Profile picture for user LizaVertinsky

Liza Vertinsky

Professor of Law, University of Maryland-Baltimore

Connect with Liza

About Liza

Vertinsky's research focuses on the regulation of emerging technologies in the public interest. She is a health and intellectual property lawyer and economist who writes at the intersection of law, economics, and the regulation of emerging technologies and healthcare markets. Overarching themes in Vertinsky's writing include the role of law in addressing the divergence of private incentives from public needs in healthcare markets and in the regulation of emerging genetic and AI technologies.

Contributions

In the News

Opinion: "To Promote Innovation, Congress and Companies Should Support Drug Development Cost Disclosure," Liza Vertinsky (with Cynthia Ho), Health Affairs, July 28, 2022.
Opinion: "Genetic Paparazzi Are Right Around the Corner, and Courts Aren’t Ready to Confront the Legal Quagmire of DNA Theft," Liza Vertinsky (with Yaniv Heled), The Conversation, June 3, 2022.
Opinion: "Combating Alzheimer’s Disease Through Effective Public-Private Partnerships," Liza Vertinsky, Health Affairs, August 18, 2021.
Opinion: "FDA Is Departing From Long-Standing Procedures to Deal with Public Health Crises, and This May Foreshadow Problems for COVID-19 Vaccines," Liza Vertinsky (with Ana Santos Rutschman and Yaniv Heled), The Conversation, August 27, 2020.

Publications

"A Theory of Genetic Dimensions in the Law" (with Yaniv Heled and Ana Santos Rutschman). Indiana Law Journal 99, no. 4 (2024): 6.

Examines the longstanding judicial and legislative practice of applying ill-fitting legal constructs to genetic phenomena, highlighting how existing legal constructs fail to address the complex realities of genetic phenomena. Proposes a new conceptual framework for integrating genetic issues more effectively into the legal system, aiming to better accommodate the diverse interests related to genetics at individual, group, and societal levels. 

"Public-Private Litigation for Health" (with Reuben Guttman). Utah Law Review (2021).

Explores the role of litigation partnerships between state AGs and private law firms in achieving public health objectives. Proposes a decision framework for increasing the role that public health objectives play in this kind of litigation process.

"Regulatory Reactivity: FDA and the Response to COVID-19" (with Yaniv Heled and Ana Santos Rutschman). Food and Drug Law Journal 76, no. 2 (2021): 318-336.

Examines how the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted significant flaws in the FDA's regulatory and administrative processes for handling public health crises. Introduces the concept of "regulatory reactivity" to describe how external pressures have pushed the FDA to adopt emergency decision-making practices that deviate from established scientific standards.

"Pharmaceutical (Re)Capture" Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics 20, no. 1 (2021).

Makes the case that pharmaceutical companies, along with other powerful corporate actors in the pharmaceutical industry, are in effect designing their own markets, often at the expense of, rather than in pursuit of, public health. Uses the evolution of the opioid epidemic as a case study to show that this issue is a structural feature of U.S. pharmaceutical markets, not an isolated problem.

"Thinking Machines and Patent Law" in Research Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018).

Focuses on the challenges that a thinking machine paradigm of invention creates for U.S. patent law. Examines the disconnect between a thinking machine paradigm and the traditional model of invention that lies at the heart of patent law, explores some of the doctrinal challenges and practical problems that result from this disconnect, and concludes with four considerations to inform a patent policy response.

"Pre-Competition" (with Jorge L. Contreras). North Carolina Law Review 95, no. 1 (2016).

Examines the phenomenon of precompetitive collaboration through an antitrust lens. Analyzes the apparent disconnect between the industry reliance on precompetition as a way of demarcating procompetitive arrangements among competitors, on the one hand, and the absence of any such distinction in antitrust law or practice, on the other. Concludes by suggesting a framework for refocusing attention on collaborations that are pro-competitive.