Current debates about the roles of the public and private sectors in pharmaceutical innovation have a long history. The extent to which, and ways in which, the public sector supports drug innovation has implications for assessments of the returns to public research funding, taxpayer rights in drugs, the argument the high prices are needed to support drug innovation, and the desirability of patenting publicly funded research.

The development of photodynamic therapy and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents have revolutionized the treatment of retinal diseases, transforming the retina subspecialty by ushering in an age of pharmacological treatments for a wide range of diseases, including age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Just as tariffs lead to economic distortions and provide incentives for corruption, so do patent monopolies on prescription drugs, except the impact is often an order of magnitude larger.

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the vulnerability of the US generic drug supply chain to foreign production. Many policies have been proposed to mitigate this vulnerability. In this article, we argue that nonprofit drug manufacturers have the potential to make important contributions.

A substantial portion of biomedical R&D is publicly funded. But resulting medicines are typically covered by patents held by private firms, and priced without regard to the public’s investment. The Bayh-Dole Act provides a possible remedy, but its scope is limited.

Enhancing research and development and ensuring equitable pricing and access to cutting-edge treatments are both vital to a biopharmaceutical innovation system that works in the public interest. However, despite delivering numerous therapeutic advances, the existing system suffers from major problems: a lack of directionality to meet key needs, inefficient collaboration, high prices that fail to reflect the public contribution, and an overly-financialized business model.

U.S. immigration policies and enforcement can make immigrants fearful of accessing healthcare. Although current immigration policies restrict enforcement in “sensitive locations” including healthcare facilities, there are reports of enforcement actions in such settings.

As healthcare providers engage in the politics of reforming and humanizing our immigration and asylum “system” it is critical that they are able to refer their patients whose health is directly impacted by our immigration laws and policies to experts who can help them navigate the system and obtain the healthcare they need.

The authors surveyed hospitals across the country on their policies regarding overlapping surgery, and found large variation between hospitals in how this practice is regulated. Specifically, institutions chose to define “critical portions” in a variety of ways, ultimately affecting not only surgical efficiency but also the autonomy of surgical trainees and patient experiences at these different hospitals.

This paper argues that the trends in advertising and corporatization in dentistry since the 1970s have resulted in processes of de-professionalization and de-regulation, respectively.

There has been growing consensus to develop relevant guidance to improve the ethical review of global health policy and systems research (HPSR) and address the current absence of formal ethics guidance.

Workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2 has sickened workers and, subsequently, their family members. Family members might be able to recover from the employer in a negligence action using “take-home” liability theory.

Escalating demands for limited food supplies at America’s food banks and pantries during the COVID-19 pandemic have raised ethical concerns underlying “first-come, first-served” distributions strategies. A series of model ethical principles are designed to guide ethical allocations of these resources to assure greater access among persons facing food insecurity.

Based on hierarchical classification and logistic regression of early US and French COVID-19 clinical trials we show that despite the registration of a large number of trials, only a minority had characteristics usually associated with providing robust and relevant evidence.