Payment reforms that link health care providers’ reimbursements to their performance on various metrics incentivize providers to improve the quality and efficiency of care they provide to patients. Unfortunately, these reforms also create strong incentives for providers to reject patients who do not adhere to medical advice. This commentary argues that providers’ avoidance of non-adherent patients flouts the medical profession's commitment to patients’ best interests, undermines patients' trust in health professionals, and aggravates disparities in health. Moreover, the economic incentives under payment reforms that encourage quality and efficiency gains are weakened when providers can escape the financial penalties for poor outcomes by simply firing their non-adherent patients.

This commentary provides a legal analysis of the extent to which changes proposed by scholars to promote care for substance use disorder or other under-treated illnesses through risk adjustment could be implemented administratively, without legislation, in federal risk adjustment systems: Medicare's privatized component, Medicare's pharmaceutical component, and the individual and small group market. As the article explains, federal laws governing risk adjustment provide broad discretion to regulators and can reasonably be interpreted to permit (or in the case of Part C even compel) full and final implementation through the administrative process of almost all of the changes that scholars have proposed.

Many observers have argued that the US health care system could be more efficient, and achieve better outcomes if providers focused more on improving the community's health, not just the welfare of individual patients. The passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 seemed to herald the promise of such reforms, and greater integration of the health care and public systems. In this article, we reassess the quest for integration, a quest we call the “integration project.” After examining the modest steps taken so far toward integration, we consider some conceptual barriers to integration as well as some of the risks it might portend for the public health system. Our assessment contributes to wide-ranging debates among public health advocates, practitioners, and policymakers as to the health care system's role in protecting public health, and how the public health system can best be organized to meet expected population health challenges.

To improve the value of pharmaceutical spending, some manufacturers and payers have introduced outcomes-based contracts, where rebates are tied to specified outcomes. We reviewed the literature and interviewed key experts to assess these contracts' potential to slow pharmaceutical spending. We found that while outcomes-based contracts are increasingly common in the US, they are still limited by multiple factors — including the lack of meaningful outcomes data. Moreover, there is no evidence to date that they slow pharmaceutical spending or increase access. Experts favored having CMS test and rigorously evaluate this model to achieve a better understanding of the implications.

The objective of this study is to evaluate if use of a patient decision aid (PDA), when choosing between a repeat cesarean or a trial of labor after a cesarean (TOLAC), reduces medical liability exposure. The authors conclude that use of a PDA conferred liability protection when potential jurors were presented with a hypothetical malpractice claim against an obstetrician following a TOLAC.

State law requirements for health care advance directive documents were reviewed in every state and the District of Columbia to determine whether they are consistent and/or flexible enough to permit the utilization by the public of “universal” advance directive forms, specifically a health care power of attorney, that would be valid under every state's advance directive statutes. Such documents would have to overcome the wide variability of state legal formalities for validity. If this could be accomplished, the public would benefit from having a variety of multi-state or truly universal forms available that could be used with confidence in their validity.

The review found that a basic, multi-state health care power of attorney appears to be feasible in 41 States and the District of Columbia, compared to 36 states and the District in 2005. Only nine states prevent recognition of a truly universal form. Some barriers were surmountable, including differing agent and witness requirements, execution requirements, and effectiveness triggers. Other barriers were insurmountable, including mandatory forms, mandatory disclosures, and decision-specific language requirements. The strategies identified for overcoming some barriers can be used by lawyers in drafting true multi-state directives. More importantly, states should simplify state advance directive laws to facilitate a more meaningful communication model of advance care planning.

This article traces the rapid progression of policy pertaining to human genome germline modifications using genome editing. It provides an overview of how one fertility physician implemented and advertised experimental techniques as part of his fertility clinic services, examines US law and policy, and assesses the impact of rhetoric influencing global policy and interpretation of the law. This article provides an in-depth examination of the medical rationale driving the acceptance of genome editing human embryos in two contexts: to cure disease and treat infertility. It describes complexities in genomics and outlines risks currently associated with genome editing, asserting the available evidence fails to demonstrate genome editing constitutes a curative therapy.