to
the
extent
society
needs
to
extend
more
protections
to
indigent
clients
on
the
wrong
end
of
life-altering
civil
actions
—
landlord-tenant
cases
for
instance
—
there’s
definitely
no
such
entitlement
for
a
multibillion-dollar
company
in
a
copyright
dispute.

Representing
a
client
is
a
business
decision.
Some
lawyers
thrive
as
counsel
of
last
resort
and
model
their
business
around
the
willingness
to
represent
unpopular
clients.
Other
lawyers
build
their
business
on
crusading
for
good
causes.
A
whole
lot
of
lawyers
exist
somewhere
between
those
poles.
In
fact,
a
lot
of

deep-pocketed
clients
also
don’t
want
to
work
with
firms
associated
with
unpopular
causes
—
that’s
a
business
decision
too.

There’s
nothing
wrong
with
any
of
these
approaches.
Lawyers
should
feel
free
to
build
their
practice
however
they
want.

Lemley
isn’t
trying
to
be
a
Hollywood
criminal
law
fixer,
he’s
an
intellectual
property
lawyer.
He
doesn’t
need
to
build
an
artificial
firewall
between
his
moral
convictions
and
some
abstract
legal
principle.
He
can
choose
to
lend
his
skills
to
clients
that
reflect
his
values.

And
Facebook
doesn’t
at
this
point.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Scorned
actor
and
gambling
advertiser
Aubrey
“Drake”
Graham
courted
an
ocean
of
controversy
after
he
accused
Spotify
and
Universal
Music
Group
of
illegally
boosting
the
numbers
for
Kendrick
Lamar’s
reputation-demolishing
“Not
Like
Us”
back
in
November.
In
just
two
short
months,
that
ocean
of
controversy
is
looking
a
lot
more
like
a
puddle.

Variety
has
coverage:

In
a
New
York
filing
on
Tuesday
reviewed
by Variety, Drake and
his
Frozen
Moments
company
withdrew
its
order
to
show
cause
seeking
pre-action
disclosure
and
preservation
of
certain
documents
and
communications
from
both
companies.

It’s
like
someone
in
Drake’s
camp
trained
him
to
battle
rap
the
same
way
that
Wimp-Lo-We
was
taught
to
fight:

The
PR
from
this
withdrawal
is
so
bad

that
it
makes
Honestly
Nevermind
look
like
a
career
highlight:

The
next
steps
for
the
duck-lipping
rapper
are
headed
toward
Universal
Music’s
alleged
role
in
defaming
him
by
allowing
Kendrick
to
release
“Not
Like
Us”
and
promote
the
track.
I
wonder
if
and
when
Drake’s
team
will
sue
YouTube
for
platforming
“Hey,
here’s
adult
Aubrey
kissing
a
17-year-old
on
stage”
videos.
I’m
not
being
glib
here
—
that’s
an
actual
thing:

Woe
to
whichever
stenographer
is
going
to
have
to
type
“You
17?
Why
do
you
look
like
that?
You
thick!…
Well
17,
I
had
fun.
I
don’t
know
if
I
should
feel
guilty
or
not
but
I
had
fun.
I
like
the
way
your
breasts
feel
against
my
chest.”
being
entered
in
to
evidence.
Like
it
or
not,
truth
is
a
defense
to
defamation
and
there’s
a
bunch
of
grooming
allegations
Drake
and
his
legal
team
will
have
to
overcome
if
they
are
successful.

Good
luck
with
the
suit,
Graham!
You’re
gonna
need
it.

Drake
Withdraws
Legal
Petition
Accusing
Spotify
and
Universal
Music
of
Artificially
Inflating
Kendrick
Lamar’s
‘Not
Like
Us’
[Variety]

---

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.

We’re
just
a
few
months
out
from
the
release
of
the
latest
iteration
of
the
U.S.
News
law
school
rankings,
but
we
know
that
many
are
incredibly
eager
to
see
what
the
future
may
hold.
For
those
of
you
who
are
growing
too
restless
to
wait
any
longer,
we’ve
got
a
surprise
for
you.

Today,
we
unveil
a

new
rankings
prediction,
courtesy
of
noted
law
school
consultant
Mike
Spivey
of
the
Spivey
Consulting
Group.
With
the
recent
release
of
the
2024
ABA-required
509
disclosures,
Spivey
was
able
to
calculate
the
upcoming
U.S.
News
law
school
rankings
using
the
magazine’s
current
methodology.
Here
are
some
additional
details
on
how
that
task
was
performed:

The
ABA
has
published
the 2024
Standard
509
disclosures for
all
law
schools,
including
the
final
official
LSAT/GPA
data
from
the
2023-2024
admissions
cycle
(compiled
with
+/- from
the
prior
cycle here).
This
means
that
we
can
now
predict
the
upcoming
2025-2026 U.S.
News law
school
rankings
with
a
high
degree
of
accuracy
using
their
current
methodology,
which
primarily
relies
on
publicly
available
data.

Spivey
cautions,
however,
that
his
predictions
may
not
be
completely
accurate
because
this
year’s
results
are
“so
tightly
clustered
that
even
extremely
minor,
unpublished
calculation
changes
(e.g.,
changing
how
certain
numbers
are
rounded)
could
result
in
a
very
different
set
of
rankings.”
That
being
the
case,
he’s
published
the
predicted
rankings
in
groups,
rather
than
assigning
a
specific
rank
to
a
specific
school.

That
being
said,
what
could
the
new
edition
of
U.S.
News
law
school
rankings
look
like?
You
can
check
out
Spivey’s
prediction
for
the
full
complement
of
196
law
schools,
but
here
are
the
schools
that

may
comprise
the
T14
based
the
calculations
he’s
run:

	Current 2024 Ranking	Predicted 2025 Ranking Group	Predicted 2025 Raw Score
Group 1
Stanford University	1	Group 1	100
Yale University	1	Group 1	99.55503189
University of Chicago	3	Group 1	99.08244746
Group 2
University of Virginia	4	Group 2	97.7375265
University of Pennsylvania	4	Group 2	97.4961672
Harvard University	4	Group 2	97.16804728
Group 3
Duke University	4	Group 3	96.07104827
University of Michigan	9	Group 3	95.7808896
Northwestern University	9	Group 3	95.72502558
New York University	9	Group 3	95.59032168
Columbia University	8	Group 3	95.49293619
Group 4
University of California, Los Angeles	13	Group 4	93.15227925
University of California, Berkeley	12	Group 4	92.70541776
Washington University in St. Louis	16	Group 4	92.23597085
Vanderbilt University	19	Group 4	91.98658968
Georgetown University	14	Group 4	91.6471114

What’s
this?
Has
Yale
lost
its
edge?
On
top
of
that,
it
looks
like
one
school
may
have
been
kicked
out
of
the
T14
entirely,
and
another
is
on
the
verge
of
being
elbowed
out
as
well!
Will
new
schools
actually
enter
the
hallowed
ground
that
is
the
T14!?!
What’s
going
on
here?

We
know
you
want
to
see
these
schools
with
actual
rankings
assigned
to
them,
and
for
that,
we
turn
to
Professor
Derek
Muller
of
Notre
Dame
Law
at

Excess
of
Democracy.
He’s
run
similar
calculations
and
offers
a
similar
warning
that
we
“proceed
with
caution”
while
viewing
his
rankings
prediction.
Buckle
up,
because
this
is
going
to
be
a
wild
ride.

School	Projected Rank	This Year’s Rank
Stanford	1	1
Chicago	2	3
Yale	3	1
Virginia	4	4
Penn	4	4
Harvard	4	4
Duke	7	4
Michigan	7	9
Northwestern	7	9
NYU	10	9
Columbia	10	8
UCLA	12	13
Berkeley	13	12
Washington Univ.	14	16
Vanderbilt	14	19

Stanford
overtakes
Yale
to
become
the
best
law
school
in
the
nation,
with
Yale
falling
to
No.
3!
Yale
has
resided
in
the
No.
1
spot
since
the
inception
of
the
U.S.
News
law
school
rankings,
so
this
change
would
be

historic.
NYU
and
Columbia
both
drop
for
a
tie
at
#10.
Last,
but
certainly
not
least,
Cornell
and
Georgetown
are
both
out
of
the
T14
entirely
—
and
Washington
University
and
Vanderbilt,
two
schools
that
have
never
been
in
the
T14
before,
have
replaced
them!

Will
any
or
all
of
these
things
actually
happen?
That’s
unclear
for
the
moment,
but
given
our
experience
with
the
rankings,
these
could
all
be
very
serious
possibilities.
Stay
tuned
for
the
release
of
the
U.S.
News
law
school
rankings,
which
will
likely
be
published
sometime
in
this
spring.

Predicted
2025-2026
U.S.
News
Law
School
Rankings
[Spivey
Consulting]

Updated
projected
2025-2026
USNWR
law
school
rankings
(to
be
released
March
2025
or
so)
[Excess
of
Democracy]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Generative
AI
and
other
technological
advances
present
many
upsides
for
law
departments,
particularly
in
financial
services.

But
as
with
any
new
technology,
there
is
an
apprehensiveness
surrounding
the
risks
of
bringing
it
on.

In
this
new
eBook,
we
explore
seven
challenges
to
tech
adoption
and
look
at
some
steps
lawyers
should
consider
to
overcome
them.

*
Lina
Khan
steps
down
as
FTC
Chair
as
elderly
mustachioed
man
with
top
hat,
bag
with
dollar
sign
on
it,
steps
in.
[

Corporate
Counsel]

*
SEC
sues
Musk
over
failure
to
disclose
the
fact
that
he
owned
a
bunch
of
Twitter
before
the
takeover
—
a
failure
that
likely
suppressed
share
prices
to
his
eventual
benefit.
And
this
suit
will
last
roughly
5
days.
[CNN]

*
Supreme
Court
to
decide
if
the
South
ever
gets
access
to
Pornhub
again.
[Reuters]

*
Judge
earns
reassignment
over
sharing
racist
meme.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Third
Circuit
demands
SEC
produce
better
rules
for
facilitating
fake
money
Ponzi
scheme.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
What’s
in
your
wallet?
Perhaps
not
$2B
that
otherwise
would
be
if
you’re
the
people
banking
with
Capital
One.
[Law360]

*
Justin
Baldoni
demands
Disney
maintain
communications
about
Deadpool
script
in
case
Ryan
Reynolds
was
making
fun
of
him.
[Variety]

The
Affordable
Care
Act
—
you
might
know
it
as
Obamacare
—

is
the
most
challenged
statute
in
American
history.
More
than
2,000
lawsuits
have
attacked
the
ACA,
including
seven
that
made
it
to
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
over
the
course
of
its
first
10
years.

What
has
all
of
this
legal
wrangling
accomplished?
Close
to
nothing,
if
what
you
mean
by
an
“accomplishment”
is
a
lawsuit
achieving
one
or
more
of
its
stated
goals.
There
have
been
a
few
judicial
modifications
around
the
edges
of
Obamacare.
The
penalty
for
the
ACA’s
individual
mandate
has
fallen.
Yet,
for
the
most
part,
the
law
has
proven
astoundingly
resilient
to
years
of
prolonged
legal
warfare.

Of
course,
as
any
good
lawyer
can
tell
you,
the
effects
of
an
individual
lawsuit
often
ripple
far
beyond
the
intentions
of
the
original
parties.
The
precedents
established
by
more
than
a
decade
of

lawfare
against
the
ACA
have
had
a
huge
impact
on
constitutional
law,
statutory
interpretation,
and
federalism.

More
broadly,
using
ACA
litigation
as
a
political
cudgel
will
go
down
in
history
as
a
catastrophic
failure.
By
demonizing
a
dizzyingly
complex
law
known
to
many
as
“Obamacare,”
Republicans
saw
an
opportunity
to
undermine
their
opponents
on
the
left.
For
a
relatively
short
time,
blaming
every
problem
within
a
reviled
health
care
system
on
Obamacare
seemed
to
pay
dividends
in
opinion
polls.

Ultimately,
though,
the
strategy
backfired.
Challenging
the
ACA
so
unrelentingly
drew
media
attention
and
actually
helped
Americans
better
understand
the
substantial
benefits
of
the
law.
After
an
initial
dip
following
its
passage,

public
support
for
the
ACA
climbed
steadily
as
more
and
more
lawsuits
against
it
were
filed,
to
the
point
where
a
Congress
wholly
controlled
by
Republicans
was
unable
to
repeal
the
ACA
during
Donald
Trump’s
first
presidential
term
in
defiance
of

his
repeated
campaign
promises.
For
real
patients,
its
ability
to
withstand
the
legal
onslaught
allowed
the
ACA
to
protect
a
generation
of
Americans
with
preexisting
conditions
from
the
most
gruesome
whims
of
the
private
health
insurance
marketplace.

The
ACA
presents
the
most
iconic
example
of
overly
exuberant
litigation
for
perceived
political
gain,
but
it
is
not
the
only
one.
Nor
is
this
a
problem
confined
to
the
right
end
of
the
political
spectrum.

For
instance,
there
is
practically
a
cottage
industry
of
left-wing
interest
groups
with
no
other
purpose
than
to
sue
government
agencies
as
a
way
of
trying
to
block
just
about
every
project
that
could
conceivably
have
any
effect
whatsoever
on
the
environment.
The
National
Environmental
Policy
Act
is
a
primary
means
of
doing
this,
although
there
are
many
others.

Obviously
certain
proposed
projects
that
would
be
environmental
disasters
can
and
should
be
challenged,
but
NEPA’s
broadness
lets
just
about
anyone
with
just
about
any
grievance
sue,
and
sue
they
do,
over
everything
from

wind
turbines
to

interstate
highways.
This
is
one
of
the
main
reasons
why
it
costs
so
much
more
to
build
anything
in
this
country
than
it
does
almost
anywhere
else
on
earth.
In
America,
every
project
needs
to
build
into
its
cost
the
large
expense
of
defending
a
NEPA
lawsuit.

Whether
you’re
trying
to
stop
people
from
getting
health
care
or
whining
about
a
windmill,
these
lawsuits
are
largely
performative.
You
get
to
seem
like
you’re
fighting
without
winning
the
real
fight,
which
is
convincing
enough
of
your
peers
that
you
are
right
so
that
you
don’t
have
to
single-handedly
stand
in
the
way
of
whatever
form
of
progress
the
majority
of
voters
apparently
chose
to
support
in
the
last
election.

The
only
people
who
win
in
extreme
political
lawfare
are
the
lawyers.
Everyone
else
just
gets
way
more
expensive
public
works
projects.
Don’t
fruitlessly
donate
your
money
to
lawyers
who
don’t
need
it
anyway.

Look,
I’m
not
saying
that
there
is
never
an
important
NEPA
lawsuit
or
that
it’s
uncalled
for
to
ever
challenge
a
major
federal
law.
We
just
have
to
become
way,
way
more
judicious
about
bringing
these
suits.
Wouldn’t,
like,
five
lawsuits
against
Obamacare
have
been
enough
instead
of
2,000?

You
don’t
have
to
love
everything
that’s
happening
to
decline
to
sue
someone
whenever
you’re
upset.
Maybe
you
can
try
to
focus
on
the
merits
of
a
particular
project,
or
at
the
very
least
accept
that
it
represents
the
will
of
a
majority
of
the
people
irrespective
of
your
own
political
position.

Hell,
if
you’re
a
donor
to
an
organization
that
regularly
pursues
these
sorts
of
lawsuits,
perhaps
you
could
even
consider
whether
your
money
would
be
better
spent
tackling
the
underlying
issue
rather
than
paying
lawyers
to
blab
about
it.
If
you
hate
wind
turbines,
fine,
maybe
invest
the
money
in
some
other

form
of
energy
production.

There
are
about
to
be
a
lot
of
proposals
coming
down
the
federal
pipeline
that
Democrats,
and
Americans
in
general,
won’t
like.
When
they
do,
we
ought
to
learn
the
lesson
of
Republicans
and
the
ACA:
we
cannot
sue
our
way
out
of
this.
Trying
to
will
only
backfire.

---

Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD


(affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

Healthcare
costs
are
expected
to
rise
8%
in
2025, the
most
significant
projected
increase
in
over
a
decade.
These
staggering
costs
affect
all
of
us
–
from
providers
to
payers,
life
sciences
companies
to
government
agencies,
and
most
certainly
affect
us
as
patients.
This
cost
trajectory
is
not
sustainable.

Having
spent
more
than
30
years
in
the
healthcare
IT
industry,
I’ve
seen
how
technology
often
plays
a
critical
role
in
strategies
to
combat
rising
costs
while
maintaining
quality
care.
I
expect
to
see
these
four
trends
accelerate
in
2025. 

1.
Data
sophistication
is
not
optional.

Insurance
companies
and
self-insured
employers
continue
to
see
significant
increases
in
benefits
costs.
In one
estimate, costs
of
employer-sponsored
healthcare
coverage
are
expected
to
rise
by
9%.

Healthcare
data
curation
and
aggregation,
plus
linking
closed
claims
with
clinical
data,
will
become
one
of
the
most
effective
ways
for
organizations
to
improve
treatment
options
and
tackle
affordability.
However,
this
is
complex
work.

Let’s
put
this
challenge
in
context
using
a
current
issue:
managing
GLP-1s.
A recent
survey found
1
in
8
adults
have
reported
taking
this
increasingly
popular
class
of
drugs. 
In
talking
with
our
clients,
we’ve
found
that
about
two
out
of
three
payers
cover
GLP-1s
for
weight
loss.
They
report
they
use
different
approaches
to
manage
these
drugs
for
patients
with
diabetes
and
those
who
are
using
them
to
address
obesity.
For
example,
pharmacy
benefit
manager
step
therapy
and
quantity
limits
often
oversee
usage
for
patients
with
diabetes,
while
other
patients
participate
in
weight
loss
management
programs. 

The
increasing
savvy
of
healthcare
consumers
further
challenges
employers
and
insurance
companies.
As
financial
burdens
increase,
people
expect
more
from
their
benefits
in
terms
of
transparency
and
access
to
services,
especially
mental
health
and
wellness
offerings.

Payers
need
sophisticated
analytics
to
understand
how
their
strategies
play
out
among
their
members,
how
they
impact
utilization
rates,
and
which
approach
is
leading
to
better
outcomes.
And
we
hear
from
our
clients
that
the
last
piece
–
understanding
the
path
to
better
outcomes
–
is
a
complex,
difficult
task.
A
deep
understanding
of
these
trends
enables
payers
to
achieve
their
goals.

The
same
is
true
in
the
life
sciences
world.
For
decades,
researchers
have
used
large
health
data
sets,
always
making
the
best
of
what
they
had
access
to.
Today,
however,
it’s
a
different
story.
Researchers
have
more
data
choices
than
ever
before,
and
that
requires
a
new
level
of
sophistication
and
data
expertise.
To
gain
insights
from
today’s
real-world
data,
researchers
need
a
foundation
of
comprehensive,
diverse,
trusted
information
built
on
linkages
between
data
sets. 

2.
Use
cases
will
drive
the
adoption
of
Artificial
Intelligence
(AI).

Reality
checks
have
tempered
the
euphoria
about
AI’s
ability
to
solve
every
challenge
over
the
last
few
decades.
While
the
promise
of
AI
is
clear
and
strong,
healthcare
is
taking
a
more
pragmatic
approach
these
days.

AI
isn’t
the
first
technology
that
has
fallen
short
of
being
the
immediate
panacea
for
all
healthcare
problems.
Blockchain
is
another
example
that
comes
to
mind.
Full
economic
value
from
AI
will
take
five
to
ten
years
to
be
realized.
In
comparison,
mobile
phones
and
internet
technology
took
20
years
to
reach
their
full
potential.
We
can
learn
from
these
past
experiences
and
instead
put
emerging
technologies
to
work
in
targeted
ways. 

We
will
see
many
use
cases
centered
around
operational
efficiency
and
workplace
AI
integration.
AI
will
automate
administrative
tasks
such
as
scheduling,
resource
allocation,
and
supply
chain
management.
This
automation
reduces
overhead
and
enables
healthcare
professionals
to
dedicate
more
time
to
patient
care.

Using
AI
to
alleviate
administrative
tasks
can
also
help
reduce
clinician
burnout.
For
example,
specific
use
cases
in
neurology
and
stroke
care
are
gaining
traction
in
imaging
when
AI
can
help
clinicians
prioritize
patients
in
the
most
urgent
need
of
care.
AI
algorithms
assist
radiologists
by
detecting
abnormalities
in
X-rays,
CT
scans,
and
MRIs
with
heightened
accuracy.
AI
can
also
sift
through
extensive
data
sets
to
serve
up
trusted
information
at
the
point
of
care,
such
as
a
clinician
who
needs
quick
and
accurate
dosing
information
for
a
neonatal
infant. 

Beyond
its
search
capabilities,
AI
can
also
reduce
other
manual
tasks.
For
example,
in
government
benefit
and
service
delivery,
agencies
can
use
AI
to
analyze
and
verify
documents
uploaded
by
citizen
users.
This
can
make
processes
much
more
efficient
and
enable
caseworkers
to
spend
more
time
on
complex
tasks.

In
the
life
sciences
industry,
there
are
numerous
use
cases
where
AI-assistants
will
streamline
working
methods
and
drive
improved
outcomes
with
ROI
for
clinical
trials.
For
example,
research
teams
must
translate
participant
data
into
medical
codes.
AI-assisted
data
entry
has
made
this
process
less
manual.
It
uses
predictive
suggestions
and
up-to-date
coding
dictionaries
for
consistent,
accurate
entries. 

These
solutions
must
become
ingrained
in
the
technologies
to
ensure
scalability
and
drive
down
the
overall
time
and
cost
of
bringing
new
treatments
and
solutions
to
patients.

In
the
future,
predictive
analytics
powered
by
Generative
AI
will
enable
early
interventions
and
preventative
care.
By
modeling
patient
outcomes
based
on
genetic
predispositions
and
medical
history,
AI
supports
proactive
health
management
and
improved
long-term
care.
AI
also
enables
personalized
medicine
as
clinicians
analyze
genetic,
clinical,
and
lifestyle
data
to
develop
customized
treatment
plans.
This
shift
towards
precision
and
patient-centric
care
improves
health
outcomes
and
minimizes
side
effects.

AI
hype
will
soon
be
replaced
by
use
cases
for
specific
AI
investments.
It
will
require
a
clear
return
on
investment
before
organizations
add
investment
and
operating
expenses
to
their
budgets.

3.
Expect
and
adapt
to
new
rules
in
the
United
States.

The
Trump
administration
has
signaled
that
it
plans
to
change
existing
federal
agencies
and
programs
to
lower
costs.
The
president-elect
has
named
several
people
to
lead
key
federal
health
agencies,
such
as
the
FDA,
NIH,
and
CDC,
which some
industry
observers have
called
“out-of-the-box
choices”
and
a
“colorful
cast”
that
could
make
significant
changes.
While
many
incoming
officials
have
been
vocal
about
reducing
costs,
the
details
are
still
being
developed.  

Changes
in
the
United
States
may
also
be
a
catalyst
for
additional
changes
from
other
global
regulatory
bodies.
For
example,
the
European
Union
(EU)
is
much
more
stringent
on
data
privacy
than
the
U.S.
If
the
U.S.
further
reduces
data
privacy
requirements
for
companies,
EU
regulators
could
require
global
companies
to
relocate
servers.

As
with
any
change
in
administration,
government
agencies
responsible
for
benefits
delivery
must
be
ready
to
adjust.
Federal,
state,
and
local
agencies
must
also
be
ready
to
communicate
with
citizens
about
how
these
changes
impact
eligibility
and
benefits.
Technology
must
be
capable
of
adapting
to
changes
in
legislation,
policy,
and
population
needs.

4.
Cybersecurity
is
more
critical
than
ever
in
healthcare.

According
to
the World
Economic
Forum,
healthcare
is
the
most
targeted
industry
for
cyberattacks.
In
2023,
healthcare
data
breaches
cost
an
average
of
about
$11
million
each,
almost
double
the
cost
of
a
breach
in
the
financial
industry,
which
came
in
second. 

Recent
high-profile
cyberattacks
will
impact
healthcare
organizations
for
years
to
come.
To
mitigate
future
risk,
there
is
proposed
legislation
in
the
U.S.: The
Health
Infrastructure
Security
and
Accountability
Act
of
2024. The
bill
imposes
additional
security
controls
and
measures,
new
fines,
and
penalties
for
companies
who
fail
to
comply
and
protect
health
information.

Security
concerns
are
both
a
driver
and
barrier
to
healthcare
providers
moving
systems
and
data
to
the
cloud.
Given
healthcare
data’s
increasing
complexity
and
volume,
cloud
computing
can
offer
scalability,
better
security,
and
more
efficient
data
management.
However,
securing
these
systems
is
paramount,
especially
with
sensitive
patient
information.

Many
healthcare
organizations
increasingly
adopt
hybrid
cloud
models
for
better
data
management,
interoperability,
and
cost-efficiency.
Cloud
technology
can
facilitate
seamless
integration
between
healthcare
providers,
payers,
and
life
sciences
companies
while
maintaining
security.
Cloud
infrastructure
can
also
accelerate
the
adoption
of
AI
and
big
data
analytics
by
providing
more
accessible
and
secure
environments.

Data
sophistication,
targeted
AI,
adapting
to
new
rules,
and
cybersecurity;
healthcare
organizations
that
effectively
pursue
these
aims
will
be
better
positioned
to
reduce
costs
while
maintaining
high-quality
care.  

Source:
metamorworks,
Getty
Images

This
post
appears
through
the MedCity
Influencers
program.
Anyone
can
publish
their
perspective
on
business
and
innovation
in
healthcare
on
MedCity
News
through
MedCity
Influencers. Click
here
to
find
out
how.

*
Lina
Khan
steps
down
as
FTC
Chair
as
elderly
mustachioed
man
with
top
hat,
bag
with
dollar
sign
on
it,
steps
in.
[

Corporate
Counsel]

*
SEC
sues
Musk
over
failure
to
disclose
the
fact
that
he
owned
a
bunch
of
Twitter
before
the
takeover
—
a
failure
that
likely
suppressed
share
prices
to
his
eventual
benefit.
And
this
suit
will
last
roughly
5
days.
[CNN]

*
Supreme
Court
to
decide
if
the
South
ever
gets
access
to
Pornhub
again.
[Reuters]

*
Judge
earns
reassignment
over
sharing
racist
meme.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Third
Circuit
demands
SEC
produce
better
rules
for
facilitating
fake
money
Ponzi
scheme.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
What’s
in
your
wallet?
Perhaps
not
$2B
that
otherwise
would
be
if
you’re
the
people
banking
with
Capital
One.
[Law360]

*
Justin
Baldoni
demands
Disney
maintain
communications
about
Deadpool
script
in
case
Ryan
Reynolds
was
making
fun
of
him.
[Variety]

*
Lina
Khan
steps
down
as
FTC
Chair
as
elderly
mustachioed
man
with
top
hat,
bag
with
dollar
sign
on
it,
steps
in.
[

Corporate
Counsel]

*
SEC
sues
Musk
over
failure
to
disclose
the
fact
that
he
owned
a
bunch
of
Twitter
before
the
takeover
—
a
failure
that
likely
suppressed
share
prices
to
his
eventual
benefit.
And
this
suit
will
last
roughly
5
days.
[CNN]

*
Supreme
Court
to
decide
if
the
South
ever
gets
access
to
Pornhub
again.
[Reuters]

*
Judge
earns
reassignment
over
sharing
racist
meme.
[ABA
Journal]

*
Third
Circuit
demands
SEC
produce
better
rules
for
facilitating
fake
money
Ponzi
scheme.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
What’s
in
your
wallet?
Perhaps
not
$2B
that
otherwise
would
be
if
you’re
the
people
banking
with
Capital
One.
[Law360]

*
Justin
Baldoni
demands
Disney
maintain
communications
about
Deadpool
script
in
case
Ryan
Reynolds
was
making
fun
of
him.
[Variety]

Doing
Your
Job
Has
Consequences:

Judge
Cannon
may
have
just
fallen
out
of
favor.

Goodbye
TikTok,
Hello
Xiaohongshu!:

Americans
are
rushing
to
give
their
data
away
to
China
to
spite
the
TikTok
ban.

Yale
Law
School
Prevents
Their
Students
From
Making
Informed
Clerkship
Decisions:

Now
why
would
they
do
that?

The
Loyalists
Are
Assuming
The
Positions:

Pam
Bondi
for
Attorney
General
risks
being
too
deferential,
no?

California
Law
Schools
Spark
Off
Remote
Learning:

It
is
safer
to
log
in
than
to
show
up
in
person.