The international right to health: what does it mean in legal practice and how can it affect priority setting for universal health coverage?

The international right to health is enshrined in national and international law. In a growing number of cases, individuals denied access to high-cost medicines and technologies under universal coverage systems have turned to the courts to challenge the denial of access as against their right to health. In some instances, patients seek access to medicines, services, or technologies that they would have access to under universal coverage if not for government, health system, or service delivery shortfalls. In others, patients seek access to medicines, services, or technologies that have not been included or that have been explicitly denied for coverage due to prioritization. In the former, judicialization of the right to health is critical to ensure patients access to the technologies or services to which they are entitled. In the latter, courts may grant patients access to medicines not covered as a result of explicit priority setting to allocate finite resources. By doing so, courts may give priority to those with the means and incentive to turn to the courts, at the expense of the maximization of equity- and population-based health. Evidence-based, informed decision-making processes could ensure that the most clinically and cost-effective products aligning with social value judgments are prioritized. Governments should be equipped to engage in and defend rational priority setting, and the priority setting process and institutions involved should be held accountable through an opportunity for appeal and judicial review. As a result, the courts could place greater reliance on the government's coverage choices, and the population's health could be most equitably distributed

The Joint Action and Learning Initiative: Towards a Global Agreement on National and Global Responsibilities for Health

Lawrence Gostin and colleagues discuss their work on the Joint Action and Learning Initiative on National and Global Responsibilities for Health (JALI), which aims to secure a global health agreement (such as a Framework Convention on Global Health) that would inform post-Millennium Development Goal global health commitments

Individual freedom versus collective responsibility: an ethicist's perspective

Philosophical theories of collective action have produced a number of alternative accounts of the rationality and morality of self-interest and altruism. These have obvious applications to communicable disease control, the avoidance of antibiotic resistance, the responsibility of healthcare professionals to patients with serious communicable diseases, and the sharing of personal data in epidemiological research

Public perceptions of quarantine: community-based telephone survey following an infectious disease outbreak

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The use of restrictive measures such as quarantine draws into sharp relief the dynamic interplay between the individual rights of the citizen on the one hand and the collective rights of the community on the other. Concerns regarding infectious disease outbreaks (SARS, pandemic influenza) have intensified the need to understand public perceptions of quarantine and other social distancing measures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a telephone survey of the general population in the Greater Toronto Area in Ontario, Canada. Computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) technology was used. A final sample of 500 individuals was achieved through standard random-digit dialing.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our data indicate strong public support for the use of quarantine when required and for serious legal sanctions against those who fail to comply. This support is contingent both on the implementation of legal safeguards to protect against inappropriate use and on the provision of psychosocial supports for those affected.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>To engender strong public support for quarantine and other restrictive measures, government officials and public health policy-makers would do well to implement a comprehensive system of supports and safeguards, to educate and inform frontline public health workers, and to engage the public at large in an open dialogue on the ethical use of restrictive measures during infectious disease outbreaks.</p

Studying Public Health Law::Principles, Politics, and Populations as Patients

Public health law is firmly establishing itself as a crucial area of scholarly inquiry. Its vital importance has been sharply underscored following the outbreak of COVID-19, in response to which we have seen the institution of extreme legal measures—suchas the UK’s Coronavirus Act 2020—in efforts to control and contain the spread ofthe disease. The pandemic has also starkly exposed the complex nature of the regulatory challenges, nationally, internationally, and globally, to which such public health problems give rise. In approaching these, and other questions concerning the public’s health, such as non-communicable disease, public health law, as a field, brings notable distinctive features: these include a practical focus on populations, institutions, the prevention of ill health, protection of good health, and thepromotion of positive states of well-being; and concomitant critical approaches rooted in theories of social justice as contrasted with more narrow biomedical ethics. Such features make it in some senses atypical territory within the field of health law. Furthermore, the inherent role of political institutions places law conceptually within public health in a way that may be seen as distinguishable from law’s relationship with clinical medicine. This chapter explains how the broad reach and distinct features of public health require a commensurately broad approach to conceptualising public health law, and how distinct practical and theoretical features may be integrated into academic public health law. It also shows how public health law, with its distinct conceptualisations concerning ‘the body’ of medical jurisprudence, can both challenge and enrich medico-legal studies, and bring important perspectives within the broader field of health law

Hepatitis B virus infected physicians and disclosure of transmission risks to patients: A critical analysis

BACKGROUND: The potential for transmission of blood-borne pathogens such as hepatitis B virus from infected healthcare workers to patients is an important and difficult issue facing healthcare policymakers internationally. Law and policy on the subject is still in its infancy, and subject to a great degree of uncertainty and controversy. Policymakers have made few recommendations regarding the specifics of practice restriction for health care workers who are hepatitis B seropositive. Generally, they have deferred this work to vaguely defined "expert panels" which will have the power to dictate the conditions under which infected health care workers may continue to practice. DISCUSSION: In this paper we use recent Canadian policy statements as a critical departure point to propose more specific recommendations regarding disclosure of transmission risks in a way that minimizes practice restriction of hepatitis B seropositive health care workers without compromising patient safety. The range of arguments proposed in the literature are critically examined from the perspective of ethical analysis. SUMMARY: A process for considering the ethical implications of the disclosure of the sero-status of health care workers is advanced that considers the varied perspectives of different stakeholders

Public health equity in refugee situations

Addressing increasing concerns about public health equity in the context of violent conflict and the consequent forced displacement of populations is complex. Important operational questions now faced by humanitarian agencies can to some extent be clarified by reference to relevant ethical theory. Priorities of service delivery, the allocation choices, and the processes by which they are arrived at are now coming under renewed scrutiny in the light of the estimated two million refugees who fled from Iraq since 2003

Challenges in defining an optimal approach to formula-based allocations of public health funds in the United States

BACKGROUND: Controversy and debate can arise whenever public health agencies determine how program funds should be allocated among constituent jurisdictions. Two common strategies for making such allocations are expert review of competitive applications and the use of funding formulas. Despite widespread use of funding formulas by public health agencies in the United States, formula allocation strategies in public health have been subject to relatively little formal scrutiny, with the notable exception of the attention focused on formula funding of HIV care programs. To inform debates and deliberations in the selection of a formula-based approach, we summarize key challenges to formula-based funding, based on prior reviews of federal programs in the United States. DISCUSSION: The primary challenge lies in identifying data sources and formula calculation methods that both reflect and serve program objectives, with or without adjustments for variations in the cost of delivering services, the availability of local resources, capacity, or performance. Simplicity and transparency are major advantages of formula-based allocations, but these advantages can be offset if formula-based allocations are perceived to under- or over-fund some jurisdictions, which may result from how guaranteed minimum funding levels are set or from "hold-harmless" provisions intended to blunt the effects of changes in formula design or random variations in source data. While fairness is considered an advantage of formula-based allocations, the design of a formula may implicitly reflect unquestioned values concerning equity versus equivalence in setting funding policies. Whether or how past or projected trends are taken into account can also have substantial impacts on allocations. SUMMARY: Insufficient attention has been focused on how the approach to designing funding formulas in public health should differ for treatment or service versus prevention programs. Further evaluations of formula-based versus competitive allocation methods are needed to promote the optimal use of public health funds. In the meantime, those who use formula-based strategies to allocate funds should be familiar with the nuances of this approach