Evaluation of State-Mandated Reporting of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome - Six States, 2013-2017.

From 2004 to 2014, the incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) in the United States increased 433%, from 1.5 to 8.0 per 1,000 hospital births. The latest national data from 2014 indicate that one baby was born with signs of NAS every 15 minutes in the United States (1). NAS is a drug withdrawal syndrome that most commonly occurs among infants after in utero exposure to opioids, although other substances have also been associated with NAS. Prenatal opioid exposure has also been associated with poor fetal growth, preterm birth, stillbirth, and possible specific birth defects (2-5). NAS surveillance has often depended on hospital discharge data, which historically underestimate the incidence of NAS and are not available in real time, thus limiting states' ability to quickly direct public health resources (6,7). This evaluation focused on six states with state laws implementing required NAS case reporting for public health surveillance during 2013-2017 and reviews implementation of the laws, state officials' reports of data quality before and after laws were passed, and advantages and challenges of legally mandating NAS reporting for public health surveillance in the absence of a national case definition. Using standardized search terms in an online legal research database, laws in six states mandating reporting of NAS from medical facilities to state health departments (SHDs) or from SHDs to a state legislative body were identified. SHD officials in these six states completed a questionnaire followed by a semistructured telephone interview to clarify open-text responses from the questionnaire. Variability was found in the type and number of surveillance data elements reported and in how states used NAS surveillance data. Following implementation, five states with identified laws reported receiving NAS case reports within 30 days of diagnosis. Mandated NAS case reporting allowed SHDs to quantify the incidence of NAS in their states and to inform programs and services. This information might be useful to states considering implementing mandatory NAS surveillance.

Expanding state laws and a growing role for pharmacists in vaccination services.

OBJECTIVES: Gaps in vaccination coverage leave populations vulnerable to illnesses. Since the 1990s, there has been a growing movement to improve vaccination access by giving pharmacists the authority to administer vaccines according to state laws. Understanding the variation of pharmacist vaccination laws over time is critical to understanding the effect of improving access to vaccination services. METHODS: We identified relevant statutes and regulations with the use of Westlaw legal databases. A 4-stage coding process identified 220 legal variables of pharmacist vaccination authority. Each jurisdiction's laws were coded against these 220 legal variables. The resulting legal dataset was then evaluated to determine whether jurisdictions expanded or restricted pharmacist vaccination authorities over time. RESULTS: From 1971 to 2016, jurisdictions made 627 changes to statutes and regulations relating to pharmacist vaccination authority. There were 85 expansions, 3 restrictions, and 22 regulatory clarifications. Eight changes were deemed to be unclear, and 479 changes did not substantively alter the scope of pharmacist vaccination authority. CONCLUSION: Collectively, the laws in 50 states and DC paint a clear picture: the scope of pharmacists' vaccination authority is expanding. Jurisdictions are allowing pharmacists to administer more vaccines to younger patients with less direct prescriber oversight. This clear expansion of pharmacist vaccination authority stands in contrast to the reservations expressed by some physician groups for pharmacists as vaccination providers. However, laws in some states still do not permit pharmacists to vaccinate according to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations.

Personally Identifiable Information in State Laws: Use, Release, and Collaboration at Health Departments.

Despite benefits to sharing data among public health programs, confidentiality laws are often presumed to obstruct collaboration or data sharing. We present an overview of the use and release of confidential, personally identifiable information as consistent with public health interests and identify opportunities to align data-sharing procedures with use and release provisions in state laws to improve program outcomes. In August 2013, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention staff and legal researchers from the National Nurse-Led Care Consortium conducted a review of state laws regulating state and local health departments in 50 states and the District of Columbia. Nearly all states and the District of Columbia employ provisions for the general use and release of personally identifiable information without patient consent; disease-specific use or release provisions vary by state. Absence of law regarding use and release provisions was noted. Health departments should assess existing state laws to determine whether the use or release of personally identifiable information is permitted. Absence of direction should not prevent data sharing but prompt an analysis of existing provisions in confidentiality laws.

Legal preparedness: care of the critically ill and injured during pandemics and disasters: CHEST consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Significant legal challenges arise when health-care resources become scarce and population-based approaches to care are implemented during severe disasters and pandemics. Recent emergencies highlight the serious legal, economic, and health impacts that can be associated with responding in austere conditions and the critical importance of comprehensive, collaborative health response system planning. This article discusses legal suggestions developed by the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Task Force for Mass Critical Care to support planning and response efforts for mass casualty incidents involving critically ill or injured patients. The suggestions in this chapter are important for all of those involved in a pandemic or disaster with multiple critically ill or injured patients, including front-line clinicians, hospital administrators, and public health or government officials. METHODS: Following the CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee's methodology, the Legal Panel developed 35 key questions for which specific literature searches were then conducted. The literature in this field is not suitable to provide support for evidence-based recommendations. Therefore, the panel developed expert opinion-based suggestions using a modified Delphi process resulting in seven final suggestions. RESULTS: Acceptance is widespread for the health-care community's duty to appropriately plan for and respond to severe disasters and pandemics. Hospitals, public health entities, and clinicians have an obligation to develop comprehensive, vetted plans for mass casualty incidents involving critically ill or injured patients. Such plans should address processes for evacuation and limited appeals and reviews of care decisions. To legitimize responses, deter independent actions, and trigger liability protections, mass critical care (MCC) plans should be formally activated when facilities and practitioners shift to providing MCC. Adherence to official MCC plans should contribute to protecting hospitals and practitioners who act in good faith from liability. Finally, to address anticipated staffing shortages during severe and prolonged disasters and pandemics, governments should develop approaches to formally expand the availability of qualified health-care workers, such as through using official foreign medical teams. CONCLUSIONS: As a fundamental element of health-care and public health emergency planning and preparedness, the law underlies critical aspects of disaster and pandemic responses. Effective responses require comprehensive advance planning efforts that include assessments of complex legal issues and authorities. Recent disasters have shown that although law is a critical response tool, it can also be used to hold health-care stakeholders who fail to appropriately plan for or respond to disasters and pandemics accountable for resulting patient or staff harm. Claims of liability from harms allegedly suffered during disasters and pandemics cannot be avoided altogether. However, appropriate planning and legal protections can help facilitate sound, consistent decision-making and support response participation among health-care entities and practitioners.

EMAC volunteers: liability and workers' compensation.

The Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) provides a mechanism for states to assist each other during natural disasters and other emergencies. Congress ratified EMAC in 1996, and all 50 states and 3 territories have adopted it. EMAC allows a state affected by a disaster to request personnel and materiel from another state. For personnel requests, EMAC provides that the requesting state cover the tort liability and the responding state cover the workers' compensation liability. This article discusses the limitations of EMAC in deploying volunteers and how the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act and other provisions address those limitations.

Legal considerations in cross-jurisdictional sharing of public health laboratory services.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Association of Public Health Laboratories initiated the Laboratory Efficiencies Initiative in 2011 to help address issues related to public health laboratory (PHL) capacity to perform critically needed tests and services. One approach to improving capacity and efficiency is sharing PHL services with other states or jurisdictions. Cross-jurisdictional sharing implicates numerous federal and state laws, including federal and state privacy laws, laboratory certifications, packaging and shipping requirements for laboratory specimens, and state laws regarding fees and revenue. While federal laws generally do not present insurmountable barriers to sharing PHL services, state laws vary greatly, even within the same region of the country. This article summarizes some of the potentially relevant federal and state legal issues related to cross-jurisdictional sharing. It is important that states interested in cross-jurisdictional sharing consider all relevant laws, potential conflicts of law, as well as inconsistencies with agreements already in place among health departments and laboratories.