Health Law and Bigotry Distractions.

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.

The US FDA's New Rule for Regulating Laboratory-Developed Tests.

This Viewpoint discusses potential benefits and obstacles regarding US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight of laboratory-developed tests.

Legal Accountability for Health Crises: "Unshielding" the Sackler Family.

This Viewpoint examines the US Supreme Court's decision in Harrington v Purdue Pharma and the ramifications it could have for public health and medicine.

The Biden Administration's Push to Lower Drug Prices Through March-In Rights.

This Viewpoint explores a 2023 Biden administration proposal for US agencies to use their march-in rights and the impact this proposed framework could have on drug prices.

Medicare Advantage Under Fire: Public Criticism and Implications.

Congressional hearings and public reports have drawn attention to problems afflicting Medicare Advantage (MA), the privatized version of Medicare. Private plans became a staple of Medicare through the passage of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA). Congress passed this law during a furor of privatization, when think tanks and powerful financial interests emphasized the power of corporations' profit incentive to improve the efficiency and quality of social enterprise. Yet the surging criticism of MA suggests a misalignment between the financial interest of some MA plans and the well-being of their patient populations. The criticisms range from deceptive marketing, ghost networks, and patient cherry-picking to unethical prior authorization denials and defrauding the government. In total, MA plans cost the federal government 22% more per patient than if these patients in question were enrolled in traditional Medicare. Moreover, it is not clear that this additional funding is producing proportional benefits. These developments raise questions about the presence of a profit incentive in Medicare, and perhaps health care more broadly.

Firearm Policy in the Hospital Setting-Recognizing Health Care as a "Sensitive Place".

Importance: Hospitals are hot zones of the US gun injury epidemic. To shelter these facilities from the dangers of gun violence, state legislatures have enacted laws to reduce the carrying of firearms on hospital premises. However, these efforts currently face serious Second Amendment challenges in federal courts. The ongoing legal battles, which have wide-ranging implications for patient and clinician safety as well as public health generally, are setting the stage for a Supreme Court case that may decide the fate of firearm regulations in US hospitals. A permissible pathway for advancing sensible gun regulation in hospitals is urgently needed. Observations: Since the Supreme Court established a new constitutional test for firearm laws in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen (2022), states now face unprecedentedly high barriers to enacting health-protecting legislation regarding firearms. Post-Bruen, the Supreme Court requires that laws be consistent with "this Nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation." This means that states hoping to enact laws barring public carry of firearms in hospitals must demonstrate that hospitals are a "sensitive place" as a historical matter (ie, analogous to a location where firearms were traditionally restricted). By reasoning from analogy, it is clear several historical comparators exist for regulating firearms in hospitals. Although the hospital (as understood today) did not exist in the 1700s, it is sufficiently analogous to asylums and schools, to name a few examples. These settings all share a common denominator with the modern-day hospital: serving vulnerable populations or individuals who may be at heightened risk of misusing firearms. Conclusions and Relevance: The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms is threatening democratically enacted laws seeking to shelter hospitals from firearm violence. However, it is clear that hospitals and other health care settings are a sensitive place with compelling historical analogies. Policymakers' strategic deployment of the sensitive places designation, along with its rightful judicial recognition in the hospital setting, are critical to upholding laws that protect health care facilities, patients, and professionals from firearm violence-a conclusion consistent with the US Constitution, history, medical ethics, and common sense.

Consumer Protection, Agencies, and the Supreme Court.

This Viewpoint discusses an upcoming US Supreme Court case that could result in the termination of the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which protects the financial well-being of consumers.

US Supreme Court Limits on the Power of US Health Agencies.

This Viewpoint describes how the overturning of Chevron deference would shift the ability to make policy decisions about public health and the environment from administrative agencies to the courts.

Lawsuits Over the Price of Insulin-State Efforts for Insulin Access.

This Viewpoint discusses the litigation strategy of state-initiated lawsuits alleging illegal and immoral conduct regarding the pricing of insulin by pharmaceutical companies and pharmacy benefit managers.

The Supreme Court's 303 Creative Decision and the Threat to LGBTQ+ Health Care.

This Viewpoint examines the importance of the Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative and its possible effects on legislation safeguarding nondiscriminatory health care.

Including E-Cigarettes in the FDA Rule Limiting Nicotine.

This Viewpoint discusses why the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should include e-cigarettes in its proposed cap of the nicotine concentration in combustible cigarettes to address the public health problem of vaping among adolescents.

Court Intrusion Into Science and Medicine-The Mifepristone Decisions.

This Viewpoint discusses recent US court decisions on the availability of mifepristone, a drug used to terminate pregnancies, and how these conflicting court decisions affect the scientific process and decision-making of the US Food and Drug Administration.

The FDA Struggle to Withdraw Makena: Problems With the Accelerated Approval Process.

This Viewpoint discusses the controversy surrounding the FDA's efforts to withdraw Makena from the market and the broader implications for the accelerated approval pathway.

Medicine, structural racism, and systems.

Medicine is having a reckoning with systemic racism. While some continue to believe medicine is apolitical and grounded purely in science, history and research reveal that medicine is inseparable from underlying systems, laws, and policies. Obesity is a useful case study. Weight loss trials have shown the immense difficulty in achieving and sustaining weight loss without addressing overlying systems. Barriers are double for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) with obesity, who must contend with multiple layers of oppressive systems. Increasingly, illness is not a matter of bad luck, but is a function of oppressive structures. COVID-19 likely originates in a deteriorating environment, we have an increasing global burden of disease from oppressive sales of food, sugar, alcohol, guns, nicotine, and other harmful products, and social inequality and resource hoarding are at a peak. Medicine can and must participate in redefining these systems. In doing so, it must center the experiences of BIPOC and push change that alleviates power disparities.

Perioperative Pharmacologic Prophylaxis of Venous Thromboembolism: A Professional Liability Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fear of medical liability is a major driver for broad administration of perioperative prophylactic anticoagulation, despite the persistently low rates of clinically symptomatic venous thromboembolism events (VTE) postoperatively. This study was undertaken to evaluate the medicolegal landscape of perioperative VTE and its pharmaceutical prophylaxis. METHODS: The Westlaw legal database was retrospectively searched for verdicts in medical professional liability cases in the United States between 2009 and 2020. One search strategy focused on perioperative VTE, and a second on claims of hemorrhagic complications in patients receiving perioperative anticoagulation. RESULTS: The search for VTE revealed 129 cases, and the search for hemorrhagic complications identified 24 cases. Almost half of the VTE cases were brought following orthopedic surgery (49%), and 29% following general surgery. The most common claims were failure to diagnose and treat during hospital stay or after discharge (74%), and failure to prescribe/administer anticoagulation (46%). Verdict for the health care professional (i.e., the defendant) was reached in 75% of cases. The median payout for patient verdicts was 1,213,644 USD (interquartile range 1,014,100; 150,000-7,700,000). Of hemorrhagic complication cases, 42% occurred in patients receiving VTE prophylaxis. In these cases, 82% resulted in a defendant verdict. CONCLUSIONS: Reasons for in-court medical professional liability claims involving perioperative VTE were mainly failure to diagnose VTE and rescue patients from complications postoperatively. The high rate of defendant verdicts supports the notion that decisions on VTE prophylaxis should not be influenced by fear of liability.