Medicare Drug Pricing Negotiations: Assessing Constitutional Structural Limits

A series of structural constitutional arguments lodged in multiple cases against Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) authorities to negotiate prescription drug prices via the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act threaten the legitimacy of CMS program and federal agency powers.

Supreme Court Impacts in Public Health Law: 2022-2023

In another tumultuous term of the United States Supreme Court in 2022-2023 a series of critical cases implicate instant and forthcoming changes in multiple fronts that collectively shift the national public health law and policy environment.

Medicare's Historic Prescription Drug Price Negotiations

This Viewpoint evaluates the legal claims and policy implications of historic drug price negotiations possible with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

The Model State Indoor Air Quality Act

This Viewpoint discusses how poor indoor air quality can affect health and examines the Model State Indoor Air Quality Act, which provides science-based regulatory standards aimed at ensuring public indoor environments provide healthy air.

"Out Like a Lion:" Terminating the COVID-19 National Public Health Emergency

From its inception, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a disruptive force on U.S. health care and public health systems. President Biden's announced termination of the national public health emergency on May 11, 2023 portends a return to normalcy and relief for Americans from the greatest infectious disease scourge the nation has ever faced. In reality, closing out this pandemic presents a tempest of legal and practical complications.

Midterm Maelstrom: Public Health Legal Impacts of Election 2022

Among the morass of critical issues impacting the results of the midterm elections in 2022 were core public health issues related to health care access, justice, and reforms. Collectively, voters' communal health and safety concerns dominated outcomes in key races which may shape national, state, and local legal approaches to protecting the public's health in the modern era.

Designing COVID-19 vaccine mandates in colleges and universities: a roadmap to the 10 key questions

COVID-19 transmission among students, faculty, and staff at US institutions of higher education (IHEs) is a pressing concern, especially with the dominance of the highly contagious Delta variant and emergence of the Omicron variant. From the start of the pandemic to May 26, 2021, >700,000 cases were linked to US colleges and universities. To protect their populations and surrounding communities, IHE administrators are increasingly considering COVID-19 vaccine requirements. Roughly one-quarter of the nearly 4,000 college and university campuses across the US have announced COVID-19 vaccine mandates for students or employees. However, deciding to require vaccination is only the first of multiple decisions, as IHEs face complex issues of how to design and refine their mandates, including whether to require boosters. Mandates vary significantly in stringency, implementation, impact on members of the college or university community, and net benefit to the institution. This essay examines 10 key questions that an IHE must face in designing or refining a COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Showing that these 10 questions were carefully considered may be crucial if the institution's mandate is challenged. Ultimately, how an IHE designs its mandate may make the difference between meaningful risk mitigation that advances institutional goals and benefits students, faculty, and staff versus a public health failure that erodes trust, raises equity concerns, threatens to undermine preexisting vaccination requirements, and divides the campus.

Reminiscences on Public Health Law and JLME

This contribution marks a dual milestone at the intersection of public health law and JLME: my 50th publication of a substantive manuscript in the 50th anniversary of the Journal in 2022. In recognition of these coinciding landmarks, this installment of the Public Health Law column for JLME features observations and reflections of the field based largely on prior publications.

Regressive Federalism, Rights Reversals, and the Public's Health

As the United States emerges from the worst public health threat it has ever experienced, the Supreme Court is poised to reconsider constitutional principles from bygone eras. Judicial proposals to roll back rights under a federalism infrastructure grounded in states' interests threaten the nation's legal fabric at a precarious time. This column explores judicial shifts in 3 key public health contexts - reproductive rights, vaccinations, and national security - and their repercussions.

Supreme Court Impacts in Public Health Law: 2021-2022

In a dynamic term of the United States Supreme Court in 2021-2022 a series of critical cases raise manifold changes and impacts on individual and communal health through 10 key areas ranging from abortions to vaccinations.

Federalism's Fallacy at the Forefront of Public Health Law

Amid undulating conceptions of the role and prowess of federalism emerges its central constitutional role: protecting American liberties against unwarranted governmental intrusions. To the extent that federalism is used as a guise for withdrawing fundamental rights to abortion by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, individual rights are sacrificed in contravention of constitutional structural norms.

Legal Challenges Underlying COVID-19 Vaccinations

Immunizing hundreds of millions against COVID- 19 through the most extensive national vaccine campaign ever undertaken in the United States has generated significant law and policy challenges.

Ethical Allocation of Scarce Food Resources During Public Health Emergencies

Escalating demands for limited food supplies at America's food banks and pantries during the COVID-19 pandemic have raised ethical concerns underlying "first-come, first-served" distributions strategies. A series of model ethical principles are designed to guide ethical allocations of these resources to assure greater access among persons facing food insecurity.

Legal Interventions to Counter COVID-19 Denialism

A series of denialist state laws thwart efficacious public health emergency response efforts despite escalating impacts of the spread of the Delta variant during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nationalizing Public Health Emergency Legal Responses

The fight for public health primacy in U.S. emergency preparedness and response to COVID-19 centers on which level of government - federal or state - should "call the shots" to quell national emergencies?

Triage of Scarce Critical Care Resources in COVID-19 An Implementation Guide for Regional Allocation: An Expert Panel Report of the Task Force for Mass Critical Care and the American College of Chest Physicians

Public health emergencies have the potential to place enormous strain on health systems. The current pandemic of the novel 2019 coronavirus disease has required hospitals in numerous countries to expand their surge capacity to meet the needs of patients with critical illness. When even surge capacity is exceeded, however, principles of critical care triage may be needed as a means to allocate scarce resources, such as mechanical ventilators or key medications. The goal of a triage system is to direct limited resources towards patients most likely to benefit from them. Implementing a triage system requires careful coordination between clinicians, health systems, local and regional governments, and the public, with a goal of transparency to maintain trust. We discuss the principles of tertiary triage and methods for implementing such a system, emphasizing that these systems should serve only as a last resort. Even under triage, we must uphold our obligation to care for all patients as best possible under difficult circumstances.

The public health crisis of underimmunisation: a global plan of action

Vaccination is one of public health's greatest achievements, responsible for saving billions of lives. Yet, 20% of children worldwide are not fully protected, leading to 1·5 million child deaths annually from vaccine-preventable diseases. Millions more people have severe disabling illnesses, cancers, and disabilities stemming from underimmunisation. Reasons for falling vaccination rates globally include low public trust in vaccines, constraints on affordability or access, and insufficient governmental vaccine investments. Consequently, an emerging crisis in vaccine hesitancy ranges from hyperlocal to national and worldwide. Outbreaks often originate in small, insular communities with low immunisation rates. Local outbreaks can spread rapidly, however, transcending borders. Following an assessment of underlying determinants of low vaccination rates, we offer an action based on scientific evidence, ethics, and human rights that spans multiple governments, organisations, disciplines, and sectors.

Guiding industry settlements of opioid litigation

Background: The recent $270 million settlement of Purdue Pharmaceuticals and the State of Oklahoma on March 26, 2019 concerning the state's opioid litigation is a harbinger of industry settlements to come. Thousands of opioid-related cases with impending trial dates may stimulate opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to seek new deals to escape historic liability. Objectives: Against a backdrop of massive damage potential of a two decade opioid epidemic, reaching appropriate settlements is key. Parties to opioid lawsuits must balance an array of factors to assure industry accountability while preserving access to opioids among legitimate patients seeking palliative care. Methods: We examined major bases for opioid litigation across the U.S. Thousands of cases have been filed against opioid manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers, and others. Hundreds of these cases are consolidated in a federal district court in Cleveland, Ohio where trials are scheduled as early as October 2019. Grounds for litigation are highly varied. Results: Multiple factors underlying responsible settlements include (1) a primary focus on contemporary treatment and prevention strategies supplemented by research innovations; (2) primary access to life-saving treatments for at-risk individuals; (3) fair and equitable allocation of settlement resources; (4) dedication to lawful, efficacious interventions; (5) cross-sharing of industry data and practices to promote good faith compliance; and (6) continued assurance of access to palliative care for deserving patients. Conclusions: Negotiated settlements must align with highly effective public health priorities. Crafting wise settlement agreements is necessary to assign responsibility for huge public harms and ensure future treatments that are prudent and efficacious.

Emerging Public Health Law and Policy Issues Concerning State Medical Cannabis Programs

Thirty-four states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have legalized medical cannabis. While no two state medical cannabis programs are alike, public health concerns related to advertising, packaging and labeling, pesticide use, scientific research, and the role of medical cannabis in the opioid crisis are emerging across the country. This article examines these issues, the policy approaches states are adopting to protect patients and the public, and an assessment of the underlying federal legal landscape.

Public Health Law and Policy Implications: Justice Kavanaugh

Following the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in one of the most sensational jurisprudence events of the modern era, we examine potential repercussions across multiple themes in public health, law, and policy stemming from his ideology and the confirmation process.

The Salzburg Statement on Vaccination Acceptance

Immunization represents one of the greatest public health achievements. Vaccines save lives, make communities more productive and strengthen health systems. They are critical to attaining the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Vaccination also represents value for investment in public health. It is undisputedly one of the most cost-effective ways of avoiding disease, each year preventing 2-3 million deaths globally. We the concerned scientists, public health professionals, physicians, and child health advocates issue this Salzburg Statement along with the International Working Group on Vaccination and Public Health Solutions, proclaiming our unwavering commitment to universal childhood vaccination, and our pledge to support the development, testing, implementation, and evaluation of new, effective, and fact-based communication programs. Our goal is to explain vaccinations to parents or caregivers, answer their questions, address their concerns, and maintain public confidence in the personal, family and community protection that childhood vaccines provide. Every effort will also be made to communicate the dangers associated with these childhood illnesses to parents and communities since this information seems to have been lost in the present-day narrative. While vaccine misinformation has led to serious declines in community vaccination rates that require immediate attention, in other communities, particularly in low-income countries, issues such as lack of access. and unstable supply of vaccines need to be addressed.

Homelessness and the Public's Health: Legal Responses

This commentary addresses public health issues underlying homelessness and related law, policy, and advocacy options. After framing public health issues for affected individuals and the community, legal and policy approaches and related barriers are assessed. Major topics include deficits in housing availability, the role of state-based Medicaid programs, criminalization of homelessness, and the use of emergency declarations seeking to address particular issues related to homelessness in select states and localities.

Mitigating Risks to Pregnant Teens from Zika Virus

Zika infection in pregnant women is associated with an elevated probability of giving birth to a child with microcephaly and multiple other disabilities. Public health messaging on Zika prevention has predominantly targeted women who know they are pregnant or intend to become pregnant, but not teenage females for whom unintended pregnancy is more likely. Vulnerabilities among this population to reproductive risks associated with Zika are further amplified by restrictive abortion laws in several Zika-impacted states. Key to prevention is enhanced, targeted public health messaging centered on teens nationally and particularly in certain high-risk regions.