News & Insights

In light of the current climate of eroding trust and falling investments in public health, a critical question has emerged: How do we strengthen public health advocacy at local, state, and national levels? In this Q&A, the authors of the study, Fighting for Public Health: Findings, Opportunities, and Next Steps from a Feasibility Study to Strengthen Public Health Advocacy discuss the myriad tensions surfaced by public health leaders interviewed for the study, and opportunities for a way forward.

The Network is seeking a Public Health Senior Attorney to help advance its health and racial equity work. While the position will work on a wide variety of public health law topics, it will primarily focus on addressing health and racial equity through law and policy. Projects may include research and analysis of racism and other forms of structural discrimination in law and policy, as well as strategies, frameworks, and tools that can be used or implemented by partners engaged in health and racial equity work. This position is expected to be fully remote.

Public health interventions are chronically underfunded, in significant part because policymakers are often reluctant to adopt policies necessary to fund them. Much of this reluctance can be attributed to the fact that returns on investment (ROIs) for public health interventions, while substantial, are difficult to accurately predict and are often realized many years down the line. Decision-makers and funders at all levels of government, and the public, need a mindset shift toward recognizing the long-term value of public health investments, and public health professionals can use advocacy to help them do so.

The Network is seeking a Public Health Senior Attorney to help advance its health and racial equity work. While the position will work on a wide variety of public health law topics, it will primarily focus on addressing health and racial equity through law and policy. Projects may include research and analysis of racism and other forms of structural discrimination in law and policy, as well as strategies, frameworks, and tools that can be used or implemented by partners engaged in health and racial equity work. This position is expected to be fully remote.

Paraphernalia laws make it illegal to have, sell, or give away nearly any object used in conjunction with illegal drugs. Every state except Alaska penalizes the possession or distribution of syringes, pipes, and other objects people use to get certain drugs into their bodies. This leads to people sharing and re-using syringes, which can spread bloodborne disease like HIV and hepatitis and cause endocarditis and other deadly infections.

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.