Public health law reform

Quarantines: Between Precaution and Necessity. A Look at COVID-19

The events surrounding COVID-19, combined with the mandatory quarantines widely imposed in Asia and Europe since the virus outbreak, have reignited discussion of the balance between individual rights and liberties and public health during epidemics and pandemics. This article analyses this issue from the perspectives of precaution and necessity. There is a difficult relationship between these two seemingly opposite principles, both of which are frequently invoked in this domain. Although the precautionary principle (PP) encourages the use of quarantines, including mandatory quarantines, and associated restrictive measures, the principle of necessity (PN) puts a break on such measures. The COVID-19 pandemic reveals once again the different interrelations between these two principles. However, the alleged conflict between the PN and the PP is based on a superficial analysis. The relation between these two principles is far more complex, as this article will demonstrate.

Would it be legally justified to impose vaccination in Israel? Examining the issue in light of the 2013 detection of polio in Israeli sewage

Background

The detection of wild poliovirus in Israeli sewage in May 2013 led the health authorities to decide that children who had been vaccinated with IPV would also be vaccinated with OPV. The decision sought to protect vulnerable Israeli individuals who were either not vaccinated with IPV or who suffered from an immune deficiency, to preserve Israel’s status as a polio-free country, to prevent the virus’ “exportation” into vulnerable polio-free countries, and to participate in the global efforts toward the eradication of polio. After a massive public persuasion campaign, 79% of the children born after 2004 were vaccinated as well as 69% of the children residing in central Israel. A 2014 State Comptroller Report stated that the Ministry of Health should draw conclusions from the low compliance rates in certain Israeli regions.

Goals

The article seeks to examine the legal legitimacy of mandatory vaccination in the service of eradicating a contagious disease (as opposed to preventing a pandemic outbreak), which was one of the objectives in the 2013 Polio case. It more specifically relates to current Israeli law as well as to a hypothetical new public health law which would authorize health officials to oblige vaccination and enforce this through the use of criminal sanctions.

Method

Qualitative content analysis through the interpretation of court judgements, laws, legislative protocols, health ministry guidelines and documented discussions of the Advisory Committee on Infectious Diseases and Immunization.

Main findings and conclusion

A mandatory vaccination backed by criminal sanctions in the service of the eradication of contagious diseases would probably be perceived as infringing on the constitutional right to autonomy to a greater extent than necessary according to Israeli law and case law precedents. There may be some added value inherent in a new public health law which would authorize health officials to oblige vaccination where nonrestrictive measures have been ineffective. However, the law should also specify a variety of sanctions to accompany the enforcement of mandatory vaccinations which would be formulated from least to most restrictive according to the “intervention ladder” concept. The law should also describe the circumstances which would justify the implementation of each and every sanction as well as the procedural safeguards designed for established decisions and fairness toward the individual(s) whose rights are infringed by the application of these sanctions.

Health Care Systems and National Policy: Role of Leadership in the Obesity Crisis

Obesity, defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher in adults and BMI in the 95th percentile or higher for children, is epidemic in the United States. The predominant culture of caloric excess and sedentary behaviors contributes to this problem. Obesity increases the risk of many chronic diseases and premature death. The broad response to this costly disease includes efforts from medical providers, local and federal governments, and nongovernmental agencies. Although obesity can be addressed on an individual basis, it is largely recognized as a public health issue.

Analyzing Variability in Ebola-Related Controls Applied to Returned Travelers in the United States

Public health authorities have adopted entry screening and subsequent restrictions on travelers from Ebola-affected West African countries as a strategy to prevent importation of Ebola virus disease (EVD) cases. We analyzed international, federal, and state policies-principally based on the policy documents themselves and media reports-to evaluate policy variability. We employed means-ends fit analysis to elucidate policy objectives. We found substantial variation in the specific approaches favored by WHO, CDC, and various American states. Several US states impose compulsory quarantine on a broader range of travelers or require more extensive monitoring than recommended by CDC or WHO. Observed differences likely partially resulted from different actors having different policy goals-particularly the federal government having to balance foreign policy objectives less salient to states. Further, some state-level variation appears to be motivated by short-term political goals. We propose recommendations to improve future policies, which include the following: (1) actors should explicitly clarify their objectives, (2) legal authority should be modernized and clarified, and (3) the federal government should consider preempting state approaches that imperil its goals.

Informational privacy, public health, and state laws

Developments in information technology that make it possible to rapidly transmit health information also raise questions about the possible inappropriate use and protection of identifiable (or potentially identifiable) personal health information. Despite efforts to improve state laws, adoption of provisions has lagged. We found that half of states have no statutes addressing nondisclosure of personally identifiable health information generally held by public health agencies. Exceptional treatment of HIV, sexually transmitted infections, or tuberculosis-related information was common. Where other provisions were found, there was little consistency in the laws across states. The variation in state laws supports the need to build consensus on the appropriate use and disclosure of public health information among public health practitioners.

Modernizing state public health enabling statutes to reflect the mission and essential services of public health

It is unclear whether efforts of the past decade to modernize state public health statutes have succeeded in codifying into state law the currently understood mission and essential services of public health. Although many state health agencies may be operating in a manner consistent with these principles, their codification in state law is crucial for the sustainability of agency efforts in disease prevention and health promotion. This research examines the 50 state public health enabling statutes for their correspondence with the 6 mission statements and the 10 essential services of public health described in Public Health in America. This analysis finds that modernization efforts have not been universally effective in ensuring that the legislative basis of public health is commensurate with the accepted scope of authority necessary to support health agency performance. Given current imperatives for law modernization in public health, this analysis highlights the importance of model statutory language in facilitating the codification of the mission and essential services of public health in state law. As a result, this research provides the practice community with a research base to facilitate statutory reform and develops a framework for future scholarship on the role of law as a determinant of the public's health.

Transitions in state public health law: comparative analysis of state public health law reform following the Turning Point Model State Public Health Act

Given the public health importance of law modernization, we undertook a comparative analysis of policy efforts in 4 states (Alaska, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Nebraska) that have considered public health law reform based on the Turning Point Model State Public Health Act. Through national legislative tracking and state case studies, we investigated how the Turning Point Act's model legal language has been considered for incorporation into state law and analyzed key facilitating and inhibiting factors for public health law reform. Our findings provide the practice community with a research base to facilitate further law reform and inform future scholarship on the role of law as a determinant of the public's health.

Public Health Laws and Implications for a National Accreditation Program

Public health law has been one of the leading contributors to the extension of life expectancy in the 20th century. Nonetheless, the legal infrastructure supporting public health law in the United States is underdeveloped and nonuniform. With national interest growing in public health agency accreditation, the individual legal approach taken by states may pose an obstacle to wholesale adoption of a proposed voluntary national model. This article describes the legal foundations supporting accreditation or assessment programs in states participating in the Multi-State Learning Collaborative, a project funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The Turning Point Model State Public Health Act is recommended as one option to resolve the current impasse, assist in acceptance of a national accreditation model, and provide a common public health legal infrastructure.

Transforming public health law: the Turning Point Model State Public Health Act

Law is an essential tool for improving public health infrastructure and outcomes; however, existing state statutory public health laws may be insufficient. Built over decades in response to various diseases/conditions, public health laws are antiquated, divergent, and confusing. The Turning Point Public Health Statute Modernization National Collaborative addressed the need for public health law reform by producing a comprehensive model state act. The Act provides scientifically, ethically, and legally sound provisions on public health infrastructure, powers, duties, and practice. This article examines (1) how statutory law can be a tool for improving the public's health, (2) existing needs for public health law reform, (3) themes and provisions of the Turning Point Act, and (4) how it is being used by public health practitioners.

Public health law in an age of terrorism: rethinking individual rights and common goods

The balance between individual interests and common goods needs to be recalibrated in an age of terrorism. Public health agencies should have a robust infrastructure to conduct essential public health services at a level of performance that matches evolving threats to the health of the public. This includes a well-trained workforce, electronic information, surveillance, and laboratory capacity. This paper explains modern efforts at public health law reform: a Model Public Health Statute and the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA), which has been enacted wholly or in part by nineteen states and the District of Columbia. Next, the paper shows why existing public health laws provide a weak foundation for public health practice. Finally, the paper offers a systematic defense of MSEHPA, which has galvanized the public debate around the appropriate balance between public goods and individual rights.

The professions of public health

Law has been an essential tool of public health practice for centuries. From the 19th century until recent decades, however, most histories of public health described, approvingly, the progression of the field from marginally useful policy, made by persons learned in law, to effective policy, made by persons employing the methods of biomedical and behavioral science. Historians have recently begun to change this standard account by documenting the centrality of law in the development of public health practice. The revised history of public health offers additional justification for the program of public health law reform proposed in this issue of the Journal by Gostin and by Moulton and Matthews, who describe the new program in public health law of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.