This study examined the medical information contained in a sample of television ads soliciting consumers for lawsuits against drug and medical device manufactures. Almost all such ads involved drugs or devices that have not been recalled and remain on the market. These ads raise important public health questions because they may influence the prospective medical decisions of viewers.

The ads contained extensive descriptions of serious adverse events associated with the drugs or devices but almost uniformly failed to disclose information relating to the likelihood of such events. They also failed to effectively advise viewers to consult a doctor.

Results also identified a subset of ads that mimicked public service announcements, claiming to be a “medical alert” “consumer alert” or “FDA warning” at the start of the ad. Most such ads did not disclose the attorney source of the advertising until the final few seconds.

Alongside the constitutional controversy ultimately addressed by the Supreme Court, the colossal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) ushered in a new paradigm for regulation of biologics by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Nestled within the expansive ACA, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) set forth an abbreviated pathway to market for “biosimilar” and “interchangeable” biological products. While the current BPCIA implementation debate focuses chiefly on the scope of scientific and technical assessments by the FDA and the effect on the emergent biosimilar industry, two issues will prove essential for determinations of access to and costs of the resulting products: how the biosimilar and interchangeable biosimilar biologics are to be named, and whether pharmacist substitution is appropriate for products the FDA deems interchangeable. This article examines the current debate surrounding the use of nonproprietary names for biosimilar biologics, as well as state efforts to reconcile automatic substitution laws for the eventual products. In particular, the article addresses the implications for patients and the United States health care system, highlighting the potential negative effect on anticipated cost-savings, hindrances for effective tracking and reporting of adverse events, and a general lack of consistency in state laws.

For another thing, the division of medical opinion about the matter at most means uncertainty, a factor that signals the presence of risk, not its absence. That division here involves highly qualified knowledgeable experts on both sides of the issue.—Stenberg v. Carhart, 20001

While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.—Gonzales v. Carhart, 20072

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) may be the most important health law statute in American history, yet much of the most prominent legal scholarship examining it has focused on the merits of the court challenges it has faced rather than delving into the details of its priority-setting provisions. In addition to providing an overview of the ACA's provisions concerning priority setting and their developing interpretations, this Article attempts to defend three substantive propositions.

First, I argue that the ACA is neither uniformly hostile nor uniformly friendly to efforts to set priorities in ways that promote cost and quality.

Second, I argue that the ACA does not take a single, unified approach to priority setting; rather, its guidance varies depending on the aspect of the healthcare system at issue (Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Medicare, essential health benefits) and the factors being excluded from priority setting (age, disability, life expectancy).

Third, I argue that cost-effectiveness can be achieved within the ACA's constraints, but that doing so will require adopting new approaches to cost-effectiveness and priority setting. By limiting the use of standard cost-effectiveness analysis, the ACA makes the need for workable rivals to cost-effectiveness analysis a pressing practical concern rather than a mere theoretical worry.

By the end of 2013, almost 122,000 organ transplant candidates in the United States remained active on the national waiting list. The current number of candidates exceeds 123,000. To address this overwhelming need, researchers have been exploring methods to supplement traditional organ donations. At the forefront of this research is regenerative medicine, the field of regenerating or replacing tissue and organ function by studying the body’s own healing mechanisms. Regenerative medicine is quickly fulfilling its promise of producing vascularized, functioning organs in vitro by combining two other areas of research: the replication of cell lines in vitro and the recent adaptation of three-dimensional printing for the health care industry. Today, physicians armed with the latest generation of bioprinters and imaging equipment are creating high-resolution airway splints and personalized bone replacements for human use. These techniques have even achieved success with more complicated structures, including human kidneys and livers.

As of April 2015, twenty-three states and the District of Columbia permit the therapeutic use of marijuana1 to treat various illnesses or conditions, with legalization statutes currently pending in eight other states. Despite the growing number of states that allow for the prescription and use of medicinal marijuana, the federal government still classifies the drug as a Schedule I controlled substance, the strictest classification of controlled substances and the only type healthcare providers may not legally prescribe. As states continue to deliberate the merits of allowing access to marijuana for therapeutic use, it is useful to examine the structural and political forces that have prevented a similar movement at the federal level. This Note does so, and argues that proactive changes—either legislative or administrative—are necessary to remove the handicap that the current regulatory system places on attempts to change federal marijuana policy.