The O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law is seeking exceptionally qualified candidates to serve as O’Neill Institute Law Fellows. Housed at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., the O’Neill Institute is a leading research institute for health law. For more details about O’Neill and its ongoing work please visit www.oneillinstitute.org.
Law Fellows are based at the O’Neill Institute and report to the O’Neill Executive Director and Faculty Director. Fellows work on academic legal research and scholarly projects. Duties include working closely with faculty to produce scholarly works for publication, in some cases leading to joint publication. Allocation of time is primarily determined by O’Neill Institute faculty needs; additionally, limited time may be allocated to independent research and O’Neill Institute projects.
Fellowship terms are one year, with possible extension to two years, and will begin in Fall 2013. Fellows receive an annual salary of $65,000 with outstanding benefits.
Candidates must have a J.D. degree (or the equivalent), exceptional academic credentials including publications, and health law-related research interests in areas like public health law, global health law, domestic health care law, empirical studies, regulatory impacts on health, health and human rights. Successful candidates will have knowledge and/or experience in aspects of national and/or global health law and ethics. A post-graduate degree (M.P.H., LL.M.) or significant work experience is preferred.
Applications must include: CV, cover letter, writing sample, professional references, official law school transcripts and other graduate school transcripts (if applicable). The application deadline is Friday, February 22, 2013. Any questions about the position should be directed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
APPLICATION DEADLINE: Friday, February 22, 2013
November 15, 2012 – The O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University congratulates Ambassador Mark Dybul, O’Neill Institute Co-Director of the Global Health Law Program and Distinguished Scholar, on his appointment as the next Executive Director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. He will join the Fund in early 2013.
“This is a wonderful day for the field of global health, and we are extremely proud of Mark. We have no doubt that he will be transformative in his new role at the Global Fund,” said Lawrence O. Gostin, Faculty Director of the O’Neill Institute. “Mark is an invaluable member of our leadership team and we are very thankful for his contributions to the mission of the institute,” added Oscar A. Cabrera, Executive Director of the O’Neill Institute.
At the O’Neill Institute, he co-directs the Global Health Law Program and is also a Distinguished Scholar. He is also the Global Health Fellow at the George W. Bush Institute. Ambassador Dybul has also served as chair of the Joint United Nations Programme on AIDS’ coordinating board and as a member of the board of trustees of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Read More
This post was written by Madhu Chugh. Ms. Chugh is a scholar at the O’Neill Institute at Georgetown University Law Center and an attorney at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP. The views expressed in this post are the author’s alone and do not reflect the views of WilmerHale or the O’Neill Institute.
Mitt Romney has promised that one of his first orders of business, if elected President, would be to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA), President Barack Obama’s signature health reform law enacted in March 2010. In order to repeal the ACA, a President Romney would need Congress’s cooperation. If Congress (perhaps the Senate in particular) refused to back repeal, the question would arise: What could a Romney Administration do, based solely on executive authority, to slow or undermine the implementation of the ACA? If elected, Mr. Romney would have a few options at his disposal to impede how the law is carried out. Commentators elsewhere have discussed how Mr. Romney could curtail implementation through rulemaking and other avenues. This post analyzes two other potential tools in a President’s arsenal—namely “waiving” state compliance with the ACA and defunding the programs created by the law. Read More
This post was written by Lawrence O. Gostin, Faculty Director of the O’Neill Institute. and was originally published in the JAMA Forum on October 18, 2012.
The “Repeal and Replace” Strategy
Romney’s preferred strategy to repeal and replace the ACA would undoubtedly rely on a parliamentary tactic called the budget reconciliation process, the very method by which the Democratic-controlled Congress enacted the ACA.
Throughout most of the passage of the ACA, the Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority. By the time Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts died in August 2009 and a by-election was held the following January to replace him, the ACA had passed both Houses of Congress. But the House and Senate versions were very different. After the election of Republican Scott Brown to Kennedy’s vacant Senate seat, the Democrats lost their supermajority, and the only way the bill could reach President Obama’s desk was through the budget reconciliation process. And that is what transpired: the ACA passed without a single Republican vote. Although Republicans denounced this parliamentary maneuver, they used it themselves to enact the Medicare drug benefit. For Romney, budget reconciliation would be the only feasible way to repeal the ACA. Read More
In the Institute’s last blog posting, Tanya Baytor commented on how large manufacturers of unhealthy foods, including Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and Cadbury’s, took advantage of the Olympics to associate their products with health. Tanya raised the concern that these companies’ exclusive Olympic sponsorship deals helped them market to children, a segment of the population which is especially susceptible to food marketing and which suffers from epidemic levels of obesity and overweight.
At the Clinton Global Initiative two weeks ago, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria announced that it would be expanding its partnership with Coca-Cola called Project Last Mile. Under this project, Coca-Cola lends its supply chain management expertise to help the Global Fund improve delivery of essential medicines to clinics in hard-to-reach rural areas, starting in Africa. (Rather than including medicines in shipments of Coke, a plan which was considered but scrapped, the company works with Accenture to help host country governments improve distribution networks.) The project was piloted in Tanzania, where, according to the Daily Beast, “delivery times have been cut from 30 days to five. When patients seek vaccination, they find the right one in 80 percent of cases, up from 50 percent two years ago.”
Signup for our mailing list and stay up to date on the latest happenings at The O’Neill Institute
Or sign up for our RSS Feed
The views reflected in this blog are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent those of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law or Georgetown University. This blog is solely informational in nature, and not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed and retained attorney in your state or country.