Promoting and protecting the public's health in the United States and abroad are intricately tied to laws and policies. Laws provide support for public health measures, authorize specific actions among public and private actors, and empower public health officials. Laws can also inhibit or restrict efforts designed to improve communal health through protections for individual rights or structural principles of government. Advancing the health of populations through law is complex and subject to constant tradeoffs. This column seeks to explore the role of law in the interests of public health through scholarly and applied assessments across a spectrum of key issues. The first of these assessments focuses on a critical topic in emergency legal preparedness.

Nurses have traditionally encouraged people to live, regardless of the meaning or consequences of continued life for the client. Despair profound enough to lead to a suicide attempt is viewed as an illness that must be cured. Nurses, as well as physicians, subscribe to the maxim primum non nocere (first, do no harm), although it may not be as clearly articulated in the canons of the nursing profession as it is in those of medicine. Nurses, for the most part, operate under the belief that suicide is always both mentally unhealthy and morally wrong; thus all efforts are made to prevent suicide. The idea that life is good and worthwhile and must be preserved at all costs applies to a wide variety of clients, including those who engage in behaviors that will probably lead to serious illness or death (e.g., overeating, smaoking, and suicide).

The United States wastes approximately 40% of its food supply. This article will examine the implications of this waste for food insecurity and climate change. It will also explore how the law and social entrepreneurship can be used to confront this public health challenge.

This article examines the past, present, and future of individual market policies in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It does so, first, by reviewing the law's goals, scope, and set of individual market policies, collectively called the Health Insurance Marketplace. The Marketplace, along with the ACA's Medicaid expansion, was designed to fill in gaps to provide all Americans with accessible, affordable coverage. Second, it reviews evidence on the law's impact to date, including changes under a new administration. Third, it discusses the three main policy options for the Marketplace: do nothing, build on it, or replace it. Lastly, it discusses the factors which could determine which pathway policy makers follow.

Physician incompetence and impairment have become one of the most controversial issues of recent years in the health care industry. Legislators, attorneys, and the general public have become actively involved in an area which had previously been within the exclusive (and oftentimes clandestine) province of hospital administrators and medical staffs. As a result of increasing public awareness, the informal and unstructured system of the past has been transformed into a more organized, results-oriented, and equitable approach to a problem which, many now realize, cannot be ignored.

Several state legislatures have enacted statutory provisions relating to the investigation and reporting of incompetent physicians. Some, like New York, have begun working closely with the state medical societies to ensure what these physicians are not only disciplined, but also treated and made to realize that their impairment can be resolved by cooperating with those who want to help. Other states, like Massachusetts, have devised regimented reporting requirements, but have overlooked the need for early investigations of, and assistance to, impaired physicians.

As of July 1, 2008, females aged 11-26 years seeking status as permanent residents in the United States must produce documentation that they have received the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine before the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will approve their status adjustment. Immigration rights activists and public health officials have objected to this new requirement on the grounds that it is unnecessary and imposes unreasonable barriers to lawful immigration due to its expense. The Supreme Court has generally upheld mandatory vaccination requirements for citizens and non-citizens and has tolerated federal immigration regulations that would be unconstitutional if applied to citizens. However, the HPV vaccination requirement may be arbitrary, unnecessary, and discriminatory as applied to green card applicants who pose no greater threat to public health than citizens who are not subject to the same requirements. Furthermore, the requirement may also impose unreasonable restraints on aliens individual liberties as well as real barriers to immigration.

In the Winter 2017 edition of JLME, Dr. Carson outlined an economic approach to the epidemiology of HIV transmission within the gay community, with a special emphasis on mobile apps. His conclusion is that HIV transmission amongst the gay community constitutes a collective action problem, which is resolved by the social norm of using a condom. This article critiques Dr. Carson's approach from an economic perspective. By utilizing classic law and economic theory, this article will argue that HIV transmission may not, in fact, constitute a collective action problem in economic terms, and that instead condom use as a method of disease protection in theory can arise from purely rational, market driven actions. To do so, it borrows from transactional theory of information asymmetry to show the potential to alert counterparts as to serostatus. This conclusion provides an important supplement to Carson: rather than social norms being the core driver in condom usage to prevent HIV, instead condom use may arise solely as a result of rational, private decision making arising from market signaling. The article then critiques its own findings to demonstrate that it is unclear whether Carson's argument or the argument in this paper is, indeed, correct — which may represent a limitation in the analytical techniques advanced.

It has been estimated that in the United States some twenty thousand babies are born through artificial insemination by donor (AID) each year. With the startling new advances in reproductive technology, or what has been termed collaborative conception, it is now possible for a child to have up to five parents: an egg donor, a sperm donor, a surrogate mother who gestates the fetus, and the couple who actually raises the child. What we now face, then—not only in considering the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision In re Baby M but in the whole area of the new reproductive biology—is, in the words of a popular columnist, a mess.

Interestingly, the enormity of this complex, multiparent scenario—which Kerns to be on its way to becoming a reality with Baby M and its anticipated progeny—was totally lost on Mary Beth Whitchead. I just can't see how four peeple loving [Baby M], five people loving her, can hurt her, she said recently.

In 1970, when Congress was debating the Occupational Safety and Health Act, it was argued that:

Congress cited some grim statistics necessitating vigorous action:

The human tragedy associated with the loss of lives, adverse health impacts, and serious injuries were the focus of legislative hearings, but Congess also addressed the economic impact of industrial deaths and disability.

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or the Act) into law. ACA aims to improve access to care and health outcomes through a number of mechanisms, including requiring most individuals to carry health insurance, prohibiting insurers from denying health insurance coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and creating exchanges through which individuals and families not eligible for employer- or government-sponsored health insurance may purchase coverage. While the Act is aimed primarily at improving individual health by increasing access to health insurance, it also contains a number of provisions targeted directly at improving health at the population level. Most of these provisions, which encompass a variety of disease prevention and access-to-care initiatives, are found in ACA Title IV.

The next steps in health reform, like all such efforts before it, will have to engage the issue of American health care federalism – the relationship between the federal and state governments in the realm of health law and policy. Since its enactment in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has offered a robust example of modern federalism and revealed new complexities. This article recounts the findings of our five-year study of the federalist and nationalist features of ACA implementation. Contrary to the claims of ACA opponents that the law marked a federal “takeover,” the ACA's governance structures have advanced rather than suppressed state power. But we also found that the advances in state power occurred seemingly independently of the statute's structural arrangements; that is, the ACA's nationalist and federalist features both enhanced state power over health policy. These findings raise questions about whether cherished American federalism values are unique to federalist structures; they also raise the question of what exactly health care federalism is for, and why we continue to design health policy with federalism front and center. It is not clear that enhanced state power has brought better health policy. If it has not, is federalism for its own sake worth the trade-off?

In principle, mandatory vaccination in employment could be justified in certain circumstances. These include: (1) the availability of safe and effective vaccination; (2) if alternative, less coercive strategies did not work; and, (3) the costs to the individual were proportionate. However, in COVID-19, the long term safety of vaccines is yet to be established. Vaccines should be made available by employers, and voluntary vaccination encouraged.