Medical legal partnerships address individual legal needs that can create impediments to health. Little is known about outcomes from medical legal partnerships and their relationship to access to justice. This paper reports outcomes from one medical legal partnership from the perspective of the client, with specific emphasis on impact on health and concepts related to access to justice. We suggest a conceptual model for incorporating medical legal partnerships into a broader framework about access to justice.

It is such a treat and a privilege to have been at the “Defining Health Law for the Future” symposium and to have met Charity’s family. She was dear to me.

In a new era of regulatory oversight, the US Supreme Court upended traditional Chevron deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous Congressional provisions in Loper in June 2024. Federal courts were instructed to make their own assessments of statutory authorities amid an onslaught of public health agency challenges surfacing nationally. Even so, SCOTUS may be eyeing further limits on agency powers despite clear and substantial repercussions for the health of the nation.

As increasing proportions of our global population age, transgender people are experiencing higher rates of dementia, and many are afraid to enter long-term care. Structural interventions such as advance directives may help mitigate fears around entering long-term care by managing specific anxieties that transgender people may have about dementia, loss of decision-making capacity, and discrimination in long-term care settings.

Here, we analyze the public health implications of recent legal developments — including privacy legislation, intergovernmental data exchange, and artificial intelligence governance — with a view toward the future of public health informatics and the potential of diverse data to inform public health actions and drive population health outcomes.

This true story of a mediation in a personal injury lawsuit describes a sequence of events and fairly common practices that raise significant questions about mediation ethics as well as attorney ethics.

As a legal aid union president in New Haven, laboring within shouting distance of a different large research university, I recall how our membership rolled our eyes when Professors Greiner, Pattanayak, and Hennesy of Harvard published their study providing evidence, through a randomized control trial, that law clinic housing work made no difference for clients.1 Representing, as I was, “lawyers, secretaries, and paralegals who have dedicated their careers to serving poor clients in crisis,”2 the authors’ conclusion generated first shock, then denial, and then an anxious realization that somebody’s job was to research and disseminate such conclusions. In a 2013 United States where there was one legal aid lawyer for every 8,893 people who qualified,3 where federal Legal Services Corporation funding had dropped 40% over ten years in real dollars,4 and in an America that spends as much on Halloween costumes for its pets as it does legal aid for the poor,5 the inquiry felt like a pile-on. It made no more sense to us than asking if a teacher is “good for students,” a nurse “good for the sick,” or a chef “good for the hungry.”6

Little research has explored relationships between prenatal substance use policies and rates of maternal mortality across all 50 states, despite evidence that prenatal substance use elevates risk of maternal death. This study, utilizing publicly available data, revealed that state-level mandated testing laws predicted maternal mortality after controlling for population characteristics.

To help academic and non-profit investigators interested in drug repurposing navigate regulatory approval processes, we compared pathways for repurposed drugs to obtain approval at EMA, UK MHRA, and the US FDA. Though we found no pathways specifically for repurposed drugs, pathways to market are available in all repurposing scenarios.

The exclusion of the elderly and people with disabilities from cancer clinical research without appropriate justification is discriminatory and is at odds with the ethos of EU principles, laws and research regulations. It further limits study generalizability. Several primary EU laws fronted by the European Charter prohibit engaging in disparate impact discrimination on the grounds of age and disability in all of EU tasks.

This article proposes ethical — and legal — accountability for lawyers representing clients such as private equity (PE) firms who create ownership structures for nursing home systems. Using PE ownership as a case study, I will show that nursing home residents are often harmed and Medicaid costs inflated. I propose private law provides tools to compel such accountability, through (1) aiding and abetting doctrines and (2) fiduciary doctrines that require that the fiduciary be responsible for its vulnerable beneficiaries, not just ethically but for damages and equitable relief. I further propose that the teaching of Professional Responsibility needs to be changed to force law students to consider the effect of legal practice on third parties in situations like health care financing.

In this issue, Zakout discusses European Union (EU) legal provisions for inclusion of patients of all types in clinical trials.1 Shee highlights the unfortunate failure to include adequate numbers of older adults and adults with disabilities in clinical trials of anti-cancer agents. We agree with her argument that this is an ethical issue as well as a scientific and clinical issue.

Industry-funded religious liberty legal groups have sought to undermine healthcare policy and law while simultaneously attacking the rights of sexual and gender minorities. Whereas past scholarship has tracked religiously-affiliated healthcare providers’ growing political power and attendant transformations to legal doctrine, our account emphasizes the political donors and visionaries who have leveraged religious providers and the U.S. healthcare system’s delegated structure to transform social policy and bureaucratic agencies more generally.

A proposed state administrative rule would have required medical ethicists to approve certain aspects of gender-affirming care. The authors argue the proposed rule lacked appropriate justification compared to other instances of state-mandated ethics oversight and would undermine trust, raise practical challenges, and send harmful messages to society, patients, and providers.

In 2021, there were 11.7 million licensed young drivers in the U.S. This is 1.5 million fewer young drivers compared to 2007. The phenomenon of delay in driving licensure among teens has notable implications for opportunities positioning them for life success when transitioning into emerging adulthood and in later life.

The Cleveland Clinic Innovation Management and Conflict of Interest (“IM&COI”) Program implemented a policy on Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice in 2013. The policy requires review of financial interests greater than $20,000 in a year, or more than 5% equity in a company, when the clinician is prescribing or using products of the company with which they have a relationship. The IM&COI Committee developed definitions for low, medium and high levels of annual compensation and risk and uses a “Matrix” to guide disclosure based on these factors.

Drug-impaired driving is a growing problem in the U.S. States regulate drug-impaired driving in different ways. Some do not name specific drugs or amounts. Others do identify specific drugs and may regulate cannabis separately. We provide up-to-date information about these state laws.

Catholic hospitals and health systems have proliferated and succeeded in American healthcare; they now operate four of the largest health systems and serve nearly one in six hospital patients. Like other religious entities that Wuest and Last write about in this issue, in their article Church Against State, they have benefited by and supported the long reach of conservative efforts to undermine the administrative state.

Bigotry distractions are strategic invocations of racism, transphobia, or negative stigma toward other marginalized groups to shape political discourse. Although the vast majority of Americans agree on large policy issues ranging from reducing air pollution to prosecuting corporate crime, bigotry distractions divert attention from areas of agreement toward divisive identity issues. This article explores how the nefarious targeting of identity groups through bigotry distractions may be the tallest barrier to health reform, and social change more broadly. The discussion extends the literature on dog whistles, strategic racism, and scapegoating.