A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat.

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.

Judicial Power and Influence on Population Health.

Policy Points Since its founding, the Supreme Court has played a major role in defining the parameters of governments' public health powers and the scope of individual health-related rights. Although conservative courts have been less favorable to public health objectives, federal courts have, for the most part, advanced public health interests through consensus and adherence to the rule of law. In establishing the current six-three conservative supermajority, the Trump administration and the Senate shifted the Supreme Court dramatically. A majority of Justices, led by Chief Justice Roberts, did shift the Court in a decidedly conservative direction. It did so incrementally, guided by the Chief's intuition that the Institution itself should be preserved, mindful of maintaining public trust and appearing outside the political fray. That has all changed because Roberts' voice no longer holds sway. Five members of the Court have displayed a willingness to overturn even long-held precedent and dismantle public health policy in favor of the Justices' core ideological tenants-notably the extensive reach of the First and Second Amendments and a parsimonious view of executive and administrative action. Public health is vulnerable to judicial rulings in this new conservative era. This includes classic public health powers in infectious disease control as well as reproductive rights; lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer or questioning, and others (LGBTQ+) rights; firearm safety; immigration; and climate change. Congress has the power to curb the most extreme actions of the Court while still adhering to the vital ideal of a nonpolitical branch. That does not require Congress itself to overreach (such as by "packing" the Supreme Court, as Franklin Delaeno Roosevelt once proposed). Congress could, however, 1) disempower lower federal judges from issuing injunctions that apply nationwide, 2) limit the Supreme Court's so-called shadow docket, 3) alter the way that presidents appoint federal judges, and 4) set reasonable term limits for federal judges and Supreme Court Justices.

The International Health Regulations (2005), the threat of populism and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare weaknesses and major challenges in the international approach to managing public health emergencies. Populist sentiment is spreading globally as democratic nations are increasing their support for or electing governments that are perceived to represent "traditional" native interests. Measures need to be taken to proactively address populist sentiment when reviewing the IHR (2005) effectiveness in the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss how populism can impact the IHR (2005) and conversely how the IHR (2005) may be able to address populist concerns if the global community commits to helping states address public health threats that emerge within their borders.

The two most important questions for ethical public health.

Public health ethics is a distinct and established field, and it is important that its approaches and rationales are understood widely in the public health community. Such understanding includes the capacity to identify and combine principled and practical concerns in public health. In this paper, we present a background to the ideas that motivate public health ethics as a field of research and practice, and rationalize these through a critical ethico-legal approach to analysis. Two essential points of inquiry are identified and formulated to allow philosophical and practical agendas regarding public health to be combined. These come through asking the theoretical question 'what makes health public?'; and the practical question 'how do we make health public?'. We argue that these two questions require to be addressed if we are to achieve a robust and rigorous, ethical public health.

Wars in Gaza and Beyond: Why Protecting the Sacredness of Health Matters.

This Viewpoint discusses the importance of safeguarding health access in times armed conflict worldwide and the need to bolster compliance with international humanitarian law.

Reimagining WHO: leadership and action for a new Director-General.

Three candidates to be the next WHO Director-General remain: Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, David Nabarro, and Sania Nishtar. The World Health Assembly's ultimate choice will lead an organisation facing daunting internal and external challenges, from its own funding shortfalls to antimicrobial resistance and immense health inequities. The new Director-General must transform WHO into a 21st century institution guided by the right to health. Topping the incoming Director-General's agenda will be a host of growing threats-risks to global health security, antimicrobial resistance, non-communicable diseases, and climate change-but also the transformative potential of the Sustainable Development Goals, including their universal health coverage target. Throughout, the next Director-General should emphasise equality, including through national health equity strategies and, more boldly still, advancing the Framework Convention on Global Health. Success in these areas will require a reinvigorated WHO, with sustainable financing, greater multisector engagement, enhanced accountability and transparency, and strengthened normative leadership. WHO must also evolve its governance to become far more welcoming of civil society and communities. To create the foundation for these transformative changes, the Director-General will need to focus first on gaining political support. This entails improving accountability and transparency to gain member state trust, and enabling meaningful civil society participation in WHO's governance and standing up for the right to health to gain civil society support. Ultimately, in the face of a global environment marked by heightened nationalism and xenophobia, member states must empower the next Director-General to enable WHO to be a bulwark for health and human rights, serving as an inspiring contra-example to today's destructive politics, demonstrating that the community of nations are indeed stronger together.

The global health law trilogy: towards a safer, healthier, and fairer world.

Global health advocates often turn to medicine and science for solutions to enduring health risks, but law is also a powerful tool. No state acting alone can ward off health threats that span borders, requiring international solutions. A trilogy of global health law-the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, International Health Regulations (2005), and Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework-strives for a safer, healthier, and fairer world. Yet, these international agreements are not well understood, and contain gaps in scope and enforceability. Moreover, major health concerns remain largely unregulated at the international level, such as non-communicable diseases, mental health, and injuries. Here, we offer reforms for this global health law trilogy.

The Supreme Court Is Harming Public Health and the Environment.

This Viewpoint looks back at the US Supreme Court's 2021 and 2022 terms and forward to the 2023 term and beyond with a focus on decisions that affect health care, public health and safety, environmental policy, and social equity.

Cost-Free Preventive Care Under the ACA Faces Legal Challenge.

This Viewpoint examines the recent decision by a federal district court that undercuts the Affordable Care Act's mandate for cost-free coverage of preventive services, including contraception, some vaccinations, many screenings, and preexposure prophylaxis for HIV, among others.

The Model State Indoor Air Quality Act.

This Viewpoint discusses how poor indoor air quality can affect health and examines the Model State Indoor Air Quality Act, which provides science-based regulatory standards aimed at ensuring public indoor environments provide healthy air.

From local adaptation to activism and global solidarity: framing a research and innovation agenda towards true health equity.

The proposal for a global health treaty aimed at health equity, the Framework Convention on Global Health, raises the fundamental question of whether we can achieve true health equity, globally and domestically, and if not, how close we can come. Considerable knowledge currently exists about the measures required to, at the least, greatly improve health equity. Why, then, do immense inequities remain? Building on this basic question, we propose four areas that could help drive the health equity research and innovation agenda over the coming years.First, recognizing that local contexts will often affect the success of policies aimed at health equity, local research will be critical to adapt strategies to particular settings. This part of the research agenda would be well-served by directly engaging intended beneficiaries for their insights, including through participatory action research, where the research contributes to action towards greater health equity.Second, even with the need for more local knowledge, why is the copious knowledge on how to reduce inequities not more frequently acted upon? What are the best strategies to close policymakers' knowledge gaps and to generate the political will to apply existing knowledge about improving health equity, developing the policies and devoting the resources required? Linked to this is the need to continue to build our understanding of how to empower the activism that can reshape power dynamics.Today's unequal power dynamics contribute significantly to disparities in a third area of focus, the social determinants of health, which are the primary drivers of today's health inequities. Continuing to improve our understanding of the pathways through which they operate can help in developing strategies to change these determinants and disrupt harmful pathways.And fourth, we return to the motivating question of whether we can achieve health equity. For example, can all countries have universal health coverage that comprehensively meets all of people's health needs? How to foster the national and global solidarity to achieve such equity? The answers to questions such as these can help point the way to measures, often well outside the narrow realm of technical solutions, to realize the right to health, and to achieve and sustain substantive health equality.

Toward a Common Secure Future: Four Global Commissions in the Wake of Ebola.

Lawrence Gostin and colleagues offer a set of priorities for global health preparedness and response for future infectious disease threats.