Consider the thought experiment offered at the conference that generated this collection of essays: in this fantasy, face transplants are safe and effective. A young woman is the victim of a devastating accident. A face transplant will enable her to live a completely normal life. But, say she is African American, or Asian. Would it be ethically permissible to allow her to take the face of a Caucasian woman? Or, say you have a child with a muscle wasting disorder. Would it be permissible to alter his muscle repair system so that he not only does not have the genetic variation that causes the disease, but he has the capacity for enhanced muscular strength, beyond that of his peers, such that he could become a big league pitcher?

This article defines the problem of the uninsured. It begins with an overview of why health insurance matters and presents a profile of the uninsured. It then discusses the roles and limits of private and public health insurance as sources of coverage for the nonelderly population. The article concludes with reflections on the current health insurance environment and prospects for reform.

The large and growing number of uninsured people is of concern because health coverage makes a difference in whether and when people get necessary medical care, where they get their care, and ultimately how healthy people are. About a quarter of uninsured adults (26 percent) say that they have postponed seeking care in the past year because of its cost, compared to about 6 percent of privately insured adults (Figure 1). In addition, more than half of uninsured adults (54 percent) have no usual source of care, compared to 1 in 10 adults (10 percent) with other types of coverage. Similarly, uninsured children are more likely to lack a usual source of care, delay care, or to have unmet medical needs than children with insurance. The uninsured are less likely to receive timely preventive and outpatient care and are more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable health problems. Improved access to care through health insurance ultimately has an impact on people’s health and lives: an estimated 22,000 excess deaths occurred among adults aged 25-64 in 2006 as a result of lack of health coverage.

In the early days of HIV awareness, prior to universal precautions, as a local health officer, I was supervising an openly gay employee. The county executive (in his formal capacity) asked me the HIV status of the employee and threatened my employment if I did not reveal it. I was reluctant to do so, believing it would be an invasion of the employee’s privacy. I contacted the county attorney who advised me that I could reveal the employee’s HIV status to the county executive but he was not willing to put his guidance in writing. Ultimately, I spoke with the employee’s attorney and was given permission to reveal the employee’s HIV status. The experience, however, left a bad taste in my mouth. I felt the county attorney was acting politically in support of the county executive rather than doing what was legally appropriate. He certainly did not act as an advocate for the local health department!

Researchers, institutional review boards (IRBs), participants in human subjects research, and their families face an important but largely neglected problem — how should incidental findings (IFs) be managed in human subjects research. If researchers unexpectedly stumble upon information of potential health or reproductive significance, should they seek expert evaluation, contact the participant’s physician, tell the research participant, or respond with some combination? What should consent forms and the entire consent process say about how IFs will be handled in research? What should IRBs require?

There is likely to be widespread agreement with much of the FDA’s rationale for approving BiDil (a combination of hydralazine hydrochloride and isosorbide dinitrate; H-I) as a treatment for heart failure. In particular, most would agree that the evidence of effectiveness provided by the African American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT) is compelling. Likewise, few health scientists would believe that it is either necessary or responsible to withhold therapies such as BiDil from those who might benefit until there is a full understanding of how they work. And although there is substantial concern that biomedical differences between racial groups are routinely misinterpreted as evidence of innate genetic differences (hence Jonathan Kahn’s call for all such claims to be supported by genetic evidence), most would concede that using race as a “descriptive” variable can help identify differences in health and access/response to treatment that might warrant further investigation or intervention.

Researchers in the health sciences regularly discover information of potential health importance unrelated to their object of study in the course of their research. However, there appears to be little guidance available on what researchers should do with this information, known in the scientific literature as incidental findings (IFs). The study described here was designed to determine the extent of guidance available to researchers from public sources. This empirical study was part of a larger two-year project funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) to generate guidance on how incidental findings should be managed in human subjects research, especially genetics, genomics, and imaging research. We generated empirical analysis of publicly available guidance and consent forms to help guide a multidisciplinary Working Group of experts in their formulation of normative recommendations reported in this symposium.

On the eve of the presidential inauguration, the U.S. health system faces rising costs of care, growing numbers of uninsured, wide variations in quality of care, and mounting public dissatisfaction. Despite spending more on health care than any other country, a recent Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health Care System National Scorecard reports that the United States is lagging far behind other major industrialized countries — all of which provide universal health insurance — in five key domains: healthy lives, access, quality, equity, and efficiency. U.S. national performance is well below benchmarks of top performance set by other countries or high performing states, hospitals, or health plans within the United States, with broad disparities in experience depending on geographic location, income, race/ethnicity, and insurance coverage. National leadership is required to manage the growing health care crisis in the United States and improve care for all Americans.

The goal of this paper is to present a succinct overview, from a clinician’s perspective, of the importance and implications of research on heart failure in African Americans. It first gives a brief outline of the rationale and results of the African-American Heart Failure Trial (A-HeFT), which showed evidence for the effectiveness of fixed-dose combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine (ISDN/Hyd), marketed as BiDil (NitroMed Inc.), in this population. Finally, it underscores the necessity of treating African Americans with evidence-based medicine given that humanistic physicians and other clinicians strive to provide holistic treatment to their patients.

Most researchers and clinicians recognize the difficulty with utilizing race as a category for inclusion in trials. While race lacks any true biologic definition, it is potentially beneficial as a consideration in clinical studies, based on prior evidence of certain potential differences across self-identified racial/ethnic groups in morbidity and mortality and responses to medicine. Even though use of race as a classification is a problematic distinction, it should not be ignored. If clinical trials demonstrate significant improvement with targeted treatment in African Americans, clinicians should not withhold life-saving drugs that result from such studies.

The Public Health Law Association’s (PHLA) grant proposal described the problem of accessing public health law information, and the charge for this paper, as follows:

In his introduction to this symposium, “Religions and Cultures of East and West: Perspectives on Bioethics,” Dr. Robert Sade defined its purpose as follows: “The objective of [our] discussions…is to explore the limits of enhancement technologies in light of what makes us essentially human, in the view of world-wide cultures and religions.”

These issues would seem to be at the cutting edge of any informed deliberation concerning the merits of “human enhancement” technologies. For instance, the issue of how “what makes us essentially human” affects our reflection on issues of technological “life enhancement” is raised in a 2007 book by Harvard professor Michael J. Sandel, The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering.

I would like to begin by discussing the legal and administrative framework of the role of the federal government in public health. At the heart of it is, of course, the Constitution. At the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) we depend, as does much of the federal government, on our power to regulate interstate commerce. Since the Supreme Court in 1942 removed essentially any restraint from the meaning of interstate commerce in Wickard v. Filburn, the federal government has been regulating with wide latitude, in spite of small and, arguably, equivocal reverses in recent years. However, even though the Supreme Court no longer provides any real constitutional check on the federal government's interstate commerce power, some other restraints persist. For example, many parts of the health system have traditionally been deemed inherently state functions, such as the licensing and disciplining of doctors, nurses, and pharmacists, as well as the practice of medicine itself.

Public health emergencies have occurred throughout history, encompassing such events as plagues and famines arising from natural causes, disease pandemics interrelated with wars (such as the influenza pandemic of 1918-1919), and industrial accidents such as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, among others. Law and legal tools have played an important role in addressing such emergencies. Three prime U.S. examples are Congressional authorization of quarantine as early as 1796, legally mandated smallpox vaccination upheld in a landmark 1905 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and the President's 2003 executive order adding SARS to the federal government's list of “quarantinable communicable diseases.”

The public health emergencies of the present — both actual and potential — pose equally serious threats but do so in the context of greatly magnified expectations that stem directly from the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the immediately following anthrax attacks.

Virtually all Americans are part of the health care system. They may be patients, health professionals, employers providing benefits, insurers, medical manufacturers, regulators, innovators, or investors. Each has a stake in this burgeoning sector of the United States economy, and each may be critically affected, in multiple and diverse ways, by changes to the system under health reform. As health care expenditures continue to rise, it is increasingly important to understand where these expenditures go and the factors that drive these cost increases. This article examines health care expenditure patterns, considering both the “usual suspects” that frequently are cited as spending drivers, as well as certain significant dynamics that may be the main contributors to rising costs. We conclude that in order to successfully contain costs, health reform will need to address these underlying factors.