Which Skills Are Key to Public Health Leaders' Success in Crisis Management?

Under-resourced and fragmented public health infrastructure has contributed to a poor pandemic response in the United States. There have been calls to redesign the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and to increase its budget. Lawmakers also have introduced bills aiming to change public health emergency powers at the local, state, and federal levels. Public health is ripe for reform, but reorganization and enhanced funding will not address an equally pressing problem: chronic failures of judgment in the definition and implementation of legal interventions. Without a more informed and nuanced appreciation for the value and limits of law as an instrument of health promotion, the public will remain at unnecessary risk.

Law and urban governance for health in times of rapid change.

Governance is an important factor in urban health, and law is an important element of healthy governance. Law can be an intervention local government wields to influence behavior and shape environments. Law can also be an important target of health promotion efforts: Law and the enforcement and implementation behaviors it fosters can promote unhealthy behaviors and environmental conditions, and can act as a barrier to healthy interventions or practices. Finally, law is a design and construction tool for the organization of governance. Law is the means through which cities are formally established. Their powers and duties, organizational structure, boundaries and decision-making procedures are all set by law. Regardless of the form of government, cities have legal levers they can manipulate for health promotion. Cities can use tax authority to influence the price of unhealthy products, or to encourage consumption of healthy foods. Cities can use their legal powers to address incidental legal effects of policies that they themselves cannot control. Cities may also have the authority to use law to address deeper determinants of health. The overall level of income or wealth inequality in a country reflects factors well-beyond a local government's control, but city government nonetheless has levers to directly and indirectly reduce economic and social inequality and their effects. A renewed focus on law and urban governance is the key to assuring health and well-being and closing the health equity gap.

Identifying data for the empirical assessment of law (IDEAL): a realist approach to research gaps on the health effects of abortion law.

Reproductive rights have been the focus of United Nations consensus documents, a priority for agencies like the WHO, and the subject of judgments issued by national and international courts. Human rights approaches have galvanised abortion law reform across numerous countries, but human rights analysis is not designed to empirically assess how legal provisions regulating abortion shape the actual delivery of abortion services and outcomes. Reliable empirical measurement of the health and social effects of abortion regulation is vital input for policymakers and public health guidance for abortion policy and practice, but research focused explicitly on assessing the health effects of abortion law and policy is limited at the global level. This paper describes a method for Identifying Data for the Empirical Assessment of Law (IDEAL), to assess potential health effects of abortion regulations. The approach was applied to six critical legal interventions: mandatory waiting periods, third-party authorisation, gestational limits, criminalisation, provider restrictions and conscientious objection. The IDEAL process allowed researchers to link legal interventions and processes that have not been investigated fully in empirical research to processes and outcomes that have been more thoroughly studied. To the extent these links are both transparent and plausible, using IDEAL to make them explicit allows both researchers and policy stakeholders to make better informed assessments and guidance related to abortion law. The IDEAL method also identifies gaps in scientific research. Given the importance of law to public health generally, the utility of IDEAL is not limited to abortion law.

Global Policy Surveillance: Creating and Using Comparative National Data on Health Law and Policy.

Throughout the world, laws play an important role in shaping population health. Law making is an intervention with measurable effects yet often unfolds without evaluation or monitoring. Policy surveillance-the systematic, scientific collection and analysis of laws of public health significance-can help bridge this gap by capturing important features of law in numeric form in structured longitudinal data sets.Currently deployed primarily in high-income countries, methods for cross-national policy surveillance hold significant promise, particularly given the growing quality and accessibility of global health data. Global policy surveillance can enable comparative research on the implementation and health impact of laws, their spread, and their political determinants. Greater transparency of status and trends in law supports health policy advocacy and promotes public accountability. Collecting, coding, and analyzing laws across countries presents numerous challenges-especially in low-resource settings.With insights from comparative politics and law, we suggest methods to address those challenges. We describe how longitudinal legal data have been used in limited, but important, ways for cross-national analysis and propose incorporating global policy surveillance into core global public health practice.

State Laws Governing Syringe Services Programs and Participant Syringe Possession, 2014-2019.

OBJECTIVE: Law is an important factor in the diffusion of syringe services programs (SSPs). This study measures the current status of, and 5-year change in, state laws governing SSP operations and possession of syringes by participants. METHODS: Legal researchers developed a cross-sectional data set measuring key features of state laws and regulations governing the possession and distribution of syringes across the 50 US states and the District of Columbia in effect on August 1, 2019. We compared these data with previously collected data on laws as of August 1, 2014. RESULTS: Thirty-nine states (including the District of Columbia) had laws in effect on August 1, 2019, that removed legal impediments to, explicitly authorized, and/or regulated SSPs. Thirty-three states had 1 or more laws consistent with legal possession of syringes by SSP participants under at least some circumstances. Changes from 2014 to 2019 included an increase of 14 states explicitly authorizing SSPs by law and an increase of 12 states with at least 1 provision reducing legal barriers to SSPs. Since 2014, the number of states explicitly authorizing SSPs nearly doubled, and the new states included many rural, southern, or midwestern states that had been identified as having poor access to SSPs, as well as states at high risk for HIV and hepatitis C virus outbreaks. Substantial legal barriers to SSP operation and participant syringe possession remained in >20% of US states. CONCLUSION: Legal barriers to effective operation of SSPs have declined but continue to hinder the prevention and reduction of drug-related harm.

Law enforcement and public health: recognition and enhancement of joined-up solutions.

Public security and law enforcement have a crucial but often largely unacknowledged role in protecting and promoting public health. Although the security sector is a key partner in many specific public health programmes, its identity as an important part of the public health endeavour is rarely recognised. This absence of recognition has resulted in a generally inadequate approach to research and investigation of ways in which law enforcement, especially police at both operational and strategic levels, can be effectively engaged to actively promote and protect public health as part of a broader multisectoral public health effort. However, the challenge remains to engage police to consider their role as one that serves a public health function. The challenge consists of overcoming the continuous and competitive demand for police to do so-called policing, rather than serve a broader public health function-often derogatively referred to as social work. This Series paper explores the intersect between law enforcement and public health at the global and local levels and argues that public health is an integral aspect of public safety and security. Recognition of this role of public health is the first step towards encouraging a joined-up approach to dealing with entrenched social, security, and health issues.

Mapping medical marijuana: state laws regulating patients, product safety, supply chains and dispensaries, 2017.

AIMS: (1) To describe open source legal data sets, created for research use, that capture the key provisions of US state medical marijuana laws. The data document how state lawmakers have regulated a medicine that remains, under federal law, a Schedule I illegal drug with no legitimate medical use. (2) To demonstrate the variability that exists across states in rules governing patient access, product safety and dispensary practice. METHODS: Two legal researchers collected and coded state laws governing marijuana patients, product safety and dispensaries in effect on 1 February 2017, creating three empirical legal data sets. We used summary tables to identify the variation in specific statutory provisions specified in each state's medical marijuana law as it existed on 1 February 2017. We compared aspects of these laws to the traditional Federal approach to regulating medicine. Full data sets, codebooks and protocols are available through the Prescription Drug Abuse Policy System (http://www.pdaps.org/; Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/6qv5CZNaZ on 2 June 2017). RESULTS: Twenty-eight states (including the District of Columbia) have authorized medical marijuana. Twenty-seven specify qualifying diseases, which differ across states. All states protect patient privacy; only 14 protect patients against discrimination. Eighteen states have mandatory product safety testing before any sale. While the majority have package/label regulations, states have a wide range of specific requirements. Most regulate dispensaries (25 states), with considerable variation in specific provisions such as permitted product supply sources number of dispensaries per state and restricting proximity to various types of location. CONCLUSIONS: The federal ban in the United States on marijuana has resulted in a patchwork of regulatory strategies that are not uniformly consistent with the approach usually taken by the Federal government and whose effectiveness remains unknown.

Supporting a Culture of Evidence-Based Policy: Federal Funding for Public Health Law Evaluation Research, 1985-2014.

OBJECTIVE: Law powerfully influences health and can be a critical tool for promoting population well-being. Evaluation research is needed to measure the health effects of law and guide policy making and implementation. The purpose of this study was to assess trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for scientific public health law research (PHLR). METHODS: Using data from the UberResearch NIH grant repository, we collected and coded all grants with a focus on health law between FY'85 and FY'14 and then analyzed the grants by funding agency and topic areas. RESULTS: Between FY'85 and FY'14, NIH funded 510 research grants on health policy making, the health effects of laws or enforcement practices. On average, 4 PHLR grants were funded annually with a median total funding of $545 956 (range: $2535-$44 052 300) and a median annual funding of $205 223 (range: $2535-$7 019 517). CONCLUSIONS: National Institutes of Health has supported important PHLR but not nearly to the extent necessary to ensure that public health laws affecting the population are evaluated in a rigorous and timely manner. In addition to greater funding evaluation research, NIH can increase its support for creating legal datasets, fund training in PHLR, and work with the National Library of Medicine to create Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms related to PHLR.

National public health law: a role for WHO in capacity-building and promoting transparency.

A robust health infrastructure in every country is the most effective long-term preparedness strategy for global health emergencies. This includes not only health systems and their human resources, but also countries' legal infrastructure for health: the laws and policies that empower, obligate and sometimes limit government and private action. The law is also an important tool in health promotion and protection. Public health professionals play important roles in health law - from the development of policies, through their enforcement, to the scientific evaluation of the health impact of laws. Member States are already mandated to communicate their national health laws and regulations to the World Health Organization (WHO). In this paper we propose that WHO has the authority and credibility to support capacity-building in the area of health law within Member States, and to make national laws easier to access, understand, monitor and evaluate. We believe a strong case can be made to donors for the funding of a public health law centre or unit, that has adequate staffing, is robustly networked with its regional counterparts and is integrated into the main work of WHO. The mission of the unit or centre would be to define and integrate scientific and legal expertise in public health law, both technical and programmatic, across the work of WHO, and to conduct and facilitate global health policy surveillance.

Avoir une infrastructure sanitaire solide dans chaque pays est la meilleure stratégie à long terme de préparation aux urgences sanitaires mondiales. Il s'agit non seulement des systèmes de santé et de leurs ressources humaines, mais aussi de l'infrastructure juridique des pays en matière de santé: les lois et les politiques qui permettent, obligent et parfois limitent l'action du gouvernement et du secteur privé. La législation est également un outil important pour la promotion et la protection de la santé. Les professionnels de la santé publique jouent un rôle important vis-à-vis de la législation sanitaire - de l'élaboration des politiques à leur application, en passant par l'évaluation scientifique de l'impact des lois sur la santé. Les États membres sont déjà chargés de faire part de leurs lois et règlements nationaux en matière de santé à l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé (OMS). Le présent article suggère que l'OMS, qui dispose de l'autorité et de la crédibilité pour le faire, participe au renforcement des capacités dans le domaine de la législation sanitaire des États membres et facilite l'accès, la compréhension, le contrôle et l'évaluation des lois nationales. Des arguments convaincants peuvent être présentés aux bailleurs de fonds pour le financement d'un centre ou d'une unité de législation de la santé publique qui disposerait du personnel nécessaire, entretiendrait de solides relations avec ses homologues régionaux et serait intégré aux principaux travaux de l'OMS. La mission de cette unité ou de ce centre consisterait à définir et intégrer l'expertise scientifique et juridique dans la législation de la santé publique, sur le plan technique et programmatique, dans le cadre des travaux de l'OMS, et à réaliser et faciliter la surveillance des politiques sanitaires mondiales.

Una infraestructura sanitaria firme en todos los países es la estrategia de preparación más eficaz a largo plazo para tratar las emergencias sanitarias en todo el mundo. Esto no solo incluye los sistemas sanitarios y sus recursos humanos, sino también la infraestructura legal para la salud de cada país: las leyes y políticas que facultan, obligan y, en ocasiones, limitan la acción privada y del gobierno. La legislación también es una herramienta importante para el fomento y la protección de la salud. Los profesionales de la salud pública tienen funciones fundamentales en la legislación sanitaria: desde el desarrollo de políticas a través de su puesta en vigor, hasta la evaluación científica del impacto sanitario de las leyes. Ya se ha encomendado a los Estados Miembros que comuniquen sus leyes y normativas de salud nacionales a la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Este artículo propone que la OMS tenga la autoridad y credibilidad para dar apoyo a la creación de capacidad de las leyes sanitarias de los Estados Miembros, y para facilitar el acceso, la comprensión, la supervisión y la evaluación de las leyes nacionales. Creemos que hay argumentos firmes a favor de las contribuciones para la financiación de un centro o unidad de derecho de salud pública que cuente con el personal adecuado, tenga un sistema de redes sólido con sus contrapartes regionales y esté integrado con el trabajo principal de la OMS. La misión de la unidad o centro sería definir e integrar la experiencia científica y legal en la ley de salud pública, tanto en el aspecto técnico como programático, a través del trabajo de la OMS, así como dirigir y facilitar el control de las políticas sanitarias globales.