Why are COVID-19 mitigation strategies successful in reducing infections in some cases but not in others? Existing studies of individual policies tend to neglect the many interaction effects that arise when multiple policies are enacted simultaneously. Particularly, if a socially undesirable behavior has a close (and equally problematic) substitute, then a prohibition of that behavior will simply cause people to switch to the substitute, resulting in no effect on infections. However, joint policies that prohibit both the targeted behavior and the substitute will create a positive interaction effect, which closes the loophole. Respectively, behaviors that are complements (rather than substitutes) can be discouraged by prohibiting one behavior because this discourages complementary behaviors as well.

We provide a new argument for why COVID-19 policies can fail and why the evaluation of such policies may be incorrect: policies are effective only when they reduce infections as a general equilibrium, accounting not only for the targeted behavior but also for interaction effects.

We illustrate our arguments by applying insights from traditional and behavioral law and economics to several examples. Thereby, we highlight regulators’ challenge when facing interaction effects and factors such as social norms and time preferences.

This Article tackles the critical problem of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and provides a normative framework for legal policies to address such hesitancy in the ongoing pandemic. The foundation of this Article rests in decision-making theories that allow policymakers to understand individual misperception of risk as compared to evidence-based assessment of risk. Vaccine-hesitant individuals assign a high risk to the COVID-19 vaccine and a low risk to the disease—a perception that is disconnected from the science. The backbone of this Article is the timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic and the underlying science of the disease and vaccines. The timeline provides a factual background to demonstrate how vaccine hesitancy to the COVID-19 vaccine emerged. The instant pandemic also demonstrates changes in how individuals see themselves in society, receive information, and are persuaded by economic forces. This Article combines the individual’s decision-making process with modern day variables to suggest interventions that can undo anti-vaccine damage. While the novelty of the normative framework provided herein is instructive for current COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy issues, this framework can be applied to other areas in which individual’s perceptions of risk are disconnected from evidence-based assessment of risk.

For years, the federal government has failed to uphold its promises to provide health care to Native Americans. These promises are echoed in treaties, the Constitution, and judicially-created law. As a result of this breach of promise and chronically underfunding, there are significant health disparities between indigenous populations and other Americans. In a recent 2020 case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court held that both the federal government and individual states must follow the terms of a treaty made with a tribe, encouraging the possibility of direct health care funding. This reform, however, means little without tribal sovereignty and self-determination, which give dignity and decisionmaking capabilities back to a group that has long been without them. This Note explores two examples of self-determination in Native American health care, the Alaskan Native health care system and the recent vaccine rollout, proposing a framework for increasing self-determination in health care to provide support for funding reform, which becomes increasingly necessary as Native Americans continue to struggle to access health care.

In early June 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) granted Accelerated Approval to Aducanumab (“Aduhelm”) for treating Alzheimer’s disease. The decision was immediately engulfed in controversy because the agency ignored the Scientific Drugs Advisory Committee’s unanimous recommendation not to approve the drug. The FDA granted the approval based on Aduhelm’s ability to lower beta-amyloid levels. However, the agency had not previously indicated this as a surrogate clinical end for the trial, and its own scientific analysis failed to show that amyloid changes correlate with cognitive or functional changes for Alzheimer’s patients. This decision sets dangerous precedent and has the potential to transform the approval process for new drugs including, but not limited to, those meant to treat Alzheimer’s.

This Note details and proposes a solution to the deficit in access to justice and to care faced by the LGBTQ+ community due to historical and ongoing homophobia and transphobia in both the legal and medical fields. The proposed solution is the integration of medical-legal partnerships (“MLPs”) into LGBTQ+ resource organizations. These organizations already serve and have the trust of the queer community, which lowers one barrier to access medical and legal services for the LGBTQ+ community: mistrust and negative past experiences. MLPs are the ideal solution to this problem because they would not only allow LGBTQ+ individuals to access medical and legal services, but to receive holistic services that account for their personal circumstances as well as their physical health. Underlying this premise is the concept of social determinants of health, which are environmental and social factors that create systemic roadblocks to wellness. By creating an integrated MLP, professionals can address these social determinants head on and remedy the underlying causes of poor health. This is especially important for LGBTQ+ people whose minoritized identities often lead them to have multiple negative social determinants of health. The integration of MLPs into LGBTQ+ resource organizations would allow queer individuals to get the care they need—not just physically, but socially and environmentally.