PHLW's Leo Beletsky and Elisabeth Ryan wrote about the increasing use of "Section 35" commitments in Massachusetts over at The Crime Report. This law allows people with substance use disorders to be committed involuntarily to a secure facility for up to 90 days. This is not the way to handle the opioid crisis.
Read moreLaw Enforcement, Drugs, and the 'Public Health' Approach [from The Crime Report]
Leo Beletsky, George Consortium founding member and Associate Professor of Law and Health Sciences at Northeastern University School of Law, wrote "Law Enforcement, Drugs, and the 'Public Health' Approach," for The Crime Report in April 2016. Watch tomorrow for a new piece about the law in Massachusetts that allows individuals with substance use disorders to be involuntarily committed to secure facilities for up to three months.
Read moreThe Tanning Tax is a Public Health Success Story [from Health Affairs Blog]
Given Congressional Republicans’ failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the elimination of the tanning tax appears to be off the table, at least for now.
Read morePublic Health and the Battle for Local Control
Last year -- over at Notice & Comment -- I blogged about two laws in Arizona that were taking seemed to be extreme forms of state-level preemption. SB 1847 provided that if the state Attorney General concluded that a local government had passed a local law that was preempted by state law, the state could withhold all state funding from the locality. Meanwhile, SB 1524 provided -- in incredibly broad and vague terms -- that a local government "may not take any action that materially increases the regulatory burdens on a business unless there is a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public that has not been addressed by legislation or industry regulation within the proposed regulated field."
Read moreFDA Reboots Tobacco Regulation with Harm Reduction
On Friday, July 28, 2017, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb unveiled a revamped approach to tobacco product regulation in an announcement that surprised tobacco companies, investors, and the public health community in equal measure. The goal, as articulated by Gottlieb, will be to regulate products so as to encourage migrating existing consumers from the most lethal combustible tobacco products (i.e., cigarettes) to non-combustible products lower on the continuum of risk.
Read moreMere Exposure to STDs May Not Be Enough to Prove Damages in Usher Case
Three past sexual partners of entertainer Usher are now suing him for allegedly exposing them to genital herpes without their knowledge or consent.
Read moreRecent Study Shows Stronger Firearms Laws Associated with Fewer Fatal Shootings by Police
In 2015 and 2016, at least 2239 people were killed by police in the United States, overwhelmingly by gunshot. But a recent study shows that fatal shootings by police are half as common in states with stricter firearms laws than in those with the most permissive laws.
Read moreRepublicans Failed Because They Have No Idea What Kind of Health Care They Actually Want
Not so long ago, much of the Republican Party stood united in a vision for health care.
Read moreCan Trump Simply Stop Paying Subsidies to Insurance Companies?
In recent days, President Donald Trump announced, via Twitter, that "If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!" He was presumably referring first to cost-sharing reduction subsidy payments to insurance companies required by the Affordable Care Act and, second, to the fact that members of Congress and their staff are required to buy health insurance on the ACA market instead of being allowed on the federal employee health plan. However, unlike most people who purchase insurance via the marketplace, Congressional staffers still receive an employer subsidy. Ending subsidy payments to insurance companies could be catastrophic to the market - so can Trump simply stop paying them?
Read moreHealth Care for Trans Military Members is Not That Expensive
Today, the President tweeted that he is barring all transgender individuals from serving in the military "in any capacity." One justification he claimed was their "tremendous medical costs." But, as STAT points out, "at least two studies in recent years have found that the cost of medical care for transgender service members would be minimal."
Read more