Trends in US State Public Health Emergency Laws, 2021-2022.

Objectives. To identify and categorize US state legislation introduced between January 1, 2021, and May 20, 2022, that addresses emergency health authority. Methods. We adapted standard policy surveillance methods to collect and code state bills and enacted laws limiting or expanding the emergency public health authority of state and local officials and agencies. Results. State legislators introduced 1531 bills addressing public health authority; 191 of those were enacted in 43 states and the District of Columbia, including 17 expanding and 65 contracting emergency authority, 163 regulating use, and 30 preempting local use of specific measures such as mask mandates. Conclusions. State laws setting the scope and limits of emergency authority are crucial to effective public health response. These laws are changing in ways that threaten to reduce response capacity. Tracking changes in health law infrastructure is important for evaluating changes in health authority and ensuring that stakeholders recognize these changes. Public Health Implications. The COVID-19 pandemic called for quick, decisive action to limit infections, and when the next outbreak hits, new laws limiting health authority will make such action even more difficult. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(3):288-296. https://doi.org/10.2105/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307214).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Examining National Public Health Law to Realize the Global Health Security Agenda.

Where the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) seeks to accelerate progress toward a world safe and secure from public health emergencies, the realization of GHSA 'Action Packages' will require national governments to establish necessary legal frameworks to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease. By analyzing the scope and content of existing national legislation in each of the GHSA Action Packages, this comparative cross-national research has developed a framework that disaggregates the legal domains necessary to meet each Action Package target. Based upon these legal domains, this study developed an assessment tool that can identify specific attributes of national legislation. This article applies this tool to assess the legal environment in twenty Sub-Saharan African countries, examining the content of laws across the GHSA Action Packages, analyzing the legal domains necessary to implement each Action Package, and highlighting specific national laws that reflect attributes of each legal domain.

A Transdisciplinary Approach to Public Health Law: The Emerging Practice of Legal Epidemiology.

Public health law has roots in both law and science. For more than a century, lawyers have helped develop and implement health laws; over the past 50 years, scientific evaluation of the health effects of laws and legal practices has achieved high levels of rigor and influence. We describe an emerging model of public health law that unites these two traditions. This transdisciplinary model adds scientific practices to the lawyerly functions of normative and doctrinal research, counseling, and representation. These practices include policy surveillance and empirical public health law research on the efficacy of legal interventions and the impact of laws and legal practices on health and health system operation. A transdisciplinary model of public health law, melding its legal and scientific facets, can help break down enduring cultural, disciplinary, and resource barriers that have prevented the full recognition and optimal role of law in public health.

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.

Co-prescribing naloxone does not increase liability risk.

The opioid overdose epidemic claims the lives of tens of thousands of Americans every year. Opioid overdose is reversible by the administration of naloxone, a pure antagonist now available in formulations specifically designed and labeled for layperson use. Despite broad support for layperson access to naloxone from professional organizations, health officials, and clinical experts, qualitative studies suggest that some providers have concerns about legal risks associated with naloxone prescribing, particularly co-prescribing naloxone to pain patients. Such concerns are unfounded. The legal risk associated with prescribing naloxone is no higher than that associated with any other medication and is lower than many. Additionally, laws in a majority of states provide explicit legal protections for providers who prescribe or dispense naloxone, in many cases extending this protection to prescriptions issued to friends, family members, and others. In this large and increasing number of states, the liability risk of prescribing or dispensing naloxone in good faith to a patient at risk of overdose (or, in states where such prescribing is permitted, to an associate of such a patient) is either extremely low or absent entirely. Where a prescriber determines, in his or her clinical judgment, that a patient is at risk of overdose, co-prescribing naloxone is a reasonable and prudent clinical and legal decision. No clinician should fail or refuse to issue such a prescription based on liability concerns.

Policy Surveillance: A Vital Public Health Practice Comes of Age.

Governments use statutes, regulations, and policies, often in innovative ways, to promote health and safety. Organizations outside government, from private schools to major corporations, create rules on matters as diverse as tobacco use and paid sick leave. Very little of this activity is systematically tracked. Even as the rest of the health system is working to build, share, and use a wide range of health and social data, legal information largely remains trapped in text files and pdfs, excluded from the universe of usable data. This article makes the case for the practice of policy surveillance to help end the anomalous treatment of law in public health research and practice. Policy surveillance is the systematic, scientific collection and analysis of laws of public health significance. It meets several important needs. Scientific collection and coding of important laws and policies creates data suitable for use in rigorous evaluation studies. Policy surveillance addresses the chronic lack of readily accessible, nonpartisan information about status and trends in health legislation and policy. It provides the opportunity to build policy capacity in the public health workforce. We trace its emergence over the past fifty years, show its value, and identify major challenges ahead.