Organ Donation in Syria.

The first living donor kidney transplant in Syria was performed 44 years ago; by the end of 2022, 6265 renal transplants had been performed in Syria. Kidney, bone marrow, cornea, and stem cells are the only organs or tissues that can be transplanted in Syria. Although 3 heart transplants from deceased donors were performed in the late 1980s, cardiac transplant activities have since discontinued. In 2003, national Syrian legislation was enacted authorizing the use of organs from living unrelated and deceased donors. This important law was preceded by another big stride: the acceptance by the higher Islamic religious authorities in Syria in 2001 of the principle of procurement of organs from deceased donors, provided that consent is given by a first- or second-degree relative. After the law was enacted, kidney transplant rates increased from 7 per million population in 2002 to 17 per million population in 2007. Kidney transplants performed abroad for Syrian patients declined from 25% in 2002 to <2% in 2007. Rates plateaued through 2010, before the political crisis started in 2011. Forty-four years after the first successful kidney transplant in Syria, patients needing an organ transplant rely on living donors only. Moreover, 20 years after the law authorizing use of organs from deceased donors, a program is still not in place in Syria. The war, limited resources, and lack of public awareness about the importance of organ donation and transplant appear to be factors inhibiting initiation of a deceased donor program in Syria. A concerted and ongoing education campaign is needed to increase awareness of organ donation, change negative public attitudes, and gain societal acceptance. Every effort must be made to initiate a deceased donor program to lessen the burden on living donors and to enable national self-sufficiency in organs for transplant.

State-level policies and receipt of CDC-informed opioid thresholds among commercially insured new chronic opioid users.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of state-level policies on receipt of opioid regimens informed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) morphine milligram equivalent (MME)/day recommendations. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of new chronic opioid users (NCOUs). SETTING: Commercially insured plans across the United States using IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus for Academics database with new chronic use between January 2014 and March 2015. PARTICIPANTS: NCOUs with ≥60-day coverage of opioids within a 90-day period with ≥30-day opioid-free period prior to the date of the first qualifying opioid prescription. INTERVENTIONS: State-level policies including Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) robustness and cannabis policies involving the presence of medical dispensaries and state-wide decriminalization. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: NCOUs were placed in three-tiered risk-based average MME/day thresholds: low (>0 to <50), medium (≥50 to <90), and high (≥90). Multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate the association of state-level policies with the thresholds while adjusting for relevant patient-specific factors. RESULTS: NCOUs in states with medium or high PDMP robustness had lower odds of receiving medium (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.74; 95 percent confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.69) and high (AOR 0.74; 95 percent CI: 0.59-0.92) thresholds. With respect to cannabis policies, NCOUs in states with medical cannabis dispensaries had lower odds of receiving high (AOR 0.75; 95 percent CI: 0.60-0.93) thresholds, while cannabis decriminalization had higher odds of receiving high (AOR 1.24; 95 percent CI: 1.04-1.49) thresholds. CONCLUSION: States with highly robust PDMPs and medical cannabis dispensaries had lower odds of receiving higher opioid thresholds, while cannabis decriminalization correlated with higher odds of receiving high opioid thresholds.

An Asset Framework to Guide Nonhealth Policy for Population Health.

This JAMA Forum discusses 3 types of assets (financial, physical, and social) that unlock access to resources and shape population health.

Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Maori Health Authority) Amendment Act 2024: further Crown breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The Waitangi Tribunal in their Wai 2575 Report recommended the establishment of Te Aka Whai Ora (the Maori Health Authority) to remedy some of the contemporary breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Te Tiriti). Te Aka Whai Ora was the culmination of decades of Maori advocacy for the establishment of independent Maori health leadership, policymaking and commissioning. Under urgency, the new National-led coalition Government passed the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Maori Health Authority) Amendment Act 2024 in February. In this paper we use Critical Tiriti Analysis (CTA), a five-stage process, to review the extent to which the Act is compliant with the five elements of Te Tiriti (the authoritative Maori text), the preamble, the three written articles and the oral article. We found that the Act had very limited Tiriti compliance and the potential to do great harm. We offered practical suggestions how this could have been avoided.

Romania's Pioneering Law: Establishing the Right to Personalized Medicine.

This analysis and commentary discuss Romania's landmark law, the first globally, acknowledging the right of citizens and patients to personalized medicine. Initiated following the EU Council's 2015 policy on personalized medicine, the law is a result of intersectoral collaborative efforts led by the Centre for Innovation in Medicine in Romania using a quadruple (later evolved to penta) helix model involving academia, public, private, and civil society sectors. Promulgated on May 24, 2023, the law legally entitles patients to personalized health care and in ways informed by individual genetic and phenotypic consideration. The law mandates informed consent for medical interventions and ensures data protection in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation. We suggest that this pioneering legislation paves the way for integrating personalized medicine into Romania's health care system, shaping clinical practice, research, and health policy. In all, it marks a significant step in redefining health care delivery, emphasizing individualized treatment and the political determinants of personalized medicine, and setting a precedent for future health care innovations worldwide.

[Asymmetries between national articulation and the autonomy of state governments in implementing health technologies to fight COVID-19 in Argentina]. / Asimetrías entre la coordinación nacional y la autonomía de los gobiernos estatales en la adopción de tecnologías sanitarias frente a la COVID-19 en Argentina.

Argentina, as other countries, showed several public policies related to the health technologies implemented to fight and treat the COVID-19 pandemic. This study sought to analyze how articulation vs. cooperation and autonomy vs. division of powers between entities occurred in Argentina, exploring asymmetries between several entities in implementing public policies related to health technologies during the pandemic and the influences of other actors. For this, a documentary research was carried out related to 2020-2021 (technical reports published by the World Health Organization, national agencies and scientific societies, laws, court decisions, press, and research and in-depth interviews with members of the Argentine Ministries of Health). The processes and results of decision-making in the Ministries of Health were analyzed, outlining the coverage and orientations of each technology and the political party in power in the province. This study found heterogeneous results and processes between Ministries and disputes within them. It also observed the poor adherence to official guidelines due to technical-political criteria (power relations, social, media, academic, judiciary, and legislative pressure). Some cases showed a strong tension between the government and its opposition over the discussion of technologies. Each province in Argentina has autonomously defined its policies on health technologies for COVID-19, and decision-making in public administration was disorderly, complex, and non-linear during the pandemic.

En pandemia, en Argentina y en otros países se observó variabilidad en las políticas públicas implementadas sobre tecnologías sanitarias para prevención y tratamiento de la COVID-19. El objetivo fue analizar cómo se procesaron en Argentina los movimientos de coordinación vs. cooperación, y de autonomía vs. reparto de autoridad entre entidades, explorando asimetrías entre diferentes entidades en la implementación de políticas públicas sobre tecnologías sanitarias en pandemia y las influencias de otros actores. Se realizó una revisión documental del período 2020-2021 (informes técnicos publicados por la Organización Mundial de la Salud, organismos nacionales y sociedades científicas, leyes, fallos judiciales, prensa, encuestas y entrevistas en profundidad a miembros de los Ministerios de Salud de Argentina). Se indagó sobre procesos y resultados de la toma de decisiones en los Ministerios de Salud, mapeando la cobertura y recomendación de cada tecnología y el partido político provincial gobernante. Hubo heterogeneidad en resultados y procesos entre los Ministerios, y disputas en el interior de los mismos. La adherencia a recomendaciones oficiales fue baja, influyendo distintos criterios técnico-políticos (relaciones de poder, presión social, de los medios, académicos, poder Judicial y Legislativo). En algunos casos se observó una fuerte tensión entre oficialismo y oposición al partido gobernante a partir de la discusión sobre tecnologías. Cada provincia argentina definió sus políticas sobre tecnologías sanitarias para COVID-19 con autonomía, y la toma de decisiones en la administración pública en pandemia fue desordenada, compleja y no lineal.

Na Argentina, assim como em outros países, houve uma variabilidade de políticas públicas relacionadas às tecnologias de saúde implementadas no combate e tratamento da COVID-19 durante a pandemia. Este estudo buscou analisar como ocorreram a articulação vs. cooperação, e a autonomia vs. divisão de poderes entre as entidades na Argentina, explorando assimetrias entre diferentes entidades na implementação de políticas públicas relacionadas a tecnologias de saúde na pandemia, bem como as influências de outros atores. Para tanto, realizou-se uma pesquisa documental para o período de 2020-2021 (relatórios técnicos publicados pela Organização Mundial da Saúde, agências nacionais e sociedades científicas, leis, decisões judiciais, imprensa, pesquisas e entrevistas em profundidade com membros dos Ministérios da Saúde da Argentina). Os processos e os resultados da tomada de decisão nos Ministérios da Saúde foram analisados, traçando a cobertura e orientações de cada tecnologia e o partido político no poder na província. Observou-se uma heterogeneidade nos resultados e processos entre os Ministérios, e disputas em seu interior. Houve uma baixa adesão às orientações oficiais, influenciada por diferentes critérios técnico-políticos (relações de poder, pressão social, midiática, acadêmica, do poder Judiciário e do Legislativo). Em alguns casos, observou-se uma forte tensão entre governo e oposição a partir da discussão das tecnologias. Cada província da Argentina definiu suas políticas sobre tecnologias de saúde para a COVID-19 de forma autônoma, e a tomada de decisões na administração pública foi desordenada, complexa e não linear durante a pandemia.

Health policy and regulations in Seychelles - barriers and opportunities for oral health inclusion.

BACKGROUND: Successful and inclusive policies that embrace oral health as part of the health agenda have the potential to alleviate the burden of oral diseases and to promote dental public health. This study aimed to understand the factors influencing the inclusion of oral health in health and public policy and regulations in the Seychelles. The barriers and opportunities for inclusion / non-inclusion as well as the impact thereof were explored. METHODOLOGY: A qualitative approach was adopted using document analysis and interviews as data collection strategies to allow for a complete analysis of the research problem. Using a purposive sampling approach, individual face to face interviews were conducted with patients, dental staff and representatives of the upper management. Policy and related oral health statistical documents were reviewed to ascertain how oral health was located and implemented from a national to a district level. Thematic analysis and content analysis were used to analyse and interpret the qualitative data. RESULTS: The study provided insight on how oral health is contextualised in the Seychelles and how public policy and strategic documents influences the oral health outcomes. There is fragmentation in how the health and oral health agendas are managed and it is coupled with a severe lack of involvement and commitment to address the latter. CONCLUSION: Oral health needs to be integrated in all relevant policies and public health programmes as part of the broader national NCDs in Seychelles in order reduce the incidence of oral diseases in the population.

'Border Country': health law in a devolved UK.

How are we to understand and research health law under devolution in the UK? Building on work in law and geography, we argue that the figure of the border is key to the production and implementation of devolved health law and the variety of forms that this takes. The utility of border thinking in this context is shown through a review of thematic areas, including infectious disease control, access to health care, and abortion, each instantiating a distinct bordering process. In each, we consider recent developments in policy and legislation, framed with reference to constitutional change, and the politics of devolution in the UK. Taking Wales as an exemplary site, we argue that health law produces borders in traditional and non-traditional places. It creates and blurs territories. It is equally constituted by pluralistic bordering practices. On the basis of this theoretically informed review, we conclude by proposing a cross-disciplinary legal, ethical, and socio-legal research agenda for future research.

A Comprehensive Analysis of Litigation in Organ Transplantation for Allegations of Insufficient Policy Coverage, Discrimination and Malpractice.

Introduction: Transplantation is a field with unique medical and administrative challenges that involve an equally diverse array of stakeholders. Expectantly, the litigation stemming from this field should be similarly nuanced. There is a paucity of comprehensive reviews characterizing this medicolegal landscape. Design: The Caselaw Access Project Database was used to collect official court briefs of 2053 lawsuits related to kidney, liver, heart, lung, and pancreas transplantation. A thematic analysis was undertaken to characterize grounds for litigation, defendant type, and outcomes. Cases were grouped into policy, discrimination, poor or unsuccessful outcome, or other categories. Results: One hundred sixty-four court cases were included for analysis. Cases involving disputes over policy coverage were the most common across all organ types (N = 55, 33.5%). This was followed by poor outcomes (N = 51, 31.1%), allegations of discrimination against prison systems and employers (N = 37, 22.6%) and other (N = 21, 12.8%). Defendants involved in discrimination trials won with the greatest frequency (N = 29, 90.62%). Defendants implicated in policy suits won 65.3% (N = 32), poor outcomes 62.2% (N = 28), and other 70% (N = 14). Of the 51 cases involving poor outcomes, plaintiffs indicated lack of informed consent in 23 (45.1%). Conclusion: Reconsidering the informed consent process may be a viable means of mitigating future legal action. Most discrimination suits favoring defendants suggested previous concerns of structural injustices in transplantation may not be founded. The prevalence of policy-related cases could be an indication of financial burden on patients. Future work and advocacy will need to substantiate these concerns and address change where legal recourse falls short.

Prevention of child sexual abuse in the United States: Scoping review of United States legislative policies.

BACKGROUND: States in the United States (US) have passed and enacted legislation for the purpose of preventing child sexual abuse (CSA) since 2000, but it is unknown whether these legislative policies reduce adult-perpetrated CSA. OBJECTIVE: Review the literature from 2000 to 2023 to understand which US CSA prevention policies have been evaluated, the effectiveness of these policies, study populations, and barriers and facilitators associated with the implementation of CSA prevention policies. METHODS: The study protocol was published prior to undertaking the review: PMC10603531. The review follows Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and is reported according to the PRISMA-ScR Checklist. We searched 27 databases, hand searched reference lists of included studies, and sent notice via listserv to other researchers in the field. Articles were included if the content focused on CSA prevention policies and the effects. No limits to methodology were applied. Methodological rigor was assessed. RESULTS: 2209 potentially relevant articles were identified; 20 articles advanced to full-text review, three satisfied the inclusion criteria. Three eligible studies focused on CSA prevention education policies, while the other focused on mandated reporting policies. Effects of these policies were mixed in relation to CSA reporting and substantiation rates. No study considered child demographics. CONCLUSIONS: Despite decades of legislative action for CSA prevention across the US, only a few studies have assessed the effects of these policies. These findings highlight the need for additional research to ensure that CSA prevention policies such as CSA prevention education in schools and mandated reporting practices are working as intended.

Relationships Between Alcohol Policies and Infant Morbidities and Injuries.

INTRODUCTION: Previous research has found that policies specifically focused on pregnant people's alcohol use are largely ineffective. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to analyze the relationships between general population policies regulating alcohol physical availability and outcomes related to pregnant people's alcohol use, specifically infant morbidities and injuries. METHODS: Outcome data were obtained from Merative MarketScan, a longitudinal commercial insurance claims data set. Policy data were obtained from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's Alcohol Policy Information System, the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, and Liquor Handbooks and merged using policies in effect during the estimated year of conception. Relationships between state-level policies regulating sites, days/hours, and government monopoly of liquor sales and infant morbidities and injuries were examined. Analyses used logistic regression with individual controls, fixed effects for state and year, state-specific time trends, and SEs clustered by state. The study analysis was conducted from 2021 to 2023. RESULTS: The analytic sample included 1,432,979 infant-birthing person pairs, specifically people aged 25-50 years who gave birth to a singleton between 2006 and 2019. A total of 3.1% of infants had a morbidity and 2.1% of infants had an injury. State government monopoly on liquor sales was associated with reduced odds of infant morbidities and injuries, whereas gas station liquor sales were associated with increased odds of infant morbidities and injuries. Allowing liquor sales after 10PM was associated with increased odds for infant injuries. No effect was found for allowing liquor sales in grocery stores or on Sundays. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that limiting alcohol availability for the general population may help reduce adverse infant outcomes related to pregnant people's alcohol use.

Expand and extend postpartum Medicaid to support maternal and child health.

Most early maternal deaths are preventable, with many occurring within the first year postpartum (we use the terms "maternal" and "mother" broadly to include all individuals who experience pregnancy or postpartum and frame our recognition of need and policy recommendations in gender-neutral terms. To acknowledge limitations inherent in existing policy and the composition of samples in prior research, we use the term "women" when applicable). Black, Hispanic, and Native American individuals are at the most significant risk of pregnancy-related death. They are more commonly covered by Medicaid, highlighting likely contributions of structural racism and consequent social inequities. State-level length and eligibility requirements for postpartum Medicaid vary considerably. Federal policy requires 60 days of Medicaid continuation postpartum, risking healthcare coverage loss during a critical period of heightened morbidity and mortality risk. This policy position paper aims to outline urgent risks to maternal health, detail existing federal and state-level efforts, summarize proposed legislation addressing the issue, and offer policy recommendations for legislative consideration and future study. A team of maternal health researchers and clinicians reviewed and summarized recent research and current policy pertaining to postpartum Medicaid continuation coverage, proposing policy solutions to address this critical issue. Multiple legislative avenues currently exist to support and advance relevant policy to improve and sustain maternal health for those receiving Medicaid during pregnancy, including legislation aligned with the Biden-Harris Maternal Health Blueprint, state-focused options via the American Rescue Plan of 2021 (Public Law 117-2), and recently proposed acts (HR3407, S1542) which were last reintroduced in 2021. Recommendations include (i) reintroducing previously considered legislation requiring states to provide 12 months of continuous postpartum coverage, regardless of pregnancy outcome, and (ii) enacting a revised, permanent federal mandate equalizing Medicaid eligibility across states to ensure consistent access to postpartum healthcare offerings nationwide.

Many maternal deaths happen within the first year postpartum and can be prevented. Black, Hispanic, and Native American mothers are at more risk for many reasons, including unfair systems and insufficient healthcare coverage from government insurance (Medicaid). Rules for getting Medicaid can be very different across states and in postpartum compared to pregnancy. The US government only requires states to continue providing Medicaid for 60 days postpartum, after which it is up to each state. If mothers are required to re-qualify for Medicaid shortly after giving birth, they could lose healthcare when they are at more risk of dying or getting sick. In this policy position paper, a team of maternal health researchers and clinicians reviewed and summarized recent research and current laws related to postpartum Medicaid to propose future laws that could address these issues. Some proposed laws would expand Medicaid coverage during postpartum, but lawmakers have not recently discussed them. This position paper recommends that lawmakers (i) consider laws that require states to provide 12 months of postpartum healthcare coverage and (ii) have the US government make the same rules to qualify for postpartum Medicaid across all states.

How Do Policymakers Regulate AI and Accommodate Innovation in Research and Medicine?

In this Medical News article, JAMA Editor in Chief Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, and Alondra Nelson, PhD, the Harold F. Linder Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study, discuss effective AI regulation frameworks to accommodate innovation.