A Clarion Call for Change: The MLP Imperative to Center Racial Discrimination and Structural Health Inequities

Across the country, legal and health care professionals who understand that health outcomes are most influenced by social and environmental conditions have improved patient health by adopting the interdisciplinary MLP health care delivery model. However, the MLP field cannot advance population health, let alone long-term health equity, until it addresses the structural determinants of health inequity that are rooted in discrimination, segregation, and other forms of racial and ethnic subordination.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Ethical Principles for Allocating Initial Supplies of COVID-19 Vaccine - United States, 2020

To reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its associated impacts on health and society, COVID-19 vaccines are essential. The U.S. government is working to produce and deliver safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines for the entire U.S. population. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)* has broadly outlined its approach for developing recommendations for the use of each COVID-19 vaccine authorized or approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization or licensure (1). ACIP's recommendation process includes an explicit and transparent evidence-based method for assessing a vaccine's safety and efficacy as well as consideration of other factors, including implementation (2). Because the initial supply of vaccine will likely be limited, ACIP will also recommend which groups should receive the earliest allocations of vaccine. The ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group and consultants with expertise in ethics and health equity considered external expert committee reports and published literature and deliberated the ethical issues associated with COVID-19 vaccine allocation decisions. The purpose of this report is to describe the four ethical principles that will assist ACIP in formulating recommendations for the allocation of COVID-19 vaccine while supply is limited, in addition to scientific data and implementation feasibility: 1) maximize benefits and minimize harms; 2) promote justice; 3) mitigate health inequities; and 4) promote transparency. These principles can also aid state, tribal, local, and territorial public health authorities as they develop vaccine implementation strategies within their own communities based on ACIP recommendations.

Two Threats to Precision Medicine Equity

In January 2015, President Barack Obama unveiled the "Precision Medicine Initiative," a nationwide research effort to help bring an effective, preventive, and therapeutic approach to medicine. The purpose of the initiative is to bring a precise understanding of the genetic and environmental determinants of disease into clinical settings across the United States.¹ The announcement was coupled with $216 million provided in the President's proposed budget for a million-person national research cohort including public and private partnerships with academic medical centers, researchers, foundations, privacy experts, medical ethicists, and medical product innovators. The Initiative promises to expand the use of precision medicine in cancer research and modernize regulatory approval processes for genome sequencing technologies. In response, Congress passed the 21st Century Cures Act in December 2016, authorizing a total of $1.5 billion over 10 years for the program.² Although the Precision Medicine Initiative heralds great promise for the future of disease treatment and eradication, its implementation and development must be carefully guided to ensure that the millions of federal dollars expended will be spent equitably. This commentary discusses two key threats to the Precision Medicine Initiative's ability to proceed in a manner consistent with the United States Constitutional requirement that the federal government shall not "deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws."³ In short, this commentary sounds two cautionary notes, in order to advance precision medicine equity. First, achieving precision medicine equity will require scientists and clinicians to fulfill their intellectual, moral, and indeed legal duty to work against abusive uses of precision medicine science to advance distorted views of racial group variation. Precision medicine scientists must decisively denounce and distinguish this Initiative from the pseudo-science of eugenics - the immoral and deadly pseudo-science that gave racist and nationalist ideologies what Troy Duster called a "halo of legitimacy" during the first half of the 20th century.⁴ Second, to combat the social threat to precision medicine, scientists must incorporate a comprehensive, ecological understanding of the fundamental social and environmental determinants of health outcomes in all research. Only then will the Precision Medicine Initiative live up to its potential to improve and indeed transform health care delivery for all patients, regardless of race, color, or national origin.

Housing: A Case for The Medicalization of Poverty

"Medicalization" has been a contentious notion since its introduction centuries ago. While some scholars lamented a medical overreach into social domains, others hailed its promise for social justice advocacy. Against the backdrop of a growing commitment to health equity across the nation, this article reviews historical interpretations of medicalization, offers an application of the term to non-biologic risk factors for disease, and presents the case of housing the demonstrate the great potential of medicalizing poverty.

Race, religion, and informed consent--lessons from social science

That minority patients have not figured at all in the literature about informed consent is an egregious omission which this article begins to repair. Moreover, the article demonstrates that by addressing identifiable harms which informed consent law now causes to racial, religious, and ethnic minority patients, the law may also better address many of the concerns legal commentators have been discussing for years with only majority patients in mind. Ironically, the solution to the discrimination felt by the excluded members of society may turn out to provide the remedy for the informed consent doctrine as a whole.