Search

Policy Points A major factor explaining government actors' failure to mitigate or avert the Flint, Michigan, water crisis is the sheer complexity of the laws regulating how governmental agencies maintain and monitor safe drinking water. Coordination across agencies is essential in dealing with multiple legal arrangements. Public health legal authority and intervention mechanisms are not self-executing. Legal preparedness is essential to efficiently navigating complex legal frameworks to address public health threats. The Flint water crisis demonstrates the importance of democracy for protecting the public's health. Laws responding to municipal fiscal distress must be consistent with expected norms of democracy and require consideration of public health in decision making. Context The Flint, Michigan, water crisis resulted from a state-appointed emergency financial manager's cost-driven decision to switch Flint's water source to the Flint River. Ostensibly designed to address Flint's long-standing financial crisis, the switch instead created a public health emergency. A major factor explaining why the crisis unfolded as it did is the complex array of laws regulating how governmental agencies maintain and monitor safe drinking water. Methods We analyzed these legal arrangements to identify what legal authority state, local, and federal public health and environmental agencies could have used to avert or mitigate the crisis and recommend changes to relevant laws and their implementation. First, we mapped the legal authority and roles of federal, state, and local agencies responsible for safe drinking water and the public's health-that is, the existing legal environment. Then we examined how Michigan's emergency manager law altered the existing legal arrangements, leading to decisions that ignored the community's long-term health. Juxtaposed on those factors, we considered how federalism and the relationship between state and local governments influenced public officials during the crisis. Findings The complex legal arrangements governing public health and safe drinking water, combined with a lack of legal preparedness (the capacity to use law effectively) among governmental officials, impeded timely and effective actions to mitigate or avert the crisis. The emergency manager's virtually unfettered legal authority in Flint exacerbated the existing complexity and deprived residents of a democratically accountable local government. Conclusions Our analysis reveals flaws in both the legal structure and how the laws were implemented that simultaneously failed to stop and substantially exacerbated the crisis. Policymakers need to examine the legal framework in their jurisdictions and take appropriate steps to avoid similar disasters. Addressing the implementation failures, including legal preparedness, should likewise be a priority for preventing future similar crises., (© 2020 Milbank Memorial Fund.)

Context: As a result of additional requirements for tax exemption, many nonprofit hospitals have become more actively involved in community health improvement. There is an open question, however, as to how decision makers in hospitals decide which kind of improvement projects should receive priority and how hospital managers' priorities compare with those of decision makers in public health agencies and community-based nonprofits., Objective: To understand the priorities that guide decision makers in public health, nonprofit hospitals, and community nonprofits when allocating resources to community health projects., Design: We conducted an online survey with a discrete choice experiment, asking respondents to choose between different types of community health projects, which varied along several project characteristics. Respondents included managers of community health and community benefit at nonprofit hospitals (n = 225), managers at local public health departments (n = 200), and leaders of community nonprofits (n = 136). Respondents were located in 47 of 50 US states. A conditional logit model was used to estimate how various project characteristics led to greater or lesser support of a given health project. Open-ended questions aided in interpretation of results., Results: Respondents from all 3 groups showed strong agreement on community health priorities. Projects were more likely to be selected when they addressed a health issue identified on community health needs assessment, involved cross-sector collaboration, or were supported by evidence. Project characteristics that mattered less included the time needed to measure the project's impact and the project's target population., Conclusion: Elements often considered central to community health, such as long-term investment and prioritizing vulnerable populations, may not be considered by decision makers as important as other aspects of resource allocation. If we want greater priority for ideas such as health equity and social determinants of health, it will take a concerted effort from practitioners and policy makers to reshape expectations.

The Flint water crisis demonstrates the importance of adequate legal preparedness in dealing with complicated legal arrangements and multiple statutory responsibilities. It also demonstrates the need for alternative accountability measures when public officials fail to protect the public's health and explores mechanisms for restoring community trust in governmental public health.

Objectives: In this study, we sought to accomplish the following objectives: to (1) calculate the percentage of children considered appropriately restrained across 8 criteria of increasing restrictiveness; (2) examine agreement between age- and size-based appropriateness criteria; (3) assess for changes in the percentage of children considered appropriately restrained by the 8 criteria between 2011 (shortly after updates to U.S. guidelines) and 2015., Methods: Data from 2 cross-sectional surveys of 928 parents of children younger than 12 years old (n = 591 in 2011, n = 337 in 2015) were analyzed in 2017. Child age, weight, and height were measured at an emergency department visit and used to determine whether the parent-reported child passenger restraint was considered appropriate according to 8 criteria. Age-based criteria were derived from Michigan law and U.S., Guidelines: Weight, height, and size-based criteria were derived from typical restraints available in the United States in 2007 and 2011. The percentage appropriate restraint use was calculated for each criterion. The kappa statistic was used to measure agreement between criteria. Change in appropriateness from 2011 to 2015 was assessed with chi-square statistics., Results: Percentage appropriate restraint use varied from a low of 19% for higher weight limits in 2011 to a high of 91% for Michigan law in 2015. Agreement between criteria was slight to moderate. The lowest kappa was for Michigan law and higher weight limits in 2011 (κ = 0.06) and highest for U.S. guidelines and lower weight limits in 2011 (κ = 0.60). Percentage appropriate restraint use was higher in 2015 than 2011 for the following criteria: U.S. guidelines (74 vs. 58%, P < .001), lower weight (57 vs. 47%, P = .005), higher weight (25 vs. 19%, P = .03), greater height (39 vs. 26%, P < .001), and greater size (42 vs. 30%, P = .001)., Conclusions: The percentage of children considered to be using an appropriate restraint varied substantially across criteria. Aligning the definition of appropriate restraint use with current U.S. guidelines would increase consistency in reporting results from studies of child passenger safety in the United States. Potential explanations for the increased percentage of children considered appropriately restrained between 2011 and 2015 include adoption of the updated U.S. guidelines and the use of child passenger restraints with higher weight and height limits.

Objective: To measure public trust in a health information sharing in a broadly defined health system (system trust), inclusive of health care, public health, and research; to identify individual characteristics that predict system trust; and to consider these findings in the context of national health initiatives (e.g., learning health systems and precision medicine) that will expand the scope of data sharing., Data Sources: Survey data (n = 1,011) were collected in February 2014., Study Design: We constructed a composite index of four dimensions of system trust-competency, fidelity, integrity, and trustworthiness. The index was used in linear regression evaluating demographic and psychosocial predictors of system trust., Data Collection: Data were collected by GfK Custom using a nationally representative sample and analyzed in Stata 13.0., Principal Findings: Our findings suggest the public's trust may not meet the needs of health systems as they enter an era of expanded data sharing. We found that a majority of the U.S. public does not trust the organizations that have health information and share it (i.e., the health system) in one or more dimensions. Together, demographic and psychosocial factors accounted for ~18 percent of the observed variability in system trust. Future research should consider additional predictors of system trust such as knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs to inform policies and practices for health data sharing., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Scholars and public health advocates have expressed optimism about the potential for the health-in-all-policies approach to address social disparities in health, but little research has been done on whether it promotes health equity in practice. Based on sixty-five in-depth interviews with US officials in the public and private sectors conducted in five states in 2016-17, we found a relationship between the use of the approach and the prominence of health equity as a policy concern. In emphasizing the social determinants of health, the approach gives public officials and policy entrepreneurs a framework for promoting this goal. In some areas, we found a gradual transition in focus from health generally to health equity. Overall, we found that practitioners of the approach introduce equity selectively and strategically.

This article introduces and defines the Health in All Policies (HiAP) concept and examines existing state legislation, with a focus on California. The article starts with an overview of HiAP and then analyzes the status of HiAP legislation, specifically addressing variations across states. Finally, the article describes California's HiAP approach and discusses how communities can apply a HiAP framework not only to improve health outcomes and advance health equity, but also to counteract existing laws and policies that contribute to health inequities.

In this article, we assess two particular trends in judicial doctrine that are likely to emerge in the post-ACA era. The first trend is the inevitable emergence of enterprise medical liability (EML) that will supplant tort law's unstable attempt to apportion liability between physicians and institutions. Arguments favoring EML in health law date back to the early 1980s. But health care's ongoing consolidation suggests that the time has arrived for courts or state legislatures to develop legal doctrine that more closely resembles the ways in which health care is now delivered. This would result in a more appropriate allocation of liability to the institutional level. The second judicial trend will be the convergence of health law and public health law concepts. Because the ACA arguably stimulates closer engagement between health systems and public health departments, health systems will have greater responsibility for keeping their communities healthy along with obligations for individual patient care (i.e., individuals and populations). If so, courts will need to incorporate elements from health law and public health law in resolving disputes., (Copyright © 2016 by Duke University Press.)

Objectives: We assessed the feasibility and desirability of public health entrepreneurship (PHE) in governmental public health., Methods: Using a qualitative case study approach with semistructured interview protocols, we conducted interviews between April 2010 and January 2011 at 32 local health departments (LHDs) in 18 states. Respondents included chief health officers and senior LHD staff, representatives from national public health organizations, health authorities, and public health institutes., Results: Respondents identified PHE through 3 overlapping practices: strategic planning, operational efficiency, and revenue generation. Clinical services offer the strongest revenue-generating potential, and traditional public health services offer only limited entrepreneurial opportunities. Barriers include civil service rules, a risk-averse culture, and concerns that PHE would compromise core public health values., Conclusions: Ongoing PHE activity has the potential to reduce LHDs' reliance on unstable general public revenues. Yet under the best of circumstances, it is difficult to generate revenue from public health services. Although governmental public health contains pockets of entrepreneurial activity, its culture does not sustain significant entrepreneurial activity. The question remains as to whether LHDs' current public revenue sources are sustainable and, if not, whether PHE is a feasible or desirable alternative.

Public health practitioners are familiar with the general outlines of legal authority and with judicial standards for reviewing public health regulations. What may not be as familiar are 3 emerging judicial doctrines that pose considerable risks to public health initiatives. We explain the contentious series of judicial rulings that now place health departments' broad grant of authority in jeopardy. One doctrine invokes the First Amendment to limit regulatory authority. The second involves the Supreme Court's reinterpretation of federalism to limit both federal and state public health interventions. The third redefines the standard of evidence required to support regulations. Together, these judicial trends create a pincer movement that places substantial new burdens on the ability of health departments to protect health.

Nonprofit hospitals are exempt from federal income taxation if they pass organizational and operational tests, including satisfying the community-benefit standard. Policymakers, however, have questioned the adequacy of the community benefits that nonprofit hospitals provide in exchange for these exemptions. The Internal Revenue Service recently responded to these concerns by redesigning its tax forms for nonprofit hospitals. The new Form 990 Schedule H requires nonprofit hospitals to provide additional information about their community-benefit activities. This new reporting requirement, however, places an undue focus on input-based community-benefit indicators, in particular expenditures. We argue that expanding the current input-based reporting requirement to include not only monetary inputs but also population health outcomes would achieve greater benefit for society.

Improving our understanding of how the public health system should be organized is important, because the system's organizational structure makes a significant difference to the public's health. How the system is structured influences a practitioner's ability to respond and the system's capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. In view of the scarce resources society is willing to expend for public health, it is essential to have a structure in place that most appropriately and efficiently allocates those resources. The articles in this issue offer considerable insight from a European context, that deserves attention from US public health practitioners, advocates, and policy makers.

We report the results of a study designed to assess and evaluate how the law shapes the public health system's preparedness activities. Based on 144 qualitative interviews conducted in nine states, we used a model that compared the objective legal environment with how practitioners perceived the laws. Most local public health and emergency management professionals relied on what they perceived the legal environment to be rather than on an adequate understanding of the objective legal requirements. Major reasons for the gap include the lack of legal training for local practitioners and the difficulty of obtaining clarification and consistent legal advice regarding public health preparedness. Narrowing the gap would most likely improve preparedness outcomes. We conclude that there are serious deficiencies in legal preparedness that can undermine effective responses to public health emergencies. Correcting the lack of legal knowledge, coupled with eliminating delays in resolving legal issues and questions during public health emergencies, could have measurable consequences on reducing morbidity and mortality.

Despite evidence indicating that public health services are the most effective means of improving the population's health status, health care services receive the bulk of funding and political support. The recent passage of the Affordable Care Act, which focused on improving access to health care services through insurance reform, reflects the primacy of health care over public health. Although policymakers typically conceptualize health care and public health as two distinct systems, gains in health status are most effectively and cost-efficiently achieved through their integration into a single health system. The Act does little to compel integration; however, there are numerous opportunities to encourage the coordination of public health and health care in the Act's implementation., (© 2011 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.)

Background: Effective management of modern public health emergencies requires the coordinated efforts of multiple agencies representing various disciplines. Organizational culture differences between public health (PH) and emergency management (EM) entities may hinder inter-agency collaboration. We examine how PH and EM differ in their approach to PH law and how such differences affect their collaboration towards PH preparedness., Methods: We conducted 144 semi-structured interviews with local and state PH and EM officials between April 2008 and November 2009. Thematic qualitative analysis in ATLAS.ti was used to extract characteristics of each agency's approach to PH legal preparedness., Results: Two conflicting approaches to the law emerge. The PH approach is characterized by perceived uncertainty regarding legal authority over preparedness planning tasks; expectation for guidance on interpretation of existing laws; and concern about individual and organizational liability. The EM approach reveals perception of broad legal authority; flexible interpretation of existing laws; and ethical concerns over infringement of individual freedoms and privacy., Conclusions: Distinct interpretations of preparedness law impede effective collaboration for PH preparedness. Clarification of legal authority mandates, designation within laws of scope of preparedness activities and guidance on interpretation of current federal and state laws are needed.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 1 (ACA) presages disruptive change in primary care delivery. With expanded access to primary care for millions of new patients, physicians and policymakers face increased pressure to solve the perennial shortage of primary care practitioners. Despite the controversy surrounding its enactment, the ACA should motivate organized medicine to take the lead in shaping new strategies for meeting the nation's primary care needs. In this commentary, we argue that physicians should take the lead in developing policies to address the primary care shortage. First, physicians and medical professional organizations should abandon their long-standing opposition to non-physician practitioners (NPPs) as primary care providers. Second, physicians should re-imagine how primary care is delivered, including shifting routine care to NPPs while retaining responsibility for complex patients and oversight of the new primary care arrangements. Third, the ACA's focus on wellness and prevention creates opportunities for physicians to integrate population health into primary care practice.

Health policy debates are replete with discussions of federalism, most often when advocates of reform put their hopes in states. But health policy literature is remarkably silent on the question of allocation of authority, rarely asking which levels of government ought to lead. We draw on the larger literatures about federalism, found mostly in political science and law, to develop a set of criteria for allocating health policy authority between states and the federal government. They are social justice, procedural democracy, compatibility with value pluralism, institutional capability, and economic sustainability. Of them, only procedural democracy and compatibility with value pluralism point to state leadership. In examining these criteria, we conclude that American policy debates often get federalism backward, putting the burden of health care coverage policy on states that cannot enact or sustain it, while increasing the federal role in issues where the arguments for state leadership are compelling. We suggest that the federal government should lead present and future financing of health care coverage, since it would require major changes in American intergovernmental relations to make innovative state health care financing sustainable outside a strong federal framework.

Context: It has long been a concern that professional liability problems disproportionately affect the delivery of obstetrical services to women living in rural areas. Michigan, a state with a large number of rural communities, is considered to be at risk for a medical liability crisis., Purpose: This study examined whether higher malpractice burden on obstetric providers was associated with an increased likelihood of discontinuing obstetric care and whether there were rural-urban differences in the relationship., Methods: Data on 500 obstetrician-gynecologists and family physicians who had provided obstetric care at some point in their career (either currently or previously) were obtained from a statewide survey in Michigan. Statistical tests and multivariate regression analyses were performed to examine the interrelationship among malpractice burden, rural location, and discontinuation of obstetric care., Findings: After adjusting for other factors that might influence a physician's decision about whether to stop obstetric care, our results showed no significant impact of malpractice burden on physicians' likelihood to discontinue obstetric care. Rural-urban location of the practice did not modify the nature of this relationship. However, family physicians in rural Michigan had a nearly 4-fold higher likelihood of withdrawing obstetric care when compared with urban family physicians., Conclusions: The higher likelihood of rural family physicians to discontinue obstetric care should be carefully weighed in future interventions to preserve obstetric care supply. More research is needed to better understand the practice environment of rural family physicians and the reasons for their withdrawal from obstetric care.

Public engagement in ethically laden pandemic planning decisions may be important for transparency, creating public trust, improving compliance with public health orders, and ultimately, contributing to just outcomes. We conducted focus groups with members of the public to characterize public perceptions about social distancing measures likely to be implemented during a pandemic. Participants expressed concerns about job security and economic strain on families if businesses or school closures are prolonged. They shared opposition to closure of religious organizations, citing the need for shared support and worship during times of crises. Group discussions elicited evidence of community-mindedness (e.g., recognition of an extant duty not to infect others), while some also acknowledged strong self-interest. Participants conveyed desire for opportunities for public input and education, and articulated distrust of government. Social distancing measures may be challenging to implement and sustain due to strains on family resources and lack of trust in government.

Objective: To develop a framework that public health practitioners could use to measure the value of public health services., Data Sources: Primary data were collected from August 2006 through March 2007. We interviewed (n=46) public health practitioners in four states, leaders of national public health organizations, and academic researchers., Study Design: Using a semi-structured interview protocol, we conducted a series of qualitative interviews to define the component parts of value for public health services and identify methodologies used to measure value and data collected., Data Collection/extraction Methods: The primary form of analysis is descriptive, synthesizing information across respondents as to how they measure the value of their services., Principal Findings: Our interviews did not reveal a consensus on how to measure value or a specific framework for doing so. Nonetheless, the interviews identified some potential strategies, such as cost accounting and performance-based contracting mechanisms. The interviews noted implementation barriers, including limits to staff capacity and data availability., Conclusions: We developed a framework that considers four component elements to measure value: external factors that must be taken into account (i.e., mandates); key internal actions that a local health department must take (i.e., staff assessment); using appropriate quantitative measures; and communicating value to elected officials and the public.

The coverage, cost, and quality problems of the U.S. health care system are evident. Sustainable health care reform must go beyond financing expanded access to care to substantially changing the organization and delivery of care. The FRESH-Thinking Project (www.fresh-thinking.org) held a series of workshops during which physicians, health policy experts, health insurance executives, business leaders, hospital administrators, economists, and others who represent diverse perspectives came together. This group agreed that the following 8 recommendations are fundamental to successful reform: 1. Replace the current fee-for-service payment system with a payment system that encourages and rewards innovation in the efficient delivery of quality care. The new payment system should invest in the development of outcome measures to guide payment. 2. Establish a securely funded, independent agency to sponsor and evaluate research on the comparative effectiveness of drugs, devices, and other medical interventions. 3. Simplify and rationalize federal and state laws and regulations to facilitate organizational innovation, support care coordination, and streamline financial and administrative functions. 4. Develop a health information technology infrastructure with national standards of interoperability to promote data exchange. 5. Create a national health database with the participation of all payers, delivery systems, and others who own health care data. Agree on methods to make de-identified information from this database on clinical interventions, patient outcomes, and costs available to researchers. 6. Identify revenue sources, including a cap on the tax exclusion of employer-based health insurance, to subsidize health care coverage with the goal of insuring all Americans. 7. Create state or regional insurance exchanges to pool risk, so that Americans without access to employer-based or other group insurance could obtain a standard benefits package through these exchanges. Employers should also be allowed to participate in these exchanges for their employees' coverage. 8. Create a health coverage board with broad stakeholder representation to determine and periodically update the affordable standard benefit package available through state or regional insurance exchanges.

Objectives: We sought to ascertain the types of ethical challenges public health practitioners face in practice and to identify approaches used to resolve such challenges., Methods: We conducted 45 semistructured interviews with public health practitioners across a range of occupations (e.g., health officers, medical directors, sanitarians, nurses) at 13 health departments in Michigan., Results: Through qualitative analysis, we identified 5 broad categories of ethical issues common across occupations and locations: (1) determining appropriate use of public health authority, (2) making decisions related to resource allocation, (3) negotiating political interference in public health practice, (4) ensuring standards of quality of care, and (5) questioning the role or scope of public health. Participants cited a variety of values guiding their decision-making that did not coalesce around core values often associated with public health, such as social justice or utilitarianism. Public health practitioners relied on consultations with colleagues to resolve challenges, infrequently using frameworks for decision-making., Conclusions: Public health practitioners showed a nuanced understanding of ethical issues and navigated ethical challenges with minimal formal assistance. Decision-making guides that are empirically informed and tailored for practitioners might have some value.

Objective: To examine how the safety net in Michigan is responding to the health care needs of their uninsured population with diabetes and/or mental illness., Methods: We used a multiple-site case study design. Data were collected through interviews of key informants in five Michigan communities. Analytic patterns and themes were identified, and compared across communities and by organizational type., Results: Informants reported they are managing to meet the needs of uninsured diabetics but are having great difficulty caring for the uninsured with mental illness. Specialty care for diabetes is obtainable, but is resource-intensive. Mental health services available for uninsured patients are severely limited. The presence of a county health plan (CHP) appears insufficient to improve access, especially to mental health services., Conclusions: The safety net for Michigan's uninsured population with diabetes and mental illness is weak. Processes including referrals and care coordination are of poor quality in some communities. The value of integrating mental health services into primary care should be examined.

In 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected a claim that terminally ill patients have a constitutionally protected right to access experimental drugs that have passed Phase I testing, but have not yet received FDA approval. Since that case was decided, patients and patients' rights groups have continued to advance both constitutional and common law claims in an effort to compel FDA and manufacturers to grant access to unapproved therapies. Congress and FDA have also advanced proposals that would expand patient access to drugs that have not yet passed through Phase III trials. Whether patients with serious and life-threatening illnesses should be allowed to obtain experimental therapies before FDA approval is an issue that is poised to shape the practice of both law and medicine in the United States for some time to come.

We investigated ways of defining and measuring the value of services provided by governmental public health systems. Our data sources included literature syntheses and qualitative interviews of public health professionals. Our examination of the health economic literature revealed growing attempts to measure value of public health services explicitly, but few studies have addressed systems or infrastructure. Interview responses demonstrated no consensus on metrics and no connection to the academic literature. Key challenges for practitioners include developing rigorous, data-driven methods and skilled staff; being politically willing to base allocation decisions on economic evaluation; and developing metrics to capture "intangibles" (e.g., social justice and reassurance value). Academic researchers evaluating the economics of public health investments should increase focus on the working needs of public health professionals.

Background: Medical services for pregnancy and childbirth are inherently risky and unpredictable. In many states, obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNS) who attend the majority of childbirths in the United States and provide the most clinically complex obstetric procedures are struggling with increasing malpractice insurance premiums and litigation risk. Despite its significant implications for patient care, the potential impact of malpractice burden on OB-GYN physicians' career satisfaction has not been rigorously tested in previous research., Methods: Drawing on data from a statewide survey of obstetric providers in Michigan, this paper examined the association between medical liability burden and OB-GYNs' career satisfaction. Malpractice insurance premiums and malpractice claims experience were used as 2 objective measures for medical liability burden. Descriptive statistics were calculated and multivariable logistic regressions estimated for data analysis., Results: Although most respondents reported satisfaction with their overall career in medicine, 43.7% had become less satisfied over the last 5 years and 34.0% would not recommend obstetrics/gynecology to students seeking career advice. Multivariable regression analysis showed that compared to coverage through an employer, paying > or =$50,000/year for liability insurance premium was associated with lower career satisfaction among OB-GYNs (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.93). We found no significant impact of malpractice claims experience, including both recent malpractice claims (during the last 5 years [2001--2006]) and earlier malpractice claims (>5 years ago), on overall career satisfaction., Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that high malpractice premiums negatively affect OB-GYN physicians' career satisfaction. The impact of the current medical liability climate on quality of care for pregnant women warrants further investigation.

As public health practitioners are no doubt aware, public health practice and politics are closely linked. Although theoretical discussion of the emerging field of public health ethics has been rich, scholars have paid little attention to the relationship between ethical issues and politics in public health practice. We conducted semistructured interviews with 45 public health practitioners across a range of occupations (eg, health officers, medical directors, sanitarians, nurses, educators, and commissioners) working at 12 local health departments across Michigan and the state health department. Practitioners were asked to describe the ethical issues they faced in their daily practice. Ethical issues that resulted from the political environment emerged as one major category of ethical issues our interviewees described. This article illustrates how political issues engender ethical challenges in 4 main areas: public health agenda-setting, political pressures, political conflicts with best practices, and the scope of public health practice. The findings suggest that politics and public health ethics intrinsically intersect, because political pressures and priorities often impose ethical challenges that practitioners negotiate in their daily work.

Objective: The objective of the study was to examine Michigan obstetric providers' provision of obstetric care and the impact of malpractice concerns on their practice decisions., Study Design: Data were obtained from 899 Michigan obstetrician-gynecologists, family physicians, and nurse-midwives via a statewide survey. Statistical tests were conducted to examine differences in obstetric care provision and the influence of various factors across specialties., Results: Among providers currently practicing obstetrics, 18.3%, 18.7%, and 11.9% of obstetrician-gynecologists, family physicians, and nurse-midwives, respectively, planned to discontinue delivering babies in the next 5 years, and 35.5%, 24.5%, and 12.6%, respectively, planned to reduce their provision of high-risk obstetric care. "Risk of malpractice litigation" was 1 of the most cited factors affecting providers' decision to include obstetrics in their practice., Conclusion: Litigation risk appears to be an important factor influencing Michigan obstetric providers' decisions about provision of care. Its implications for obstetric care supply and patients' access to care warrants further research.

A statewide survey was conducted among 282 nurse-midwives in Michigan to examine the extent of their current medical liability burden. Two hundred ten responses were received for an adjusted response rate of 76.9%. Data from 145 certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) who were currently engaged in clinical practice in Michigan were used for this analysis. Sixty-nine percent of CNMs reported that liability concerns had a negative impact on their clinical decision making. Most CNMs (88.1%) acquired malpractice insurance coverage through an employer, whereas 4.9% were practicing "bare" due to difficulty in obtaining coverage. Thirty-five percent of the respondents had been named in a malpractice claim at least once in their career, and 15.5% had at least one malpractice payment of $30,000 or more made on their behalf. CNMs who purchased malpractice insurance coverage themselves or were going bare were significantly less likely to include obstetrics in their practice than their counterparts covered through an employer (70.6% versus 87.2%; P = .04). These findings among Michigan CNMs call for further investigation into the consequences of the current malpractice situation surrounding nurse-midwifery practice and its influence on obstetric care, particularly among women from disadvantaged populations.

Ethical challenges in public health can have a significant impact on the health of communities if they impede efficiencies and best practices. Competing needs for resources and a plurality of values can challenge public health policymakers and practitioners to make fair and effective decisions for their communities. In this paper, the authors offer an analytic framework designed to assist policymakers and practitioners in managing the ethical tensions they face in daily practice. Their framework is built upon the following set of six considerations: determining population-level utility of the proposed action; demonstrating evidence of need and effectiveness of actions; establishing fairness of goals and proposed implementation strategies; ensuring accountability; and, assessing expected efficiencies and costs associated with the proposed action. Together, these considerations create a structured guide to assist decision-makers in identifying potential ethical challenges and in assessing the moral considerations that underlie public health practice - and possibly even, if the conditions are met, reduce the creation of ethical tension. Although the authors'empirical experiences provide the basis for the framework advanced here, their approach remains to be tested and evaluated by public health practitioners.