The Role of the Legal System in the Flint Water Crisis.

Policy Points A major factor explaining government actors' failure to mitigate or avert the Flint, Michigan, water crisis is the sheer complexity of the laws regulating how governmental agencies maintain and monitor safe drinking water. Coordination across agencies is essential in dealing with multiple legal arrangements. Public health legal authority and intervention mechanisms are not self-executing. Legal preparedness is essential to efficiently navigating complex legal frameworks to address public health threats. The Flint water crisis demonstrates the importance of democracy for protecting the public's health. Laws responding to municipal fiscal distress must be consistent with expected norms of democracy and require consideration of public health in decision making. Context The Flint, Michigan, water crisis resulted from a state-appointed emergency financial manager's cost-driven decision to switch Flint's water source to the Flint River. Ostensibly designed to address Flint's long-standing financial crisis, the switch instead created a public health emergency. A major factor explaining why the crisis unfolded as it did is the complex array of laws regulating how governmental agencies maintain and monitor safe drinking water. Methods We analyzed these legal arrangements to identify what legal authority state, local, and federal public health and environmental agencies could have used to avert or mitigate the crisis and recommend changes to relevant laws and their implementation. First, we mapped the legal authority and roles of federal, state, and local agencies responsible for safe drinking water and the public's health-that is, the existing legal environment. Then we examined how Michigan's emergency manager law altered the existing legal arrangements, leading to decisions that ignored the community's long-term health. Juxtaposed on those factors, we considered how federalism and the relationship between state and local governments influenced public officials during the crisis. Findings The complex legal arrangements governing public health and safe drinking water, combined with a lack of legal preparedness (the capacity to use law effectively) among governmental officials, impeded timely and effective actions to mitigate or avert the crisis. The emergency manager's virtually unfettered legal authority in Flint exacerbated the existing complexity and deprived residents of a democratically accountable local government. Conclusions Our analysis reveals flaws in both the legal structure and how the laws were implemented that simultaneously failed to stop and substantially exacerbated the crisis. Policymakers need to examine the legal framework in their jurisdictions and take appropriate steps to avoid similar disasters. Addressing the implementation failures, including legal preparedness, should likewise be a priority for preventing future similar crises.

Priorities for Investing in Community Health Improvement: A Comparison of Decision Makers in Public Health, Nonprofit Hospitals, and Community Nonprofits.

CONTEXT: As a result of additional requirements for tax exemption, many nonprofit hospitals have become more actively involved in community health improvement. There is an open question, however, as to how decision makers in hospitals decide which kind of improvement projects should receive priority and how hospital managers' priorities compare with those of decision makers in public health agencies and community-based nonprofits. OBJECTIVE: To understand the priorities that guide decision makers in public health, nonprofit hospitals, and community nonprofits when allocating resources to community health projects. DESIGN: We conducted an online survey with a discrete choice experiment, asking respondents to choose between different types of community health projects, which varied along several project characteristics. Respondents included managers of community health and community benefit at nonprofit hospitals (n = 225), managers at local public health departments (n = 200), and leaders of community nonprofits (n = 136). Respondents were located in 47 of 50 US states. A conditional logit model was used to estimate how various project characteristics led to greater or lesser support of a given health project. Open-ended questions aided in interpretation of results. RESULTS: Respondents from all 3 groups showed strong agreement on community health priorities. Projects were more likely to be selected when they addressed a health issue identified on community health needs assessment, involved cross-sector collaboration, or were supported by evidence. Project characteristics that mattered less included the time needed to measure the project's impact and the project's target population. CONCLUSION: Elements often considered central to community health, such as long-term investment and prioritizing vulnerable populations, may not be considered by decision makers as important as other aspects of resource allocation. If we want greater priority for ideas such as health equity and social determinants of health, it will take a concerted effort from practitioners and policy makers to reshape expectations.

Health Law 2015: Individuals and Populations.

In this article, we assess two particular trends in judicial doctrine that are likely to emerge in the post-ACA era. The first trend is the inevitable emergence of enterprise medical liability (EML) that will supplant tort law's unstable attempt to apportion liability between physicians and institutions. Arguments favoring EML in health law date back to the early 1980s. But health care's ongoing consolidation suggests that the time has arrived for courts or state legislatures to develop legal doctrine that more closely resembles the ways in which health care is now delivered. This would result in a more appropriate allocation of liability to the institutional level. The second judicial trend will be the convergence of health law and public health law concepts. Because the ACA arguably stimulates closer engagement between health systems and public health departments, health systems will have greater responsibility for keeping their communities healthy along with obligations for individual patient care (i.e., individuals and populations). If so, courts will need to incorporate elements from health law and public health law in resolving disputes.

Assessing entrepreneurship in governmental public health.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the feasibility and desirability of public health entrepreneurship (PHE) in governmental public health. METHODS: Using a qualitative case study approach with semistructured interview protocols, we conducted interviews between April 2010 and January 2011 at 32 local health departments (LHDs) in 18 states. Respondents included chief health officers and senior LHD staff, representatives from national public health organizations, health authorities, and public health institutes. RESULTS: Respondents identified PHE through 3 overlapping practices: strategic planning, operational efficiency, and revenue generation. Clinical services offer the strongest revenue-generating potential, and traditional public health services offer only limited entrepreneurial opportunities. Barriers include civil service rules, a risk-averse culture, and concerns that PHE would compromise core public health values. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing PHE activity has the potential to reduce LHDs' reliance on unstable general public revenues. Yet under the best of circumstances, it is difficult to generate revenue from public health services. Although governmental public health contains pockets of entrepreneurial activity, its culture does not sustain significant entrepreneurial activity. The question remains as to whether LHDs' current public revenue sources are sustainable and, if not, whether PHE is a feasible or desirable alternative.

The courts and public health: caught in a pincer movement.

Public health practitioners are familiar with the general outlines of legal authority and with judicial standards for reviewing public health regulations. What may not be as familiar are 3 emerging judicial doctrines that pose considerable risks to public health initiatives. We explain the contentious series of judicial rulings that now place health departments' broad grant of authority in jeopardy. One doctrine invokes the First Amendment to limit regulatory authority. The second involves the Supreme Court's reinterpretation of federalism to limit both federal and state public health interventions. The third redefines the standard of evidence required to support regulations. Together, these judicial trends create a pincer movement that places substantial new burdens on the ability of health departments to protect health.

Evaluating hospitals' provision of community benefit: an argument for an outcome-based approach to nonprofit hospital tax exemption.

Nonprofit hospitals are exempt from federal income taxation if they pass organizational and operational tests, including satisfying the community-benefit standard. Policymakers, however, have questioned the adequacy of the community benefits that nonprofit hospitals provide in exchange for these exemptions. The Internal Revenue Service recently responded to these concerns by redesigning its tax forms for nonprofit hospitals. The new Form 990 Schedule H requires nonprofit hospitals to provide additional information about their community-benefit activities. This new reporting requirement, however, places an undue focus on input-based community-benefit indicators, in particular expenditures. We argue that expanding the current input-based reporting requirement to include not only monetary inputs but also population health outcomes would achieve greater benefit for society.

The role of networks in the European union public health experience.

Improving our understanding of how the public health system should be organized is important, because the system's organizational structure makes a significant difference to the public's health. How the system is structured influences a practitioner's ability to respond and the system's capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. In view of the scarce resources society is willing to expend for public health, it is essential to have a structure in place that most appropriately and efficiently allocates those resources. The articles in this issue offer considerable insight from a European context, that deserves attention from US public health practitioners, advocates, and policy makers.

The role of law in public health preparedness: opportunities and challenges.

We report the results of a study designed to assess and evaluate how the law shapes the public health system's preparedness activities. Based on 144 qualitative interviews conducted in nine states, we used a model that compared the objective legal environment with how practitioners perceived the laws. Most local public health and emergency management professionals relied on what they perceived the legal environment to be rather than on an adequate understanding of the objective legal requirements. Major reasons for the gap include the lack of legal training for local practitioners and the difficulty of obtaining clarification and consistent legal advice regarding public health preparedness. Narrowing the gap would most likely improve preparedness outcomes. We conclude that there are serious deficiencies in legal preparedness that can undermine effective responses to public health emergencies. Correcting the lack of legal knowledge, coupled with eliminating delays in resolving legal issues and questions during public health emergencies, could have measurable consequences on reducing morbidity and mortality.

Physicians, the Affordable Care Act, and primary care: disruptive change or business as usual?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 1 (ACA) presages disruptive change in primary care delivery. With expanded access to primary care for millions of new patients, physicians and policymakers face increased pressure to solve the perennial shortage of primary care practitioners. Despite the controversy surrounding its enactment, the ACA should motivate organized medicine to take the lead in shaping new strategies for meeting the nation's primary care needs. In this commentary, we argue that physicians should take the lead in developing policies to address the primary care shortage. First, physicians and medical professional organizations should abandon their long-standing opposition to non-physician practitioners (NPPs) as primary care providers. Second, physicians should re-imagine how primary care is delivered, including shifting routine care to NPPs while retaining responsibility for complex patients and oversight of the new primary care arrangements. Third, the ACA's focus on wellness and prevention creates opportunities for physicians to integrate population health into primary care practice.

Achieving public health legal preparedness: how dissonant views on public health law threaten emergency preparedness and response.

BACKGROUND: Effective management of modern public health emergencies requires the coordinated efforts of multiple agencies representing various disciplines. Organizational culture differences between public health (PH) and emergency management (EM) entities may hinder inter-agency collaboration. We examine how PH and EM differ in their approach to PH law and how such differences affect their collaboration towards PH preparedness. METHODS: We conducted 144 semi-structured interviews with local and state PH and EM officials between April 2008 and November 2009. Thematic qualitative analysis in ATLAS.ti was used to extract characteristics of each agency's approach to PH legal preparedness. RESULTS: Two conflicting approaches to the law emerge. The PH approach is characterized by perceived uncertainty regarding legal authority over preparedness planning tasks; expectation for guidance on interpretation of existing laws; and concern about individual and organizational liability. The EM approach reveals perception of broad legal authority; flexible interpretation of existing laws; and ethical concerns over infringement of individual freedoms and privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct interpretations of preparedness law impede effective collaboration for PH preparedness. Clarification of legal authority mandates, designation within laws of scope of preparedness activities and guidance on interpretation of current federal and state laws are needed.

Toward a 21st-century health care system: recommendations for health care reform.

The coverage, cost, and quality problems of the U.S. health care system are evident. Sustainable health care reform must go beyond financing expanded access to care to substantially changing the organization and delivery of care. The FRESH-Thinking Project (www.fresh-thinking.org) held a series of workshops during which physicians, health policy experts, health insurance executives, business leaders, hospital administrators, economists, and others who represent diverse perspectives came together. This group agreed that the following 8 recommendations are fundamental to successful reform: 1. Replace the current fee-for-service payment system with a payment system that encourages and rewards innovation in the efficient delivery of quality care. The new payment system should invest in the development of outcome measures to guide payment. 2. Establish a securely funded, independent agency to sponsor and evaluate research on the comparative effectiveness of drugs, devices, and other medical interventions. 3. Simplify and rationalize federal and state laws and regulations to facilitate organizational innovation, support care coordination, and streamline financial and administrative functions. 4. Develop a health information technology infrastructure with national standards of interoperability to promote data exchange. 5. Create a national health database with the participation of all payers, delivery systems, and others who own health care data. Agree on methods to make de-identified information from this database on clinical interventions, patient outcomes, and costs available to researchers. 6. Identify revenue sources, including a cap on the tax exclusion of employer-based health insurance, to subsidize health care coverage with the goal of insuring all Americans. 7. Create state or regional insurance exchanges to pool risk, so that Americans without access to employer-based or other group insurance could obtain a standard benefits package through these exchanges. Employers should also be allowed to participate in these exchanges for their employees' coverage. 8. Create a health coverage board with broad stakeholder representation to determine and periodically update the affordable standard benefit package available through state or regional insurance exchanges.

Health care reform and federalism.

Health policy debates are replete with discussions of federalism, most often when advocates of reform put their hopes in states. But health policy literature is remarkably silent on the question of allocation of authority, rarely asking which levels of government ought to lead. We draw on the larger literatures about federalism, found mostly in political science and law, to develop a set of criteria for allocating health policy authority between states and the federal government. They are social justice, procedural democracy, compatibility with value pluralism, institutional capability, and economic sustainability. Of them, only procedural democracy and compatibility with value pluralism point to state leadership. In examining these criteria, we conclude that American policy debates often get federalism backward, putting the burden of health care coverage policy on states that cannot enact or sustain it, while increasing the federal role in issues where the arguments for state leadership are compelling. We suggest that the federal government should lead present and future financing of health care coverage, since it would require major changes in American intergovernmental relations to make innovative state health care financing sustainable outside a strong federal framework.

Ethical issues in public health practice in Michigan.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to ascertain the types of ethical challenges public health practitioners face in practice and to identify approaches used to resolve such challenges. METHODS: We conducted 45 semistructured interviews with public health practitioners across a range of occupations (e.g., health officers, medical directors, sanitarians, nurses) at 13 health departments in Michigan. RESULTS: Through qualitative analysis, we identified 5 broad categories of ethical issues common across occupations and locations: (1) determining appropriate use of public health authority, (2) making decisions related to resource allocation, (3) negotiating political interference in public health practice, (4) ensuring standards of quality of care, and (5) questioning the role or scope of public health. Participants cited a variety of values guiding their decision-making that did not coalesce around core values often associated with public health, such as social justice or utilitarianism. Public health practitioners relied on consultations with colleagues to resolve challenges, infrequently using frameworks for decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Public health practitioners showed a nuanced understanding of ethical issues and navigated ethical challenges with minimal formal assistance. Decision-making guides that are empirically informed and tailored for practitioners might have some value.

"Listen to the people": public deliberation about social distancing measures in a pandemic.

Public engagement in ethically laden pandemic planning decisions may be important for transparency, creating public trust, improving compliance with public health orders, and ultimately, contributing to just outcomes. We conducted focus groups with members of the public to characterize public perceptions about social distancing measures likely to be implemented during a pandemic. Participants expressed concerns about job security and economic strain on families if businesses or school closures are prolonged. They shared opposition to closure of religious organizations, citing the need for shared support and worship during times of crises. Group discussions elicited evidence of community-mindedness (e.g., recognition of an extant duty not to infect others), while some also acknowledged strong self-interest. Participants conveyed desire for opportunities for public input and education, and articulated distrust of government. Social distancing measures may be challenging to implement and sustain due to strains on family resources and lack of trust in government.

Community responses to diabetes and mental health care for the uninsured population in Michigan.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how the safety net in Michigan is responding to the health care needs of their uninsured population with diabetes and/or mental illness. METHODS: We used a multiple-site case study design. Data were collected through interviews of key informants in five Michigan communities. Analytic patterns and themes were identified, and compared across communities and by organizational type. RESULTS: Informants reported they are managing to meet the needs of uninsured diabetics but are having great difficulty caring for the uninsured with mental illness. Specialty care for diabetes is obtainable, but is resource-intensive. Mental health services available for uninsured patients are severely limited. The presence of a county health plan (CHP) appears insufficient to improve access, especially to mental health services. CONCLUSIONS: The safety net for Michigan's uninsured population with diabetes and mental illness is weak. Processes including referrals and care coordination are of poor quality in some communities. The value of integrating mental health services into primary care should be examined.

Learning from the Flint Water Crisis: Restoring and Improving Public Health Practice, Accountability, and Trust.

The Flint water crisis demonstrates the importance of adequate legal preparedness in dealing with complicated legal arrangements and multiple statutory responsibilities. It also demonstrates the need for alternative accountability measures when public officials fail to protect the public's health and explores mechanisms for restoring community trust in governmental public health.

The effects of medical liability on obstetric care supply in Michigan.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine Michigan obstetric providers' provision of obstetric care and the impact of malpractice concerns on their practice decisions. STUDY DESIGN: Data were obtained from 899 Michigan obstetrician-gynecologists, family physicians, and nurse-midwives via a statewide survey. Statistical tests were conducted to examine differences in obstetric care provision and the influence of various factors across specialties. RESULTS: Among providers currently practicing obstetrics, 18.3%, 18.7%, and 11.9% of obstetrician-gynecologists, family physicians, and nurse-midwives, respectively, planned to discontinue delivering babies in the next 5 years, and 35.5%, 24.5%, and 12.6%, respectively, planned to reduce their provision of high-risk obstetric care. "Risk of malpractice litigation" was 1 of the most cited factors affecting providers' decision to include obstetrics in their practice. CONCLUSION: Litigation risk appears to be an important factor influencing Michigan obstetric providers' decisions about provision of care. Its implications for obstetric care supply and patients' access to care warrants further research.