Since its enactment, the Affordable Care Act has faced numerous legal challenges. Many of these lawsuits have focused on implementation of the law and the limits of executive power. Opponents challenged the ACA under the Obama Administration while supporters have turned to the courts to prevent the Trump Administration from undermining the law. In the meantime, Congress remains gridlocked over the ACA and many other critical health policy issues, leaving the executive branch to adopt its preferred policy (...) approach and ultimately leading to lawsuits. This article briefly discusses the history of litigation over the ACA and some reasons why this litigation has been so enduring. The article then identifies other areas of health policy that are or could be future targets for litigation. Finally, the article comments on the potential impact of the courts on future health reform efforts. (shrink)

Ongoing legislative proposals to overhaul United States immigration policy look very much like a new wave of nativism is sweeping the Congress. The movement, mounted in early 1995, is in full swing to limit immigrant populations from arriving, settling, producing, and benefiting as our parents' generations have done. Legislators and the courts are now considering the most complete antiimmigration social legislation since the decades following the First World War.

It was a happy surprise when, overcoming partisan divisions and interest‐group lobbying, Congress enacted the No Surprises Act, which bans unfair out‐of‐network “balance billing.” Although this is only a modest legislative victory, key efforts by the health policy community made a real difference in a time of legislative gridlock.

Medical ethics should show how an adequate description of morality is helpful in dealing with the problems that arise in the context of medical care. However none of the standard moral theories provide such a description. Further, all of these theories assume that there must be a unique correct answer to every moral question, though this answer may be that it is indifferent which of the proposed solutions one picks. The failure to recognize that there are unresolvable moral disagreements leads (...) many philosophers to think that their moral theories will enable them to determine which policies ought to be adopted. However, the correct role for moral theories is more limited: to rule out morally unacceptable policies. Moral theories almost never can settle disputes about which of two well supported health care policies ought to be adopted. (shrink)

When Congress passed HIPAA, it did not intend to constrain public health's data sharing in the same way as clinical or payers. In fact, HIPAA recognizes data sharing with public health as a matter of national priority and shields this function from its reach. However, a health department may offer services that bring it within HIPAA's purview, such as running a Children's Health Insurance Program or a laboratory that bills electronically. When this is the case, HIPAA (...) requires all information and departments be subject to HIPAA unless the public health authority chooses to hybridize. Health departments might re-assess their coverage and elect to become a hybrid entity, thereby restricting HIPAA to only where required and removing barriers to information sharing with communities. (shrink)

From a giant of health care policy, an engaging and enlightening account of why American health care is so expensive -- and why it doesn't have to be. Uwe Reinhardt was a towering figure and moral conscience of health care policy in the United States and beyond. Famously bipartisan, he advised presidents and Congress on health reform and originated central features of the Affordable Care Act. In Priced Out, Reinhardt offers an engaging and enlightening (...) account of today's U.S. health care system, explaining why it costs so much more and delivers so much less than the systems of every other advanced country, why this situation is morally indefensible, and how we might improve it. The problem, Reinhardt says, is not one of economics but of social ethics. There is no American political consensus on a fundamental question other countries settled long ago: to what extent should we be our brothers' and sisters' keepers when it comes to health care? Drawing on the best evidence, he guides readers through the chaotic, secretive, and inefficient way America finances health care, and he offers a penetrating ethical analysis of recent reform proposals. At this point, he argues, the United States appears to have three stark choices: the government can make the rich help pay for the health care of the poor, ration care by income, or control costs. Reinhardt proposes an alternative path: that by age 26 all Americans must choose either to join an insurance arrangement with community-rated premiums, or take a chance on being uninsured or relying on a health insurance market that charges premiums based on health status. An incisive look at the American health care system, Priced Out dispels the confusion, ignorance, myths, and misinformation that hinder effective reform. (shrink)

"The Bush administration and Congress are in concert on the goal of developing a fleet of unmanned aircraft that can reduce both defense costs and aircrew losses in combat by taking on at least the most dangerous combat missions. Unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) will be neither inexpensive enough to be readily expendable nor-- at least in early development-- capable of performing every combat mission alongside or in lieu of manned sorties. Yet the tremendous potential of such systems is widely (...) recognized, and allies as well as potential adversaries are moving quickly to mount their own research and development programs. The United States is committed to fielding UCAV capabilities by 2010, principally for the missions of suppression of enemy air defense and deep strike, which are among the highest risk tasks for the Air Force and naval aviation."--Overview. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Women and Health Research:A Report from the Institute of MedicineAnna C. Mastroianni (bio), Ruth Faden (bio), and Daniel Federman (bio)In recent years, claims have been made by segments of the research community and by women's health advocacy groups that clinical research practices and policies have not benefitted women's health to the same extent as men's health. Central to these claims has been an assertion that (...) women have been inadequately represented as subjects of clinical studies and that as a result neither health conditions unique to women—e.g., menopause—nor women's manifestations of health problems affecting both sexes—e.g., heart disease—have been investigated sufficiently.The scientific community, including federal agencies that sponsor and regulate clinical studies, is increasingly responsive to these claims and is taking steps to raise the level of women's participation in clinical studies. Controversy and concern have surrounded these actions, however. Two of the claims that have been made are: (1) that women are more difficult to study than men because of their cyclical hormonal changes; and (2) that conducting gender-specific subgroup analyses would increase the size of study populations, raise the cost of studies, and thereby reduce the number of studies that could be performed with the limited resources available. In addition, controversy over the inclusion of women of childbearing potential and pregnant women has been particularly salient. Concerns have been expressed about avoiding potential harm to existing or potential fetuses and about the possible legal and financial ramifications of such harm. A further concern involves the perceived difficulties in enrolling women in studies and retaining them for the duration of the studies.Against this backdrop, the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in October 1992 to establish the Committee on the Ethical and Legal Issues Relating to the Inclusion of Women in Clinical Studies. The Committee's charge was to: (1) consider the ethical and legal implications of including women, particularly pregnant women and women of childbearing potential, in clinical studies; (2) examine known instances of litigation regarding injuries to research subjects [End Page 55] and describe existing legal liabilities and protections; and (3) provide practical advice on these issues for consideration by NIH, institutional review boards (IRBs), and clinical investigators.The 16 Committee members came from diverse backgrounds: bioethics, law, epidemiology and biostatistics, public health policy, obstetrics and gynecology, clinical research, pharmaceutical development, social and behavioral sciences, and clinical evaluative sciences.1 Chaired by two of the authors of this article, Ruth Faden and Daniel Federman, and coordinated by the third, IOM Study Director Anna Mastroianni, the Committee met five times over a fourteen-month period, convened a one-and-one-half day invitational workshop, and commissioned several background papers. The Committee's deliberations were complicated by the announcement of new federal policies late in its term. Specifically, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidelines (FDA 1993) to replace its 1977 guidelines, which prohibited the inclusion of women of childbearing potential in early phases of most clinical drug trials. In addition, Congress passed the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-43), which contains provisions mandating the inclusion of women and racial and ethnic minorities in NIH-sponsored clinical research. In February 1994, the IOM Committee publicly issued its final report and recommendations, Women and Health Research: Ethical and Legal Issues of Including Women in Clinical Studies, publishing the workshop presentations and commissioned papers in a separate volume.Deliberations of the CommitteeA number of issues arose at the outset as the Committee considered its charge. A few members initially believed that verification of the underrepresentation of women relative to men in clinical studies as a whole was a prerequisite to providing policy recommendations. Others believed that such an examination would be an important contribution to the knowledge base, but that it was not necessary for addressing the Committee's charge. As summarized in the Committee's report, the Committee's research indicated that firm conclusions about the relative underrepresentation of women could not be drawn from the available data because of the lack of systematic information... (shrink)

American policymakers and health policy analysts have a love-hate relationship with job-based health insurance. The policy press routinely runs articles about the demise of the current system of voluntary employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. Conservatives argue that it ought to be replaced with individually purchased insurance, such as tax-favored spending accounts. Liberals assert that government insurance ought to supplant it. Meanwhile, as the debate rages on about the future of employer coverage, states and the federal government (...) pass legislation buttressing and building on the existing employment-based system. Congress, in its recent Medicare reform legislation, not only extended publicly-financed prescription drug benefits to elderly Americans but also offered employers tax incentives to keep providing the prescription drug benefits they offer to their retirees. There is nothing new about this debate, nor the conflict in views it represents. Since its origins in the 1930s, employment-based coverage has been viewed with skepticism. Nonetheless, nearly three-quarters of a century later, the vast majority of Americans under 65 who have health insurance, and about 38 percent of those 65 and older who continue to hold private health insurance coverage supplemental to Medicare, obtain it through their current jobs (or in the case of retired workers, former jobs). The model of privately-sponsored and voluntary employment-based coverage is hardly anyone’s ideal of health system design, but it is a nearly unanimous second choice. (shrink)

In Righting Health Policy, MacDougall argues that bioethics has not developed the tools best suited for justifying health law and policy. Using Kant’s practical philosophy as an example, he explores the promise of political philosophy for making normatively justified recommendations about health law and policy.

Recent policy debates in the US over access to mental health care have raised several philosophically complex ethical and conceptual issues. The defeat of mental health parity legislation in the US Congress has brought new urgency and relevance to theoretical and empirical investigations into the nature of mental illness and its relation to other forms of sickness and disability. Manifold, nebulous, and often competing conceptions of mental illness make the creation of coherent public policy exceedingly difficult. (...) Referencing a variety of approaches to ethical reflection on health care, and drawing from the empirical literature on therapeutic efficacy and economic efficiency, we argue that differential rationing, ‘disparity,’ is unjustifiable. (shrink)

Finding “common ground” to fix some of the policy problems with the ACA was never expected to be easy. How challenging depends on the election outcome. With split government or even same party control of the Congress and White House but without a supermajority in the Senate, fixing identifiable problems requires remedies that might garner bipartisan cooperation. Some potential strategies that might meet this requirement are described.

I Conceptual Foundations Ethical problems emerging from modern medical technology have been evaluated on an issue-by-issue basis. ...

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Working on the Clinton Administration's Health Care Reform Task ForceNancy Neveloff Dubler (bio)This narrative is based on my understanding of the elements of the Health Security Act that may have ethical implications. I have reconstructed these elements from my experience on the Health Care Reform Task Force and they are part of the health care plan that the President presented to Congress. (At the time (...) this article went to press, the actual legislation, which should answer my remaining specific questions more clearly, had not yet been released.) I perceive the most important features of the plan to be:• The legislation will create a "right" to health care for all citizens—access to care will be universal;• The plan will involve some form of managed competition in which groups of providers (called Approved or Accredited Health Plans (AHPs)) will offer comparable benefit packages at slightly (or widely) different costs;• The AHPs will negotiate with the Health Alliance (HA) to determine the price that they will charge their consumer-patients;• There will be open enrollment with no barriers to coverage, such as exclusions for pre-existing conditions;• Community rating will be in effect in different localities and enrolled persons in any AHP will pay the same premium;• The coverage for any enrolled person will be portable;• The overall structure will be a cooperative federal/state enterprise in which the states will have quite extensive abilities to fashion variations of the basic plan to meet their particular needs;• Primary care will be encouraged and incentives for physicians to train in primary care specialties provided;• Non-physician providers will be central to the functioning of the health care plans;• Efforts will be made to develop a "person power" pool so that people with an abstract "right" to health care will have real access to providers, in their localities, who can fulfill the promise that the right creates; [End Page 421]• The goal of cost containment will be central to the organization and regulation of the system;• Administrative simplicity and quality protections will be central.Co-chairing the Bioethics Working Group (BWG) of the White House Task Force on Health Care Reform was a unique experience. Approximately 40 Task Force working groups were established by Hillary Rodham Clinton, the President, and the senior Task Force staff. Various members of the President's office and other knowledgeable members of the Executive Branch selected the participants. In our group, appointments were made largely on the recommendations of the co-chairs. The BWG, among the last of the groups formed, carried the official name "The Working Group on the Ethical Foundations of the New System" and was jointly led by me and Marion Gray Secundy, a Professor of Bioethics at Howard University. The fact that the leadership of the Task Force saw fit to establish such a group, thereby confirming that bioethics is a player in the arena of health care policy, was in itself significant and was made no less so by the lack of clarity regarding the group's aims and goals.The working groups of the Task Force were organized into clusters, determined by the relatedness of the somewhat distinct, but always overlapping, content of their investigations. Separate clusters and working groups, for example, looked at mental health, long term care, and the benefit package and coverage for low-income and non-working families. On this last issue there was also a working group that explored health policy initiatives for underserved populations. This multiple focus on related issues proved to be an excellent method for ensuring that the complexity of these topics was sufficiently explored. There was a published schedule for when these groups met together, and members of other groups who had similar or overlapping concerns were invited to attend and to participate.Every week or so, all of the working groups reported to the Task Force leadership, under the direction of Ira Magaziner, in a process called a "tollgate." Prior to the tollgate, the working groups were required to submit formal written analyses of the problems they had most recently been considering. Copies of these documents were placed in a special room so that those who were interested could review... (shrink)

It should come as no surprise to any observer of health policy debates that the preemption provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act will play a major role in determining the contours of any health reform initiative. For the past few years, many states have been aggressively pursuing health reform experiments, while congressional action has essentially been deadlocked along partisan political lines. Yet after the 2008 election results, there is reason to expect considerable congressional attention (...) to health reform. President Obama has made health reform a priority of his administration, and several members of Congress have long been waiting for an opportunity to pursue health reform legislation. (shrink)

Presidential power has provoked increasingly vigorous debate since the turn of this century. In recent years, scholars and lawyers have been grappling with how Congress’s dictates may limit the president’s Commander-in-Chief power to detain enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, to fight wars abroad, and to conduct intelligence activities at home. But policymakers have not yet explored the many possibilities for invoking the president’s “Take Care” power to change health care policy.This article explores the scope and limits of President (...) Barack Obama’s ability to invoke his executive authority to reform health care. Specifically, it identifies ways the Obama Administration can use directives to: expand Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program coverage through section 1115 waivers; test quality initiatives through Medicare demonstration authority; expand health information technology; allow drug reimportation and experiment with contracting power under Medicare; enhance patient protections and private coverage requirements; lift coverage restrictions on Medicaid and SCHIP; and build on the health insurance program for federal employees. Consistent with the mission of the Legal Solutions in Health Reform project, this article does not endorse a particular policy. Instead of recommending “what,” it explains “how.”. (shrink)

In 1996 Congress passed the Dickey–Wicker Amendment as part of an appropriations bill; it has been renewed every year since. The DWA bans federal funding for research using embryos and parthenotes. In this paper, we call for a public discussion on parthenote research and a questioning of its inclusion in the DWA. We begin by explaining what parthenotes are and why they are useful for research on reproduction, cancer, and stem cells. We then argue that the scientific difference between embryos (...) and parthenotes translates into ethical differences, and claim that research on parthenotes is much less ethically problematic. Finally, we contextualize the original passage of the DWA to provide an explanation for why the two were possibly conflated in this law. We conclude by calling for a public discussion on reconsidering the DWA in its entirety, starting with the removal of parthenogenesis from this prohibition of National Institutes of Health funding. (shrink)

Policy officials often assert that the U.S. has the best health care system in the world, but a recent scorecard on U.S. health system performance finds that the U.S. achieves a score of only 65 out of a possible 100 points on key indicators of performance in five key domains: healthy lives, access, quality, equity, and efficiency, where 100 represents the best achieved performance in other countries or within the U.S. The U.S. should aim higher by adopting (...) a set of policies that will extend affordable health insurance to all; align financial incentives for health care providers to enhance value and achieve savings; organize the health care system around the patient to ensure that care is accessible and coordinated; meet and raise benchmarks for high-quality, efficient care; and ensure accountable national leadership and public-private collaboration. The incoming president and Congress should aspire to have the best health system in the world — not just assert it — and can do so by learning from examples of excellence within the U.S. and abroad. (shrink)

Despite some improvements in access to evidence-based medications for opioid use disorder, treatment rates remain low at under a quarter of those with need. High costs for brand name products in these medication markets have limited the volume of drugs purchased, particularly through public health insurance and grant programs. Brand firm anti-competitive practices around the leading buprenorphine product Suboxone — including product hops, citizen petitions and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy abuses — helped to maintain high prices by extending (...) brand exclusivity periods and hindering generic drug entry. Remedies to address costly anti-competitive activities include adoption of the proposed CREATES Act and modernization of the Hatch-Waxman Act by the Congress, and implementation of substantive modifications to the Food and Drug Administration citizen petition filing procedures. Given the persistence of these abuses, prescriptive changes are favorable to the procedural and clarifying steps thus far favored by the federal government. Extrapolating from the 37% price declines attributable to generic entry for buprenorphine tablets in 2011, our calculations suggest that implementing these remedies to facilitate generic competition with Suboxone film would have resulted in savings of approximately $703 million overall and $203 million to Medicaid in 2017. (shrink)

Why, when confronted with policy alternatives that could improve patient care, public health, and the economy, does Congress neglect those goals and tailor legislation to suit the interests of pharmaceutical corporations? In brief, for generations, the pharmaceutical industry has convinced legislators to define policy problems in ways that protect its profit margin. It reinforces this framework by selectively providing information and by targeting campaign contributions to influential legislators and allies. In this way, the industry displaces the public's (...) voice in developing pharmaceutical policy. Unless citizens mobilize to confront the political power of pharmaceutical firms, objectionable industry practices and public policy will not change. Yet we need to refine this analysis. I propose a research agenda to uncover pharmaceutical influence. It develops the theory of dependence corruption to explain how the pharmaceutical industry is able to deflect the broader interests of the general public. It includes empirical studies of lobbying and campaign finance to uncover the means drug firms use to: (1) shape the policy framework adopted and information used to analyze policy; (2) subsidize the work of political allies; and (3) influence congressional voting. (shrink)

The paper addresses the question of how different types of evidence ought to inform public health policy. By analysing case studies on obesity, the paper draws lessons about the different roles that different types of evidence play in setting up public health policies. More specifically, it is argued that evidence of difference-making supports considerations about ‘what works for whom in what circumstances’, and that evidence of mechanisms provides information about the ‘causal pathways’ to intervene upon.

Despite the international interest in priority setting as an important tool for health policy, there has been comparatively little interest in the setting of research priorities. One of the few places where there has been such an interest is at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States. Under pressure from Congress to explain its priority setting process, the NIH has tried to explain the criteria and process it uses. The NIH procedure is described, and (...) the problems created by the criteria it uses are analyzed. Although it uses the language of priority setting, it is uncertain whether it does have a real method of setting priorities. Nonetheless, despite the lack of a method, the results of its work are lauded. In the long run, however, NIH will need a more rigorous method of setting priorities. (shrink)

COVID19 pandemic has clarified that public health policies are central for the future of human societies from several perspectives. As a matter of fact, they are based on certain premises that are practical-political (e.g., ensuring the health of citizens), moral (e.g., health is a value), or epistemological (e.g., certain ideas concerning expertise and shared knowledge). Indeed, effective policies require first and foremost not only to be based on reliable data and models (i.e., so-called evidence-based policy) but (...) also to ensure that these policies are democratically accepted, shared (e.g., considering both cognitive and social dimensions), and hopefully formed after a deliberative process involving experts from various fields alongside citizens. (shrink)

Plato put housing second only to a secure food supply in the order of business of an emerging polis [Republic 2.369d); we argue, without quibbling over rank, that adequate housing ought to have fundamental priority, with health and education, in civil societies' planning, budgets, and legislative agendas. Something made explicit in the Platonic Laws, and often reiterated by today's poor — but as often forgotten by bureaucrats— is that human wellbeing, eudaimonia, is impossible for the homeless. That is, adequate (...) housing is valuable to human societies independently of its instrumental role in supporting the safety, health, and education of the populace. Currently, governments all too frequently end up undermining their own health and education programs as a direct result of neglecting the housing needs of the poor. Finally, we argue that governments ought now to be using the low-cost ways that already exist to provide, or to promote the provision of, better housing for their increasingly urbanized populations; further, even in those circumstances where it is necessary to subsidize housing, governments' most important role is to develop just regulatory and enforcement systems within which public- and private-sector investment can operate. (shrink)

Plato put housing second only to a secure food supply in the order of business of an emerging polis [Republic 2.369d); we argue, without quibbling over rank, that adequate housing ought to have fundamental priority, with health and education, in civil societies' planning, budgets, and legislative agendas. Somethingmade explicit in the Platonic Laws, and often reiterated by today's poor — but as often forgotten by bureaucrats— is that human wellbeing, eudaimonia, is impossible for the homeless. That is, adequate housing (...) is valuable to human societies independently of its instrumental role in supporting the safety, health, and education of the populace. Currently, governments all too frequently end up undermining their own health and education programs as a direct result of neglecting the housing needs of the poor. Finally, we argue that governments ought now to be using the low-cost ways that already exist to provide, or to promote the provision of, better housing for their increasingly urbanized populations; further, even in those circumstances where it is necessary to subsidize housing, governments' most important role is to develop just regulatory and enforcement systems within which public- and private-sector investment can operate. (shrink)

This paper discusses three cultural narratives that threaten the health of people with intellectual/developmental disabilities (IDD) and which have become more evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. These meta-narratives are the medical model of health/disability; the population health approach to health inequalities; and policies premised on the assumption of the importance of national economic growth as an incentive for reducing health inequalities. Evidence exists that health research is more likely to become policy if it (...) fits within a medical model and addresses national economic growth. These two criteria are particularly problematic for people who have IDD. The paper also proposes a research model to facilitate the inclusion of IDD related issues in future policy regarding health inequalities. (shrink)

Can Congress require AIDS service organizations to pledge fidelity to the government's view opposing prostitution as a condition of receiving funding? This term, the Supreme Court will decide whether the First Amendment permits such censorship in USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International (AOSI). The 2008 legislation reauthorizing the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) requires host countries to support “activities promoting abstinence, delay of sexual début, monogamy, and fidelity.” PEPFAR's “conscience clause” allows organizations with a moral or religious (...) objection to opt out of providing services to patients with a sexual orientation of which they disapprove. In addition, the law requires grantees to adopt “a policy explicitly opposing prostitution” and to refrain from any speech or activities the government deems “inconsistent” with that policy. The antiprostitution pledge extends not only to what a recipient says or does with PEPFAR funds, but even to what it says or does with its own private funds. The government, however, has not enforced the pledge against U.S.‐based nongovernmental organizations partly because of a preliminary injunction granted by the lower courts. That injunction is now at risk if the Supreme Court upholds the loyalty oath. (shrink)

Effective November 1, 2002, the federal Department of Health and Human Services reclassified developing fetuses as “unborn children,” thereby providing health insurance benefits for prenatal care under the State Children's Health Insurance Program. By broadening the current definition of “child” —and thus expanding SCHIP insurance coverage — DHHS hopes to increase the number of low-income pregnant women who receive prenatal services. As noted by one commentator, the new rule represents the first time “any federal policy has (...) defined childhood as beginning at conception.”In an attempt to improve access to publicly funded health insurance for poor children not covered by Medicaid, Congress established SCHIP a 10-year, $40 billion program jointly funded by federal and state governments. Through a series of block grants, SCHIP allows states to either expand income-eligibility for their existing Medicaid program or to create a separate child health program to decrease the number of uninsured poor and near-poor children. (shrink)

Effective November 1, 2002, the federal Department of Health and Human Services reclassified developing fetuses as “unborn children,” thereby providing health insurance benefits for prenatal care under the State Children's Health Insurance Program. By broadening the current definition of “child” —and thus expanding SCHIP insurance coverage — DHHS hopes to increase the number of low-income pregnant women who receive prenatal services. As noted by one commentator, the new rule represents the first time “any federal policy has (...) defined childhood as beginning at conception.”In an attempt to improve access to publicly funded health insurance for poor children not covered by Medicaid, Congress established SCHIP a 10-year, $40 billion program jointly funded by federal and state governments. Through a series of block grants, SCHIP allows states to either expand income-eligibility for their existing Medicaid program or to create a separate child health program to decrease the number of uninsured poor and near-poor children. (shrink)

This second edition of International Public Health Policy and Ethics complements the popular first edition with contemporary problems in international public health. It brings together philosophers and practitioners to address the foundations and principles upon which public health policy may be advanced – especially in the international arena. What is the basis that justifies public health in the first place? Why should individuals be disadvantaged for the sake of the group? How do policy (...) concerns and clinical practice work together and work against each other? Can the boundaries of public health be extended to include social ills that are amenable to group-dynamic solutions? What about political issues? How can international finance make an impact? These are some of the crucial questions that form the core of this volume of original essays sure to cause practitioners to engage in a critical re-evaluation of the role of ethics in public health policy. With a targeted new essay dealing with COVID and public health issues in Africa this second edition provides a resource building on the first edition. (shrink)

Public Health Policy and Ethics brings together philosophers and practitioners to address the foundations and principles upon which public health policy may be advanced. What is the basis that justifies public health in the first place? Why should individuals be disadvantaged for the sake of the group? How do policy concerns and clinical practice work together and work against each other? Can the boundaries of public health be extended to include social ills that (...) are amenable to group-dynamic solutions? These are some of the crucial questions that form the core of this volume of original essays sure to cause practitioners to engage in a critical re-evaluation of the role of ethics in public health policy. This volume is unique because of its philosophical approach. It develops a theoretical basis for public health and then examines cutting-edge issues of practice that include social and political issues of public health. In this way the book extends the usual purview of public health. Public Health Policy and Ethics is of interest to those working in public health policy, ethics and social philosophy. It may be used as a textbook for courses on public health policy and ethics, medical ethics, social philosophy and applied or public philosophy. (shrink)

In contrast to analyses that regard health policy and industrial policy as anathema to each other, either because an emphasis on health implies neglect of industry or because gains in industrialization come at the expense of health, we show positive synergies between the two realms. Government intervention into the health sector can catalyze interventions to promote industrial development in the pharmaceutical sector, which in turn can make health policies more effective. We focus on (...) two pathways by which health policies can trigger industrial policies. A demand-driven pathway entails government commitments in health revealing weaknesses and deficiencies in pharmaceutical production, and thus inspiring efforts to build capabilities to stabilize the flow of drugs to the public sector. A regulation-induced pathway consists of sanitary policies revealing mismatches between what is required for firms to continue to participate in the market and pharmaceutical producers’ prevailing levels of capabilities, and government measures then being developed and deployed to address the mismatch. We demonstrate both pathways with the case of Brazil. (shrink)

Functional foods are a challenge tofood health policies, since they questioncentral ideas in the way that food healthpolicies have been developed over the lastdecades. Driven by market actors instead ofpublic authorities and focusing on the role ofsingle foods and single constituents in foodsfor health, they contrast traditional wisdombehind nutrition policies that emphasize therole of the diet as a whole for health.Sociological literature about food in everydaylife shows that technical rationality co-existswith other food related rationalities, such aspractical and (...) economic rationalities, socialand relational rationalities, and symbolicrationalities that influence citizens' ordinaryeating habits. An examination of lay views onexpert knowledge about food and health showthat skepticism exists with respect to thebasis of and balance of expert advice. Critical points with respect to how functionalfoods may influence routines in the populationswith relevance for public health include thefact, that they promote a way of thinking offood and health that is in conflict withwell-established practical ways of ensuring abalanced diet. (shrink)

Zika virus was recognised in 2016 as an important vector-borne cause of congenital malformations and Guillain-Barré syndrome, during a major epidemic in Latin America, centred in Northeastern Brazil. The WHO and Pan American Health Organisation, with partner agencies, initiated a coordinated global response including public health intervention and urgent scientific research, as well as ethical analysis as a vital element of policy design. In this paper, we summarise the major ethical issues raised during the Zika epidemic, highlighting (...) the PAHO ethics guidance and the role of ethics in emergency responses, before turning to ethical issues that are yet to be resolved. Zika raises traditional bioethical issues related to reproduction, prenatal diagnosis of serious malformations and unjust disparities in health outcomes. But the epidemic has also highlighted important issues of growing interest in public health ethics, such as the international spread of infectious disease; the central importance of reproductive healthcare in preventing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality; diagnostic and reporting biases; vector control and the links between vectors, climate change, and disparities in the global burden of disease. Finally, there are controversies regarding Zika vaccine research and eventual deployment. Zika virus was a neglected disease for over 50 years before the outbreak in Brazil. As it continues to spread, public health agencies should promote gender equity and disease control efforts in Latin America, while preparing for the possibility of a global epidemic. (shrink)

This paper argues against incorporating assessments of individual responsibility into healthcare policies by expanding an existing argument and offering a rebuttal to an argument in favour of such policies. First, it is argued that what primarily underlies discussions surrounding personal responsibility and healthcare is not causal responsibility, moral responsibility or culpability, as one might expect, but biases towards particular highly stigmatised behaviours. A challenge is posed for proponents of taking personal responsibility into account within health policy to either (...) expand the debate to also include socially accepted behaviours or to provide an alternative explanation of the narrowly focused discussion. Second, a critical response is offered to arguments that claim that policies based on personal responsibility would lead to several positive outcomes including healthy behaviour change, better health outcomes and decreases in healthcare spending. It is argued that using individual responsibility as a basis for resource allocation in healthcare is unlikely to motivate positive behaviour changes, and is likely to increase inequality which may lead to worse health outcomes overall. Finally, the case of West Virginia's Medicaid reform is examined, which raises a worry that policies focused on personal responsibility have the potential to lead to increases in medical spending overall. (shrink)

The division of interests in key health policy areas are not necessarily between rich and poor countries, but between pharmaceutical industry interests and health policy interests on the one hand, and national industrial and trade policy interests and public health policies on the other.

Using 2021 data and information related to COVID‐19, this paper discusses the contribution of colonization, medical mistrust and racism to vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy is defined as ‘delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability’. Colonization is described as the ‘way the extractive economic system of capitalism came to the United States, supported by systems of supremacy and domination, which are a necessary part of keeping the wealth and power accumulated in the hands of the colonizers and ultimately their (...) financiers’. The system of colonization results in policies and practices, including those related to health, that continue to create oppression and support racism. Persons experience trauma as the byproduct of colonization. Chronic stress and trauma create chronic inflammation and all diseases, whether genetic or lifestyle, have a common pathogenesis that is a component of inflammation. Medical mistrust is the absence of trust that healthcare providers and organizations genuinely care for patients' interests, are honest, practice confidentiality and have the competence to produce the best possible results. Finally, racism is described as everyday racism and perceived racism in healthcare. (shrink)

Over the last century, droughts have caused more deaths internationally than any other weather- or climate-related disaster. Like other natural disasters, droughts cause significant changes in the environment that can lead to negative health outcomes. As droughts are becoming more frequent and intense with climate change, public health systems need to address impacts associated with these events. Partnering with federal and local entities, we evaluated the state of knowledge of drought and health in the United States through (...) a National Drought and Public Health Summit and a series of subsequent regional workshops. The intended outcome was to develop public health strategies for implementing activities to better support and prepare public health systems for future droughts. The information gathered from this work identified multiple policy and law options to address the public health issues associated with drought. These policy recommendations include the use of public health emergency declarations for drought events, increased usage of preparedness evaluations for drought emergencies, and engagement of drought and climate experts in state and local risk assessments. As drought events are projected to increase in frequency and magnitude with climate change, taking policy action now will help decrease the health impacts of drought and save lives. (shrink)

Critics of international trade agreements often cast them as threats to human health, and they can point to some sobering warnings from world history. Infectious diseases have swept across political boundaries, carried by traders, colonists, and other agents of globalization. Transnational epidemics have laid economies low, undermining political stability. The spread of viruses and bacteria to peoples previously unexposed and therefore lacking immunity has decimated populations and changed the political course of continents. Trade, exploration, and warfare have repeatedly produced (...) encounters between peoples at different levels of agricultural and technological development. Often, the results have been devastating for the disadvantaged group — economic marginalization, loss of sovereignty and culture, and collapse of public health. Yet the rise of civilization — plant and animal domestication, division of labor, technology, and resulting prosperity — was powered in large part by movement of products and knowledge along routes of trade and migration. (shrink)

Critics of international trade agreements often cast them as threats to human health, and they can point to some sobering warnings from world history. Infectious diseases have swept across political boundaries, carried by traders, colonists, and other agents of globalization. Transnational epidemics have laid economies low, undermining political stability. The spread of viruses and bacteria to peoples previously unexposed and therefore lacking immunity has decimated populations and changed the political course of continents. Trade, exploration, and warfare have repeatedly produced (...) encounters between peoples at different levels of agricultural and technological development. Often, the results have been devastating for the disadvantaged group — economic marginalization, loss of sovereignty and culture, and collapse of public health. Yet the rise of civilization — plant and animal domestication, division of labor, technology, and resulting prosperity — was powered in large part by movement of products and knowledge along routes of trade and migration. (shrink)

The rock climber and the law share in a common etymological allusion when each reaches a steep, high, and hard place. The climber “appeals” to the mountain by inching down on a rope and the law's “rappel” is similarly a route to more comfortable footing. Each step in this common process is germane to the eventual resolution, for it is to be found in the rappel process itself and in the meaning of each appeal.

American Health Decisions, a movement that started in Oregon, has spread to several other states. Through the media and widespread public discussion, the projects aim to increase public awareness about the individual and societal dimensions of ethical choices in health care.

In recent work, Norman Daniels extends the application of Rawls's principle of ‘fair equality of opportunity’ from health care to health proper. Crucial to that account is the view that health care, and now also health, is special. Daniels also claims that a rival theory of distributive justice, namely luck egalitarianism (or ‘equal opportunity for welfare’), cannot provide an adequate account of justice in health and health care. He argues that the application of that (...) theory to health policy would result in an account that is, in a sense, too narrow, for it denies treatment to imprudent patients (e.g. lung cancer patients who smoked). In a different sense, Daniels argues, luck egalitarian health policy would be too wide: it arguably tells us to treat individuals for such brute-luck conditions as shyness, stupidity, ugliness, and having the ‘wrong’ skin colour. I seek to advance three claims in response to Daniels's revised theory, and in defence of a luck egalitarian view of health policy. First, I question Daniels's assertion regarding the specialness of health. While he is right to abandon his insistence on the specialness of health care, it is doubtful that health proper can be depicted as special. Second, I try and meet Daniels's objections to luck egalitarianism. Luck egalitarian health policy escapes being too narrow for it does not in fact require denying basic care to imprudent patients. As for it being allegedly too wide, I try to show that it is not, after all, counterintuitive to rid individuals of unfortunate and disadvantageous biological traits (say, a disadvantageous skin colour). And third, I question whether Daniels's own Rawlsian account is in fact wide enough. I argue that fair equality of opportunity fails to justify some standard medical procedures that many health systems do already practice. (shrink)

The era of managed care has arrived with portents of a new calculus to integrate cost and quality in health services. These devises such as “report cards” and “outcome measures” place performance against expectations and thus are expected to gauge the value of specific elements of healthcare delivery. From such measures and comparisons, the public will be able to better judge the appropriate, effective, and attractive place to seek their medical services. What is now widely used by utilization review, (...) guiding reimbursement decisions and allowances for the length of hospital stays, will soon have a more prosperous future as general guidelines built into the very framework of managed care agreements. (shrink)