The National Public Health Law Conference: People. Policy. Progress., held October 2023, brought together more than 400 stakeholders in public health to explore how law and policy can be leveraged to advance health equity, improve data sharing for community health, protect access to reproductive health and facilitate system change.

The administration of Pre-Mortem Interventions (PMIs) to preserve the opportunity to donate, to assess the eligibility to donate, or to optimize the outcomes of donation and transplantation are controversial as they offer no direct medical benefit and include at least the possibility of harm to the still-living patient. In this article, we describe the legal analysis surrounding consent to PMIs, drawing on existing legal commentary and identifying key legal problems. We provide an overview of the approaches in several jurisdictions that have chosen to explicitly address PMIs within codified law. We then provide, as an example, a detailed exploration of how PMIs are likely to be addressed in one jurisdiction where general medical consent law applies because there is no specific legislation addressing PMIs — the province of Ontario in Canada.

This special edition of JLME celebrates the life of Charity Scott, Professor Emerita and Founding Director of the Center for Law, Health & Society at Georgia State University College of Law.

This paper summarizes key shifts in judicial decisions relating to public health powers during the pandemic and the implications of those decisions for public health practice. Then, it gives a preview and call for partnership in developing a legal framework for authority that guides public health to better activities, processes, and accountability in service of the public’s health.

It was a privilege to attend the symposium Defining Health Law for the Future, and join with so many of Georgia State University College of Law Professor Emerita Charity Scott’s colleagues and friends, supporters, former students, mentees, and presenters. It was a symposium that fittingly served as a tribute to Charity and the remarkable impact she had on the many communities she touched. To the Harrell/Scott family — thank you so much for helping us celebrate Charity and her work.

Patients and physicians do not know the cost of medical procedures. Opaque medical billing thus contributes to exorbitant, rising medical costs, burdening the healthcare system and individuals. After criticizing two proposed solutions to the problem of opaque medical billing, I argue that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should pursue a rule requiring that patients be informed by the physician of a reasonable out-of-pocket expense estimate for non-urgent procedures prior to services rendered.

Physician-based transparency approaches have been advanced as a strategy for informing patients of the likely financial consequences of using services. The structure of health care pricing and insurance coverage, and the low uptake of existing tools, suggest these approaches are likely to be unwieldy and unsuccessful. They may also generate new ethical challenges.

In 2006, the University of Maryland Carey School of Law had the privilege of co-hosting the annual Health Law Professors Conference with the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics (ASLME). Coincidentally, as director of the Law & Health Care Program at Maryland, I had the opportunity to announce the winner of the Jay Healey Health Law Teachers’ Award at the conference. The award is given to “professors who have devoted a significant portion of their career to health law teaching and whose selection would honor Jay [Healey’s] legacy through their passion for teaching health law, their mentoring of students and/or other faculty and by their being an inspiration to colleagues and students.”1 Healey, a Professor in the Humanities Department at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, was the youngest recipient of the Society’s Health Law Teachers’ Award, which he received in 1990. He was passionate about teaching and had the idea to devote a session each year at the annual conference to teaching health law. It was always a plenary session at which he challenged us to be better teachers. Jay died in 1993, at the age of 46, not long after the Health Law Teachers conference that year, which he attended and which also happened to be held in Baltimore at the University of Maryland School of Law. Thereafter, the award was given in his name.

The new federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act advances important protections for pregnant workers, but leaves behind agricultural workers, who are overrepresented in hazardous occupational environments. This article highlights the connection between workplace pregnancy discrimination and health inequities. It concludes with a discussion of immigrant-led advocacy efforts to eliminate health inequities and advance health justice.

Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) proved to be critical points of access for people of color and other underserved populations during the COVID-19 pandemic, administering 61% of their COVID-19 vaccinations to people of color, compared to the 40% rate for the overall United States’ vaccination effort. To better understand the approaches and outcomes of FQHCs in pandemic response, we conducted semi-structured interviews with FQHC health care providers and outreach workers and analyzed them using an inductive qualitative methodology.

Georgia State University College of Law Professor Emerita Charity Scott quoted these words from Albert Einstein in June of 2022 as she concluded a tribute to Professor Joseph (Jay) M. Healey, one of the founding lights of health law and health law teaching. She chose the quote because she thought the words and sentiment would resonate with Jay. I repeat it because Dr. Einstein’s words capture the essence and heart of Charity’s approach to teaching, pedagogy, and life. Charity modeled, urged, nudged, and taught the community of health law professors to embrace imagination and creativity. Charity’s vision has helped us be more creative and reflective teachers.2

In Wisconsin, many alcohol policies are regulated at the local level. To examine the relationship between local policies, alcohol use and health outcomes, our team developed a database to collect local alcohol policies. Initial results highlight differences in how policies are defined, enforced, and made available to the public.

This tribute compares Charity Scott to Fred Rogers, highlighting how Charity nurtured health law colleagues’ unique gifts and built community. Continuing the neighborhood theme, it highlights encouraging developments relating to health, housing, and place: Medicaid housing supports and potential reparations for redlining-related health inequities.

With disparate rates of morbidity and mortality among minoritized communities, COVID-19 illuminated the need for equity-informed practices in public health. Pacia et al posit FQHCs as entities that addressed inequity when others failed. This commentary further situates how FQHCs address the public health crisis of institutional racism and related health inequities every day and presents a FQHC-led Ethics and Equity Framework and Workflow Checklist to guide ethical and equitable engagement with FQHCs.

While the federal government continues to pursue a punitive “War on Drugs,” some states have adopted evidence-based, human-focused approaches to reducing drug-related harm. This article discusses recent legal changes in three states that can serve as models for others interested in reducing, rather than increasing, individual and community harm.

Balancing on a tightrope twenty feet above the ground is outside the comfort zones of many health law professors. Being there forces you to consider in new ways yourself, your skills, and your surroundings. Fears arise, and yet you must still act. And you must trust that the person who offered you this opportunity cared about you and your well-being, and that they would ensure there was a way to get from where you began to the other side.

The purpose of this study was to measure the prevalence of use of driver monitoring systems among U.S. adults, and factors influencing their adoption. One in five U.S. adults has used driver monitoring, primarily to obtain a discount on insurance. Safety benefits and financial incentives are likely to influence adoption.