Social movements and human rights rhetoric in tobacco control.

After achieving breathtaking successes in securing state and local restrictions on smoking in public places and restricting youth access to tobacco products, the tobacco movement faces difficult decisions on its future strategic directions. The thesis of this article is that the tobacco control movement is at a point of needing to secure its recent successes and avoiding any public retrenchment. To do so requires rethinking the movement's strategic direction. We use the familiar trans-theoretical model of change to describe where the movement is currently and the threats it faces. The new tobacco control strategy should encompass a focus on voluntary non-smoking strategies, use human rights rhetoric to its advantage, and strengthen the public health voice to be more effective in political battles. In developing a new strategy, tobacco control advocates need to build a social movement based on a more forceful public health voice, along with the strategic use of human rights rhetoric, to focus on the power of voluntary non-smoking efforts. Using human rights rhetoric can help frame the movement in ways that have traditionally appealed to the American public. Perhaps more importantly, doing so can help infuse the tobacco control movement with a broader sense of purpose and mission.

Cost-effectiveness analysis in the courts: recent trends and future prospects.

This article provides an initial look at how managed care organizations (MCOs) might incorporate cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) into their decision-making process and how the courts might respond. Because so few medical liability cases directly involve CEA, we must look at other areas of the law to assess potential MCO liability for applying CEA. In general negligence cases, courts rely on a risk-benefit test to determine customary practice. Likewise, in product liability cases, courts use a risk-utility calculus to determine liability for product design defects. And in challenges to government regulation, courts examine how agencies use CEA to set regulatory policy. The results have been mixed. In product liability cases, CEA has led to some punitive damage awards against automobile manufacturers. But courts have integrated it in negligence cases without generating juror antipathy, and generally defer to agency expertise in how to incorporate CEA. The article discusses the implications of these cases for MCO use of CEA and outlines various options for setting the standard of care in the managed care era.

Managed care litigation: legal doctrine at the boundary of tort and contract.

This article summarizes the various approaches to how the law should assign responsibility in a system where health care financing and delivery are combined. Health law scholars have been debating whether conflicts in managed care between individual patient needs and preserving assets for the patient population should be resolved by tort or contract law. Until recently, the literature has been dominated by scholars arguing that managed care should be guided by contractual arrangements and concepts to stimulate the market changes occurring in health care delivery. We summarize the arguments for and against both contract and tort, along with recent attempts to bridge the gap between the two approaches. The case in favor of a contract regime fails to account for the hybrid nature of managed care delivery and the context in which managed care litigation arises. Thus, tort law retains a fundamental monitoring role in the managed care era.