The lessons of a crisis are of little use if they are not kept in mind after it has passed.
Read moreExperts discuss mitochondrial replacement therapy and the future of U.S. policy
Last month, The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School organized a panel of academics from around the globe to present their research and perspectives on mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT), a highly controversial treatment that is currently prohibited in the United States.
Read moreStaying in Their Lane: Health Professionals Must Address Gun Violence [from the Hastings Bioethics Forum]
In the wake of the recent Twitter fight between the National Rifle Association and U.S. physician groups over whether doctors should speak out about firearm policy issues, we argue that professionalism actually requires that doctors take a leadership role in gun policy debates, even if (in fact, especially if) doing so is politically fraught and financially harmful to them.
Read morePublic Comment: HHS Proposed Revisions to Title X Funding Regulations
Yesterday, along with the George Consortium and in collaboration with the Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University School of Law, we submitted public comments to the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding proposed revisions to Title X Regulations. We offer a reprint of the comments we submitted.
Read morePublic Health Law Watch Comments on HHS Regulation Proposal: Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights
Public Health Law Watch, joined by our friends at the Public Health Law Center, submitted official comments to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to 45 CFR 88, "Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights; Delegations of Authority." Based on our combined expertise in public health law and policy, we offered comments on five main issues: (1) the lack of evidence that these rule revisions are necessary; (2) the absence of consideration for patients who face refusal of care; (3) the potentially dangerous expansion of existing definitions around “conscience protections;” (4) the potential harm these rules will cause for the LGBTQ population; and (5) the detriment these proposals would cause to reproductive health and rights.
Read moreMaking America Healthy Again: Analyzing Trump's Take on the Social Determinants of Health [from Health Affairs Blog] →
George Consortium member and Northeastern University professor Patricia Illingsworth concludes on the Health Affairs Blog that the Trump administration shows "little interest in addressing the social determinants" of health, such as "education, socioeconomic status, poverty, the physical and social environment, employment, and discrimination, among others..."
Read morePublic Health and the Battle for Local Control
Last year -- over at Notice & Comment -- I blogged about two laws in Arizona that were taking seemed to be extreme forms of state-level preemption. SB 1847 provided that if the state Attorney General concluded that a local government had passed a local law that was preempted by state law, the state could withhold all state funding from the locality. Meanwhile, SB 1524 provided -- in incredibly broad and vague terms -- that a local government "may not take any action that materially increases the regulatory burdens on a business unless there is a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public that has not been addressed by legislation or industry regulation within the proposed regulated field."
Read more