A Narrative Review of Literature Examining Studies Researching the Impact of Law on Health and Economic Outcomes.

CONTEXT: Public health policy can play an important role in improving public health outcomes. Accordingly, there has been an increasing emphasis by policy makers on identifying and implementing evidence-informed public health policy interventions. PROGRAM OR POLICY: Growth and refinement of the field of research assessing the impact of legal interventions on health outcomes, known as legal epidemiology, prompted this review of studies on the relationship between laws and health or economic outcomes. IMPLEMENTATION: Authors systematically searched 8 major literature databases for all English language journal articles that assessed the effect of a law on health and economic outcomes published between January 1, 2009, and September 18, 2019. This search generated 12 570 unique articles 177 of which met inclusion criteria. The team conducting the systematic review was a multidisciplinary team that included health economists and public health policy researchers, as well as public health lawyers with expertise in legal epidemiological research methods. The authors identified and assessed the types of methods used to measure the laws' health impact. EVALUATION: In this review, the authors examine how legal epidemiological research methods have been described in the literature as well as trends among the studies. Overall, 3 major themes emerged from this study: (1) limited variability in the sources of the health data across the studies, (2) limited differences in the methodological approaches used to connect law to health outcomes, and (3) lack of transparency surrounding the source and quality of the legal data relied upon. DISCUSSION: Through highlighting public health law research methodologies, this systematic review may inform researchers, practitioners, and lawmakers on how to better examine and understand the impacts of legal interventions on health and economic outcomes. Findings may serve as a source of suggested practices in conducting legal epidemiological outcomes research and identifying conceptual and method-related gaps in the literature.

Vaccination as an Equaliser? Evaluating COVID-19 Vaccine Prioritisation and Compensation.

This article assesses the equity of COVID-19 vaccination programmes in three jurisdictions that have historically taken different approaches to the institutionalisation of equity considerations. The Sars-Cov-2 pandemic has thrown into sharp relief persistent societal inequalities and has added novel dimensions to these problems. Certain groups have proved particularly vulnerable, both in terms of infection risk and severity as well as the accompanying social fallout. Against this background the implementation of 'objective' vaccination programmes may seem like a great leveller, addressing the disparate risks that are tied to social determinants of health and the pandemic behemoth. However, implementing vaccination programmes in an equitable manner is itself essential for the realisation of such a vision. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of the English, Italian, and American jurisdictions and critically assesses two aspects of their vaccination frameworks: (i) the prioritisation of groups for vaccination and (ii) the nature of public compensation schemes for those who have suffered vaccine-related injuries. It examines whether and to what extent these measures address the inequalities raised by COVID-19 and the role of the law in this pursuit.

Symphony or Cacophony? Orchestrating Federal Mechanics toward Covid-19 Response in the United States and Germany.

Governance is a critical upstream tool in public health emergency preparedness, for it provides structure to emergency response. Pandemics, singular public health emergencies, pose challenges to inherently fragmented federal governance systems. Understanding and utilizing the facilitators of response embedded within the system is critical. In its examination of how contemporary federal systems addressed fragmentation in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic, this article uses two mitigation measures, community masking and vaccination administration to compare elements of federal system mechanics in the United States and Germany's respective pursuits of public health goals. With particular focus on federal-state power-sharing, it analyzes the division and application of federal-state authority, therein examining mechanisms of executive expediency, as well as the cooperation of multilevel actors. Comparing the jurisdictions identifies inter-federal coordination, availability of exigency mechanisms, and federal guidance as facilitators of public health goal achievement.