Society or population, social diversity. Flat cartoon vector illustration.

Bias, Fairness, and Deep Phenotyping

By Nicole Martinez

Deep phenotyping research has the potential to improve understandings of social and structural factors that contribute to psychiatric illness, allowing for more effective approaches to address inequities that impact mental health.

But, in order to build upon the promise of deep phenotyping and minimize the potential for bias and discrimination, it will be important to incorporate the perspectives of diverse communities and stakeholders in the development and implementation of research projects.

Read More

Picture of doctor neck down using an ipad with digital health graphics superimposed

Symposium Introduction: Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Deep Phenotyping

This post is the introduction to our Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Deep Phenotyping symposium. All contributions to the symposium will be available here.

By Francis X. Shen

This digital symposium explores the ethical, legal, and social implications of advances in deep phenotyping in psychiatry research.

Deep phenotyping in psychiatric research and practice is a term used to describe the collection and analysis of multiple streams of behavioral and biological data, some of this data collected around the clock, to identify and intervene in critical health events.

By combining 24/7 data — on location, movement, email and text communications, and social media — with brain scans, genetics/genomics, neuropsychological batteries, and clinical interviews, researchers will have an unprecedented amount of objective, individual-level data. Analyzing this data with ever-evolving artificial intelligence (AI) offers the possibility of intervening early with precision and could even prevent the most critical sentinel events.

Read More

Cartoon of contact tracing for COVID-19.

The Constitutionality of Technology-Assisted Contact Tracing

Cross-posted from COVID-19 and The Law, where it originally appeared on December 1, 2020. 

By

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed an impossible set of choices for governments, forcing them to weigh the competing interests of protecting public health, ending social isolation, and safeguarding privacy and civil rights. Each of these ends offer distinct societal benefits, but without a vaccine or effective COVID treatment, governments can only accomplish two of the three at one time. South Korea provides an interesting example of the tradeoffs countries have made in pursuit of these competing objectives. The country is widely regarded as a model for successfully managing the pandemic, averaging approximately 77 new cases a day since April—roughly the equivalent of 480 cases a day in U.S. population terms. South Korea’s story is especially impressive given that, in March, the country was considered one of the biggest infection hot spots outside of China. Comparing these statistics with the actual infection rate in the U.S. illustrates the success of the South Korean approach: on November 23, 2020, the CDC reported 147,840 new cases, for a total of 12,175,921 known infections in the U.S. since the pandemic began.

Click here to read the full post on COVID-19 and The Law.

people sitting in conference hall.

All-Male Panels, or ‘Manels,’ Must End

By Kelly Wright and Louise P. King

In this day and age, there is no room for all-male panels, or “manels,” as they are commonly known.

Yet, a quick search of Twitter for #manels or #allmalepanel reveals it remains the norm, with picture after picture of them occurring in a wide array of scientific and medical disciplines. Some try to excuse the error with a woman moderator – a “mom-erator” doing the “housekeeping” of managing the presentations. This is just as bad, if not worse.

Read More

Washington, USA- January13, 2020: FDA Sign outside their headquarters in Washington. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) is a federal agency of the USA.

A New Step for the FDA in Regulating Digital Health Products

By Vrushab Gowda

On September 22, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the establishment of a new initiative to regulate digital health products – the Digital Health Center of Excellence (DHCoE).

In some ways, the announcement does not come as a surprise; FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn’s predecessor, Scott Gottlieb, outlined the DHCoE in a press release two years ago. What does remain to be seen is whether DHCoE represents a true paradigm shift in FDA’s approach to regulating digital health products.

According to Hahn, the DHCoE aims to (1) build partnerships, (2) share knowledge across FDA and with stakeholders, and (3) innovate regulatory approaches. It will be led by the current Director of CDRH’s Division of Digital Health, Bakul Patel.

Read More

The Week in Health Law podcast logo twihl.com

TWIHL: Innovation and Protection: The Future of Medical Device Regulation, Episode 3

This is the last of three episodes of “Innovation and Protection: The Future of Medical Device Regulation,” a podcast miniseries created to replace the 2020 Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

These episodes highlight a selection of papers that were written for the conference, which was organized in collaboration with the University of Copenhagen’s Center for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law (CeBIL) and the University of Arizona Health Law Program. All of the papers will be published in an edited volume.

This third episode looks at recent advances in medical device regulation in the U.S. and abroad, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on national and international medical device regulation.

First, Timo Minssen, Professor of Law and Director, Center for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law (CeBIL), University of Copenhagen and Researcher in Quantum Law, Lund University, interviews Helen Yu, Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law and Associate Director of CeBIL about her paper “Regulation of Digital Health Technologies in the EU: Intended vs. Actual Use.”

Minssen returns to talk with Janos Meszaros, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Taiwan’s National Academy of Science about “Challenges at the Interface of EU Medical Device Regulation and the GDPR: Do the Rules on Privacy and Scientific Research Impair the Safety of AI Medical Devices?”

Finally, Christopher Robertson discusses “Preventing Medical Device-Borne Disease Outbreaks: Improving High-Level Disinfection Policies for Scopes and Probes,” with author Preeti Mehrotra, Attending Physician, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Instructor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

The Week in Health Law Podcast from Nicolas Terry is a commuting-length discussion about some of the more thorny issues in health law and policy. Subscribe at Apple Podcasts or Google Play, listen at Stitcher Radio, SpotifyTunein or Podbean.

Show notes and more are at TWIHL.com. If you have comments, an idea for a show or a topic to discuss you can find me on Twitter @nicolasterry or @WeekInHealthLaw.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office building

Patent Fakes: How Fraudulent Inventions Threaten Public Health, Innovation, and the Economy

By Jorge L. Contreras, JD

The U.S. patent system gives inventors a 20-year exclusive right to their inventions to incentivize the creation of new technologies.

But what if you have a great idea for a new technology, but never actually create it, test it, or determine that it works? Is that patentable? Conversely, should the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) grant patents covering imaginary, fraudulent and otherwise non-existent inventions? Probably not, but it happens with alarming frequency, and it is causing serious problems.

Read More

an ambulance parked at the entrance of an emergency department

Racial Disparities Persist in Human Subjects Research

By Beatrice Brown

Human subjects research has long been plagued by racial inequality. While flagrant abuses have been curtailed, disparities have, unfortunately, persisted.

One area ripe for scrutiny is clinical trial enrollment. A 2018 study by William Feldman, Spencer Hey, and Aaron Kesselheim in Health Affairs documents racial disparities in trials that are exempt from typical requirements for informed consent from study participants.

Read More