Call for Proposals: Addressing the Health Care Needs of Justice-Involved Populations

The Beazley Institute for Health Law and Policy at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and Annals of Health Law & Life Sciences invite original submissions for presentations at our Thirteenth Annual Health Law Symposium: Addressing the Health Care Needs of Justice-Involved Populations. The Symposium will take place at Loyola University Chicago School of Law on Friday, November 15, 2019 beginning at 9:00am.

The Symposium will explore legal barriers that justice-involved populations face in accessing health care, and address how those barriers can be alleviated. “Justice-involved populations” generally refers to individuals who are incarcerated in prisons, jails, immigrant detention centers, juvenile detention centers, on probation, or individuals who are otherwise involved with the U.S. justice system. Read More

What We Lost When We Lost Google ATEAC

By Joanna Bryson

In a few weeks, the Advanced Technology External Advisory Council (ATEAC) was scheduled to come together for its first meeting. At that meeting, we were expected to “stress test” a proposed face recognition technology policy. “We were going to dedicate an entire day to it” (at least 1/4 the time they expected to get out of us.) The people I talked to at Google seemed profoundly disturbed by what “face recognition” could do. It’s not the first time I’ve heard that kind of deep concern – I’ve also heard it in completely unrelated one-on-one settings from a very diverse set of academics whose only commonality was working at the interface of machine learning and human computer interaction  (HCI). It isn’t just face recognition. It’s body posture, acoustics of speech and laughter, the way a pen is used on a tablet, and (famously) text. Privacy isn’t over, but it will never again be present in society without serious, deliberate, coordinated defense. Read More

What Should Happen to our Medical Records When We Die?

By Jon Cornwall

In the next 200 years, at least 20 billion people will die. A good proportion of these people are going to have electronic medical records, and that begs the question: what are we going to do with all this posthumous medical data? Despite the seemingly logical and inevitable application of medical data from deceased persons for research and healthcare both now and in the future, the issue of how best to manage posthumous medical records is currently unclear.

Presently, large medical data sets do exist and have their own uses, though largely these are data sets containing ‘anonymous’ data. In the future, if medicine is to deliver on the promise of truly ‘personalized’ medicine, then electronic medical records will potentially have increasing value and relevance for our generations of descendants. This will, however, entail the public having to consider how much privacy and anonymity they are willing to part with in regard to information arising from their medical records. After all, enabling our medical records with the power to influence personalized medicine for our descendants cannot happen without knowing who we, or our descendants, actually are.  Read More

Recent Developments in Opioid Litigation: A Re-Cap, Visual Aid, and Summary of Outstanding Inquiries

Media reports suffered no shortage of hot takes concerning opioid “arch-villain” Purdue Pharma’s agreement to pay $270 million to settle its OxyContin lawsuit in Oklahoma. The highlights of that settlement include Purdue’s payment of $102.5 million to fund a new Center for Addiction Studies and Treatment at Oklahoma State University, $60 million for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses, $20 million worth of drugs to treat opioid use disorder, and $12.5 million to cover the opioid-related costs incurred by Oklahoma’s local governments. Members of the Sackler family, who were not named as defendants in the litigation, also agreed to contribute an additional $75 million to Oklahoma over a five-year period.

A noteworthy concentration of the media coverage dedicated to Purdue’s Oklahoma settlement has involved speculation regarding its potential impact on the numerous outstanding opioid cases in other states as well as the myriad federal cases aggregated in the opioid multidistrict litigation (Opioid MDL) before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The New York Times, for example, was quick to claim that the Oklahoma resolution “could jolt other settlement talks with [Purdue], including those in a consolidated collection of 1600 cases overseen” in the Opioid MDL. The Wall Street Journal similarly reported that “Purdue Pharma LP has forged the first deal to resolve more than 1,600 lawsuits blaming the OxyContin maker for fueling the opioid crisis, a move that could lay the groundwork for the resolution of the rest of the litigation.”

Read More

Special Indiana Health Law Review Volume to Honor Professor Eleanor Kinney: Request for Proposals


Our celebrated and generous colleague Eleanor Kinney passed away late last year. To honor her and her legacy, the Indiana Health Law Review is soliciting papers for an honorary special issue. The papers should be substantive new work by the author, but we invite the author to reflect on Eleanor’s work, legacy, or the how the work submitted was influenced by Eleanor’s work.

This is an initial call for proposals. Proposals should take the form of an abstract in the 100-200 word range. Abstracts will be reviewed by an editorial committee comprised of IU McKinney faculty and past and present editors of the Indiana Health Law Review. Abstracts should be submitted before June 1, 2019 in order to be considered for this special issue. Final papers should be 4,000-6,000 words in length and will be due by August 15, 2019. Read More

A Healthcare Frame for the Boeing Crashes

The recent crashes of two Boeing 737 MAX aircraft raise important questions for patients, physicians, and policymakers. Should aviation safety remain the gold standard that has been so influential in attempts to improve patient safety? Will doctors soon face the same problems as the pilots of those doomed planes, fighting with automated safety systems that threaten their patients? What questions does the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) certification of the Boeing safety systems raise with regard to evolving approaches to medical device safety promoted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)?

Preliminary investigations into the tragic loss of life from last October’s Lion Air flight 610 departing Jakarta and this month’s crash of an Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 departing Addis Ababa have led to the grounding of 737-8 and 737-9 aircraft by the FAA. More generally, those accidents may call into question the status of aviation safety as the gold standard of industrial safety and a standard that has proved hugely influential on health care safety. Read More

Pernicious Epistemically Justified Distrust and Public Health Skepticism

By Mark Satta and  Lacey J. Davidson

In recent years philosophers concerned with epistemic, moral, and political matters have identified many different types of epistemic injustice. Epistemic injustice refers to “forms of unfair treatment that relate to issues of knowledge, understanding, and participation in communicative practices.”

We are particularly concerned with epistemic injustices in the public health context and the consequences such injustices have for those most marginalized within our current society. When powerful entities act badly, individuals and communities justifiably distrust those entities. This distrust then guides individuals and communities in making decisions with respect to these entities, often causing them to avoid the entities in question. We are concerned with cases in which the distrust is harmful to the individual, even when it is justified. We think this circumstance is particularly common and troublesome in the public health context. Read More

hand reaching for blue pills

Author Q&A: Reducing High-Dose Opioid Prescribing

Sara Heins, PhD
Sara Heins, PhD, Associate Policy Researcher, RAND Corporation

From 1999 to 2017, almost 218,000 people died in the United States from overdoses related to prescription opioids. Overdose deaths involving prescription opioids were five times higher in 2017 than in 1999, according to the CDC.

Previous research has indicated that patients who receive higher doses of prescription opioids have an increased risk of overdose and mortality. In response, several states have established Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (MEDD) thresholds that convert opioid prescriptions to their equivalent dose in morphine and divides the total prescription by the number of days the prescription is intended to last, allowing for comparison among different opioid formulations and strengths. MEDD policies set thresholds for prescribers, which may only be exceeded in limited circumstances, such as when being prescribed to certain patient groups or as short-courses.

Sara Heins, PhD, an associate policy researcher at RAND Corporation, used policy surveillance to track MEDD policies through June 1, 2017 (data are available on LawAtlas.org). She published an article in Pain Medicine on March 13 that describes U.S. MEDD policies.

We asked Dr. Heins a few questions about her work and this recent publication. Read More

Learning from Patient Deaths in the NHS

The independent regulator of health and social care in England, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has just published a report on how the National Health Service (NHS) is progressing in the first year of implementing national guidance on learning from deaths.

The report follows on from another published in 2016 which detailed major failings and concerns about the way the NHS investigate and learn from the deaths of patients in their care. The 2019 report contains several case studies which detail experiences of implementing the national guidance. Read More