News & Insights

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, a time to remind people of the prevalence of breast cancer, which will impact one in eight U.S. women—a growing number of which are women of color and women under 50 years of age. These realties call for policies that prevent exposure to chemicals linked to increased risk, while simultaneously continuing to support low-cost and convenient early detection methods and life-saving treatment that can address the current racial disparities in relative survival rates and identify breast cancer at earlier, more treatable stages. 

Many state and local public health departments are covered entities under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and must provide individuals with access to their protected health information. However, covered entities that are unfamiliar with a key provision of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, and its implications for the use of written authorizations to release protected health information to a third party, may be in jeopardy of violating the right of access.

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion, women and men in the U.S. are increasingly exploring sterilization options including tubal ligation/removal, vasectomy, ovaries removal, and other procedures. With other, non-permanent and effective birth control options available, increases in sterilization procedures and consultations following the Dobbs decision beg the question: why are those living in the U.S. increasingly choosing such drastic interventions? Among the many reasons are the emerging legal threats to accessing reproductive services in many states coupled with inferences that the Supreme Court may be willing to re-evaluate constitutional rights to contraception post-Dobbs.

As lawyers who care about public health, we hope for sound public health law and policy that is based on robust epidemiological evidence. But often the reality is a patchwork of provisions based on compromise, or no law at all. Compromise in public health lawmaking is often inevitable and even desirable in a democratic society. But is it ethically problematic to support a policy that the public believes is in place because it is protective when the evidence doesn’t support that conclusion? As public health lawyers, should we be satisfied that at least something is being done or remain firm in our support that only proven or effective policies should be passed?

This feasibility study, commissioned by the Network, includes insights gathered from personal interviews with public health advocates and leaders from 45 organizations. The purpose of this report is to stimulate wide-ranging discussion and engage those who share a sense of urgency in collective, purposeful action to strengthen public health advocacy in the United States.

The pandemic has highlighted various inequities experienced by people with disabilities, especially internet inaccessibility. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed before the internet was commonly used; consequently, there is no explicit language addressing website—much less telehealth—accessibility. In July, HHS and the Department of Justice jointly issued Guidance on Nondiscrimination in Telehealth which states that telehealth accessibility is required not only by the ADA, but also by the Rehabilitation Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Affordable Care Act. However, the Guidance is not legally binding.

The July 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health thrusts questions of bodily autonomy into the limelight, especially with regard to pregnant people. At the intersection of two criminalized issues–abortion and drug use–pregnant people who use drugs (PWUD) will be further subject to a lack of adequate care in this post-Roe world. Even before Dobbs, however, pregnant PWUD were stigmatized, criminalized, and often received inadequate (or no) care.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating a federal right to abortion prior to viability. Post-Dobbs, the authority to regulate abortions is left to state legislatures, with some choosing to ban abortions and restrict reproductive rights. Within states with restrictive abortion laws, some local governments have devised legal and policy strategies to mitigate the harms that abortion bans have on residents, such as adopting non-enforcement and non-prosecution strategies. This post explores some of the ordinances, resolutions, and non-prosecution measures local governments have implemented to protect reproductive rights undermined by state laws.

The Network is seeking a Public Health Senior Attorney to lead and coordinate our work in reproductive health. This position will track and assess laws, provide legal technical assistance, conduct training, develop tools and educational materials, and facilitate opportunities for networking and peer assistance. This position will also be the main point of contact and coordinate work with the Network’s five Region Offices. As a team member, the Senior Attorney will help identify funding opportunities, write grant proposals, manage contracts and project deliverables, and perform other duties as assigned.

August is Civic Health Month, a time dedicated to ensuring that every voter has the information they need to participate in elections and understand how that participation can improve their health and the health of their communities. The relationship between voting and health has been visualized in the Health & Democracy Index, and since its launch, the Network has worked with Dr. Scot Schraufnagel, Chair of the Department of Political Science at Northern Illinois University, to further explore the data behind the Index. In this Q&A, Dr. Schraufnagel discusses this current research and its implications.

The end of the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) will create additional risks for people with disabilities. During the pandemic, under the authority granted by the declaration of the PHE, federal agencies took several steps to allow state Medicaid agencies to maintain health care coverage and Medicaid-funded home and community-based services for people with disabilities.  Federal agencies also granted state Medicaid agencies a range of flexibilities, including changes to Medicaid enrollment and assessments, intended to facilitate enrollment in Medicaid and the maintenance of coverage while reducing COVID-19 exposure risks.  

Our health and the health of our democracy are deeply connected. When people vote, they exercise their voice on decisions that have a big impact on their health and the health of their family and neighbors.  Analysis from the Health & Democracy Index shows a clear relationship between inclusive voting policies and better health outcomes: States with more inclusive voting policies and greater levels of civic participation are healthier; states with exclusionary voting laws and lower levels of civic participation are less healthy.