DUE TOMORROW, 9/9! Call for Harvard Submissions to Journal of Law & the Biosciences

image001The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School collaborates with Stanford and Duke Universities to publish the Journal of Law and the Biosciences (Oxford University Press), an online, open-access, peer-reviewed journal. JLB includes a Notes & Developments section, comprised of brief summaries and commentary on recent legislation, regulation, and case law written by graduate students at the collaborating schools. The Petrie-­Flom Center is responsible for providing the Notes & Developments for one issue per annual volume.

We are currently seeking Harvard graduate students and postdoctoral fellows from any school to contribute papers to be published in JLB’s Notes & Developments section in early 2017. We will consider student papers that will be generated specifically for JLB, as well as papers that have been (or will be) initially written as student notes or course papers and edited for this particular purpose. JLB Notes & Developments are limited to 5000 words, including footnotes and references, and should be on a topic of relevance to law and the biosciences, in particular a topic of relatively recent concern, controversy, or change. They should focus on describing the issue at hand, explaining why it is relevant to scholars, and providing analysis and questions for further consideration. For recent examples of submissions by Harvard students, check out the April 2016 issue of the JLB. Continue reading

Recent Developments in Off-Label Promotion

By Chris Robertson

July has been a busy month for those following the controversy around off-label promotion of drugs and devices.  As many on this blog know, federal law requires that prior to marketing any drug or device, companies must prove to the FDA’s satisfaction that it is safe and effective for all intended uses.  If the company reveals that it intends unapproved uses,  sales of the drug or device are illegal.  Nonetheless, physicians can prescribe “off-label,” and companies are free to sell for those known-but-not-intended purposes.

This carefully-wrought policy may seem convoluted, but it serves important epistemic and economic purposes, as I have argued elsewhere.  This month, I have a new draft paper on SSRN, assessing recent assertions of a First Amendment right to promote for uses not approved by the FDA, and consider whether such a right would be equally applicable to drugs that have no FDA-approved label at all. I worry that the entire pre-market approval regime may be at stake. Feedback on that intentionally-provocative analysis is quite welcome.

On Wednesday, two medical device company executives, were convicted of promoting a product “to deliver steroid medications to patients’ sinuses, though it was only approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for keeping sinuses open.”  The prosecutors thought the case was particularly egregious, because the company had intended the broader use to deliver medicine all along, but sought to mislead the FDA, denying it the chance review the safety and efficacy of the real intended use.  The jury instructions and verdict form  are particularly interesting, to see how the government’s trial strategy avoids the holding of a Second Circuit case of Caronia, which overturned a conviction on First Amendment grounds.  I’ll return with some analysis later. Continue reading

Separating sheep from goats- a European view on the patent eligibility of biomedical diagnostic methods

New publication on the patentability of biomedical diagnostics out:

Abstract: This brief comment complements Dan Burk’s excellent paper ( Dolly and Alice, J Law and the Biosciences (2015), 1–21, doi:10.1093/jlb/lsv042 ) by providing a very brief summary of the European approach regarding patents on medical diagnostic methods. This serves as the basis for a comparative discussion of the current US approach and its’ impact on biomedical innovation. We are concerned that unless the Supreme Court clarifies its two-part test and adopts a more holistic interpretation of the eligibility-test, global standards for medical diagnostic patents will diverge to the detriment of advanced therapies and ultimately patients worldwide. In case that the current US eligibility doctrine prevails without further Supreme Court clarification, we highlight the need for developing a more flexible, well-calibrated system for alternative and complementary forms of drug development incentives. In addition to a better-funded and well-administered prize system (an interesting option for some areas of diagnostics that we did not elaborate upon), our paper highlights the need for an improved and more flexible system for regulatory exclusivities in this sector.

Citation: Separating sheep from goats: a European view on the patent eligibility of biomedical diagnostic methods Timo Minssen; Robert M. Schwartz Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2016; doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsw019





Prior Authorization Policies for Pediatric ADHD Medication Prescriptions

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 6.4 million US children 4-17 years old have been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The percentage of US children diagnosed with ADHD has increased by 3-5 percent per year since the 1990s. Relatedly, the percentage of children in this age group taking ADHD medication also has increased by about 7 percent per year from 2007-2008 to 2011-2012.

In response, some state Medicaid programs have implemented policies to manage the use of ADHD medications and guide physicians toward best practices for ADHD treatment in children. These policies include prescription medication prior authorization requirements that restrict approvals to patients above a certain age, or require additional provider involvement before approval for payment is granted.

In a new article published this afternoon in MMWR, CDC researchers compared Medicaid and employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) claims for “psychological services” (the procedure code category that includes behavior therapy) and ADHD medication among children aged 2–5 years receiving clinical care for ADHD.

The article references a newly released LawAtlas map that examines features of state Medicaid prior authorization policies that pertain to pediatric ADHD medication treatment, including applicable ages, medication types, and criteria for approval.

States with Medicaid programs that have a policy that requires prior authorization for ADHD medications prescribed to children younger than 28 years old.

States with Medicaid programs that have a policy that requires prior authorization for ADHD medications prescribed to children younger than 28 years old.

Continue reading

Amicus brief in Sequenom v. Ariosa: Why the U.S. Supreme Court should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari

I am happy to announce that on April 20th the New York attorney Robert M. Schwartz and I have filed an amicus brief at the US Supreme Court with Berkeley-based Andrew J. Dhuey as Counsel of Record. The brief, which was signed by 10 prominent  European and Australian Law Professors as amici curiae, adds a European perspective to the many amicus briefs that have been submitted in support of Sequenom’s petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Sequenom’s petition in Case No. 15-1182 was filed on March 21, 2016 and seeks review of the Federal Circuit’s controversial decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, reh’g denied, 809 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The case concerns the revocation of Sequenom’s patent claims directed to inventive methods of genetic testing by detecting and amplifying paternally inherited fetal cell-free DNA (cffDNA) from maternal blood and plasma. Before the development of this highly beneficial, non-invasive prenatal diagnostic test, patients were placed at higher risk and maternal plasma was routinely discarded as waste. Distinguishing this case from previous Supreme Court decisions and highlighting the mitigating effects of other patentability requirements, we are concerned that the Federal Circuit’s overly rigid approach to claims eligibility decision might jeopardize the development of new therapies in an increasingly important area of modern medicine.

As most Bill of Health readers know, the US Supreme Court has in a recent series of cases (i.e. the combined effect of Bilski, Prometheus, Myriad and Alice) barred the patent eligibility for many genetic inventions as “products and processes of nature”. In Sequenom the CAFC interpreted these to mean – in essence- that “laws of nature” had to be entirely eliminated from the test of patent eligibility under §101 of the Patent laws. Should this interpretation be institutionalized it will contravene the tests for exclusions and exceptions under the EPC, arguably contradict longstanding US treaty policy and disrupt international patent harmonization. More importantly, we fear that the broader impact of such an restrictive interpretation may have grave consequences for a sustainable global drug delivery system, which should involve both public and private actors.

Although we believe that patents will remain the backbone of the industry, we acknowledge in our brief that  there are certain areas of biomedical innovations, such as antibiotics and orphan drugs, where the patent system does not work particularly well. We further recognize that both in Europe and in the US concerns have been raised about overly pre-emptive patents scope, but these are addressed at different levels. In contrast to Europe, the CAFC has interpreted the uncodified exception as part of a “threshold test” for patent-eligibility applied before other patentability requirements can be assessed. A strict and coherent application of these requirements, however, would invalidate overly-broad patent claims (including some of Sequenom’s arguably too broad and badly drafted claims), while also permitting, well-defined, narrower claims on diagnostic technology. In our view, the current approach conflates the patent eligibility test with issues that can be more sensibly addressed within a strict and coherent assessment of novelty, non-obviousness and sufficient disclosure criteria or at the post-grant level. We believe that, the Federal Circuit’s threshold test has not sufficiently considered the manner in which today’s statutory requirements have developed in both the U.S. and Europe to address policy rationales for patentability exceptions. To entirely transplant those issues into the patent eligibility assessment would categorically close the patentability door on many well-defined and beneficial inventions that deserve patent protection. In absence of sufficient public involvement and appropriate alternative incentives we risk that the wells driving technological progress run dry and that companies engage in business strategies, such as increased reliance on trade secrecy, that are not necessarily beneficial for our innovation system.

Accordingly, we urge the Supreme Court to clarify a patent eligibility test in line with its longstanding jurisprudence and in harmony with international and European law.

If the CAFC’s restrictive interpretation should prevail, however, I believe that it will be crucial to swiftly optimize the framework for PPPs and alternative innovation incentives, such as prizes and regulatory exclusivities. This would have to be done on an international level to allow for greater flexibilities and encompass further technological areas, such as biomedical diagnostics. Regarding regulatory exclusivities, Article 39 of the TRIPS agreement should provide sufficient leeway for such changes. The pros and cons of the different alternative approaches would of course have to be carefully considered.

The Amici curiae have no stake in the parties or in the outcome of the case. A full list of the Amici is appended at the end of the brief.


Variability of US State Workplace Wellness Program Laws

A team of researchers led by Jennifer Pomeranz, JD, MPH, Clinical Assistant Professor of the College of Global Public Health at New York University, have released a new set of resources that detail characteristics of laws related to workplace wellness programs and identify trends in these laws across the United States: interactive maps for public and private employers at LawAtlas.org and a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health.

Workplace Wellness Program Laws in US

A few key findings:

  • Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia have laws related to workplace wellness programs.
  • Four states (Georgia, Indiana, Maine and Massachusetts) provide tax incentives for work place wellness programs.
  • State laws addressed public and private employers differently, for example, five states permit rewards (e.g., discounts, rebates and waivers) by public employers, whereas 16 states expressly permit positive rewards for participation in programs by private employers.

The research was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Public Health Law Research Program.

Tracking Oil and Gas Laws

For three and half years, the Intermountain Oil & Gas BMP Project has been working on a collection of datasets and maps at LawAtlas.org that focus on water quality, water quantity, and air quality statutes and regulations within oil and gas development in the United States, specifically related to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (better known as fracking).

Most recently this collection of seven datasets expanded from 13 states (CO, LA, MT, ND, NM, NY, OH, OK, PA, TX, UT, WV, and WY) to 17 states (adding IL, CA, AR, and AK) and added regulations from four federal agencies – Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Forest Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The research, which was funded in part by the Public Health Law Research program (PHLR), is meant to shed light on the regulations in place in the industry, and establish a baseline for how the industry is regulated.

Samelson head shot

Matt Samelson, JD

Matt Samelson, JD, a consultant attorney at University of Colorado Boulder Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment, spoke with PHLR about his work and the recent developments in this project.

PHLR: What is the mission of the Intermountain Oil and Gas BMP Project? Continue reading

Changing How We Think (and Talk) About Public Health Law

By Scott Burris, JD

Marice Ashe, Donna Levin, Matthew Penn, Michelle Larkin and I have a new piece in the Annual Review of Public Health (also available on SSRN). We set out a “transdisciplinary model of public health law” that encompasses within the core of the field both the traditional public health law practice of lawyers and what we call “legal epidemiology” — all the important public health law functions (from policy design to evaluation) that are typically carried out by people without legal training. I hope you will take a look.

Why this article and a transdisciplinary model? The idea comes out of the experience that the authors have all had trying to promote public health law practice and research. We realized that in spite of the success of the field and its importance to public health, a lot of non-lawyers in public health training, practice and research were uncomfortable with law — even when their work had to do with enforcing it or evaluating its impact.

We realized that we as lawyers were making things worse, by adhering to a traditional view of public health law as purely a practice of lawyers. We found that acknowledging the work of non-lawyers in public health law, conceptualizing key public health law activities in scientific terms, and even borrowing some scientific practices for legal work, were effective ways to change attitudes and improve our impact. Many of us have articles in the pipeline on legal epidemiology, policy surveillance and “the five essential public health law services” that will show the model in action.

I don’t have to tell readers of this blog that public health law is a great field. I hope the concept of transdisciplinary model will help make it a truly integral part of public health.

Read the full article here.

For Vaccines, Public Health Protection Trumps Religious Freedom (Again)

This week, the Supreme Court appropriately declined to hear an appeal of a 2nd Circuit decision upholding the right of the state to require vaccination as a condition of enrollment in public schools, and to exclude exempted children from attending school during an infectious disease outbreak.

Tony Yang and I wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine about the January 2015 Federal appeals court decision (Phillips v. City of New York). As we wrote at the time:

Under the Constitution, states have police power to protect the public’s health, welfare, and safety. A long-standing use of this authority is to protect communities from risks related to vaccine-preventable illnesses. In addition, when an infectious-disease outbreak occurs, states may use their police power to interrupt further transmission of the disease by restricting the movement of individuals. All states have incorporated this concept of social distancing into their school immunization laws. Schools can prohibit an unvaccinated child, who is more susceptible to acquiring highly infectious vaccine-preventable illness and more likely to become a carrier and vector for it, from coming to school until the danger subsides. Such measures, coupled with ready availability of vaccines, reduce the potential spread of serious disease in a vulnerable and tightly packed community. Continue reading

New York Times Op-Ed on the A/B Illusion & the Virtues of Data-Driven Innovation

I have an op-ed with Christopher Chabris that appeared in this past Sunday’s New York Times. It focuses on one theme in my recent law review article on corporate experimentation: the A/B illusion. Despite the rather provocative headline that the Times gave it, our basic argument, made as clearly as we could in 800 words, is this: sometimes, it is more ethical to conduct a nonconsensual A/B experiment than to simply go with one’s intuition and impose A on everyone. Our contrary tendency to see experiments—but not untested innovations foisted on us by powerful people—as involving risk, uncertainty, and power asymmetries is what I call the A/B illusion in my law review article. Here is how the op-ed begins:

Can it ever be ethical for companies or governments to experiment on their employees, customers or citizens without their consent? The conventional answer — of course not! — animated public outrage last year after Facebook published a study in which it manipulated how much emotional content more than half a million of its users saw. Similar indignation followed the revelation by the dating site OkCupid that, as an experiment, it briefly told some pairs of users that they were good matches when its algorithm had predicted otherwise. But this outrage is misguided. Indeed, we believe that it is based on a kind of moral illusion.

After the jump, some clarifications and further thoughts.

Continue reading

Check out the latest news from the Petrie-Flom Center!

pfc-web-logoCheck out the May 28th edition of the Petrie-Flom Center’s biweekly e-newsletter for the latest on events, affiliate news and scholarship, and job and fellowship opportunities in health law policy and bioethics.

Featured in this edition:


glassesofwine_slidePetrie-Flom / Center for Bioethics Reception at ASLME 38th Annual Health Law Professors Conference

June 4, 2015 7:30 – 9:30 PM
Hilton St. Louis at the Ballpark
1 South Broadway, St. Louis, MO

Come learn more about the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School and the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School at this jointly-hosted dessert reception at the 2015 annual ASLME Health Law Professors Conference.

We hope to see you there!

For more information, please contact Brooke Tempesta at Brooke_Tempesta@hms.harvard.edu.

For more on news and events at Petrie-Flom, see the full newsletter.

The Robust But Unsatisfying State Of Health Care Fraud Enforcement

By Zack Buck

Earlier this spring, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice reported they had recovered nearly $28 billion as a result of anti-health care fraud efforts in FY 2014. The federal False Claims Act played a substantial role in achieving these recoveries: the government recovered $2.3 billion in FCA settlements and judgments, and opened nearly 800 new civil health fraud investigations, in FY 2014 alone. Further, the agencies noted that these anti-fraud efforts—bolstered by increased funding and authority under the Affordable Care Act—are continuing to abandon the “pay and chase” method of fraud enforcement, relying instead on prevention and “real-time data analysis.”

Interestingly, it is no longer just the federal government driving the enforcement regime. Increasingly, facing Medicaid shortfalls, states are getting involved—and, according to practitioners, state enforcement is “exploding.” For example, in New York, its Office of Medicaid Inspector General recovered more than $1.7 billion from FY 2011 to 2013. States have also had success in litigating claims to trial, most recently illustrated by the notable South Carolina Supreme Court verdict against pharmaceutical giant Johnson and Johnson. Further, Vermont is likely to become the newest state to establish its own state false claims act, another wide-ranging and powerful statute that mirrors the federal FCA.

Continue reading

Two Cheers for Corporate Experimentation

Rubin's vase2I have a new law review article out, Two Cheers for Corporate Experimentation: The A/B Illusion and the Virtues of Data-Driven Innovation, arising out of last year’s terrific Silicon Flatirons annual tech/privacy conference at Colorado Law, the theme of which was “When Companies Study Their Customers.”

This article builds on, but goes well beyond, my prior work on the Facebook experiment in Wired (mostly a wonky regulatory explainer of the Common Rule and OHRP engagement guidance as applied to the Facebook-Cornell experiment, albeit with hints of things to come in later work) and Nature (a brief mostly-defense of the ethics of the experiment co-authored with 5 ethicists and signed by an additional 28, which was necessarily limited in breadth and depth by both space constraints and the need to achieve overlapping consensus).

Although I once again turn to the Facebook experiment as a case study (and also to new discussions of the OkCupid matching algorithm experiment and of 401(k) experiments), the new article aims at answering a much broader question than whether any particular experiment was legal or ethical. Continue reading

Check out the latest news from the Petrie-Flom Center!

Check out the May 15th edition of the Petrie-Flom Center’s biweekly e-newsletter for the latest on events, affiliate news and scholarship, and job and fellowship opportunities in health law policy and bioethics.

Featured in this edition:

brain_pain_slide_270_174_85REGISTER NOW!
Visible Solutions: How Neuroimaging Helps Law Re-envision Pain

June 30, 2015, 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Wasserstein Hall, Milstein West A
Harvard Law School,
1585 Massachusetts Ave.,
Cambridge, MA [Map]

Can brain imaging be a “pain-o-meter” that tells courts when a person is in pain?  Can fMRI help us discern whether intractable chronic pain is “all in your head” or all in the brain – or will it require us to reconsider that distinction? Leading neuroscientists, legal scholars, and bioethicists will debate standards and limits on how the law can use brain science to get smarter about a subject that touches everyone.


The full agenda will be announced in the coming weeks. Check back here for news!


This event is free and open to the public, but seating is limited and registration is required. Register now!

This event is part of the Project on Law and Applied Neuroscience, a collaboration between the Center for Law, Brain & Behavior at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. Cosponsored by the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School, and with support from the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund. 

 For more on news and events at Petrie-Flom, see the full newsletter.

Athlete concussion under-reporting and pressure from stakeholders

By: Christine Baugh

As concussions are increasingly seen as a public health problem, under-reporting and under-diagnosis of concussion is recognized as one barrier to improving the safety of sports participation. A number of studies have previously characterized the extent of under-reporting of concussions among athletes, particularly at the collegiate level. Furthermore, existing research has examined the applicability of theories of behavior change to concussion reporting and created relevant frameworks for examination. Although a growing body of evidence suggests that reporting (or not reporting) a concussion is a decision actively made by the athlete weighing relevant factors, the extent to which interpersonal, intrapersonal, environmental, or policy factors influence athletes’ decisions about whether or not to report a concussion is not fully understood.

A recent study, on which I am a co-author, titled “Concussion under-reporting and pressure from coaches, teammates, fans, and parents,” published in Social Science and Medicine aimed to understand one possible contributory factor to athlete under-report of concussion: pressure on athletes from relevant stakeholders. (Abstract available here.) The survey-based study queried a sample of 328 athletes from 19 contact or collision sports teams (notably excluding football and hockey teams) at 4 colleges in the northeast region of the United States. Among other things, the study asked athletes whether they experienced pressure to return to play after a head impact, specifically asking about pressure from coaches, teammates, parents, and fans. Continue reading

The Place of Human Rights in Global Health Policy

Guest Post by Professor John Tasioulas

The international community is currently in the process of formulating the Sustainable Development Goals that will guide the post-2015 development agenda. Many UN bodies, NGOs, governments and members of civil society have in the past stressed the vital need to embed the SDGs in a human rights framework. However, in July 2014,  the UN’s Open Working Group on Sustainable Developments Goals, of which UK Prime Minister David Cameron is co-chair, issued an outcome document that largely shunned use of the words ‘human rights’.  Some have interpreted this as a major set-back for the role of human rights in the post-2015 development agenda. Indeed, one distinguished human rights lawyer, speaking at the Harvard Human Rights Program’s recent 30th anniversary event, was moved regretfully to announce that human rights are now out of fashion. The absence of any serious engagement with human rights in the outcome document is disturbing and highlights the urgent need to clarify the role that human rights should play in the development agenda.

In an article published in the Lancet, Effy Vayena and I focus specifically on the place of human rights in global health policy. Understanding human rights in the first instance as universal moral rights, we argue for two main propositions. First, global health policy needs to attend to more than just human rights, vitally important though such rights are. For example, it needs to encourage compliance with duties people have to themselves (e.g. to maintain a healthy diet and exercise regimen) and to foster health-related common goods (e.g. a compassionate culture of organ donation or participation in clinical trials). Human rights do not all by themselves exhaust the values that should guide global health policy.

Continue reading

New browser app shines light on conflicts of interest

By: Christine Baugh

A new Google Chrome extension puts the spotlight on conflicts of interest. The browser app, available for free download here, was created at the Hacking iCorruption hackathon event held March 27-29 in Cambridge, MA. The event, co-sponsored by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University and the MIT Center for Civic Media (hosted at the MIT Media Lab) brought together individuals with a variety of backgrounds and skills to work toward the common mission of fighting institutional corruption, in this case by creating practical tools. This project was one of several exciting tools created at the hackathon (information about other projects available here), and it won first prize among the projects.

The Chrome extension, called Unearth, puts funding and conflict of interest information on the abstract page of PubMed research articles. Christopher Robertson, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Arizona James E. Rodgers College of Law and Edmond J. Safra Center Fellow who was a member of the Unearth team, explains the rationale for the browser extension in this Youtube video. In short, conflict of interest and funding disclosures are often placed at the end of a research article and are generally unavailable on the abstract page. This makes it impractical for physicians and other research scientists to pay appropriate attention to this important information. Research from the Cochrane Collaboration has demonstrated that research studies funded by industry generally describe “greater benefits and fewer harmful side effects” than their non-industry funded counterparts. Thus, taking the source of research funding into account when reading a new research study is critical. Although the extension currently only works for open access articles from PubMed Central, this includes several million research articles for which funding and conflict of interest information was previously much more difficult to obtain. Additionally, the developers plan on expanding the breadth of coverage in the coming weeks. Continue reading

Check out the latest news from the Petrie-Flom Center!

PFC_Banner_DrkBlueCheck out the March 20th edition of the Petrie-Flom Center’s biweekly e-newsletter for the latest on events, affiliate news and scholarship, and job and fellowship opportunities in health law policy and bioethics.

Featured in this edition:

KIngKing v. Burwell and the Future of the Affordable Care Act

April 1, 2015

8:00 AM – 12:00 PM
Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East B
Harvard Law School
1585 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA

A full agenda is available on our website. Register here!

This Term, in King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court will consider whether the Affordable Care Act permits the government to extend tax-credit subsidies to citizens of states that have chosen not to establish their own insurance exchange. If the Court rules that these subsidies are not permitted under the law, the fallout will be extensive and possibly devastating to state insurance markets, and countless local, state, and federal actors will have to decide how to move forward.  This event will bring together scholars and practitioners in the fields of law, public health, and economics to evaluate the oral argument in the case and consider how the Court is likely to rule before exploring the likely impacts of a decision against the government and finally beginning to build groundwork for politically-viable fixes at all levels of public and private involvement.

This event is supported by the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund.

For more on news and events at Petrie-Flom, see the full newsletter.

TOMORROW (3/11): Identified versus Statistical Lives: An Interdisciplinary Approach Book Launch

Identified_Lives_posterBook Launch: Identified versus Statistical Lives: An Interdisciplinary Approach

March 11, 2015 12:00 PM

Wasserstein Hall, Room 2012 Harvard Law School, 1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

Identified versus Statistical Lives: An Interdisciplinary Approach is an edited volume that grew out of the 2012 conference “Identified versus Statistical Lives: Ethics and Public Policy,” cosponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, and the Harvard Global Health Institute. The essays address the identified lives effect, which describes the fact that people demonstrate a stronger inclination to assist persons and groups identified as at high risk of great harm than those who will or already suffer similar harm, but endure unidentified. As a result of this effect, we allocate resources reactively rather than proactively, prioritizing treatment over prevention. Such bias raises practical and ethical questions that extend to almost every aspect of human life and politics.

The book talk and discussion will feature:

  • I. Glenn Cohen, co-editor, Petrie-Flom Faculty Director, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School
  • Norman Daniels, co-editor, Professor of Population Ethics and Professor of Ethics and Population Health, Harvard School of Public Health
  • Nir Eyal, co-editor, Professor of Global Health and Social Medicine (Medical Ethics), Harvard Medical School

Co-sponsored by the Harvard Law School Library, with support from the Harvard Global Health Institute.

Despite Federal Law, Some Insurance Exchange Plans Offer Unequal Coverage for Mental Health

By Kelsey Berry

One of my previous blogs discussed how potentially discriminatory practices in insurance design may continue to dissuade people with high-cost conditions from enrolling in insurance plans, even in a post-ACA world. Last week, colleagues Haiden A. Huskamp, Howard H. Goldman, Colleen L. Barry and I published new findings in Psychiatric Services on the same issue, except with a focus on an area that has historically been subject to considerable regulation: mental health benefits.

The Affordable Care Act shows considerable promise for extending mental health benefits with federal parity protections to several million Americans, which has been a main aim of mental health policy advocates for decades. However, insurers may still have an incentive on health insurance exchanges to avoid enrolling individuals who use mental health services because their care is more costly than average. In the study, we examined benefits information available to consumers shopping on state health insurance exchanges to assess whether the new insurance offerings were living up to the promise of mental health parity laws. We found that some plans may still be offering people with mental illness insurance benefits that are less generous than benefits for other medical conditions. Specifically, one-quarter of the health plans being sold on health insurance exchanges set up in two states through the ACA offer benefits that appear to violate the federal parity law requiring equal benefits for general medical and mental health care. Such benefit designs may dissuade people with mental health and substance abuse treatment needs from enrolling in the plans, furthering concerns about adverse selection and suggesting that some discriminatory practices persist despite efforts to equalize insurance offerings for individuals with behavioral health conditions. Continue reading