Search

Historically, most discussions about nonhuman animal experimentation consider what has become known as the 3 R's: refinement, reduction, and replacement. Refinement and reduction receive the most attention, but recent modeling advances suggest that suitable replacement of nonhuman animal testing would bolster human research and increase translatability to human health outcomes. This article discusses these modeling advances and advocates their use, especially as replacements to nonpredictive nonhuman animal protocols, and discusses growing momentum in biomedical research communities and federal agencies that favors replacement of animal testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits states from depriving any person "equal protection of the laws," and the Constitution's Fifth Amendment has been interpreted as applying this prohibition to the federal government. This article considers whether constitutional equal protection should apply to some nonhuman animals in light of corporations having gained such protection and concludes that expanding equal protection personhood to nonhuman animals is improbable in the present legal landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If we assume that nonhuman animals experience pain or distress, then ethically justifying human-centered research with only nonhuman animals as subjects likely requires that the research's benefits to humans must, at least, outweigh harms suffered by the nonhuman animals. Yet this reasoning does not seem to account well for the ethical view that nonhuman animals are morally valuable in their own right. This commentary on a case considers this ethical tension and discusses how clinician-researchers should navigate it. This commentary also suggests why clinician-researchers' reasoning about the nature and scope of their obligations to nonhuman animals extends beyond governing regulations and federal oversight, which is silent on or ambiguous about nonhuman animals as morally valuable in their own right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence of harm reduction interventions' morbidity and mortality benefits is abundant and of high quality, so there are good reasons for regional and national groups to advocate for more widespread distribution of legally regulated "drug paraphernalia," including needles, syringes, and fentanyl test strips. But lack of consistency among states' laws means that patients' interstate travel can subject them to being charged with possession of illegal items. This commentary on a case offers guidance to clinicians looking to help patients understand legal risks of interstate travel with supplies that are prescribed or recommended to reduce harms of their drug use and explores the ethical responsibilities of physicians in jurisdictions that legally prohibit these harm reduction interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the US Food and Drug Administration first approved robotic surgery for clinical use in 2000, it has gained widespread adoption across multiple surgical domains. While pediatric surgery has had a relatively slower adoption rate, robotic surgery has nonetheless grown in this context. This work traces the historical and regulatory aspects of pediatric robotic surgery, showing how it incorporated an existing robotic surgical system developed for adults; situates the technology within ethical frameworks for analyzing surgical innovation; and advocates for combined surgeon self-regulation and institutional oversight. Finally, the argument is made that there are key unmet technological needs pertaining to instrument size and adaptability secondary to pediatric robotic surgery's smaller market share and that clinicians and producers of robotic surgical systems should work to address these needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinician policy makers have faced unprecedented challenges. This commentary responds to a fictional case of a clinician policy maker who heads the Office of the Surgeon General and must ponder the answers to these questions: (1) What does it mean for a clinician or researcher to responsibly hold government office? (2) When good governance is thwarted by apathy about facts and cultural sympathy with false information, how much personal peril should government clinicians and researchers be expected to endure to maintain and model allegiance to evidence as a basis of public policy? (3) How should government clinicians navigate legislative, regulatory, or jurisprudential curtailment of their authority or roles in promoting public health and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In health care, lack of transparency about the cost of health care services to patients during clinical encounters has contributed to increased costs and high out-of-pocket expenses. Federal policy has responded to the need for more transparency and spurred discussion about ethics and the clinician's role in being transparent with patients at the point of service. This article investigates and encourages state, private market, and federal policy efforts to address what health care costs patients. This article also applies the ethical framework of principlism to cases and considers what a "shoppable service" model would demand of clinicians in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most American adults who use dietary supplements (eg, vitamins, minerals, plant and animal extracts, hormones, and amino acids) ingest them orally. The market for these products has grown rapidly and significantly over the last 25 years, but consumer protection regulations have not kept pace. In the United States, supplements' safety is regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but statutory limitations prevent the FDA from effectively regulating these products, exacerbate public health risk, and have generated numerous calls for reform. This article considers key features of reforms likely to strengthen the FDA's capacity to promote safety and consumer protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social media influencers promote a wide variety of products, including dietary supplements. Dietary supplements are regulated as foods, not drugs, by the US Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission. This article details weaknesses in administrative and common law regulatory approaches to addressing some influencers' negligent misrepresentation claims about dietary supplements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dietary supplements are regulated as foods by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, despite their potentially harmful effects, are not subject to labeling rules that apply to prescription medications. This commentary responds to a case about vitamin A supplement safety. The commentary compares regulation of vitamin A-derivative prescription medications, such as isotretinoin, to regulation of high-dose vitamin A supplements, illuminating both products' potential for causing birth defects. Label analysis is key to educating patients about risks of vitamin A-containing supplements. The commentary also suggests the need for more FDA oversight of the dietary supplement industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypovitaminosis D is a prevalent micronutrient deficiency that can be severe and hard to treat in children with short bowel syndrome, a condition treated with substantial bowel resection. Surgically altered bowel anatomy then results in iatrogenic digestion and absorption limitations that require short- and long-term management and follow-up. Care of children with hypovitaminosis D standardly includes prescription dietary micronutrient supplementation, sometimes in irregularly high doses. This commentary responds to a pediatric case of vitamin D toxicity and suggests micronutrient-prescribing risk mitigation strategies in light of the absence of regulatory oversight of over-the-counter dietary supplements, inadequate insurance coverage, and easily available commercial retail products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Hospitals are hot zones of the US gun injury epidemic. To shelter these facilities from the dangers of gun violence, state legislatures have enacted laws to reduce the carrying of firearms on hospital premises. However, these efforts currently face serious Second Amendment challenges in federal courts. The ongoing legal battles, which have wide-ranging implications for patient and clinician safety as well as public health generally, are setting the stage for a Supreme Court case that may decide the fate of firearm regulations in US hospitals. A permissible pathway for advancing sensible gun regulation in hospitals is urgently needed., Observations: Since the Supreme Court established a new constitutional test for firearm laws in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen (2022), states now face unprecedentedly high barriers to enacting health-protecting legislation regarding firearms. Post-Bruen, the Supreme Court requires that laws be consistent with "this Nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation." This means that states hoping to enact laws barring public carry of firearms in hospitals must demonstrate that hospitals are a "sensitive place" as a historical matter (ie, analogous to a location where firearms were traditionally restricted). By reasoning from analogy, it is clear several historical comparators exist for regulating firearms in hospitals. Although the hospital (as understood today) did not exist in the 1700s, it is sufficiently analogous to asylums and schools, to name a few examples. These settings all share a common denominator with the modern-day hospital: serving vulnerable populations or individuals who may be at heightened risk of misusing firearms., Conclusions and Relevance: The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms is threatening democratically enacted laws seeking to shelter hospitals from firearm violence. However, it is clear that hospitals and other health care settings are a sensitive place with compelling historical analogies. Policymakers' strategic deployment of the sensitive places designation, along with its rightful judicial recognition in the hospital setting, are critical to upholding laws that protect health care facilities, patients, and professionals from firearm violence-a conclusion consistent with the US Constitution, history, medical ethics, and common sense.

This medical news feature discusses the challenges of treating pregnant patients diagnosed with cancer following the reversal of Roe v Wade. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the history of device oversight by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Significant regulatory changes occurred in response to injuries caused by Dalkon Shield intrauterine devices. This article summarizes those changes as well as continued efforts by the FDA to strengthen device oversight and address areas of concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: US law generally requires testing of high-risk medical devices prior to approval, as well as premarket evaluation of moderate-risk medical devices, with the goal of ensuring that the benefits of these products exceed their risks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempts to balance the need for evidence generation with an approval process that facilitates access and encourages innovation.Objective: To review the development of laws and standards affecting the evaluation and oversight of medical devices by the US regulatory system and the outcomes of this system from 1976 to 2020.Evidence Review: Laws enacted by US Congress and regulations promulgated by the FDA through 2020; databases maintained by the FDA of device authorizations from 1976 to 2020; and annual reports of user fees paid to the FDA by industry.Findings: Since Congress and the FDA initiated premarket review of medical devices in 1976, some fundamental innovations in the device regulation system have included special pathways to accelerate availability of investigational devices, more flexible evidence and review requirements, and increased funding to the FDA through industry-paid user fees. From 1987 to 2020, the annual number of novel devices granted premarket approval (which excludes supplements) ranged from 8 to 56 (median, 32), and the number of clearances for 510(k) devices (those that are "substantially equivalent" to marketed devices) ranged from 2804 to 5762 (median, 3404). User fee funding for devices was established in 2002 and annual fees collected increased from $30 million in 2003 (in 2019 dollars) to more than $208 million in 2019; this represented 43% of FDA funding related to the review of medical devices. Although many new devices have led to considerable patient benefit, such as hypodermic needles and magnetic resonance imaging machines, important adverse events caused by some devices, such as an implanted device for birth control and a surgical mesh implant for pelvic organ prolapse, have led to calls to reexamine the regulatory system for such products.Conclusions and Relevance: Over the last 45 years, medical device regulation has become more complex, with more regulatory pathways and greater variations in the evidence and controls required for authorization. Increased FDA support from industry and concern about flexible authorization requirements reflect the tension between efficient access and the need for assurances that products will safely benefit patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Certificate of need laws provide state-level regulation of health system expenditure. These laws are intended to limit spending and control hospital expansion in order to prevent excess capacity and improve quality of care. Several states have recently introduced legislation to modify or repeal these regulations, as encouraged by executive order 13813, issued in October 2017 by the Trump administration.Objective: To evaluate the difference in markers of hospital activity and quality by state certificate of need status. These markers include hospital procedural volume, hospital market share, county-level procedures per 10 000 persons, and patient-level postoperative outcomes.Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study involving Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who underwent 1 of the following 10 procedures from January 1, 2016, through November 30, 2018: total knee or hip arthroplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting, colectomy, ventral hernia repair, lower extremity vascular bypass, lung resection, pancreatic resection, cystectomy, or esophagectomy.Exposures: State certificate of need regulation status as determined by data from the National Conference of State Legislatures.Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest included hospital procedural volume; hospital market share (range, 0-1; reflecting 0%-100% of market share); county-level procedures per 10 000 persons; and patient-level postoperative 30-day mortality, surgical site infection, and readmission.Results: A total of 1 545 952 patients (58.0% women; median age 72 years; interquartile range, 68-77 years) at 3631 hospitals underwent 1 of the 10 operations. Of these patients, 468 236 (30.3%) underwent procedures in the 15 states without certificate of need regulations and 1 077 716 (69.7%) in the 35 states with certificate of need regulations. The total number of procedures ranged between 729 855 total knee arthroplasties (47.21%) and 4558 esophagectomies (0.29%). When comparing states without vs with certificate of need regulations, there were no significant differences in overall hospital procedural volume (median hospital procedure volume, 241 vs 272 operations per hospital for 3 years; absolute difference, 31; 95% CI, -27.64 to 89.64; P = .30). There were no statistically significant differences between states without vs with certificate of need regulations for median hospital market share (median, 28% vs 52%; absolute difference, 24%; 95% CI, -5% to 55%; P = .11); procedure rates per 10 000 Medicare-eligible population (median, 239.23 vs 205.41 operations per Medicare-eligible population in 3 years; absolute difference, 33.82; 95% CI, -84.08 to 16.43; P = .19); or 30-day mortality (1.17% vs 1.33%, odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16; P = .52), surgical site infection (1.24% vs 1.25%; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.04; P = .21), or readmission rate (9.69% vs 8.40%; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.12; P = .19).Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a range of surgical procedures from 2016 through 2018, there were no significant differences in markers of hospital volume or quality between states without vs with certificate of need laws. Policy makers should consider reevaluating whether the current approach to certificate of need regulation is achieving the intended objectives and whether those objectives should be updated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hospital discharge planning for patients who might not be safe at home-- particularly those leaving against medical advice--can require risk managers to navigate the complex intersection of tort law, federal and state regulations, and clinical ethics. An overarching duty is to ensure that a patient is as safe as possible in the environment to which the patient is being discharged, although it's not always possible to formulate a safe discharge plan. When patients have decision-making capacity, they can make a decision to be in an environment that's not safe. When patients do not have decision-making capacity, it is not always legally permissible to hold them against their wishes to keep them in a safe environment, so some kind of discharge plan must be made. This article considers the role of a risk manager in navigating this set of circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers a case in which a prominent researcher repeatedly made protocol deviations year after year while the institutional review board and university leadership failed to adequately address his continuing noncompliance. This article argues that, in addition to reporting this researcher's pattern of noncompliance to the Office for Human Research Protections, as required by federal regulations, the university should implement a remedial action plan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many US patients will have an implantable device during their lives. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics offers guidance for weighing need for patient-subjects' safety against health care sector demand for innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study uses retail scanner data to assess nicotine pouch sales in the US between 2016 and 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Policy makers have implemented beverage taxes to generate revenue and reduce consumption of sweetened drinks. In January 2017, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, became the second US city to implement a beverage excise tax (1.5 cents per ounce).Objectives: To compare changes in beverage prices and sales following the implementation of the tax in Philadelphia compared with Baltimore, Maryland (a control city without a tax) and to assess potential cross-border shopping to avoid the tax in neighboring zip codes.Design, Setting, and Participants: This study used a difference-in-differences approach and analyzed sales data to compare changes between January 1, 2016, before the tax, and December 31, 2017, after the tax. Differences by store type, beverage sweetener status, and beverage size were examined. The commercial retailer sales data included large chain store sales in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and the Pennsylvania zip codes bordering Philadelphia. These data reflect approximately 25% of the ounces of taxed beverages sold in Philadelphia.Exposures: Philadelphia's tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages.Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in taxed beverage prices and volume sales.Results: A total of 291 stores (54 supermarkets, 20 mass merchandise stores, 217 pharmacies) were analyzed. The mean price per ounce of taxed beverages in Philadelphia increased from 5.43 cents in 2016 to 6.24 cents in 2017 at supermarkets; from 5.28 cents to 6.24 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.60 cents to 8.28 cents at pharmacies. The mean price per ounce in Baltimore increased from 5.33 cents in 2016 to 5.50 cents in 2017 at supermarkets, from 6.34 cents to 6.52 cents at mass merchandise stores, and from 6.76 cents to 6.93 cents at pharmacies. The mean per-ounce difference in price between the 2 cities was 0.65 cents (95% CI, 0.60 cents-0.69 cents; P<.001) at supermarkets; 0.87 cents (95 % CI, 0.72 cents-1.02 cents; P<.001) at mass merchandise stores, and 1.56 cents (95% CI, 1.50 cents-1.62 cents; P<.001) at pharmacies. Total volume sales of taxed beverages in Philadelphia decreased by 1.3 billion ounces (from 2.475 billion to 1.214 billion) or by 51.0% after tax implementation. Volume sales in the Pennsylvania border zip codes, however, increased by 308.2 million ounces (from 713.1 million to 1.021 billion), offsetting the decrease in Philadelphia's volume sales by 24.4%. In Philadelphia, beverage volume sales in ounces per 4-week period between before and after tax periods decreased from 4.85 million to 1.99 million at supermarkets, from 2.98 million to 1.72 million at mass merchandise stores, and from 0.16 million to 0.13 million at pharmacies. In Baltimore, the beverage volume sales in ounces decreased from 2.83 million to 2.81 million at supermarkets, from 1.05 million to 1.00 million at mass merchandise stores, and from 0.14 million to 0.13 million at pharmacies. This was a 58.7% reduction at supermarkets (difference-in-differences, -2.85 million ounces; 95% CI, -4.10 million to -1.60 million ounces; P < .001), 40.4% reduction at mass merchandise stores (difference-in-differences, -1.20 million ounces; 95% CI, -2.04 million to -0.36 million ounces; P = .001), and 12.6% reduction in pharmacies (difference-in-differences, -0.02 million ounces; 95% CI, -0.03 million to -0.01 million ounces; P < .001).Conclusions and Relevance: In Philadelphia in 2017, the implementation of a beverage excise tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages was associated with significantly higher beverage prices and a significant and substantial decline in volume of taxed beverages sold. This decrease in taxed beverage sales volume was partially offset by increases in volume of sales in bordering areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Manufacturers, companies, and health care professionals and organizations use an array of promotional activities to sell and increase market share of their products and services. These activities seek to shape public and clinician beliefs about laboratory testing, the benefits and harms of prescription drugs, and some disease definitions.Objective: To review the marketing of prescription drugs, disease awareness campaigns, health services, and laboratory tests and the related consequences and regulation in the United States over a 20-year period (1997-2016).Evidence: Analysis (1997-2016) of consumer advertising (Kantar Media data for spending and number of ads); professional marketing (IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, Open Payments Data [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]); regulations and legal actions of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), state attorneys general, and US Department of Justice; and searches (1975-2018) of peer-reviewed medical literature (PubMed), business journals (Business Source Ultimate), and news media (Lexis Nexis) for articles about expenditures, content, and consequences and regulation of consumer and professional medical marketing. Spending is reported in 2016 dollars.Findings: From 1997 through 2016, spending on medical marketing of drugs, disease awareness campaigns, health services, and laboratory testing increased from $17.7 to $29.9 billion. The most rapid increase was in direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising, which increased from $2.1 billion (11.9%) of total spending in 1997 to $9.6 billion (32.0%) of total spending in 2016. DTC prescription drug advertising increased from $1.3 billion (79 000 ads) to $6 billion (4.6 million ads [including 663 000 TV commercials]), with a shift toward advertising high-cost biologics and cancer immunotherapies. Pharmaceutical companies increased DTC marketing about diseases treated by their drugs with increases in disease awareness campaigns from 44 to 401 and in spending from $177 million to $430 million. DTC advertising for health services increased from $542 million to $2.9 billion, with the largest spending increases by hospitals, dental centers, cancer centers, mental health and addiction clinics, and medical services (eg, home health). DTC spending on advertising for laboratory tests (such as genetic testing) increased from $75.4 million to $82.6 million, although the number of ads increased more substantially (from 14 100 to 255 300), reflecting an increase in less expensive electronic media advertising. Marketing to health care professionals by pharmaceutical companies accounted for most promotional spending and increased from $15.6 billion to $20.3 billion, including $5.6 billion for prescriber detailing, $13.5 billion for free samples, $979 million for direct physician payments (eg, speaking fees, meals) related to specific drugs, and $59 million for disease education. Manufacturers of FDA-approved laboratory tests paid $12.9 million to professionals in 2016. From 1997 through 2016, the number of consumer and professional drug promotional materials that companies submitted for FDA review increased from 34 182 to 97 252, while FDA violation letters for misleading drug marketing decreased from 156 to 11. Since 1997, 103 financial settlements between drug companies and federal and state governments resulted in more than $11 billion in fines for off-label or deceptive marketing practices. The FTC has acted against misleading marketing by a single for-profit cancer center.Conclusions and Relevance: Medical marketing increased substantially from 1997 through 2016, especially DTC advertising for prescription drugs and health services. Pharmaceutical marketing to health professionals accounted for most spending and remains high even with new policies to limit industry influence. Despite the increase in marketing over 20 years, regulatory oversight remains limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study describes trends in emergency department visits for ingestions by children of small neodymium magnets between 2009 and 2019, before, during, and after a 2014 Consumer Product Safety Commission rule restricting their sales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trauma care requires rapid interventions to optimize the chances for survival. Many patients are either in shock or unconscious and are, therefore, unable to provide informed consent even for standard procedures. Research-related interventions must similarly be initiated rapidly with no opportunity to obtain consent from the patient or the patient's legally authorized representative. Federal regulations allow for an exception from informed consent in these circumstances once the investigators complete a process of community consultation and public disclosure. The challenges for investigators include how to define the at-risk community for enrollment in the trial and then how to adequately reach out to that community. Many approaches have been used, with varying success. What constitutes true engagement with the community needs to be further explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research letter discusses the association between label restrictions by the US Food and Drug Administration on first-line immunotherapy for advanced bladder cancer and subsequent changes in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the issue of patient discrimination against clinicians in the U.S., and states that physicians have legal obligations to stabilize patients in case of acute medical emergencies, regardless of prejudice expressed by those patients against them.

This study characterizes the prevalence and content of US state statutes governing treatment decisions for decisionally incapacitated pregnant women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Medical News article is an interview with Leana Wen, MD, the new president of Planned Parenthood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Euthanasia or assisted suicide (EAS) of psychiatric patients is increasing in some jurisdictions such as Belgium and the Netherlands. However, little is known about the practice, and it remains controversial.Objectives: To describe the characteristics of patients receiving EAS for psychiatric conditions and how the practice is regulated in the Netherlands.Design, Setting, and Participants: This investigation reviewed psychiatric EAS case summaries made available online by the Dutch regional euthanasia review committees as of June 1, 2015. Two senior psychiatrists used directed content analysis to review and code the reports. In total, 66 cases from 2011 to 2014 were reviewed.Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical and social characteristics of patients, physician review process of the patients' requests, and the euthanasia review committees' assessments of the physicians' actions.Results: Of the 66 cases reviewed, 70% (n = 46) were women. In total, 32% (n = 21) were 70 years or older, 44% (n = 29) were 50 to 70 years old, and 24% (n = 16) were 30 to 50 years old. Most had chronic, severe conditions, with histories of attempted suicides and psychiatric hospitalizations. Most had personality disorders and were described as socially isolated or lonely. Depressive disorders were the primary psychiatric issue in 55% (n = 36) of cases. Other conditions represented were psychotic, posttraumatic stress or anxiety, somatoform, neurocognitive, and eating disorders, as well as prolonged grief and autism. Comorbidities with functional impairments were common. Forty-one percent (n = 27) of physicians performing EAS were psychiatrists. Twenty-seven percent (n = 18) of patients received the procedure from physicians new to them, 14 of whom were physicians from the End-of-Life Clinic, a mobile euthanasia clinic. Consultation with other physicians was extensive, but 11% (n = 7) of cases had no independent psychiatric input, and 24% (n = 16) of cases involved disagreement among consultants. The euthanasia review committees found that one case failed to meet legal due care criteria.Conclusions and Relevance: Persons receiving EAS for psychiatric disorders in the Netherlands are mostly women and of diverse ages, with complex and chronic psychiatric, medical, and psychosocial histories. The granting of their EAS requests appears to involve considerable physician judgment, usually involving multiple physicians who do not always agree (sometimes without independent psychiatric input), but the euthanasia review committees generally defer to the judgments of the physicians performing the EAS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reflects on the impact of U.S. regulations such as National Organ Transplant Act on selection of donor and recipients for liver transplantation; and offers suggestions to consider Model for End- Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score.

This Medical News article discusses a new study of the chemical bisphenol A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study estimates what 2020 national US savings would have been using international reference pricing rather than US manufacturer and net prices for insulins and 50 top brand-name drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses why veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) do not receive service canine benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the efforts of the U.S. federal government and those outside politics to address this inequality.

The article discusses the primary goals of the federal and state autism spectrum disorder (ASD) insurance reform including the use of statutory catch-all provisions, the investment in teaching ASD-specific care skills, and the support to family member caregivers.