hospital equipment

Balancing Health Care Rationing and Disability Rights in a Pandemic

By Yolanda Bustillo and Rachel Perler

Amid the present surge of the coronavirus pandemic, it is crucial that disability rights are a factor in the development of triage protocols.

During the last week of December, the CDC recorded a record of 225,269 new coronavirus cases and 118,948 total hospitalizations. Health care systems across the country have predicted that they soon may face shortages of ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE), and other limited resources.

In Utah, for example, hospital administrators have implemented informal triage protocols that prioritize patients based on health status, clinical factors, and the time sensitivity of their needed procedures. Hospitals in California have similarly begun rationing care.

If these dire circumstances worsen, hospital systems may apply triage protocols that deviate from best practices and impermissibly discriminate against people with disabilities.

Read More

Person typing on computer.

Online Terms of Use for Genealogy Websites – What’s in the Fine Print?

By Jorge L. Contreras

Since genealogy websites first went online, researchers have been using the data that they contain in large-scale epidemiological and population health studies. In many cases, data is collected using automated tools and analyzed using sophisticated algorithms.

These techniques have supported a growing number of discoveries and scientific papers. For example, researchers have used this data to identify genetic markers for Alzheimer’s Disease, to trace an inherited cancer syndrome back to a single German couple born in the 1700s, and to gain a better understanding of longevity and family dispersion.  In the last of these studies, researchers analyzed family trees from 86 million individual genealogy website profiles.

Despite the scientific value of publicly-available genealogy website information, and its free accessibility via the Internet, it is not always the case that this data can be used for research without the permission of the site operator or the individual data subjects.

In fact, the online terms of use (TOU) for genealogy websites may restrict or prohibit the types of uses for data found on those sites.

Read More

Close up of a mosquito sucking blood on human skin. This mosquito is a carrier of Malaria, Encephalitis, Dengue and Zika virus.

Responsibly Developing Gene Drives: The GeneConvene Global Collaborative

By James Toomey

Researchers believe that gene drives could eliminate vector-borne diseases such as malaria, by modifying mosquito species or eradicating those that carry disease, kill off invasive species, and combat the growing problem of pesticide resistance.

A gene drive is a technique for genetically modifying entire species of wild organisms. Genetically modified individuals of the species are released into the wild, so as to raise the probability that a particular gene will be passed onto the species’ progeny via reproduction.

Over the course of many generations, the gene — even if detrimental — can spread to an entire population.

But as of now, this is all hypothetical. No gene drive has been tested in the wild, and many people are skeptical that they should ever be used.

The GeneConvene Global Collaborative, a project of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, was started this past July to promote the responsible development and regulation of gene drive technologies. It brings together researchers, regulators and stakeholders around the world to develop best practices for gene drive research and implementation.

Because of my prior writing on this topic, I participated in GeneConvene’s fall webinar series and spoke with scientists there about the project. Read More

adult and child hands holding red heart, organ donation concept image.

Opt-in vs. Opt-out Organ Donation Schemes: Evidence from the US and UK

By James W. Lytle

We need to encourage organ donation. In the U.S. alone, even with a record number of about 40,000 transplants in 2019 and some progress made towards closing the gap, approximately 108,000 Americans are on the waiting list.

In considering the best way to increase organ donation, much of the debate has focused on how to make organ donor registries more successful: nothing facilitates the prospect for organ donation more than knowing that a potential donor has already indicated their intention to donate.

Should registries, like those in the U.S., require people to elect to join (the “opt-in” approach) or should they presume consent to organ donation and register everyone except those who explicitly “opt-out,” as is the case in certain other countries?

I asked two transplant professionals, one from the U.S. and one from Wales, to help consider this question and related issues involving organ donation.

Read More

child getting vaccinated

How Can Policymakers Encourage COVID-19 Vaccine Trials for Children?

Cross-posted from Written Description, where it originally appeared on December 18, 2020. 

By Jacob S. Sherkow, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Nicholson Price, and Rachel Sachs

The past two weeks have been full of exciting COVID-19 vaccine news, including the FDA’s emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna vaccines and the nationwide rollout of Pfizer’s vaccine. Choosing how to allocate access to vaccine doses has been left to individual states, leaving policymakers with difficult decisions about how to prioritize their populations, complicated in part by the federal government’s reduction in some vaccine shipments.

With a limited supply of doses, who should get the first shots? Some commentators have suggested prioritizing children early for a host of reasons, including hope about children returning to school. Last month a New York Times column asserted that “saving the most lives could mean prioritizing the vaccination of children and young adults.” But there is an important reason that kids can’t be part of the vaccine line yet: we don’t know whether these vaccines work for them. In this post, we explain why COVID-19 vaccines are only just starting to be tested in children and what policymakers can do to spur pediatric vaccine trials.

Read More

U.S. Capitol Building at Night

Advantages of Using the Congressional Review Act to Revoke Health Care Waivers

By Matthew B. Lawrence

The Trump Administration has granted health care waivers that the Biden Administration will surely look to end, including work requirement waivers that the Supreme Court is going to consider in Azar v. Gresham. How the Biden Administration approaches this task may set precedents that last far into the future, which is one argument in favor of considering the Congressional Review Act as a potential path forward.

Waivers are a huge part of health policy. They entail a state seeking approval from the federal government to make various changes to ACA or Medicaid programs. Waivers are normally approved for several years at a time, and routinely renewed. They foster experimentation, and are also (or especially) a tool the federal government uses to steer national health policy by pushing states to adopt some reforms and not others, as I explain in a forthcoming article.

Over at the Yale Journal of Regulation blog, I describe how the Congressional Review Act (CRA) could potentially be used to revoke health care waivers (like community engagement, aka work requirement, waivers).

In brief, the CRA is a way Congress can change the law to revoke agency actions without the votes necessary to override a filibuster. The CRA might be a cleaner alternative for revoking health care waivers than administrative revocation by the Biden Administration. One big policy advantage of this route is that it wouldn’t come back to haunt health policy. Revocations through the administrative process would set a precedent that could undermine the stability of all waivers, but revocations through the CRA would not.

Read More

Xavier Becerra.

Questions for HHS Secretary Nominee Xavier Becerra

By Abe Sutton

With the 2020 election in the rearview mirror, the Senate has turned its attention to vetting President-elect Biden’s cabinet nominees. As Senators on the Finance and HELP committees prepare their questions for California AG Xavier Becerra, the nominee for Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, they should consider probing in three areas to understand his health policy priorities.

In this post, I suggest Senators consider asking the nominee about his plans for the future of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), as well as how he aims to encourage healthcare competition and foster innovation.

His answers may be illuminative about his potential tenure as secretary, and should factor into Senators’ decisions on whether to vote for confirmation amid questions regarding his qualifications. Senators may also wish to weigh the nominee’s moral and human services priorities, topics not discussed in this post.

Read More

organ transplant

New Regulations for Organ Procurement Organizations Pose Concerns

By Alexandra Glazier

The United States has one of the highest organ donation and transplant rates in the world. A poorly crafted regulatory change could disrupt our world-leading system and put patients at risk.

Recently, new performance regulations for organ procurement organizations (OPOs) were promulgated by CMS in the last stretch of the Trump Administration, which should be reviewed by the incoming Biden Administration.

While there is widespread support for reform to the system of organ donation and transplantation, including consensus that changes to the CMS metrics measuring OPO performance are warranted, there are significant differences in opinion on how that can be accomplished best.

Bipartisan groups and delegations of both Democrats and Republicans, donor families, the medical community, and donation and transplant professionals as well as OPOs have raised a range of concerns about specific aspects of the proposed and final regulations, making suggestions on how the regulations could be improved to achieve the goal of transplanting more patients.

Read More

Vial and syringe.

What to Know About the COVID-19 Vaccine Dosing Debate

By Dorit Rubinstein Reiss

Faced with limited COVID-19 vaccine doses and the ever-mounting toll and strain of the pandemic, a new debate has emerged as to the best strategy for allocating the vaccines.

Both COVID-19 vaccines authorized for emergency use in the U.S., which are produced by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, have been studied under two-dose clinical trials. The two-dose regime is thought to accord a more robust immune response against COVID-19.

In the U.K., however, due to concerns about the shortage of COVID-19 vaccines, the government has deviated from established protocols. First, it decided to delay (but not omit) the administration of the second dose of the available vaccines, in order to increase the number of people getting at least one dose; second, it decided to allow mixing and matching of doses across vaccine types.

The United States is considering following the U.K. and moving to give more first doses, at the cost of delaying completion of the series.

Experts are sharply divided on whether that is a good or bad idea.

Read More

Hundred dollar bills rolled up in a pill bottle

AbbVie Wins First Round in Humira Antitrust Lawsuit

By Ryan Knox and Gregory Curfman

Since receiving FDA approval for Humira® (adalimumab) in 2002, AbbVie, the drug’s manufacturer, has filed hundreds of submissions to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for secondary patents – almost half of which were filed after 2014, just two years before the expiration of its core patent.

These patents were largely directed to methods of use and potential formulation changes, but they did not include claims that affect the clinical efficacy of the biologic, which is used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and psoriasis, among other conditions. Instead, the purpose of the secondary patent filings was to assemble a thicket of patents, 132 in all, to prohibit competition from biosimilar companies.

And so far, the strategy has worked. AbbVie remains the sole U.S. manufacturer of the biologic, and has successfully defended its domain: in June 2020, a federal district court judge in Chicago dismissed an antitrust lawsuit against AbbVie.

Read More