Unmet legal needs contribute to housing, income, and food insecurity, along with other conditions that harm health and drive health inequity. Addressing health injustice requires new tools for the next generations of lawyers, doctors, and other healthcare professionals. An interprofessional group of co-authors argue that law and medical schools and other university partners should develop and cultivate Academic Medical-Legal Partnerships (A-MLPs), which are uniquely positioned to leverage service, education, and research resources, to advance health justice.

This article describes a new type of medical-legal partnership (MLP) that targets the health and justice concerns of people enmeshed in the U.S criminal justice system: a partnership between clinicians who care for people with criminal system involvement and public defenders. This partnership offers an opportunity to not only improve patient health outcomes but also to facilitate less punitive court dispositions, such as jointly advocating for community-based rehabilitation and treatment rather than incarceration.

Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) have the potential to address racial health disparities by improving the conditions that constitute the social determinants of health. In order to live up to this potential, these partnerships must intentionally incorporate seven core racial justice principles into their design and implementation. Otherwise, they are likely to replicate the systemic barriers that lead to racialized health disparities.

The complex regulatory framework governing the U.S. health care system can be an obstacle to programming that address health-related social needs. In particular, health care fraud and abuse law is a pernicious barrier as health care organizations may minimize or forego programming altogether out of real and perceived concern for compliance. And because health care organizations have varying resources to navigate and resolve compliance concerns, as well as different levels of risk tolerance, fears related to the legal landscape may further entrench inequities in access to meaningful programs that improve health outcomes. This article uses food and nutrition programming as a case study to explore the complexities presented by this area of law and to highlight pathways forward.

While Medical-Legal Partnerships (MLPs) have improved the health and well-being of the people they serve, most healthcare institutions will only invest in an MLP if they are convinced that doing so will improve its balance sheet. This article offers a detailed estimation of the cost savings that an MLP targeted toward the most acute legal needs would accrue to an academic medical center (AMC) in North Carolina.

The upstream framework presented in public health and medicine considers health problems from a preventive perspective, seeking to understand and address the root causes of poor health. Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) have demonstrated the value of this upstream framework in the practice of law and engage in upstream lawyering by utilizing systemic advocacy to address root causes of injustices and health inequities. This article explores upstreaming and its use by MLPs in reframing legal practice.

In “Missing the Forest for the Trees: Aduhelm, Accelerated Approvals & the Agency,” Dr. Matthew Herder argues that agency capture and politicized discretion drive delays in confirmatory trials of accelerated approval drugs amongst other concerns at US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In highlighting this important problem and offering nuanced insight into agency workings based in part on interviews with twenty-three unnamed FDA officials and a three-drug case study, Dr. Herder suggests two innovative solutions. However, amidst broader debates balancing agency expertise, data, and delegation, these proposed policy solutions would benefit from more corroborative evidence and consideration of institutional advantages within constitutional limits.

This response to Kariyawasam and Rai affirms their critique of the pathologization of trans youth but forecasts a foreseeable negative outcome of their proposed elimination of diagnosis as a prerequisite to gender-affirming care (GAC) — the risk of removing GAC entirely from the medical sphere and compromising the wellbeing of those transgender individuals for whom GAC is deeply affirming. We suggest an ethical framework of GAC that expands past a focus on autonomy to incorporate a principle of respect for persons that affirms the dignity and diversity of trans youth — recognizing the need to facilitate both medical assistance and social change.

Political debate regarding trans youth’s access to gender-affirming care (GAC) has pushed many to advocate for GAC by pointing to tragic, pathological outcomes of non-treatment, namely suicide. However, these pathologized arguments are a harmful ethical “shortcut” which should be replaced by a meaningful engagement with the ethics of providing GAC to youth.

This commentary highlights the scientific history of the NIH-Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and corroborates Sarpatwari’s theme of private capture of value created by the public. The commentary also identifies missteps by the Trump and Biden Administrations and offers policy recommendations: better contracts with and incentives for pharmaceutical manufacturers and a not-for-profit “public option” for pharmaceutical development.

Across the country, legal and health care professionals who understand that health outcomes are most influenced by social and environmental conditions have improved patient health by adopting the interdisciplinary MLP health care delivery model. However, the MLP field cannot advance population health, let alone long-term health equity, until it addresses the structural determinants of health inequity that are rooted in discrimination, segregation, and other forms of racial and ethnic subordination.

The incidence of elder abuse has led to a growing trend of states taking various methods to regulate the use of electronic monitoring in institutional settings through programs, guidelines, regulations, and laws. This article attempts evaluate how the regulation of electronic monitoring has evolved and may be advanced in the future with the anticipated increase of elder abuse.

While sexual violence should not be the prerequisite for legal abortion, expanding definitions of abuse to include reproductive coercion can open avenues of access to abortion following the Dobbs decision. Understanding the increased danger and compounding challenges of intimate partner violence can inform legislative initiatives, healthcare responses, and movements for reproductive justice.

The Supreme Court decided Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky in 2019. Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion in the case claimed there was a direct connection between the legalization of abortion, in the late 20th Century, and the beginnings of the birth control movement a full three quarters of a century earlier. “Many eugenicists,” Thomas argued, “supported legalizing abortion.”

Justice Samuel Alito highlighted similar claims in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, citing a brief entitled “The Eugenic Era Lives on through the Abortion Movement.” That brief was an echo of Justice Thomas’ misguided attempt at history in the Box opinion. Similar claims reoccur in Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s opinion in the Texas mifepristone case, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

These false claims are the focus of this article. There is no evidence that early leaders of the eugenics movement supported abortion as part of the movement for birth control. It is accurate to describe those leaders as anti-abortion, and their followers as people who condemned abortion for moral, legal, and medical reasons.

This article considers challenges facing the pro-life movement after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022). It identifies four questions the movement must face: (1) whether to adopt a combative or conciliatory rhetorical stance; (2) how to prioritize new legislative goals; (3) how to define the limits of acceptable compromise; and (4) how to respond to Americans with ambivalent attitudes toward abortion. The article argues that each of these issues could precipitate serious division in the pro-life movement that will impact likelihood of future success.

In our article, we share the lessons we have learned after creating and running a successful legal laboratory over the past seven years at Yale Law School. Our legal laboratory, which focuses on the intersection of law and severe brain injury, represents a unique pedagogical model for legal academia, and is closely influenced by the biomedical laboratory.

This column will be the first in a series exploring innovative ways to teach concepts and ideas in health law across a wide variety of classrooms, schools, and curriculums.

The emerging global climate crisis threatens human health in unprecedented ways, yet global health concerns have not been sufficiently considered within international climate change efforts. A more collaborative pathway could advance efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change while protecting public health and social justice.

Current guidelines and regulatory frameworks create a dilemma that threatens the effectiveness of much needed communication between patients and medical providers: How can patients be presented with detailed facts without creating cognitive “overload”? We explain how this is a false dichotomy and illustrate, using three examples, how fuzzy-trace theory offers a third way of informing patients.

Dobbs appears more extreme when juxtaposed against Roe’s hidden history. Justice Blackmun was the author of Roe, but the opinion was the product of a remarkable collaboration that incorporated the suggestions of many Justices. Thus, Roe’s medical framing embodied the vision of the Court as a whole, not one individual.