The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has focused its obesity prevention and control efforts on improving population-level health. A recent Institute of Medicine report identified systems that affect population health, to include health care delivery systems, schools, businesses and employers, communities, and governmental public health infrastructure. CDC uses the public health model to engage these systems, and this process coordinates multiple settings, sectors, and jurisdictions to develop an integrated approach to identify, prevent, and control obesity. The public health approach goes beyond medical care to prioritize policy and environmental strategies that can be implemented across jurisdictional levels, in collaboration with traditional and nontraditional partners. The process ultimately produces tools, guidelines, and interventions that can be used to prevent and control obesity. In this manuscript, we provide an overview of the public health perspective on obesity, outline the public health framework for addressing obesity, and discuss the rationale for leveraging law-based efforts as a tool to accomplish the public health mission.

Rarely do ethics consults focus on genuine moral puzzlement in which people collectively wonder what is the right thing to do. Far more often, consults are about conflict. Each side knows quite well what is “right.” The problem is that the other side is too blind or stubborn to recognize it. And so the ethics consultant is called, perhaps in the hope that s/he will throw the weight of ethics toward one side and end the controversy so everyone can get on with other business.

Perhaps the greater problem in these scenarios is that even if one side “wins” by gaining the power to dictate what happens next, the toxicity permeating the relationships often markedly worsens and other conflicts erupt, major and minor.

This paper is one of the four interrelated action agenda papers resulting from the National Summit on Public Health Legal Preparedness (Summit) convened in June 2007 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and multi-disciplinary partners. Each of the action agenda papers deals with one of the four core elements of legal preparedness: laws and legal authorities; competency in using those laws; and coordination of law-based public health actions; and information.

This action agenda offers options for consideration by those responsible for or interested in ensuring that public health professionals, their legal counsels, and relevant partners understand the legal framework in which they operate and are competent in applying legal authorities to public health emergency preparedness.

Competencies are critical to an individual's ability to make effective legal response to all-hazards public emergencies.

Neuroimaging research regularly yields “incidental findings”: observations of potential clinical significance in healthy volunteers or patients, but which are unrelated to the purpose or variables of the study.

This article examines five different Medical-Legal Partnerships (MLPs) associated with Yale Law School in New Haven, Connecticut to illustrate how MLP addresses the social determinants of poor health. These MLPs address varied and distinct health and legal needs of unique patient populations, including: 1) children; 2) immigrants; 3) formerly incarcerated individuals; 4) patients with cancer in palliative care; and 5) veterans. The article charts a research agenda to create the evidence base for quality and evaluation metrics, capacity building, sustainability, and best practices; it also focuses specifically on a research agenda that identifies the value of the lawyers in MLP. Such a focus on the “L” has been lacking and is overdue.

Recognizing marked limitations of global health law in the COVID-19 pandemic, a rising number of states are supporting the development of a new pandemic treaty. This prospective treaty has the potential to clarify state obligations for pandemic preparedness and response and strengthen World Health Organization authorities to promote global health security. Examining the essential scope and content of a pandemic treaty, this column analyzes the policymaking processes and substantive authorities necessary to meet this historic moment.

Confidentiality is a cornerstone of the physician-patient relationship. Breaches of confidentiality in the context of genetic testing are of particular concern for a number of reasons. First, genetic testing reveals information not only about a particular patient, but also about his or her family members. Second,genetic testing can label healthy people as “at risk,” subjecting them to possible stigmatization or discrimination by third parties. Third, as genetic testing becomes more widespread and is incorporated into primary care, breaches of confidentiality might inadvertently occur more frequently because primary care providers may not be trained to understand the uniqueness of genetic information. Until now, genetic services have been provided primarily by medical geneticists and genetic counselors. However, with the proliferation of new genetic presymptomatic and carrier tests, primary care physicians are going to become increasingly involved in genetic testing. Currently, little is known about physicians’ attitudes (other than those of medical geneticists) toward disclosure of confidential genetic information to third parties.

The passing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a triumph for the field of public health. Its inclusion of many provisions intended to prevent illness and promote health endorses the core belief of public health as expressed by Dr. Georges Benjamin, the long-time executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a Washington Post opinion piece praising ACA for “provid[ing] care as far upstream as possible… [in order to] reduce costs by identifying problems early and then managing them to reduce or eliminate the need for more costly care in the future.” In this article, I consider the conflict between ACA’s adoption of public health goals seeing population health and societal interests in protecting individuals from discrimination based on their health. The article focuses on one aspect of ACA which seeks to lower the costs to employers who provide health insurance for their employees by making it easier for them to offer their employees substantial incentives for participating in and meeting the goals of employer-sponsored Wellness Programs.

This article proposes potential strategies to address gun violence in communities of color while identifying the harms associated with a policing-centered, criminal legal approach. In addition to highlighting the dangers associated with the United States' current criminal legal tactics to reduce gun violence in these communities, the authors advocate for community-endorsed strategies that give those impacted by this issue the resources to take on gun violence in their own communities. Specifically, they identify, describe, and endorse a series of violence prevention programs that rely on community relations to detect and prevent incidents of gun violence and that view gun violence as a public health rather than criminal legal issue.

No one questions the importance of protecting human subjects of research, but over the past few years dissatisfaction has surfaced with the manner in which the protection is conferred by the federal regulatory system referred to as “The Common Rule. ” Some of the criticism surfaces in print. Some bubbles out anecdotally in conversations among researchers, with complaints about the review process being virtually inevitable whenever the topic arises. Like those in other disciplines that differ more or less dramatically from the world of clinical medical research around which the Common Rule was conceptualized, public health researchers, particularly those working in official public health agencies, have experienced some tension and difficulty in adapting to the rules. The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has adopted guidelines that require Common Rule review for “research” but not “practice” activities.

With a population of over 1.3 billion, China is the most populous country in the world. It is facing an acute aging population problem, with a projected 440 million residents over age 60 and 101 million over age 80 by 2050. Furthermore, rapid industrialization and urbanization in China have resulted in serious air pollution and associated public health problems, including an increase in respiratory diseases and cancers. These and other demographic trends have generated concerns about the cost of health care and its impact on population health. In recent years, the Chinese government has invested heavily in the fields of translational research and biobanking with the hope that research in both fields can yield effective solutions to improve the public’s health and quality of life. The establishment of national biobanks was identified as a major initiative needed for the biomedical industry in the 12th Five-Year National Development Plan of Strategic Emerging Industries promulgated by the State Council in 2012.

Financial relationships between physicians and industry are widespread. Highly publicized financial relationships between physicians and industry raised disturbing questions about the trustworthiness of clinical research, practice guidelines, and clinical care decisions. Recent incidents spurred calls for stricter conflict of interest policies and led to new federal laws and NIH regulations. These stricter policies have evoked praise, concerns, and objections. Because these new federal requirements need to be interpreted and implemented, spirited discussions of conflicts of interest in medicine will continue.

During the mid-nineteenth century the annual tuberculosis (TB) mortality in the penitentiaries at Auburn, N.Y., Boston, and Philadelphia exceeded 10 percent of the inmate population. At the beginning of the sanatorium era, 80 percent of the prison deaths were attributed to TB. As the mountain air was “commonly known” to be healthful, the first prison sanatorium was opened in the mountains near Dannemora, N.Y. in 1904. It served to isolate contagious prison inmates until the advent of effective chemotherapy for the disease in the 1950’s. Early antibiotic therapy for TB was such a great success that the public health aspects of TB in prisons remained dormant for the next 40 years.

In 1991, a correctional officer from Auburn Correctional Facility in Auburn, New York died as a result of multidrug-resistant TB. He had been posted to care for hospitalized patients, from whom he acquired his disease. This death, and the transmission of TB infection to health care workers in the same hospital, brought the nature and extent of modern inmate medical care into finer focus.

The process of dying, ultimately, is an experience that will be common to us all. Considering the current trends in health care, I would guess that most of us give more than a passing thought to how that final phase of life will be played out on a personal level. Undoubtedly, that image is shaped by our attitudes and experiences. In addition each of us recognizes that we have had or are likely to have an impact on the dying in our role as family or friend, health care provider or interpreter of the legal or ethical issues. As a member of a hospice team, I have personally cared for hundreds of terminally ill patients, and based on these experiences, I present the following observations regarding the process of dying, with and without feeding and fluid by tube.

J.R. was a successful business executive until AIDS intervened; within an eight month period, he was forced to give up both his position and independence because of severe peripheral neuropathy which left him minimally functional and in constant pain.

Responding to mounting public concern about the shift to managed care, legislation to grant patient protections has dominated the health policy agenda over the past two years. Although some policies, such as laws on maternity length of stay, can be easily dismissed as “body part by body part” micromanagement of medical practice, other initiatives offer substantive, new rights to patients across the spectrum of care. At both the state and the federal levels, the right of enrollees to appeal a denial of treatment or to file grievances about other plan decisions has emerged as a centerpiece of patient protection legislation. Grievance and appeal rights have been embraced as a way to empower patients, to enhance access to treatment, and to improve the quality of care by providing an external mechanism to review treatment denials.

Protecting the privacy of individually-identifiable health data is a dominant health policy objective in the new millennium. Technological, economic, and health-related reasons substantiate the development of a national electronic health information infrastructure. Through this emerging infrastructure, billions of pieces of health data of varying sensitivities are exchanged annually to provide health care services and service transactions, conduct health research, and promote the public’s health. These multi-purpose, rapid exchanges of electronic health data, far removed from the typical disclosure of health information through the doctor/patient relationship of yesteryear, contribute to heightened individual concerns about identifiable health data. Responding to American fears and perceptions of actual and potential privacy abuses, policymakers have recently developed new, modern privacy protections through legislative and regulatory laws, as well as ethical and industry codes.

Modern health information privacy protections are reflected in federal regulations developed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).