RFK Jr.’s Trial Lawyer Ties Raise Red Flags
We must ensure that all future health decisions are made with the best interests of all Americans in mind — not the financial motives of profit-seeking plaintiffs’ lawyers.
States have been debating the merits of enacting new state
States have been debating the merits of enacting new state False Claims Acts (FCAs), or broadening existing ones, largely in response to a federal mandate included in the 2005 federal Deficit Reduction Act. The 2005 mandate dictates that to have a federally qualified FCA, the state must have a whistleblower provision targeted at Medicaid-related fraud that is at least as generous to whistleblowers as the federal civil FCA, which gives the whistleblowers up to 30% of recoveries. If a state enacts such a false claims act, the federal government will give states 10% more of the awards in cases brought under those laws.
A few states quickly passed laws to meet these standards, but most have taken a more careful and cautious look. These states want to know if the federal “deal” is worth it, both financially and in their ability to fight and deter fraud. To date, most states have not adopted these changes. This paper explains why this decision is sound from the perspectives of both economics and public policy.
We must ensure that all future health decisions are made with the best interests of all Americans in mind — not the financial motives of profit-seeking plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Proposed Reforms Aim to Slash $1,372 Annual ‘Tort Tax’ for Every Georgian
Nuclear Verdicts® and Insurance Fraud Plague State’s Legal System
New Report Ranks Seattle-Area Courts Among Worst in US
$1,046/Person ‘Tort Tax’ — Court Expands Liability, Michiganders Pay
Courts Threaten Preemie Formula Access, Residents Pay $1,475/Person/Year ‘Tort Tax’