Health Highlights

Supporting Informed Decision Making in the Health Insurance Marketplace: A Progress Report

Authors: Jocelyn Guyer, Director | Naomi Shine, Analyst

Editor’s note: As Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation moves forward and the marketplace continues to evolve, there is a growing interest in consumer behaviors and the decision making process. Recognizing that selecting the right plan—one that meets both a family’s healthcare needs and its financial realities—is key to consumer satisfaction, advocates and policymakers are increasingly focused on ensuring people have the tools required to support informed choices.

In a new report for the National Partnership on Women and Families, summarized below, Manatt Health reveals how effectively the marketplace is providing consumers with reliable information about health plan options. Drawing on current literature, expert interviews and primary research, it also assesses new tools and promising practices currently used on marketplace websites. Finally, it offers recommendations for how the marketplace can improve the consumer experience. Click here to download a free PDF of the full report.


Background and Methodology

A key goal of the ACA is to create an insurance market in which consumers have the ability to compare coverage options across standardized criteria and identify the plans that best meet their families’ healthcare needs. To measure progress against that critical objective, Manatt Health looked at how well the marketplace—composed of the federally-facilitated marketplace ( and 14 state-run marketplaces—is providing consumers with key information about available health plans.1 We also identified innovative practices being implemented to enhance the consumer browsing experience and support informed decision making.

Findings are based on a review of marketplace websites conducted between November 15th and December 23rd 2014. To determine which aspects of the marketplace websites are central to supporting effective decision making, Manatt Health reviewers interviewed academics, foundation staff, consumer advocates and representatives of patient groups. The interviews revealed four critical elements of website design:

1. Enhanced anonymous browsing,
2. Direct access to key plan features,
3. Useful plan display and availability of consumer tools, and
4. Easy website navigation and links for assistance.

Manatt Health evaluated the performance of marketplace websites across these four dimensions. There were two levels of review:

  • First, Manatt conducted a high-level review of all 15 marketplace websites— (which serves as the marketplace website for 37 states2), as well as the marketplace websites of 14 states.3  
  • Second, Manatt performed a more in-depth analysis of six select marketplace websites:, as well as the marketplace web sites of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New York and Washington state. In reviewing the six sites, Manatt took a detailed look at how they employ the anonymous browsing features to present information on plan choice and provide consumers with decision support tools.

Key Findings

For the 2015 open enrollment period, marketplace websites have adopted notable features that enhance transparency and support informed consumer decision making. At the same, however, consumers still face a wide array of plan choices—and it can be challenging to find the information needed to select a plan quickly and easily. As the marketplace evolves, it will be important to continue identifying and sharing promising best practices to improve consumer support and satisfaction.

Our research on open enrollment 2015 shows that:

  • Nearly all marketplace websites now allow consumers to “window shop” for plans. In the early days of the first open enrollment period, consumers were disappointed to find that they could not see their plan options unless they first established a marketplace account. Now, however, consumers’ ability to “browse anonymously” or “window shop” prior to creating an account appears to be emerging as the standard practice. In fact, 13 of the 15 marketplaces studied, including, allow consumers to review plan options through an anonymous browsing function.4  
  • Some marketplace websites are creating new, easier ways for consumers to search for their providers and prescription drugs. Most consumers want health plans that include their preferred providers in-network and cover their prescription drugs. Four state-run marketplace websites5—Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland and Washington—offer tools that make it easier to find plans based on provider and prescription preferences. These four sites provide integrated provider directories as part of their anonymous browsing function. When prompted, consumers can enter the name of a preferred provider and receive a list of available plans that include that provider in their networks. Along with its integrated provider directory, the Colorado marketplace website also features an integrated prescription drug directory that gives consumers quick and easy visibility into which plans cover their medications.
  • More marketplace websites are offering consumers “smart tools” and interactive features. As part of their anonymous browsing features, some marketplace websites are utilizing promising tools that are aimed at helping consumers quickly and easily personalize their plan selections.
    • Washington’s marketplace website has created a “plan wizard” that allows people to enter information about their plan preferences. The plan wizard then provides the consumer with customized plan options.
    • now gives individuals the flexibility to decide how much personal information they want to enter when anonymously browsing for plans. Consumers can elect to provide personal information, if they wish to view more accurate premium estimates that take into account eligibility for financial assistance.
    • Connecticut and Washington highlight silver-level plan options for consumers who, when anonymously browsing for plans, appear eligible for cost-sharing reductions. These marketplace websites reorder displayed plan options to show silver-level plans first—an important feature since individuals who are eligible for cost-sharing reductions may only take advantage of them in a silver-level plan.6  


In each of the four core areas identified as critical to effective website design, there are a number of specific steps marketplaces should consider to improve consumers’ plan selection experience. These include effective strategies that emerged in the 2015 open enrollment period, as well as from private sector plan selection tools.

1. Enhanced anonymous browsing

  • Enable enhanced anonymous browsing as comprehensively as possible.
  • Provide consumers with the option of a customized anonymous browsing experience that presents plan options reflecting each individual’s eligibility for financial assistance.

2. Direct access to plan features

  • Facilitate consistent and direct consumer access to information on key plan features, including provider directories, prescription drug formularies and deductibles, as well as other cost-sharing information.
  • Establish integrated provider and prescription drug directories.
  • Display comprehensive information on quality ratings and enrollee satisfaction.

3. Useful plan display and availability of consumer tools

  • Display plans in an order that takes into account multiple factors of importance to consumers, including eligibility for cost-sharing reductions, total out-of-pocket costs and provider preferences.
  • Utilize “smart tools” that walk consumers through key steps in selecting health plans.

4. Easy website navigation and links for assistance

  • Conduct regular usability analyses to observe directly how end users access, utilize and comprehend plan data and decision-making tools.
  • Support robust consumer feedback loops, soliciting information on consumers’ experiences and satisfaction with plan selection tools.


For the 2015 enrollment period, and marketplace websites across the states have adopted features that enhance transparency and support informed decision making. The ability to browse plans anonymously is now standard practice. In addition, many marketplace websites enable consumers to tailor their plan searches to align with their specific circumstances and preferences. In addition, some, including, give people the flexibility to shape how much financial and health information they wish to share as part of the browsing experience.

At the same time, marketplace websites could do more to ensure that consumers have direct access to critical data about their health plan choices and tools to help them make sense of that information. Marketplaces should implement integrated provider and prescription drug directories that let consumers search for plans by their preferred providers and prescription medications. They also should offer tools that equip consumers to evaluate plans across multiple dimensions, not just on premium cost alone.

In addition, all marketplace websites should offer “smart tools” that guide consumers through the plan selection process. Many of these tools are already in place in other federal healthcare programs and the private sector.

As we move forward, advocates and policymakers should continue to share information on emerging practices for improving accessibility, usability and consumer comprehension. Highlighting and sharing best practices will help ensure that the marketplace delivers on its fundamental mission: helping individuals and families enroll in plans that meet their healthcare needs and fit their budgets.

1For purposes of this study and report, the District of Columbia is considered a state. The District of Columbia operates its own marketplace website: DC Health Link.

2The websites that rely on are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

3California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Note that additional states, such as Oregon, are considered state-based marketplaces, but they rely on to carry out eligibility and enrollment functions on their behalf.

4At one point, the Vermont marketplace website did offer an anonymous browsing feature. The state decided to remove this feature, however, upon deciding that the tool was unnecessary given that only two issuers offered plans in its marketplace. Vermont administrators felt there were better ways to present consumers with their options. While the District of Columbia’s marketplace website does not offer comprehensive anonymous browsing, it does have a tool that allows consumers to compare plans across key dimensions. This tool stops short of displaying premium data.

5Though Massachusetts offers an integrated provider directory, reviewers found it to be non-functioning after repeated efforts to filter by specific providers.

645 C.F.R. § 155.305(g) (2010).

back to top

Medicaid Expansion States See Significant Budget Savings and Revenue Gains

Authors: Deborah Bachrach, Partner, Healthcare Industry | Patricia Boozang, Senior Managing Director | Dori Glanz, Manager

Editor’s note: Early data from two states—Kentucky and Arkansas—shows more than $1 billion in savings after just the first year of Medicaid expansion. In a new issue brief for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s State Health Reform Assistance Network, Manatt Health examines the financial gains as a result of Medicaid expansion in Kentucky and Arkansas. Key points are summarized below. Click here to download a free PDF of the full issue brief, featuring an at-a-glance chart summarizing early results of budget savings and revenue growth in both states.


Kentucky and Arkansas, two states that expanded Medicaid to cover adults up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), are seeing significant savings in their state budgets that will cover all expansion-related costs well beyond state fiscal year (SFY) 2021.

  • Kentucky estimates saving $820 million, net of costs, from SFY ’14 to SFY ’21.
  • Arkansas estimates saving $370 million, net of costs, from SFY ’14 to SFY ’21.

For states that are considering Medicaid expansion, Kentucky and Arkansas are examples of how expansion can produce savings and generate new revenue for state budgets. Both states report expansion-related savings, and Arkansas reports new revenues. When projected forward, these financial gains are likely to exceed expansion-related costs for years to come, while generating major increases in coverage and reducing the number of uninsured.

Three Major Categories of Budget Savings and Revenue Gains

While data is still limited, the savings and increased revenue seen in expansion states fall into three major categories:

1. State savings from using new federal funds. Historically, many states have supported programs and services for the uninsured—such as mental and behavioral health programs, public health programs and inpatient healthcare services for prisoners—with state general fund dollars. With expansion, virtually all of the beneficiaries of these programs and services are able to secure Medicaid coverage in the new adult category, which means states can fund these services with federal—not state—dollars. Kentucky saved $9 million in 2014 as enrollees in behavioral and mental health programs were fully covered by Medicaid.

2. State savings from enhanced federal matching. States are saving money as they now are able to cover those most in need with 100 percent federal funding. In the past, states often used waivers or specialized Medicaid eligibility categories to provide at least some coverage to high-need enrollees, such as “medically needy” individuals, pregnant women and the disabled. They typically had to pay between 30 and 50 percent of the coverage costs for these individuals. With expansion, these individuals are now eligible for full Medicaid coverage—which means they (and the state) will save money while receiving full Medicaid benefits. Arkansas saved $17.5 million in 2014 by accessing the 100 percent federal match for adults previously enrolled in waiver programs and targeted categorical eligibility groups who transitioned to the new adult group.

3. Revenue gains. Many states raise revenue through assessments or fees on providers and health plans. As provider and health plan revenue increases with expansion, this translates into additional revenue for states. Arkansas saw revenue gains of $4.7 million in 2014.


Twenty-six states have expanded Medicaid—and many are beginning to report comparable economic information to the financial gains shown in the early results from Kentucky and Arkansas. All states are finding additional benefits ranging from significant drops in the number of uninsured to a reduction in uncompensated care costs to the creation of tens of thousands of jobs.

back to top  

Antitrust Update: Joint FTC and DOJ Workshop on Healthcare Competition Highlights the Importance of Antitrust

Author: Lisl Dunlop, Partner, Litigation

Editor’s Note: On February 24 and 25 in Washington, DC, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) held a joint Antitrust Division Workshop, “Examining Healthcare Competition.” In the article below, Manatt Partner Lisl Dunlop, who participated in the workshop, summarizes key insights shared during the day-and-a-half session.


In a day and a half of panels covering the gamut of the U.S. healthcare landscape, commentators at the “Examining Healthcare Competition” workshop rejected the notion that consolidation was necessary to achieve the benefits of healthcare reform. Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel framed the main issue, examining competition policy against the backdrop of megatrends that are transforming healthcare, including:

  • Changes in payment structures to focus on value and risk and move away from fee-for-service models.
  • The digitization of healthcare, providing real-time data sources to monitor performance and quality, as well as open new avenues for healthcare delivery.
  • The proliferation of new players in the healthcare space, with care delivered from more and varied points. For example, we see non-physician healthcare professionals, such as pharmacists, playing a greater role in healthcare delivery and decisions.

The workshop provided an update on developments across a full range of issues—including health insurance exchange operations, network design, accountable care organizations and other innovative health delivery models—but its major theme was consolidation. Panels discussed when consolidation is happening, when it is necessary or desirable, and when antitrust regulations should prevent it.

Emmanuel commented on the high volume of consolidation—both horizontally (hospitals acquiring hospitals) and vertically (hospitals acquiring physician groups or insurers acquiring hospitals). He posited that consolidation may be effective when associated with risk-based payment systems but raised concerns about consolidating in a fee-for-service environment. That same concern was echoed in subsequent panels.

FTC and DOJ Heads Provide Insights Into Agency Enforcement

The heads of both the FTC and the DOJ shared insights into agency enforcement, with a specific focus on healthcare markets. The FTC has consistently maintained that the aims of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) can be achieved without horizontal consolidation. The FTC has stood firm in saying that it will consider hospital mergers on the same basis as other transactions.

In her address, FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez extended the FTC’s concerns around consolidation to include mergers between entities at different levels of the healthcare supply chain—for example, urban hospitals buying suburban ones or hospitals buying different types of providers, such as laboratories or imaging providers. She cautioned that, as healthcare providers scramble to adapt to a changing market and regulatory environment, they should not put antitrust law in the background.

Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer used his remarks to focus on the possibilities for anticompetitive conduct by various healthcare stakeholders. For instance, he highlighted the potential for health insurers to skirt around procompetitive mechanisms (i.e., tiering and narrow networks), by implementing anticompetitive contracting practices, such as anti-tiering, anti-steering and most-favored-nations (MFN) clauses.

Separately, Baer focused on contracting practices dominant providers sometimes use to insulate themselves from competition. He cited United Regional Healthcare System’s contract provisions inhibiting insurers from contracting with competing providers as a prime example of that type of anticompetitive contracting. The DOJ has a history of enforcement in this area, foreshadowing its continued focus.

Panels Educated Regulators About the Evolving Industry

Several of the workshop panels appeared designed to educate the antitrust regulators on developments and experiences in different aspects of the healthcare landscape rather than home in on particular issues of potential antitrust concern. The common refrain was that the industry is still evolving, with panelists stressing that it is too soon to make confident predictions about how the markets established by the ACA will function in the mid to long term. Commentators focused their discussions on:

  • Developments and innovations in provider network design, contracting practices and health insurance exchanges.
  • Current trends toward narrow and tiered networks, participation in exchanges and premium movements.
  • State regulatory activity in the healthcare arena, such as Massachusetts’ establishment of cost increase limits.
  • Alternatives to fee-for-service payment, with a focus on risk-sharing models and integrated health systems.
  • The striking growth in the establishment of Medicare/Medicaid and commercial ACOs, as well as the efficiency, quality and cost benefits of ACO structures.

The penultimate panel at the workshop addressed provider consolidation issues. The panel was dominated by healthcare economists, including Dr. Martin Gaynor and Dr. Leemore Dafny, both of whom have served as FTC economists.

The panelists’ overwhelming response to consolidation was that it does not necessarily lead to achieving healthcare reform’s goals—improving quality through more integrated care, lower costs and better use of resources. They strongly expressed that healthcare reform goals cannot be used as a justification for consolidation. Notably, the panel’s evidence included a range of factors, including:

  • If providers consolidate and as a consequence have market power, they will have no incentive to move away from fee-for-service based payment models to adopt pay-for-performance or risk-sharing payment models.
  • Where insurance markets are concentrated, providers are moving into insurance. Devolving all risk down to the provider level, however, is not efficient. Payers provide a range of services that employers and patients need and that providers do not perform well.
  • Hospitals that acquire physician groups do not perform better on quality and cost measures than those that simply align with physician groups or maintain the status quo.

The panel spent surprisingly little time discussing the recent Ninth Circuit St. Luke’s decision. Commentators did note that the courts in that case rejected the efficiency claims made by the merging parties, because they could be achieved by other means and did not overcome the likely price increase from the consolidation. (For more on the St. Luke’s case, click here to read the “Antitrust Update” in our February issue.)


As providers consolidate, whether horizontally or vertically, they need to ensure they consider and address potential antitrust issues. Regulators are clearly monitoring healthcare mergers and focused on enforcing antitrust laws for hospital mergers as rigorously as for any other transaction. The St. Luke’s decision is an important wake-up call that claiming a transaction will help achieve healthcare reform’s goals of better outcomes and lower costs does not outweigh antitrust concerns.

back to top

CMS Introduces the “Next-Generation ACO Model”

Authors: David Oakley, Counsel, Healthcare and Insurance | Ian Spatz, Senior Advisor | Anne O. Karl, Associate, Healthcare Industry

On March 10, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a new Accountable Care Organization (ACO) model. An initiative of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), the “Next-Generation ACO Model” offers provider groups experienced in coordinating care the opportunity to assume higher levels of financial risk and reward than are available under the current Pioneer Model and Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP).

The objective of the “Next-Generation ACO Model” is to test whether strong financial incentives for ACOs, coupled with tools to support better patient engagement and care management, will lead to improved health outcomes and lower costs for Original Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. The model will be evaluated based on how well it delivers better care for individual patients, better population health and slower spending growth.

What’s Important to Know About the New Model?

The new model is a further refinement of the Medicare ACO program. It responds to concerns that ACOs and other stakeholders have raised about the current models.

CMS expects about 15-20 ACOs with at least 10,000 participants (7,500 in rural areas) to participate in the “Next-Generation Model,” representing a variety of provider organization types and geographic regions. (Click here for specific eligibility criteria.) It’s important for those considering the new model to understand that:

  • The ACOs coming into the new model cannot simultaneously be participating in another Medicare ACO model or program, but prior participation in Pioneer or MSSP may be helpful.
  • The model requires ACOs to take on much more risk than other models. Among the options is full risk capitation.
  • ACO payments will be based on prospective benchmarks rather than the current retrospective benchmarks. At the start of each year, the ACO will know what its spending targets are.
  • At this time, only Parts A and B utilization are included in the model, not Part D.
  • Covered benefits for Parts A and B are “as is,” without the limitations found in Medicare Advantage health plan arrangements, such as restrictions on out-of-network usage or requirements for primary care physician gatekeepers.
  • ACOs will need to confirm that their level of assumed financial risk does not conflict with state laws or regulations on provider risk. This can be a gray area where careful presentations may affect regulatory conclusions.

What’s Included in the New Model?

The new model indicates that CMS is listening. It incorporates many changes based on the feedback that CMS received during the Pioneer ACO and MSSP process. Among the new features it includes are:

  • The option for full risk capitation (not shared savings) to the ACO.
  • The option for CMS to process claims from providers and then pass them to the ACO for payment, so that ACOs can negotiate discounts or alternative amounts.
  • Minor incentives for patients for their formal cooperation with the ACO. (The cash incentives may raise some controversies around the model.)
  • A higher risk to the ACO than to CMS, compared with most former models.
  • An improved patient alignment process for determining the Medicare patients for whom the ACO should be responsible.

The new model includes refined benchmarking methods that reward quality performance, reward attainment and improvement in cost containment, and transition away from references to the ACO’s historical expenditures. In addition, the model provides a selection of alternative payment mechanisms to support moving from fee-for-service reimbursements to capitation. It also includes several tools to help ACOs improve their engagement with beneficiaries, including:

  • Waivers of current Medicare coverage restrictions, so that ACO patients have enhanced access to home visits, telehealth services and skilled nursing facilities.
  • A reward payment to beneficiaries for receiving care from the ACO.
  • A process letting beneficiaries confirm their alignment with a particular ACO, even if the alignment process might not align that patient with that ACO.
  • A collaboration between CMS and ACOs to support clearly communicating to beneficiaries the characteristics and potential benefits of the ACO in relation to their care.

The new model will consist of three initial performance years and two optional one-year extensions. CMS will publicly report the performance of Next-Generation ACOs on quality metrics, including patient experience ratings, on its website.

Responses to the Request for Applications are due on June 1, 2015. 

back to top

New Manatt Webinar: “Sharing Clinical Trial Data: Maximizing Benefits, Minimizing Risks”

Join Us March 31 from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m. ET—and Learn to Create a Global Ecosystem That Protects Stakeholders While Advancing Medicine.

Sharing clinical trial data responsibly is critical to advancing medical science. At the same time, it presents complex challenges—from protecting participants’ privacy to safeguarding intellectual property rights. How can we develop a global ecosystem that balances the interests of stakeholders with the drive to improve the health of people around the world?

At the request of 23 public- and private-sector sponsors—including major life sciences companies, as well as U.S. and international regulators such as the FDA and NIH—the Institute of Medicine (IOM) created a multidisciplinary committee to address that critical question. In a new report, the committee provides guiding principles, strategies and recommendations for responsibly sharing clinical trial data. Now Manatt Partner Deven McGraw, a member of the IOM committee, shares firsthand insight into the report’s findings and implications at a new webinar, “Sharing Clinical Trial Data: Maximizing Benefits, Minimizing Risks.”

During the webinar, presented through PharmaVoice, you’ll learn how business models, academic culture and sponsor and investigator incentives need to change to support the sustainable sharing of clinical trial data. Don’t miss this important opportunity to:

  • Discover the committee’s four key recommendations for sharing clinical trial data responsibly.
  • Explore the guiding principles for sharing clinical trial data, and the committee’s approach to applying them.
  • Examine the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders, including participants, funders and sponsors, regulatory agencies, investigators, research institutes and universities, journals, disease advocacy organizations and professional societies.
  • Understand what data should be shared—and when.
  • Identify approaches for mitigating risks and creating a true learning system for sharing clinical trial data.
  • Look ahead to the future of data sharing in a changing landscape, including addressing infrastructure, technical, work force and sustainability challenges.

Sharing clinical trial data can accelerate new discoveries, stimulate new research and drive the development of safer, more effective therapies. Find out how we can work together to create a culture of sharing while protecting the rights and interests of all stakeholders. This is a critical program for anyone involved in advancing medical treatments. Even if you can’t make our original airing on March 31 from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m. ET, register now, and we’ll send you an on-demand link to view the session, at your convenience.

Presenter: Deven McGraw, Partner, Healthcare Industry

Note: This program has been approved for 1.0 General Credit in California and 1.0 Professional Practice Credit in New York.

back to top

New Webinar from Manatt and Bloomberg BNA: “Best Practices for Using Social Media in Healthcare: Maximizing Impact, Mitigating Risk.”

For a generation more likely to seek health information online than see a doctor, social media is playing an increasingly critical role in healthcare decisions. Today, more than 40% of consumers say that the information they read in social media affects how they deal with their health1—and two-thirds of doctors use social media for professional purposes.2  

With statistics like these, it’s not surprising that a growing number of healthcare entities are incorporating social media into their communication plans. But how can you effectively harness social media’s power to reach and influence your target audiences? And how can you be sure you minimize the risks that often accompany an active social media presence?

In a new webinar for Bloomberg BNA, “Best Practices for Using Social Media in Healthcare,” Manatt answers those crucial questions. First, we will present emerging approaches to inform, engage and motivate patients and physicians. Then, we will take a detailed look at execution risks—both generally and specific to healthcare—and provide clear, actionable strategies for safeguarding your organization. During the session, you will:

  • Explore how patients and providers are using social media in healthcare—and the role it plays in healthcare decisions.
  • Discover the most effective social media techniques within healthcare for both consumer and professional audiences.
  • Benefit from the cross-fertilization of ideas, learning how innovations from other sectors can be adapted to healthcare.
  • Examine the issues around the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)—and ensure your social media programs are in compliance.
  • Find out how you can avoid liability for content posted by others.
  • Learn the regulatory requirements around endorsements/testimonials, hashtags, re-tweeting of third-party content and other key challenges—and be prepared to meet them.

Don’t miss this chance to examine the full gamut of issues—from ensuring privacy to avoiding liability—and understand how to run a high-impact social media campaign without putting your organization in legal jeopardy. Even if you can’t make the April 29 date, register now, and we’ll send you a link to view the program on demand.

Presenters: Jon Glaudemans, Managing Director | Linda Goldstein, Partner and Chair, Advertising, Marketing and Media Division

NOTE: CLE credit is available for this program.

1Source: Mediabistro

2Source: EMR Thoughts

back to top



pursuant to New York DR 2-101(f)

© 2024 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.

All rights reserved