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 moreFDA Reboots Tobacco Regulation with Harm Reduction
On Friday, July 28, 2017, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb unveiled a revamped approach to tobacco product regulation in an announcement that surprised tobacco companies, investors, and the public health community in equal measure. The goal, as articulated by Gottlieb, will be to regulate products so as to encourage migrating existing consumers from the most lethal combustible tobacco products (i.e., cigarettes) to non-combustible products lower on the continuum of risk.
Read moreMere Exposure to STDs May Not Be Enough to Prove Damages in Usher Case
Three past sexual partners of entertainer Usher are now suing him for allegedly exposing them to genital herpes without their knowledge or consent.
Read moreRecent Study Shows Stronger Firearms Laws Associated with Fewer Fatal Shootings by Police
In 2015 and 2016, at least 2239 people were killed by police in the United States, overwhelmingly by gunshot. But a recent study shows that fatal shootings by police are half as common in states with stricter firearms laws than in those with the most permissive laws.
Read moreRepublicans Failed Because They Have No Idea What Kind of Health Care They Actually Want
Not so long ago, much of the Republican Party stood united in a vision for health care.
Read moreCan Trump Simply Stop Paying Subsidies to Insurance Companies?
In recent days, President Donald Trump announced, via Twitter, that "If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!" He was presumably referring first to cost-sharing reduction subsidy payments to insurance companies required by the Affordable Care Act and, second, to the fact that members of Congress and their staff are required to buy health insurance on the ACA market instead of being allowed on the federal employee health plan. However, unlike most people who purchase insurance via the marketplace, Congressional staffers still receive an employer subsidy. Ending subsidy payments to insurance companies could be catastrophic to the market - so can Trump simply stop paying them?
Read moreHealth Care for Trans Military Members is Not That Expensive
Today, the President tweeted that he is barring all transgender individuals from serving in the military "in any capacity." One justification he claimed was their "tremendous medical costs." But, as STAT points out, "at least two studies in recent years have found that the cost of medical care for transgender service members would be minimal."
Read moreAmicus Brief to U.S. Supreme Court in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman
In 2016, several New York businesses sued the state, claiming that a law prohibiting them from posting about and charging a fee for credit card transactions was an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech. The lower court disagreed and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. As “Constitutional, Administrative, Contracts, and Health Law Scholars,” several George Consortium members filed a brief in support of the state.
Read moreAdvancing Public Health Through the Law: The Role of Legal Academics
In July 2012, 25 legal and public health academics convened a workshop to explore ways in which legal academics can better strengthen engagements with public health practice. The group recognized that the law has always been an integral part of public health, yet legal scholars are too often removed from the front line practice. In order to bridge this disconnect so that practitioners can benefit from and utilize ongoing legal research, the group pledged: (1) to work together to create a narrative counter to the “public responsibility” trope that dominated public health policy discussions; (2) to reduce overreliance on regulation and focus on shaping social norms directly via the law; (3) to assess the balance between targeting at-risk populations while still respecting rights; (4) to bring focused litigation against regulatory capture; (5) to research the impact of law on health; and (6) to bridge silos in order to create a unified front for improving public health.
Read more