Nondiscrimination rules—statutes, regulations, and soft law protections—are critical for reducing health and health care disparities. Although scholarship has interrogated how nondiscrimination rules affect behavior by discriminators, comparatively little has considered how protections can affect choices made by members of protected groups. A number of states and some interpretations of federal law protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This Article seeks to identify relationships between actual state law, perceived state law, and experiences of discrimination and medical mistrust. This Article reports the results of a national cross-sectional survey of over 3,000 men using Grindr to meet male partners. Participants scored comparable to chance in knowledge about state nondiscrimination protections, with “optimistic errors” (erroneous beliefs that one was protected) significantly more common than pessimistic errors. Perceptions of protection were significantly correlated with lower medical mistrust and greater uptake of care, as well as lower perceived barriers to disclosure and care-seeking. Actual state law protections, however, were significant predictors of having had discussions with providers that depended on disclosure of sexual behavior or orientation. Building on these results, this Article considers pathways by which nondiscrimination law may exert welcome mat (and “unwelcome mat”) effects.

The lawsuits challenging Obamacare’s individual mandate have exposed a rift in federalism theory. On one side of the divide is a view that the national government ought to intervene—and ought to be constitutionally permitted to intervene—whenever the states are “separately incompetent” to regulate a particular subject. According to this view, the primary purpose of the Constitution’s enumeration of national powers is to authorize Congress to fix collective action problems among the states. Borrowing from Robert Cooter and Neil Siegel’s article of the same name, I refer to this view as “collective action federalism.” On the other side of the divide is a view that federalism exists for reasons other than efficiency of regulation and particularly that the Founders created the federal structure for the protection of individual liberty. According to this view, there is inherent value to state power that ought to be preserved against national encroachments.

In public health practice, the concepts of health and safety are often conflated. However, protecting and promoting health is radically different from protecting and promoting safety. Since 9/11, the distinctions between health and safety have changed and are in the process of merging. In our terrorism-obsessed world, public health has been increasingly militarized and enlisted, often without protest, into the service of protecting the safety of the public and the security of the nation. But safety and security are the proper purposes of law enforcement and the military, not of public health. More importantly, using public health to combat terrorism is often counterproductive to the population's health, and undermines human rights. Using the Ebola epidemic of 2014, this Article suggests how the post-9/11 reframing of public health goals as including disaster preparedness and counterterrorism, and the new military metaphors we have adopted to describe public health, have deformed our public health agencies, and have made them less trusted by the public. In turn, these agencies are therefore less able to prevent and respond to new infectious diseases. The United States' response to Ebola gives us an opportunity to reconsider the merger of public health and public safety domestically and globally. This Article suggests that a deeper commitment to human rights, especially to the right to health, has the theoretical and practical strength to act as a countervailing force and refocus public health on the health of populations rather than on safety and national security.

Two competing public policies, an individual’s right to choice of medical provider and the need to reduce health care costs, have collided as the federal government and the states implement health care reform. During his first year in office, President William J. Clinton focused on health care reform; however, Clinton was unsuccessful in implementing his “Health Security Act" and national debate dissolved into partisan bickering. With the failure to establish a coherent national policy on health care, the states and private and public health care entities are reshaping the market. Simultaneously, the courts and administrative agencies entertain public policy arguments favoring choice or cost reductions.

Fee-for-service (FFS) medical care allows individuals to receive medical care from their provider of choice. Under the FFS model, individuals chose their health care provider, receive care, and the provider bills an indemnity insurance plan on the basis of service provided. The emergence of managed care organizations (MCOs) narrowed and, in some cases, eliminated this right to choose one’s health care provider.

In this full-length Foreword, John Norris and David Szabo discuss the trend towards the development of substantially integrated and automated multi-institutional health care delivery systems. The authors then address the legal, economic, and policy implications of regulating medical computer systems. They conclude by noting that the rational allocation of costs and risks is a necessary step in developing new systems for health care delivery.

Expanding on previous industry guidance relative to increased clinical trial diversity, while honing more exacting treatments and better ways to fight diseases that have often disproportionately impacted people of color, is a topic being discussed by multidisciplinary public health experts across the nation.

This writing draws attention to the African American demographic, which is continually subject to health care disparities. Any glimpses of knowledge or medical discovery that could potentially help to redress harm or reinforce a weakened familial-cultural infrastructure should be emphasized for sanative restoration of the impacted communities. The focus of this writing is the African American cohort and its nexus to Benign Ethnic Neutropenia as the diverse target population of discussion, hoping to convey a harmonized approach in the examination of (1) the African American Benign Ethnic Neutropenia cohort within the context of basic scientific understanding, (2) the interplay of applicable governing regulatory protections, and (3) increased clinical trial participation to enlarge the pathway for increased diversity in clinical trials.

In a two-part article entitled “Private Credentialing of Health Care Personnel: An Antitrust Perspective,” Clark C. Havighurst and Nancy ‘M. P. King purport to set forth “a new and previously unexplored agenda for antitrust enforcement, one that the Authors believe will increase the quantity and quality of information available to consumers … .” Having concluded in Part One of the Article that antitrust courts and regulators should exercise only limited supervision over private credentialing in the health care field, in large part because of their “important procompetitive purpose of supplying useful information and advice to consumers,” the Authors reverse field and seek to use the antitrust laws to call into question the activities and structure of leading medical specialty boards, the Liasion Council on Medical Education, various accrediting, certifying and credentialing bodies in medicine and the allied health professions, and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH).

On August 22, 2009, when then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked by a reporter whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was constitutional, she answered: “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Two years later, many federal judges, more than half of the States, and a flood of distinguished constitutional scholars have examined the PPACA and found at least part of it to be unconstitutional. The question was indeed serious.

It remains serious today, as a Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the PPACA is expected in June 2012. Because the legality of the PPACA has emerged as perhaps the most publicly visible constitutional question since Roe v. Wade, clarity is vital not only for the PPACA itself, but also for general public understanding of the Constitution. Accordingly, our goals in this Article are to provide an opinionated but hopefully fair-minded guide to the constitutional issues of the PPACA and to clarify some misunderstandings that plague both popular and professional discussions of the issues.

What if physicians could use genetic tests to tailor prescriptions to their patients’ individual genotypes? Physicians and pharmaceutical companies can use pharmacogenomics to decrease the number of adverse drug reactions, increase drug efficacy, and lower health care costs. Unfortunately, cross-labeling rules serve as both legal and policy hurdles for these advances, hurdles the FDA has the power to remove. Part I explains pharmacogenomics and why it currently has a narrow application. Part II discusses the FDA's regulatory approach to pharmacogenomics. Part III explains the legal and policy hurdles of cross-labeling and how they impede the more widespread use of pharmacogenomics. Part IV examines ways to clear the legal cross-labeling hurdles while Part V examines ways to clear the policy cross-labeling hurdles. Finally, Part VI discusses some of the many other complex legal and policy issues that lawmakers, regulators, and the industry will need to resolve in order to realize the full potential of pharmacogenomics.

For years, the federal government has failed to uphold its promises to provide health care to Native Americans. These promises are echoed in treaties, the Constitution, and judicially-created law. As a result of this breach of promise and chronically underfunding, there are significant health disparities between indigenous populations and other Americans. In a recent 2020 case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court held that both the federal government and individual states must follow the terms of a treaty made with a tribe, encouraging the possibility of direct health care funding. This reform, however, means little without tribal sovereignty and self-determination, which give dignity and decisionmaking capabilities back to a group that has long been without them. This Note explores two examples of self-determination in Native American health care, the Alaskan Native health care system and the recent vaccine rollout, proposing a framework for increasing self-determination in health care to provide support for funding reform, which becomes increasingly necessary as Native Americans continue to struggle to access health care.

In June 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the precedent set by the 1973 decision in Roe vs. Wade, leaving access to abortion to be regulated by each state, rather than a U.S. constitutional right. Some states are setting gestational age limits, beyond which point only under certain circumstances can an abortion be obtained. Other states are banning abortion outright (regardless of gestational age) unless an “exception” is met. Certain states include an exception for abortion when a woman’s physical health is at risk if they continue the pregnancy, but, at the same time, do not provide an exception for women whose mental health is at risk (a “mental health exception”).

Mental health conditions that develop, continue, or are exacerbated during pregnancy may be manageable or treatable, and women may want to continue their pregnancy even while experiencing such conditions. However, the absence of a choice to terminate their pregnancy as a result of these mental health conditions means women who are unable to successfully manage or treat their mental health during pregnancy have no choice but to experience the impact on their mental health – and reconcile any resulting impact on the fetus.

This article will discuss the role a mental health exception plays in state abortion statutes by analyzing the impact of pregnancy on mental health and resources available to support those who experience mental health impacts during pregnancy while, simultaneously, advocating for the inclusion of a mental health exception in state abortion laws.

Upon the death of a king or queen, the proclamation “the king is dead, long live the king” announces a new monarch’s accession to the throne, preserving the sovereign order. As the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is implemented, it is tempting to proclaim the reign of a new system of health insurance. But, will it preserve the old order or initiate a new form of governance? As states and insurers grapple with new rules and regulations being issued from the Department of Health and Human Services, the Treasury Department and the Department of Labor, one might believe an entirely new health insurance system is being built. Yet, the ACA is designed to preserve existing forms of public and private health insurance, such as Medicare and private employer group health plans, which will continue to operate much as they have in the recent past. What has changed is the role that insurance will play and how that will shape the way we think about health policy.

Spurred by President Ronald Reagan's 1986 Executive Order seeking to establish a drug-free workplace and by the growing empirical data purporting to show a loss of time, money and productivity due to the adverse effects of substance abuse, employers in both the public and private sector have implemented drug testing programs on an unprecedented scale. Today, employers subject an estimated thirty million workers to some type of employer-sponsored drug and alcohol testing in the workplace. A 1996 survey by the American Management Association reports that eighty-one percent of all major corporations now employ some type of drug testing program, a fourfold increase in nine years.

While drag testing in the health care sector is rising, it still lags behind other industries. When a hospital does test, it often exempts a crucial job classification—physicians. This Article's thesis centers on the potential liability hospitals face by failing to include drug testing in its hiring and credentialing process.