Volume 71, Issue 3


Volume 71, Issue 3


Improving Health Outcomes and Lowering Costs: Attorneys as Proactive, Paid Providers Treating Social Determinants of Health

Frank Griffin, M.D., J.D.

Innovative and emerging value-based delivery models should
include attorneys as health care team members to treat the social
determinants of health. Social determinants of health (“SDH”)
are non-medical conditions that can produce or undermine
health and include basic human needs like economic status,
housing, nutrition, employment, and similar issues. Health care
experts increasingly recognize the role that SDH play in driving
the cost, utilization, and outcomes of medical treatment. The U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is looking
for holistic ways to innovatively manage SDH, including paying
for assistance—whether or not that assistance involves
traditional healthcare services. Private payors and providers are
financially incentivized to incorporate SDH management into
their treatment plans because new payment models are already
penalizing providers for quality measures largely affected
by SDH. Attorneys can help “treat” SDH, such as financial
distress, home environment (including housing, utility, and
food security), employment issues, resolution of
insurance/immigration/criminal/military status, and many
other SDH. Instead of relying on the goodwill of attorney
organizations to provide free legal services to patients, the health
care delivery system should include reimbursement mechanisms
to pay attorneys for this valuable service. The legal profession
and the health care industry will both benefit from the
development of payment mechanisms that incentivize attorneys
to engage in new roles treating SDH. This Article explores ways
that untreated SDH impact health care and how attorneys can add value by embracing advocacy roles for patients, providers,
and payors to treat social determinants of health.

Bone Crusher 2.0: The Fourth Annual Greg Lastowka Memorial Lecture

James Grimmelmann

Colleagues, family, and friends of Greg, thank you for braving the
weather. His memory means so much to all of us. I want to talk a bit
about some of the things that Greg might have said about the Internet
today, and to help keep alive the spirit of serious play that animated his

Continuing to Resolve Surrogacy Uncertainties in a Post-Baby M Modernity

Tara Richelo

Currently in New Jersey, there is not equal protection for infertile
women who use a surrogate to give birth to a child because, unlike
infertile men, infertile women may not use genetic testing or intent-based
testing to establish their maternal rights. One proposed solution is to
enact legislation that would provide both genetic and intent-based
testing when a parentage dispute arises subject to a surrogacy
agreement. In a situation where the embryo implanted in the Gestational
Carrier is fertilized by the Intended Mother’s egg, the Intended Mother
should be able to use genetic-testing to establish maternity if there is a
dispute over parentage. If the embryo is formed through an Egg Donor,
the Intended Mother should be able to use intent-based testing to prove
her maternity.

Tri-Parenting on the Rise: Paving the Way for Tri-Parenting Families to Receive Legal Recognition Through Preconception Agreements

Mallory Ullrich

In 2015, New Jersey became one of the few states to recognize
that a child could have more than two parents. Using the
psychological parent doctrine, the New Jersey court formally
recognized a tri-parenting family, finding the third parent stood
in legal parity with the biological parents in regard to family
issues, such as custody and visitation. This Note will criticize
New Jersey’s family law, specifically the psychological parent
doctrine, and argue why it does not provide enough protection for
tri-parenting families. Then, this Note will turn to the solutions
New Jersey could pursue, proposing the adoption of an
additional parent amendment that allows three parent
recognition through the use of narrowly tailored preconception