Successful preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to avoid creating a child affected by a genetically-based disorder was reported in 1989. Since then PGD has been used to biopsy and analyze embryos created through in viuo fertilization (IVF) to avoid transferring to the mother’s uterus an embryo affected by a mutation or chromosomal abnormality associated with serious illness. PGD to avoid serious and early-onset illness in the child-to-be is widely accepted. PGD prevents gestation of an affected embryo and reduces the chance that the parents will be faced with a difficult decision of whether to terminate the pregnancy. More controversial have been PGD to select the sex of the child-to-be for “family balancing” (rather than to avoid a sex-linked disorder), PGD for mere susceptibility to disease and for late-onset disorders such as Alzheimer diseas, and most controversially, PGD to create a donor child who is Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA-matched with a preexisting sibling in need of stem cell transplant.

It is doubtful that any feature of the American health care system in the last several decades has had as profound an effect on the way Americans pursue their perceived health needs as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Almost half of all Americans take care of some of their health care needs outside of contemporary scientific medicine. The number of visits to CAM practitioners was estimated 6 years ago to be 629 million a year, with expenditures of $27 billion a year. The use of CAM has been expanding rapidly despite little objective evidence of its safety or effectiveness. Little more than a decade ago CAM was viewed by the traditional medical community as a nuisance that offered unproven treatments at best and as outright quackery at worst. In any case, alternative medicine, as it was known at that time, seemed unworthy of serious attention.

I am really quite honored to have a chance to be here. Also let me say how much I appreciate what all of you public health professionals do. One of the unfortunate dimensions of modern American life is that we have chosen to privatize all aspects of life. People do not live on their front porches anymore and watch their neighbors in the evening. They go out back in their wall-enclosed backyards. And we have done the same with medicine.

Medicine has been privatized in America. We have lost a sense of the public obligations of health and hygiene and sanitation. So I thank you for keeping the flame alive on what we clearly now know is the far bigger issue of health care in modern society.

The treatment of pregnant women addicted to drugs provides an especially important and illustrative example of how political and popular demands can successfully challenge professional ethical norms associated with clinical medicine — norms such as confidentiality, patient autonomy, and the right to consent to and to refuse treatment. One increasingly popular policy approach is to limit patient autonomy by coercing women in an attempt to change their behavior, either by involuntary civil commitment or by imprisoning them for drug abuse or child neglect. Thirty-five states have criminally prosecuted women for substance abuse or alcohol use during pregnancy. Other states aggressively use involuntary civil commitment as a means to protect the yet-to-be-born from harm during pregnancy. Medical professionals have been forced to participate in these programs by mandatory reporting requirements.

State medical boards are beginning to take a more balanced approach to monitoring and disciplining for prescribing of pain medications, according to this survey of state medical boards across the country. Overall, respondents indicated that they are becoming more educated and more sophisticated in their approach to complaints of opioid overprescribing. In addition, their responses reflect a heightened awareness of the appropriateness of treating chronic pain with controlled substances.

Yet, despite these inroads, boards generally demonstrate a continued tolerance of pain undertreatment, the survey found. There is a discrepancy in the weight given to violation of standard of care, patient harm, and gross negligence for opioid overprescribing versus undertreatment of pain. Boards appear to have a higher threshold for patient harm in cases involving pain undertreatment — particularly for chronic nonmalignant pain.

The writers in this symposium are drawn together under the topic of medicine — not to discuss any new discovery in the prevention or treatment of disease. Quite the contrary. We are drawn here to consider a phenomenon. We are here to consider whether a collective romantic fantasy called alternative medicine that has seized our society really deserves the acclaim it is receiving. This, for the most part, is what people like us do when we gather in symposia or meetings to discuss alternative medicine. We argue about beliefs and claims, not results. Are the beliefs and claims of this collective romantic fantasy justified by empirical data? Or rather, will the beliefs and claims of this collective romantic fantasy be justified by empirical data because the fantasy is already securely in place in our political and fiscal, medical and educational, structures?

In March 2003, the world discovered, again, that I humanity's battle with infectious diseases continues. The twenty-first century began with infectious diseases, especially HIV/AIDS, being discussed as threats to human rights, economic development, and national security. Bioterrorism in the United States in October 2001 increased concerns about pathogenic microbes. The global outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in the spring of 2003 kept the global infectious disease challenge at the forefront of world news for weeks. At its May 2003 annual meeting, the World Health organization (WHO) asserted that SARS is “the first severe infectious disease to emerge in the twenty-first century” and “poses a serious threat to global health security, the livelihood of populations, the functioning of health systems, and the stability and growth of economies.”

Diversion of controlled substances from medical to nonmedical purposes is a significant public health problem. However, there is great fear that regulatory efforts to curb this activity could have a chilling effect on appropriate and necessary pain management.

To track the extent to which there is inappropriate prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances, seventeen states have adopted prescription monitoring programs. Although earlier programs relied on ink-on-paper multiple copy or serialized prescriptions, the recent trend has been the development of electronic-based programs that can link to computerized pharmacy systems. Although these programs have not been thoroughly analyzed for their safety or efficacy, there is growing enthusiasm for them. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) backs the development of state-based electronic prescription monitoring programs and a bill is pending in Congress that would create a national program.

Today’s panel is about the expanding boundary of population health policy, what that expanding boundary has to do with law, and what kinds of challenges and opportunities come out of it. What I want to do for the next few minutes is talk to you about the notion of population health as it exists where law and policy are made, rather than where it exists in a spectacular international theoretical literature. Then I want to introduce our panelists. In the process, I will explain why the Honorable John Nilson, is not with us, which tells you a great deal about not only the real world of the politics of population health, but also about the kind of trouble you can get into if you are a first class lawyer involved in population health.

Policymakers use financial incentives to achieve a wide variety of public objectives, from pollution reduction to the employment of welfare recipients. Combining insights from economic theory with lessons learned from actual implementation, this article analyzes the implications of two such policies: first, subsidizing contraception, and second, offering financial incentives to individuals for sterilization or for using a long-term, semipermanent method of contraception such as the Intra-Uterine Device (IUD), Depo-Provera or Norplant. These subsidy and incentive policies achieve their goals through a myriad of individuals who make their reproductive choices in response to particular costs and benefits. Such programs are ethically and politically controversial. In this paper, I address the question of whether they can be justified either economically or ethically.

The first section of this article presents an economic theory to assess whether a subsidy, tax, or incentive is economically efficient, both generally and in the context of contraception.