Does Legislation Impede Data Sharing in Australia Across Institutions and Jurisdictions? A Scoping Review.

In Australia, regulations governing data, including formal legislation and policies promulgated by private and public agencies, are often seen as a barrier to data sharing. This sharing can include between institutions, as well as across jurisdictional borders in a federated jurisdiction such as Australia. In some cases, these regulations place a barrier to sharing data across borders or between institutions without a prerequisite requirement. In other cases, these regulations may be perceived as a justification not to share data. The objective of this review was to analyse published literature from Australia to see what regulations were used to justify not sharing data, along with any other factors that might discourage data sharing. We searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for empirical and policy articles discussing data sharing in Australia. We then filtered these results via abstract and conducted a full text assessment to include 33 articles for analysis. Although there are a few areas of notable regulatory divergence with respect to legislation governing health data, most regulations in Australia are relatively consistent. Further, the absence of uniform ethics approval between sites in different states was frequently cited as a barrier to data sharing.

Congress' Misguided Plan to Ban QALYs.

This Viewpoint discusses the flawed assumptions and potential negative impacts of a proposed federal bill that would ban government health care programs from using the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and "similar measures" when determining insurance coverage or negotiating prices.

The Politics of Informed Consent and the Limits of the First Amendment.

This Viewpoint discusses the expansion of politically motivated informed consent laws and identifies opportunities for the medical profession to challenge them.

The Supreme Court Expands Second Amendment Rights as the Nation Experiences Historic Levels of Firearms Violence.

This Viewpoint discusses the recent Supreme Court decision declaring a broad right to carry firearms in public and offers a public health strategy for firearms safety laws.

United States: Protecting Commercial Speech under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects commercial speech from government interference. Commercial speech has been defined by the US Supreme Court as speech that proposes a commercial transaction, such as marketing and labeling. Companies that produce products associated with public health harms, such as alcohol, tobacco, and food, thus have a constitutional right to market these products to consumers. This article will examine the evolution of US law related to the protection of commercial speech, often at the expense of public health. It will then identify outstanding questions related to the commercial speech doctrine and the few remaining avenues available in the United States to regulate commercial speech including the use of government speech and addressing deceptive and misleading commercial speech.

Review and assessment of drug disposal state statutes in the United States, 2022.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring opportunities exist to dispose of unused or unwanted drugs that are appropriate, accessible, and affordable is critical to avoid misuse and lasting harm to the environment. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to identify state statutes promulgated in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC) facilitating disposal of unused or unwanted drugs in the community setting and assess their characteristics. METHODS: A retrospective review of state statutes in all 50 U.S. states and DC between October 2020 and May 2022 was conducted. Statutes using terms "drug and disposal or collection" and that were intended to facilitate disposal of unused or unwanted drugs were included. Drug donation programs or repositories, drug returns to the pharmacy, charitable clinics, and others not intended to dispose or unused or unwanted drugs were excluded. Publicly available resources and Westlaw, a legal resource, were used to identify state statutes. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the findings. RESULTS: Of the 50 U.S. states and DC, we found that most states enacted a statute pertaining to drug disposal (63%; n = 32) as of May 2022. Of states with a drug disposal statute, few had funding mechanisms or required pharmacy participation. Most statutes specified the type of product that may be accepted for disposal, what site may accept them, and who may dispose of the product. Few states specified which health care provider or other individual may accept the product(s) for disposal. CONCLUSION: Most states have enacted statutes facilitating drug disposal, but their characteristics varied widely. Opportunities may exist at the state level to further incentivize proper drug disposal, and further research is needed to measure possible effects of these state statutes.

The interaction of ice and law in Arctic marine accessibility.

Sea ice levies an impost on maritime navigability in the Arctic, but ice cover diminution due to anthropogenic climate change is generating expectations for improved accessibility in coming decades. Projections of sea ice cover retreating preferentially from the eastern Arctic suggest key provisions of international law of the sea will require revision. Specifically, protections against marine pollution in ice-covered seas enshrined in Article 234 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea have been used in recent decades to extend jurisdictional competence over the Northern Sea Route only loosely associated with environmental outcomes. Projections show that plausible open water routes through international waters may be accessible by midcentury under all but the most aggressive of emissions control scenarios. While inter- and intraannual variability places the economic viability of these routes in question for some time, the inevitability of a seasonally ice-free Arctic will be attended by a reduction of regulatory friction and a recalibration of associated legal frameworks.