PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

James G Hodge

Publications and source records attributed to James G Hodge.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Volunteer health professionals and emergencies: assessing and transforming the legal environment.

Volunteer health professionals (VHPs) are essential in emergencies to fill surge capacity and provide needed medical expertise. While some VHPs are well-organized and trained, others arrive spontaneously at the site of a disaster. Lacking organization, training, and identification, they may actually impede emergency efforts. Complications involving medical volunteers in New York City after September 11, 2001, led Congress to authorize federal authorities to assist states and territories in developing emergency systems for the advance registration of volunteer health professionals (ESARVHP). Through advance registration, volunteers can be vetted, trained, and mobilized more effectively during emergencies. The use of VHPs, however, raises multiple legal questions: What constitutes an emergency, how is it declared, and what are the consequences? When are volunteers liable for their actions? When may volunteers who are licensed or certified in one state legally practice their profession in another state? Are volunteers entitled to compensation for harms they incur? This article examines the legal framework underlying the registration and use of volunteers during emergencies and offers recommendations for legal reform, including: (1) establish minimum standards to facilitate interjurisdictional emergency response, improve coordination, and enhance reciprocity of licensing and credentialing; (2) develop liability provisions for VHPs that balance their need to respond without significant fear of civil liability with patients' rights to legal recourse for egregious harms; and (3) provide basic levels of protections for VHPs harmed, injured, or killed while responding to emergencies.

Compensation and Redress↗
PubMed2004

Ethical issues concerning genetic testing and screening in public health.

Genetic testing (predictive analysis that determines genetic alterations in individuals for clinical purposes) and screening (programs that identify persons within a subpopulation who may be at a higher risk for a genetic disease or condition) are increasingly utilized to promote and improve the public's health. The proliferate use of genetic testing and screening may improve public health outcomes, but it also implicates significant ethical, legal, and social concerns. Within the context of conflicting ethical values from the individual and public health perspectives, individual values such as informed consent and privacy and discrimination protections must be respected. Legal and ethical attempts to exceptionalize genetic tests and information (as compared to other health information) to protect privacy and prevent discrimination are well intended, but can also be unjust and impractical. Respect for individual ethical rights has limits. Principles of public health ethics justify voluntary genetic testing and screening and sharing of data for population-based health purposes. Thus, individual rights should not always trump the use of genetic tests or screening programs (or information derived therefrom) for legitimate public health purposes.

Bioethics↗
PubMed2004

The HIPAA privacy rule and bioterrorism planning, prevention, and response.

Effective bioterrorism planning, prevention, and response require information sharing between various entities, ranging from public health authorities and health-care workers to national security and law enforcement officials. While the source of much information exchanged may be nonidentifiable, many entities legitimately need access to personally identifiable health information (or "protected health information" [PHI]) in planning for and responding to a bioterrorism event. The HIPAA Privacy Rule allows for essential exchanges of health data during a public health emergency while protecting against unnecessary disclosures of PHI. In the event of a bioterrorist attack, the Privacy Rule allows covered entities to disclose PHI without individual authorization in the following instances: (1) for treatment by health-care providers, (2) to avert a serious threat to health or safety, (3) to public health authorities for public health purposes, (4) to protect national security, (5) to law enforcement under certain conditions, and (6) for judicial or administrative proceedings. Despite these favorable disclosure provisions, some privacy challenges remain. The flow of PHI may be slowed by misunderstandings of the Privacy Rule's accounting requirement. In addition, in a bioterrorism scenario, nontraditional entities may find themselves acting as health-care providers, triggering Privacy Rule provisions. Finally, the potential for de facto disclosures of individuals' disease or exposure status increases where conspicuous treatment methods, isolation, or quarantine are implemented without additional measures to protect privacy. Understanding the Privacy Rule's impact on bioterrorism planning and response ensures that various entities can conduct their activities with needed information while still protecting individual privacy.

Bioterrorism↗
PubMed2002

The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act: planning for and response to bioterrorism and naturally occurring infectious diseases.

The Center for Law and the Public's Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities drafted the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA or Model Act) at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Model Act provides state actors with the powers they need to detect and contain bioterrorism or a naturally occurring disease outbreak. Legislative bills based on the MSEHPA have been introduced in 34 states. Problems of obsolescence, inconsistency, and inadequacy may render current state laws ineffective or even counterproductive. State laws often date back to the early 20th century and have been built up in layers over the years. They frequently predate the vast changes in the public health sciences and constitutional law. The Model Act is structured to reflect 5 basic public health functions to be facilitated by law: (1) preparedness, comprehensive planning for a public health emergency; (2) surveillance, measures to detect and track public health emergencies; (3) management of property, ensuring adequate availability of vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and hospitals, as well as providing power to abate hazards to the public's health; (4) protection of persons, powers to compel vaccination, testing, treatment, isolation, and quarantine when clearly necessary; and (5) communication, providing clear and authoritative information to the public. The Model Act also contains a modernized, extensive set of principles and requirements to safeguard personal rights. Law can be a tool to improve public health preparedness. A constitutional democracy must balance the common good with respect for personal dignity, toleration of groups, and adherence to principles of justice.

Bioterrorism↗
PubMed2002

Preparedness on the frontline: what's law got to do with it?

The article provides an overview of current work toward identifying core competencies for public health emergency and bio-terrorism response, including law-related competencies. It demonstrates how competency sets are interrelated and how they provide a framework for developing preparedness training for public health leaders, public health and health care professionals, law enforcement, public health attorneys, and others. The health and safety of America's communities hinge on the nation's public health workforce--the estimated 448,254 public health professionals and 3 million related workforce professionals who form the expanded public health system that protects us during times of national crisis and in our daily lives. The response capacity of our health agencies and communities and their ability to respond effectively will be unpredictable without adequate training. Education in the core competencies in emergency preparedness and bio-terrorism response is essential. Preparedness at the front-line means that public health leaders and administrators must be able to communicate information, roles, capacities, and legal authorities to all emergency response partners during planning, drills, and actual emergencies. Each public health worker must be able to describe his or her communication role in emergency response within the agency, with the media, and with the general public. Law enforcement and state government representatives must understand the legal powers of their agencies and of public health agencies for coordinated response, mitigation, and recovery efforts in a public health emergency event.

Biological Warfare↗