National Health Law Program

With fatal opioid overdoses rising steadily between 1999 and 2022, researchers have tried to identify effective policy approaches that can stem the tide and mitigate associated harms. However, policy evaluations intended to inform policy choices may muddy the waters, particularly when they generate inconsistent findings. In this article, we discuss a unifying framework and language for presenting analyses using quasi-experimental methods evaluating opioid policies to facilitate greater understanding of similarities and differences across studies. We discuss key data, methods, and design issues that confront researchers in this space, with the goal of increasing the pace of good science.

This study analyses the substantive constraints imposed on security agencies in cases of unlawful arrest under Iraqi law, aiming to protect human rights and prevent abuse of power. Arrest is a serious procedure that restricts personal liberty, a right safeguarded by the Iraqi Constitution and domestic legislation. The law sets specific conditions under which this right may be limited, balancing the state’s authority to punish with the individual’s right to freedom. An arrest carried out without legal justification constitutes an unlawful infringement on personal liberty and is criminalised to protect individuals from arbitrary detention. Article 322 of the Penal Code punishes any public official or person entrusted with a public service who arrests, imprisons, or detains a person without legal basis with imprisonment for up to seven years or detention. This research focuses on the legal and procedural controls governing arrests, highlighting safeguards designed to protect individuals from unlawful detention. The study finds that Iraqi legislation provides clear constraints to prevent unlawful arrests, but challenges in enforcement reduce their effectiveness. It recommends enhancing judicial oversight, updating laws to comply with international standards, establishing independent monitoring bodies, and providing human rights training for security personnel.

Pursuant to increasing global emphasis on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices, the Malaysian utilities sector comprising electricity, water, telecommunication, oil and gas service providers adopt various national and international ESG reporting standards. Nevertheless, previous studies have highlighted the complexity arising from diverse assessment criteria imposed by ESG reporting standards. Non-uniformity across the assessment criteria poses challenges for compliance and increases administrative burdens and costs. Consequently, this paper aims to provide recommendations to streamline the assessment criteria for ESG reporting within the Malaysian utilities sector. To achieve this aim, this paper attempts to answer a two-tier research question: what common themes can be identified from diverse assessment criteria imposed by the reporting standards within the Malaysian utilities sector? and how should the diverse assessment criteria be streamlined to reduce compliance costs, time, and administrative burden? This paper adopts a thematic analysis methodology covering the assessment criteria of 13 ESG reporting standards adopted by leading utilities companies in Malaysia. The results obtained from thematic analysis identify 20 common themes across three ESG pillars (environmental, social and governance). The novelty of this paper lies in its comprehensive examination of sector-specific ESG reporting, shedding light on the nuances of assessment criteria implementation. By proposing a streamlined approach to assessment criteria, this study anticipates reducing a compliance time, costs, and administrative burdens for utilities companies in Malaysia. Such an initiative holds promise for facilitating more cost-effective ESG reporting practices within the sector.

Food is Medicine (FIM) interventions reflect the critical links between food security, nutrition security, health, and health equity, integrated into health care delivery. They comprise programs that provide nutritionally tailored food, free of charge or at a discount, to support disease management, disease prevention, or optimal health, linked to the health care system as part of a patient’s treatment plan. Such programs often prioritize health equity. On 26–27 April, 2023, Tufts University’s Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy and Food & Nutrition Innovation Institute held a 2-day National Food is Medicine Summit with leaders, practitioners, and individuals with diverse lived experiences in health care, research, government, advocacy, philanthropy, and the private sector to identify challenges and opportunities to sustainably incorporate FIM services into the health care system and at scale. This report of a meeting describes key themes of the Summit, based on presentations and discussions on momentum around FIM, incorporating FIM in health care, tradeoffs and unintended consequences of various FIM models, scaling of programs, financing and payment mechanisms, educating and engaging the health care workforce, and federal and state government actions and opportunities on FIM. Speakers highlighted examples of recent public and private sector actions on FIM and innovative cross-sector partnerships, including state Medicaid waivers, academic and philanthropic research initiatives, health care system screenings and interventions, and collaborations including community-based organizations and/or entities outside of the food and health care sectors. Challenges and opportunities to broader implementation and scaling of FIM programs identified include incorporating FIM into health care business models, educating the health care workforce, and sustainably scaling FIM programs while leveraging the local connections of community-based organizations. This meeting report highlights recent advances, best practices, challenges, and opportunities discussed at the National Summit to inform future actions on FIM.

Public Health Legal Protections in an Era of Artificial Intelligence James G. Hodge Jr JD, LLM, Jennifer L. Piatt JD, Erica N. White JD, and Lawrence O. Gostin JD Affiliation James G. Hodge Jr, Jennifer L. Piatt, and Erica N. White are with the Center for Public Health Law and Policy, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University, Phoenix. Lawrence O. Gostin is with the O'Neill Institute for Global and National Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC. CopyRightCorrespondence should be sent to James G. Hodge Jr, JD, LLM, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University, 111 E. Taylor St, MC 9520, Phoenix, AZ 85004 (e-mail: james.hodge.1@asu.edu). Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking the "Reprints" link. CONTRIBUTORS J. G. Hodge Jr supervised and all authors contributed to the conceptualization, research, drafting, and editing of the article. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307619 Accepted: January 26, 2024 Published Online: April 18, 2024

Three recent opinions issued by the United States (US) Supreme Court suggest the possibility of a new interpretation of key drug enforcement provisions in the Controlled Substances Act of 19701 (CSA) affecting prescribers of controlled sub-stances. Applying the Court's holdings in Xiulu Ruan v. US,2 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization,3 and West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency4 to the Department of Justice's and the Drug Enforcement Administration's overreaching enforcement of the CSA, this paper contends that Congress should amend the CSA and rectify the broad misapplication of the law to the practice of medicine.