The environment, particularly, land and water, play a powerful role in sustaining and supporting American Indian and Alaska Native communities in the United States. Not only is water essential to life and considered — by some Tribes — a sacred food in and of itself, but environmental water resources are necessary to maintain habitat for hunting and fishing. Many American Indian and Alaska Native communities incorporate locally caught traditional subsistence foods into their diets, and the loss of access to subsistence foods represents a risk factor for food security and nutrition status in indigenous populations. Negative health outcomes, including obesity, diabetes and cancer, have accompanied declines in traditional food use in indigenous communities throughout the United States.

Efforts to ensure greater transparency in the regulation of “drugs” (used here as a catch-all for pharmaceuticals, biologics, medical devices, and biomarker-based technologies such as genetic testing paired with a pharmaceutical or biologic) are well underway. For example, laws in the United States and Europe now require registration of most clinical trials beyond phase 1. Yet instances of avoidable harm to patients continue to arise. In response, calls for disclosure of clinical trial data in the form of “clinical study reports,” not just trial designs and basic results, are growing. In this paper, I argue that disclosure of clinical trial data is necessary but insufficient. Rather, the regulatory decisions that flow from those trial data —whether positive (i.e., product approvals) or negative (i.e., abandoned products, product refusals, and withdrawals) —should also be open to outside scrutiny provided they are final in nature.

This article defines the problem of the uninsured. It begins with an overview of why health insurance matters and presents a profile of the uninsured. It then discusses the roles and limits of private and public health insurance as sources of coverage for the nonelderly population. The article concludes with reflections on the current health insurance environment and prospects for reform.

The large and growing number of uninsured people is of concern because health coverage makes a difference in whether and when people get necessary medical care, where they get their care, and ultimately how healthy people are. About a quarter of uninsured adults (26 percent) say that they have postponed seeking care in the past year because of its cost, compared to about 6 percent of privately insured adults (Figure 1). In addition, more than half of uninsured adults (54 percent) have no usual source of care, compared to 1 in 10 adults (10 percent) with other types of coverage. Similarly, uninsured children are more likely to lack a usual source of care, delay care, or to have unmet medical needs than children with insurance. The uninsured are less likely to receive timely preventive and outpatient care and are more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable health problems. Improved access to care through health insurance ultimately has an impact on people’s health and lives: an estimated 22,000 excess deaths occurred among adults aged 25-64 in 2006 as a result of lack of health coverage.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is an essential first step toward making health insurance more affordable for lower and moderate income Americans. It has accomplished historic reductions in the proportion of Americans who are uninsured. The number of Americans reporting delaying medical care for financial reasons has declined by approximately one-third since 2010. Medicaid expansions, in particular, have significantly reduced financial burdens and accompanying anxieties experienced by low-income Americans in states that have embraced this opportunity. Consistent with these finding, one recent analysis of credit report data finds that Medicaid expansion was associated with between a $600 and $1000 decline in collection balances among individuals who gained coverage. Notwithstanding these gains, premiums and cost-sharing are still too high for many Americans. And cost-sharing has continued to edge higher for the majority of Americans who have coverage through employer-based plans. Measures to address these challenges must build on the ACA to provide greater protection to millions of Americans and to address continued dissatisfaction with our health care financing system among middle-income Americans.

Worksites are an important setting to promote healthy behaviors as 143 million adults are employed full-time and spend 8-10 hours per day at the workplace. Participation in health promotion programs have been shown to have a “dose response” relationship with health care costs, meaning health care costs decrease as employee involvement in health promotion activities in the workplace increase. Also from the employer perspective, it is important to note that obesity is a risk factor for many other chronic conditions, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer and is known to be related to increase injuries and health care costs. Motivating employees to participate in a number of wellness activities may provide benefits not only for obesity prevention but other desired outcomes such as: risk reduction, risk avoidance, reduced health costs, and improved productivity measures. Employers should be concerned as forecasts suggest that by 2030, 42% of the adult population will be obese. In fact, among employers, the costs of medical expenses and absenteeism increase as employees become more obese. The cost burden of obesity (BMI 30 or greater) ranges from $462-$2,027 among men and $1,372-$2,164 among women in comparison to normal-weight employees. However, halting this trend over the next few decades by maintaining (vs. increasing) current prevalence of obesity could potentially save billions in medical care expenditures related to obesity. Employers can be part of the solution by offering workplace wellness programs and facilitating opportunities for physical activity, access to healthier foods and beverages, and incentives for disease management and prevention to help prevent weight gain among their employees.

Essays on stem cell policy seem to fall into three categories. Some essays in this collection are about logic and principles. Others are about practices and beliefs. The former group draws lines and defends them, a normative project. The latter group attempts to explain the lines that already exist, a descriptive project that may have important normative goals. Still other essays, by scientists, are about growing stem cell lines instead of drawing them.

The purpose of this essay is to situate the lines being drawn around stem cell science in the larger landscape of health policy. I am interested in the things that cause health policy to take particular directions and the consequences of those directions for cost, access, and quality — all of which are determined in part by biomedical innovations such as those potentially derived from stem cells.

Physicians and other health care providers owe ethical and legal duties to patients to maintain the secrecy of the information learned during the course of patient care. This obligation is fulfilled by limiting access to such information to only those involved in the patient's care-that is, to those within the “circle of confidentiality.” As a general rule, providers may only disclose to others with the written prior consent of the patient. Exceptions may be “ethically and legally justified because of overriding social considerations,” when permitted or compelled by law. For example, eleven states permit providers to disclose identified records to approved researchers.’ Many states compel disclosure in cases where a patient threatens serious bodily harm to another; require reporting to health or law enforcement authorities of communicable diseases, gunshot or knife wounds, or child abuse; and mandate reporting of cancer or other health care cases to state registries (such as immunization, birth, and abortion).

In ethical literature associated with controversies at the beginning and end of human life, there is often a two-part structure: first, basic facts about the topic are presented in a more or less descriptive format, then there is the ethics or policy.

In one of the televised debates among Republican primary candidates for the 2012 U.S. presidential election, moderator Wolf Blitzer presented this hypothetical case to candidate Ron Paul:

Paul, known for his libertarian views, initially responded that the patient “should assume responsibility for himself,” and that he should have purchased a major medical policy before he became ill.

Various kinds of consumer-driven reforms have been attempted over the last 20 years in an effort to rein in soaring costs of health care in the United States. Most are based on a theory of moral hazard, which holds that patients will over-utilize health care services unless they pay enough for them. Although this theory is a basic premise of conventional health insurance, it has been discredited by actual experience over the years. While ineffective in containing costs, increased cost-sharing as a key element of consumer-driven health care (CDHC) leads to restricted access to care, underuse of necessary care, lower quality and worse outcomes of care. This paper summarizes the three major problems of U.S. health care urgently requiring reform and shows how cost-sharing fails to meet that goal.

This concluding essay offers reflections on core components of the faculty fellowship program, its outcomes and results, and program design and administration. Amid the current calls for reform in legal and other professional education, the lessons we learned and perspectives we gained during this fellowship program may be relevant to any faculty members and university administrations that are seeking to create more effective and engaged professional and graduate school programs, whatever may be their subject-matter discipline.

The traumatic stress experienced by our black healthcare colleagues is often overlooked. This work contextualizes workplace racism, identifies some interpersonal barriers limiting anti-racist growth, and calls for solidarity.

The recent general disenchantment with government control has focussed attention on the concept of occupational licensing. The logical place to begin a reappraisal of occupational licensing is in the field of medicine, where such licensing originated and where it has been most fully accepted.

Our position is that no rational or moral foundation for medical licensure exists and, therefore, we recommend the total abandonment of governmental licensing and the substitution of free market protections, including private certification. Medical licensing, and occupational licensing in general, is morally wrong and ineffectual in practice.

Canadian mental health law has traditionally held many themes in common with the mental health law of other Commonwealth countries such as Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. Until recently, this body of law bore only a passing resemblance to the system of mental health law that has emerged in the United States.

The existence of an entrenched Bill of Rights in the United States has meant that many major issues relating to the rights of mental health patients have been dealt with as constitutional matters of great import. Consequently, the 1960s and 1970s witnessed the burgeoning of an exciting body of case law establishing a number of critical rights for a constituency that had hitherto been powerless and tragically neglected. While many of the rights established in the so-called landmark cases were subsequently limited in their scope or were just not affirmed by the appellate courts, the widespread use of constitutional challenges by mental health advocates wrought wholesale changes in both federal and state legislation and permanently altered the balance of power between mental health professionals and their patients.

This paper examines the practice implications of various state policies that provide publicly funded prenatal care to undocumented immigrants for health care workers who see undocumented patients. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with purposively sampled health care workers at safety net clinics in California, Maryland, Nebraska, and New York. Health care workers were asked about the process through which undocumented patients receive prenatal care in their health center and the ethical tensions and frustrations they encounter when providing or facilitating this care under policy restrictions. Respondents discussed several professional practice norms as well as the ethical tensions they encountered when policy or institutional constraints prevented them from living up to professional norms. Using Nancy Berlinger's “workarounds” framework, this paper examines health care workers' responses to the misalignment of their professional norms and the policy restrictions in their state. These findings suggest that the prenatal policies in each state raise ethical and professional challenges for the health care workers who implement them.

Commercialization of medicine is a growing trend that threatens to undermine physicians’ commitments to patient care in favor of personal financial interests. Bemoaned by Arnold Relman as early as 1980, growing for-profit sectors of health care have been reshaping medicine from a profession into a business, forming the foundation of what he terms a “medical-industrial complex” that threatens to undermine professional identity and reshape health care funding. Commercialization poses new ethical challenges for health care providers who have a financial stake in their health care decisions and may undermine their fiduciary duties to patients.

Certainly, commercialization has brought about new trends in medicine — one need only to look as far as the rise in for-profit hospitals, diagnostic laboratories, and proprietary nursing homes to see how opportunities for financial gain reposition physicians’ orientations vis-à-vis patients.