The Flint water crisis demonstrates the importance of adequate legal preparedness in dealing with complicated legal arrangements and multiple statutory responsibilities. It also demonstrates the need for alternative accountability measures when public officials fail to protect the public's health and explores mechanisms for restoring community trust in governmental public health.

Many observers have argued that the US health care system could be more efficient, and achieve better outcomes if providers focused more on improving the community's health, not just the welfare of individual patients. The passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 seemed to herald the promise of such reforms, and greater integration of the health care and public systems. In this article, we reassess the quest for integration, a quest we call the “integration project.” After examining the modest steps taken so far toward integration, we consider some conceptual barriers to integration as well as some of the risks it might portend for the public health system. Our assessment contributes to wide-ranging debates among public health advocates, practitioners, and policymakers as to the health care system's role in protecting public health, and how the public health system can best be organized to meet expected population health challenges.

This article introduces and defines the Health in All Policies (HiAP) concept and examines existing state legislation, with a focus on California. The article starts with an overview of HiAP and then analyzes the status of HiAP legislation, specifically addressing variations across states. Finally, the article describes California's HiAP approach and discusses how communities can apply a HiAP framework not only to improve health outcomes and advance health equity, but also to counteract existing laws and policies that contribute to health inequities.

Each of us has written about the importance of reframing the debate over public health paternalism. Our individual explorations of the many and varied paths forward from libertarian “nanny state” objections to the “new public health” have been intimately informed by collaboration. This article represents a summary of our current thinking — reflecting the ground gained through many fruitful exchanges and charting future collaborative efforts.

Our starting point is that law is a vitally important determinant of population health, and the interplay among law, social norms, cultural beliefs, health behaviors, and healthy living conditions is complex. Anti-paternalists’ efforts to limit the scope of public health law to controlling only the proximal determinants of infectious diseases are utterly unjustifiable in the face of so much preventable death, disability, and disparity. Equally important, the anti-paternalism push is deeply counter-majoritarian and undemocratic, threatening to disable communities from undertaking measures to improve their own well-being.

Heath care and public health are typically conceptualized as separate, albeit overlapping, systems. Health care’s goal is the improvement of individual patient outcomes through the provision of medical services. In contrast, public health is devoted to improving health outcomes in the population as a whole through health promotion and disease prevention. Health care services receive the bulk of funding and political support, while public health is chronically starved of resources. In order to reduce morbidity and mortality, policymakers must shift their attention to public health services and to the improved integration of health care and public health. In other words, health care and public health should be treated as two parts of a single integrated health system (which we refer to as the health system throughout this article). Furthermore, in order to maximize improvements in health status, policymakers must consider the impact of all governmental policies on health (a Health in All Policies Approach).

The Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) stores almost 4 million dried blood spot specimens (DBS) in the Michigan Neonatal Biobank. DBS are collected from newborns under a mandatory public health program to screen for serious conditions. At 24 to 36 hours of age, a few drops of blood are taken from the baby’s heel and placed on a filter paper card. The card is sent to the state public health laboratory for testing. After testing, MDCH retains the spots indefinitely for the personal use of the patient and also, pursuant to a 2000 law, for possible research.

It would be naïve to argue that money isn't the driving force motivating health care delivery in 2010. At nearly 17% of GDP, health care delivery is a large and growing industrial enterprise that is the largest employer in many communities. Save for free clinics, generating revenue is fundamental to every aspect of the delivery system. From insurance reimbursement rates to the cost of purchasing the latest technology, the surest explanation for understanding changes in the health care system and concomitant development of legal doctrine is, indeed, to “follow the money.”

Determining who controls the money flows usually explains who the dominant players are, and how they are able to organize and change the delivery system. Unquestionably, the most straightforward way to understand how the system functions, where its vulnerabilities lie, and why it is so difficult to institute significant reforms is to identify who controls the money.

It should come as no surprise to any observer of health policy debates that the preemption provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) will play a major role in determining the contours of any health reform initiative. For the past few years, many states have been aggressively pursuing health reform experiments, while congressional action has essentially been deadlocked along partisan political lines. Yet after the 2008 election results, there is reason to expect considerable congressional attention to health reform. President Obama has made health reform a priority of his administration, and several members of Congress have long been waiting for an opportunity to pursue health reform legislation.

Law is an essential tool for public health practice, and the use of a systematic legal framework can assist with preventing chronic diseases and addressing the growing epidemic of obesity.The action options available to government at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels and its partners can help make the population healthier by preventing obesity and decreasing the growing burden of associated chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses the four-part systematic legal framework commonly referred to as “public health legal preparedness” to demonstrate the essential role law can play for any public health issue. This paper uses the “laws and legal authorities” component of the framework and should be considered in combination with the competencies, coordination, and information-best practices components of the framework.

In 2008, Representative John Read of Mississippi recently co-sponsored state legislation that would ban restaurants from serving obese customers. He later admitted that the bill was a publicity stunt,meant to “shed a little light on the number one problem in Mississippi.” Although controversial, Read’s bill exemplifies both the current perception of obesity as a national public health problem and the general sentiment underlying the types of interventions that are being considered to address this issue. The proposed legislation also demonstrates how policymakers can use or, in this case misuse, information about obesity to generate significant discussion on an issue along with ill-conceived legal interventions.

Information sharing and the methods used to share best practices are components of the fourth core element of public health legal preparedness.

This paper is the companion to “Assessment of Information on Public Health Law Best Practices for Obesity Prevention and Control,” and the fourth of four action papers produced as part of the National Summit on Legal Preparedness for Obesity Prevention and Control, convened June 2008 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the American Society for Law, Medicine Ethics. The four action papers present options to address gaps in the four core elements of public health legal preparedness as outlined in the relevant companion papers. The four core elements are: (1) laws and legal authorities; (2) legal competencies for public health professionals to apply those laws and authorities; (3) coordination of law-based efforts across jurisdictions and sectors, and (4) information on public health law best practices.

In recent years, scholars have begun to lay the groundwork to justify a distinct application of ethics to the field of public health. They have highlighted important features that differentiate public health ethics from bioethics, especially public health’s emphasis on population health rather than issues of individual health. Articulations of public health ethics also tend to emphasize the role of social justice compared to the predominance of autonomy in the bioethical literature. Now that the field of public health ethics is developing a unique focus and a language of its own, including a code of ethics disseminated by the American Public Health Association, the future of public health ethics may well be global health ethics, focusing on issues of global justice. As public health ethics evolves from its nascent stage of reflection to a place of action and application in the national and global arenas, two interrelated developments will need to occur: (1) public health professionals, including practitioners, policymakers, and scholars, will need a richer understanding of the ethical challenges practitioners face on a daily basis and (2) scholars will need to develop useful tools (i.e., frameworks) that practitioners may employ for identifying and tackling these ethical challenges.

In 2004, the journal Health Matrix published a very interesting symposium volume titled “The Field of Health Law: Its Past and Future. As the title implies, the various commentators took both a retrospective and a prospective look at past trends and future prospects in health law. Some, including Clark Havighurst, Skip Rosoff and Walter Wadlington, wrote thoughtful essays on the development of health law over time and the implications of those trends. Others, including Rob Schwartz, Jim Blumstein, Rand Rosenblatt, and Mark Hall and Carl Schneider, wrote equally thoughtful essays that reflected on the past but focused more on future directions and prospects. And one, Kep Wing, wrote a semi-dyspeptic essay debunking the entire field of health law.

Taken together, these essays present a comprehensive view of how health law has developed so far and where its future might lie. Four themes emerge from the collected writings. First, there is considerable agreement on how and why health law has developed, but little agreement on where it is headed.

Public health is concerned with how to improve the population’s health. At times, though, actions to improve the community’s health may collide with individual civil rights. For example, a public health response to a bioterrorism attack, such as smallpox, may require relaxing an individual’s due process protections to prevent the smallpox from spreading. This tension lies at the heart of public health policy. It also must be considered in discussing the concept of human rights in health.

Proponents of incorporating the concept of human rights in health emphasize the importance of both individual rights and collective rights. They argue that observing human rights is not only consistent with broad public health goals, but necessary to their attainment. To many human rights advocates, the concept is not limited to protecting against governmental intrusion. Accordingly, they emphasize the government’s obligation to promote attainment of human rights by, for instance, providing adequate health care.

An ongoing debate among legal scholars and public health advocates is the role of litigation in shaping public policy. For the most part, the debate has been waged at a conceptual level, with opponents and proponents arguing within fairly well-defined boundaries. The debate has been based either on speculation of what litigation could achieve or on ideological grounds as to why litigation should or should not be used this way. With the exception of Rosenberg's study of how litigation shaped policy in civil rights, abortion, and environmental matters, there is almost no empirical support for either position.

In recent years, the most ardent proponents of litigation as public policy have been public health advocates. Perhaps out of frustration with the inability to achieve desired public health goals through the legislative branch of government, public health advocates have pursued litigation as an alternative strategy. Beginning with tobacco class action litigation in the early 1990s and continuing with litigation against gun manufacturers at the end of that decade, public health advocates have waged a veritable litigation assault aimed at changing how public health policy is formed.

The transformation of health-care delivery from fee-for-service medicine to managed care represents a fundamental philosophical shift away from the prevailing medical ethos that the needs of the individual patient take precedence over competing social values, such as reducing health-care costs. In managed care, financial incentives to reduce health-care utilization may result in denying an individual’s claim for medical services.

Litigation challenging managed care’s resource allocation decisions often presents the need to resolve conflicting social policy goals, such as the tension between an individual patient’s access to health care and a managed care organization’s (MCO’s) need to restrain costs. Conflicts may arise when a patient’s desire for unconstrained health care clashes with a provider’s and an insurer’s cost containment strategies. In turn, cost containment strategies may raise questions about restrictions on physician autonomy and conflicts among stakeholders for control over resource allocation decisions.