Health care delivery is shifting away from the clinic and into the home. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telehealth, wearable sensors, ambient surveillance, and other products was on the rise. In the coming years, patients will increasingly interact with digital products at every stage of their care, such as using wearable sensors to monitor changes in temperature or blood pressure, conducting self-directed testing before virtually meeting with a physician for a diagnosis, and using smart pills to document their adherence to prescribed treatments. This volume reflects on the explosion of at-home digital health care and explores the ethical, legal, regulatory, and reimbursement impacts of this shift away from the twentieth-century focus on clinics and hospitals toward a more modern health care model. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enduring effect across the entire spectrum of law and policy, in areas ranging from health equity and racial justice, to constitutional law, the law of prisons, federal benefit programs, election law, and much more. This collection provides a critical reflection on what changes the pandemic has already introduced and what its legacy may be. Chapters evaluate how healthcare and government institutions have succeeded and failed during this global “stress test,” and explore how the United States and the world will move forward to ensure we are better prepared for future pandemics. This timely volume identifies the right questions to ask as we take stock of pandemic realities and provides guidance for the many stakeholders of COVID-19’s legal legacy. This book is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

This chapter analyses the phenomenon of vaccine tourism and seeks to answer that question. Section I situates vaccine tourism in the larger phenomenon of medical tourism and describes what is undesirable about it. Section II seeks to answer the question of when a state should try to prevent international vaccine tourism head-on, arguing that states should adopt a communitarian conception of who qualifies that is tied to the purpose of the good in question. For vaccines, such a conception makes it appropriate for states to prohibit “tourists” from coming to a state such as Florida from abroad for the purpose of getting vaccinated. At the same time, this rationale does not justify excluding undocumented persons or even those who are not permanent residents but have substantial ties to the community, such as part-time residents. Section III considers objections to the argument and briefly highlights some adjacent issues such as whether interstate vaccine tourism is different from international vaccine tourism in the ethical analysis. Throughout this chapter, I use the state of Florida in the United States as my “home state” and “home country” for ease of exposition, but I mean the arguments I offer to be more generally applicable.