Podcasts about health law policy

Scientific Sense ® by Gill Eapen: Prof. Glenn Cohen is Professor of Law and Faculty Director, for the Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics at Harvard University. His current research relates to medical AI, mobile health and other health information technologies, abortion, reproduction/reproductive technology, the therapeutic use of psychedelic drugs, research ethics, organ transplantation, rationing in law and medicine, health policy, FDA law, translational medicine, medical tourism and many other topics. Please subscribe to this channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/ScientificSense?sub_confirmation=1 --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scientificsense/support

Alicia Yamin, Lecturer on Law and the Director of the Global Health and Rights Project at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics at Harvard Law School, talks about Mexico's judicial reform plan, which makes all federal judges elected, rather than appointed positions. Yamin, who is also Adjunct Senior Lecturer on Health Policy and Management at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, considers this a threat to Mexican democracy.

The FDA's rejection of MDMA as a treatment may well be a short-term setback for legally helping people with PTSD and other disorders. Mason Marks of Harvard Law School's Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy offers his assessment. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, state courts and legislatures have grappled with its legal and policy implications, especially as they pertain to abortion and IVF. In LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, for example, the Alabama Supreme Court held that frozen embryos should be regarded as “children” for the purposes of Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. And in Planned Parenthood v. Mayes, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld an 1864 law that bans all abortions in the state except those deemed necessary to save the life of the mother.These recent rulings have been highly criticized by commentators on both sides of the aisle, and they raise important questions about the legal status of IVF and abortion in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. For example, in both cases, the courts interpreted the law in accordance with textualist principles, and the state legislatures swiftly enacted measures to address the state supreme court decisions afterward. Are these cases therefore examples of the proper allocation of powers, where the judiciary says what the law is, and the legislature is tasked with implementing policy? With the question of abortion being returned to the legislative process post-Dobbs, do these cases invite more thoughtful dialogue about abortion and IVF policy, or do they sow further acrimony? Were these cases rightly decided? Can we articulate a legal standard vis-à-vis abortion and IVF that is both thoughtful and conceptually consistent? In what ways do abortion and IVF interact, both philosophically and legally? Please join us as we discuss these issues and others with some of the leading scholars in this space.Featuring:Prof. I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law & Deputy Dean; Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics; Harvard University Law SchoolProf. O. Carter Snead, Director, de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture and Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Jennie Bradley Lichter, Deputy General Counsel, The Catholic University of America

Mason Marks is the Florida Bar health law section professor at the Florida State University College of Law. At Harvard Law School, he is the senior fellow and project lead of the Project on Psychedelics Law and Regulation (POPLAR) at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics, and he also writes an extremely insightful weekly newsletter covering the psychedelic space that's called Psychedelic Week.Today we get down to brass tracks on the ins and outs of psychedelic law and policy in the U.S. as well as a host of other interesting topics - Please rate and review the podcast wherever you're listening and consider sharing it with a friend. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Todays episode is sponsored by ADA. Click this link below to take their FREE Questionnaire. https://ada.com/covid/antiviral-treat...   All Home Care Matters was honored to welcome the CEO & President of Compassion and Choices Kim Callinan and the National Director of Engagement and Education Jessica Empeño to the show. About Kim Callinan: Kim Callinan has served as Compassion & Choices president and chief executive officer since 2018. Kim launched Compassion & Choices' Finish Strong initiative designed to empower patients to take charge of the final chapter of their lives, with a specific focus on helping people plan for a possible dementia diagnosis and closing the disparities in end-of-life care and planning that exist for communities of color. Kim holds a master's degree in public policy from Georgetown University, an MBA from the University of Maryland Global Campus, a bachelor's degree in government from Oberlin College and a certificate in the fundamentals of gerontology through a joint program offered by the American Society on Aging and the University of Southern California Davis School of Gerontology. She also recently received an end-of-life doula certificate from the University of Vermont.  About Jessica Empeño:  Jessica Empeño is a medical social worker with over 23 years' experience as a clinician, leader, educator and advocate specializing in end-of-life care, dementia, caregiver support, program development and leadership. Jessica has a Masters of Social Work degree from San Diego State University and certificates in Health Law & Policy, Dementia Positive Approach to Care, Human Services Management and Interdisciplinary Palliative Care.  About Compassion & Choices: Compassion & Choices improves care, expands options and empowers everyone to chart their end-of-life journey. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. We envision a society that affirms life and accepts the inevitability of death, embraces expanded options for compassionate dying, and empowers everyone to choose end-of-life care that reflects their values, priorities, and beliefs.

In this episode, Joe interviews Mason Marks, MD, JD: drug policy analyst, writer, Professor at the Florida State University College of Law, and senior fellow and project lead of the Project on Psychedelics Law and Regulation (POPLAR) at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics. As somewhat of an expert on drug policy and FDA regulation, Marks discusses much of the current legal landscape: What was controversial and most interesting about the FDA's recent guidance for researchers running clinical trials; how an amendment changed Colorado's Natural Medicine Act and the odd vibe coming from the rule-making process (very private with canceled meetings and a notable lack of urgency); concerns over Oregon's confusing program not being sustainable; and how Senate Bill 303 drastically changed confidentiality and how personal data would be collected in the state.  He also discusses the complications and ethics of end-of-life care and psychedelics; the theoretical heart valve risk from chronic use and ways we could research this; the challenge of informed consent; the legal risk of transactions involving people gifting illegal substances; the Gracias Foundation's recent $16 million grant to Harvard and how people at Harvard feel about psychedelics; and more.  POPLAR, which was founded to essentially change laws around psychedelics, is hosting a conference on February 16 in Manhattan called “Drug Law for the 21st Century,” which will be looking back on 50 years of DEA drug policy and envisioning what could be different going forward. Click here to head to the show notes page. 

There's growing excitement that artificial intelligence can make health care better by speeding up care, improving diagnoses and easing the burden on a burned out workforce. But there are also concerns that these powerful new tools will perpetuate biases and inequities long baked into our health care system.In Part 2 of our special series on racial bias in health care AI, we dig into what the Biden administration is doing to keep biased algorithms from getting to the bedside.Guests:Emily Sterrett, MD, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Director of Improvement Science, Duke University School of Medicine Department of PediatricsMark Sendak, MD, MPP, Population Health & Data Science Lead, Duke Institute for Health InnovationMinerva Tantoco, Chief AI Officer, New York University McSilver Institute for Poverty, Policy and ResearchCarmel Shachar, JD, MPH, Executive Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law SchoolKathryn Marchesini, JD, Chief Privacy Officer, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information TechnologyMelanie Fontes Rainer, JD, Director, HHS Office for Civil RightsLearn more and read a full transcript on our website.Dan Gorenstein will moderate three one-on-one discussions featuring industry leaders and top officials from ONC, FDA, and HHS' Office of Civil Rights over two plenary sessions, you can watch them here.Support this type of journalism today, with a gift, which for a limited time will be matched! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode we head into the future to learn about a controversial technology that could change the face of reproduction. Researchers are developing a technology called in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), which can reprogram human cells–like a skin cell–to become eggs or sperm. With IVG we could reach a future where anyone could produce either eggs or sperm, in potentially limitless quantities. This could open up a whole world of new options for how humans reproduce. Startup companies are working to bring this science to the public in ways that bypass the usual research routes for new reproductive technologies. When would it be ethically acceptable to try IVG to make a baby? How can we ensure the technology will be used ethically, including how it should be regulated?  Show Notes: This episode features interviews with: Amander Clark, Professor, Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology,  University of California, Los Angeles I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law, Deputy Dean and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, Harvard Law School In 2023, the National Academies held a meeting to discuss the scientific, ethical, and legal implications of IVG. You can watch this meeting and learn more about IVG here.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we head into the future to learn about a controversial technology that could change the face of reproduction. Researchers are developing a technology called in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), which can reprogram human cells–like a skin cell–to become eggs or sperm. With IVG we could reach a future where anyone could produce either eggs or sperm, in potentially limitless quantities. This could open up a whole world of new options for how humans reproduce. Startup companies are working to bring this science to the public in ways that bypass the usual research routes for new reproductive technologies. When would it be ethically acceptable to try IVG to make a baby? How can we ensure the technology will be used ethically, including how it should be regulated?  Show Notes: This episode features interviews with: Amander Clark, Professor, Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology,  University of California, Los Angeles I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law, Deputy Dean and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, Harvard Law School In 2023, the National Academies held a meeting to discuss the scientific, ethical, and legal implications of IVG. You can watch this meeting and learn more about IVG here.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mason Marks is a professor at the Florida State University College of Law and the senior fellow and project lead of the Project on Psychedelics Law and Regulation at the Petrie–Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. M. Marks and I.G. Cohen. How Should the FDA Evaluate Psychedelic Medicine? N Engl J Med 2023;389:1733-1735.

A wave of new research is showing the promise of psychedelics to help with mental health conditions — like depression and post traumatic stress disorder. The federal government continues to say it's illegal to use these substances for treatment, but states like Oregon and Colorado are attempting to roll out regulated use. We talk with Mason Marks about the latest research, regulation, and legal gray areas on psychedelics. Guests:Mason Marks, JD MD Project Lead on the Project on Psychedelics Law and Regulation at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. Learn more and read a full transcript on our website.We're also excited to share that you can now find Tradeoffs on YouTube! Still not enough Tradeoffs? Sign up for our free weekly newsletter featuring the latest health policy research and news.Support this type of journalism today, with a gift. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Intentional miscoding of abortion services may put clinicians and hospital systems at legal risk. JAMA Senior Editor Linda Brubaker, MD, MS, and Carmel Shachar, JD, MPH, from the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics, Harvard Law School, discuss the risks of intentional miscoding practices and possible penalties. Related Content: Abortion Miscoding—Legal Risks for Clinicians and Hospital Systems

There's growing excitement that artificial intelligence can make health care better by speeding up care, improving diagnoses and easing the burden on a burned out workforce. But there are also concerns that these powerful new tools will perpetuate biases and inequities long baked into our health care system.In Part 2 of our special series on racial bias in health care AI, we dig into what the Biden administration is doing to keep biased algorithms from getting to the bedside.Guests:Emily Sterrett, MD, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Director of Improvement Science, Duke University School of Medicine Department of PediatricsMark Sendak, MD, MPP, Population Health & Data Science Lead, Duke Institute for Health InnovationMinerva Tantoco, Chief AI Officer, New York University McSilver Institute for Poverty, Policy and ResearchCarmel Shachar, JD, MPH, Executive Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law SchoolKathryn Marchesini, JD, Chief Privacy Officer, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information TechnologyMelanie Fontes Rainer, JD, Director, HHS Office for Civil RightsLearn more and read a full transcript on our website.Want more Tradeoffs? Sign up for our free weekly newsletter featuring the latest health policy research and news.Support this type of journalism today, with a gift.Follow us on Twitter. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The ACA's preventive services mandate requires insurers to cover, without charge, nearly 200 basic primary care services. But now, a federal judge has issued a nationwide injunction preventing the Biden administration from enforcing this cost-free care for a significant number of these services. JAMA Executive Editor Gregory Curfman, MD, discusses this and more with Abbe R. Gluck, JD, Solomon Center for Health Law & Policy, Yale Law School. Related Content: Cost-Free Preventive Care Under the ACA Faces Legal Challenge

The point of college is to pour into your studies, work hard and hopefully come out on the other end as an employable candidate, ready to achieve great success in the workforce. But at what cost? Surely not that of your mental health. Sarah Ketchen Lipson is a dual-title PhD, the Principal of the Healthy Minds Network and the Assistant Professor in the Department of Health Law Policy and Management at Boston University School of Public Health. She has seen firsthand the impact on students who strive to achieve academic success, often at the cost of their mental and emotional well-being.Tune in to today's episode of Success is Subjective as Sarah tells listeners what strides have been made to help uphold students' mental health as they work towards academic success. She also shares resources to provide parents with the tools and information they need in order to support their college-aged students. What You Will LearnHow to prioritize sports and academics Warning signs of lapsing mental health Options to pay for college tuition without debt How to cultivate a good work ethic that promotes you in the workforce Resources for students struggling with their mental health How parents can support the mental health of their college-aged students Connect with Dr. Sarah Ketchen LipsonTwitter: ​​@DrSarahLipsonFacebook: Healthy Minds NetworkInstagram: @healthymindsnetworkHealthy Minds NetworkActive Minds JED Campus Program The Steve FundBoston University Parent Guides to Mental Health Connect with Joanna Lilley  Success is Subjective WebsiteSuccess is Subjective PatreonLilley Consulting WebsiteLilley Consulting on Instagram Lilley Consulting on Facebook Success is Subjective on Apple PodcastSuccess is Subjective on Google PodcastSuccess is Subjective on iHeart RadioSuccess is Subjective on SpotifySuccess is Subjective on StitcherSuccess is Subjective on AmazonSuccess is Subjective on AudibleSponsored by: College AlternativeEmail joanna@successissubjective.org 

In 1973, not long after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, Congress amended the Public Health Service Act to allow medical professionals to refuse to provide abortion care on the basis of their moral or religious beliefs. But if healthcare workers can be “conscientious objectors” to abortion care, couldn't “conscientious providers” of abortion be legally protected, too? That's the question University of San Diego law professor and bioethicist Dov Fox asks in his recent New York Times op-ed “What Will Happen if Doctors Defy the Law to Provide Abortions?” We'll talk to Fox and other experts about the medical and moral dilemmas abortion providers face in the post-Roe world.  Guests: Dov Fox, professor of law and director, Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics, University of San Diego School of Law Dr. Jennifer Conti, adjunct clinical assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology, Stanford University Sonja Sharp, metro reporter, LA Times Dr. David Eisenberg , associate director, Division of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine

America is still reeling from the landmark, albeit draft, opinion that was leaked from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, holding that the 50 year precedent of Roe V. Wade is no longer going to be valid constitutional law in America. There are obviously deep ramifications for the issue of abortion, but there are also implications that extend well beyond the question of a woman's right to choose, and that impact all kinds of economic, social, and legal questions for the future of how we live and work in America. Elyssa Spitzer is a policy analyst for the Women's Initiative at the Center for American Progress. She's served as a clerk in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and now also serves as the senior fellow in law and neuroscience with the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School and the Center for Law, Brain & Behavior.

On February 2, 2022, Lawrence Gostin, David Hyman, and Jenin Younes joined the Federalist Society's Georgetown Law Student Chapter to debate COVID-19 vaccine mandates.Featuring:- Lawrence Gostin, University Professor, Founding Linda D. & Timothy J. O'Neill Professor of Global Health Law, Faculty Director of O'Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law, Georgetown University- David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown University- Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance- [Moderator] Courtney Stone Mirski, Editor in Chief, Food and Drug Law Journal- [Introduction] Elizabeth Henry, President, Federalist Society's Georgetown Law Student ChapterVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Alan Sager, Professor of Health Law, Policy and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, shared his view of the current healthcare climate wand where insurers are headed in this episode.

The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The final showcase panel explored "Law, Science, and Public Policy.""Science" as a concept enjoys the trust of the public. Indeed, some make "I trust the Science" a centerpiece for their appeal to the voting public, and this evidently has had some success. By contrast, others in the scientific community stress that scientific methods explicitly exclude "trust". The noted physicist Richard Feynman remarked that "science begins with the distrust of experts". Instead, process in science relies on an "ethic" of impersonal objectivity, respect for data, self-questioning, a willingness to stand corrected, and open discourse. Its methods involve constructing models for reality that best fit objective assessments of available data, followed by a search for data that might contradict those models. Scientists are therefore (supposed to be) anti-advocates, willing to concede when their models were wrong; the most successful scientists even enjoy conceding, as it means that knowledge has advanced.However, scientists, being human, are inherently imperfect practitioners of scientific methods. Historians document many examples where scientists have advocated their own (wrong) ideas over others simply because they were their own, obstructed opposing points of view, and otherwise behaved as 'politically' as in any other field of human endeavor. However, the process and its "ethic" has historically allowed models for reality to improve, and those improvements are known by the technology that has emerged based on them. As one example without science, improvements in civilized transport advanced haltingly over millennia. With science, citizens may now buy tickets to suborbital space flight.Consequently, public policy decision-makers often rely on science (or at least they say they do) when making laws and regulations in many areas, including economics, criminal law, environmental regulations technology and bioethics. However, the law is in many ways anti-science. Scientists, practicing their methods, commit to seeking out and weighting more heavily data that oppose their theory; they are (supposed to be) anti-advocates. In contrast, clients hire lawyers expressly to be their advocates.This creates a natural tension when scientists are called upon to advise public policy. Many who call themselves "scientists" are willing to participate as advocates in public policy. This has been shown clearly in fields like anthropogenic climate change, economic stimulus packages and, most recently, in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. How should we as lawyers assure that science is used properly in the public space, to make policy conform to reality, and not for political goals?The panel will address two areas with this as background: The FDA, CDC, and public health regulation. The COVID pandemic uncovered many problems in the way medical science is used to manage public health crises. with public policy.Should scientific presentations be paternalistic? Is it ever justified to withhold, distort, or misrepresent science for fear that the truth will do damage by being misunderstood or misused? Featuring:Dr. Steven Benner, Distinguished Fellow, The Westheimer Institute at the Foundation for Applied State Room Molecular EvolutionProf. I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law, Deputy Dean, and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, Harvard Law SchoolMs. Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater InstituteModerator: Hon. Kenneth Lee, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

About this episodeThe COVID-19 pandemic revealed structural weaknesses and inequities across the nation in all major industries - housing, government, finance, health care, and education. This revelation resulted in educational institutions across the nation successfully reworking the more traditional aspects of student success such as instructional modality, classroom technology, and basic needs. However, most institutions continue to seek the elusive answer to the problem of finding the best practice in addressing the fragility of mental health services on the college campus.Higher Ed Rewired has a roundtable discussion with three student leaders from the California State University as they recount what the pandemic meant for their mental health. We also meet with Dr. Eric Wood, Director of Counseling and Mental Health at Texas Christian University, and Dr. Sarah Lipson, Co-Principal Investigator and Associate Director of the Healthy Minds Network, as they provide solutions and discuss what universities should be doing to address the mental health crises on the college campus. Featured on the Episode:Dr. Sarah Ketchen Lipson is an assistant professor in the Department of Health Law Policy and Management at the Boston University School of Public Health. She is co-Principal Investigator of the Healthy Minds Study and Associate Director of the Healthy Minds Network.Lipson's research focuses on understanding and addressing mental health inequalities in adolescent and young adult populations, especially college students. She employs varied methodologies, including large-scale epidemiological surveys and population-level interventions. Her work has been featured in the Boston Globe, New York Times, Huffington Post, and NPR.At BUSPH, she teaches Research Theory and Design and Applied Studies in Health Services Research and is faculty director of the Master's of Science in Health Services and Systems Research Lipson completed a dual PhD at the University of Michigan in Health Services Organization and Policy at the School of Public Health and Higher Education at the School of Education, and a master's degree from Harvard University. Dr. Eric Wood currently serves as the Director of Counseling & Mental Health at Texas Christian University and has over 12 years of experience in college mental health, including serving on the advisory board for the National College Depression Partnership and a peer reviewer for the Journal of American College Health. Wood holds a PhD in Psychology from the University of North Texas. The highest priority for he and his staff is stewarding the trust that TCU students, and their families, give us regarding their mental health and psychological well-being. He is committed to providing the highest quality of care and maintaining TCU's recognized status as one of the leading institutions in the field of college campus counseling.Joshua Ochoais currently serving as the Associated Students President at San Francisco State University, and earning his Master's in Public Administration. Joshua believes “we must all be and fight for the change that we want to see in the world.” At SFSU, Joshua has served students on the Associated Students Board of Directors by advocating for expanding basic needs initiatives, tuition-free public college, and equitable access to public transportation. He is motivated to fight for working-class issues through writing public policy, people-centered urban planning, and a constant push for advocacy and activism.Dixie Samaniego (Ella/She/Her) is a third-year Political Science major and Women and Gender Studies minor at California State University Fullerton. Dixie is a proud Latina, daughter of immigrants, and a first-generation high school graduate and higher education student. She serves as the California State University Fullerton's Associated Students Incorporated Chief Governmental Officer and as a Director and the Vice-Chair of Legislative Affairs on the Cal State Student Association. In addition to her campus advocacy, Dixie is the co-founder and Creative Director of The Black + Brown Healing Project, a grassroots organization working to center healing in advocacy through collective action. She is a huge fan of the MCU and all things music." D'Aungilique Jackson, ASI President at Fresno State Return on Investment Calculator for College Mental Health Services and Programs by the Healthy Minds Network:  https://umich.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6xN9QUSlFtgtRQh Resources for people struggling with depression, anxiety, thoughts of suicide:California State University Mental Health Serviceshttps://www.calstate.edu/attend/student-services/Pages/mental-health-services.aspxThe CSU provides programs and services to support the psychological and emotional health of our students. Mental health and counseling services on the campuses offer support and strive to help students achieve their academic, personal and professional goals.The National Suicide Prevention Lifelinesuicidepreventionlifeline.orgAvailable to anyone in crisis, feeling suicidal, or in emotional distress. You can speak to them online or over the phone by calling 1-800-273-8255.The TREVOR Projectthetrevorproject.orgSpecific crisis support for LGBTQ+ young people is available on 1-866-488-7386.SAFE Alternatives for self-abuseselfinjury.comHelpline: 800-366-8288.Trans Lifelinetranslifeline.org/hotlineA peer support service run by trans people, for trans and questioning callers in crisis. Call 877-565-8860. 

In this episode, Professor David Hyman interviews Dr. Richard Williams about Dr. Williams' new book, "Fixing Food: An FDA Insider Unravels the Myths and Solutions."A twenty-seven-year veteran of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, Dr. Williams questions the accuracy of more than thirty years of food labeling, along with consumer education on diet/disease relationships and failed attempts to get consumers to track intakes.Featuring:- Dr. Richard A. Williams, Former Associate Director for Social Sciences, FDA; Author, "Fixing Food: An FDA Insider Unravels the Myths and Solutions"- [Moderator] David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown University Law CenterVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Professor Lucy Hodder, our resident health law and policy expert, breaks down the Biden administrations push to use OSHA to mandate vaccines and testing, as well as complex nature of getting more people vaccinated. Learn more about our Health Law & Policy program at https://law.unh.edu/health-law-policy-program Get an email when the latest episode releases and never miss our weekly episodes by subscribing on Apple Podcast, Google Play, Stitcher, and Spotify! UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law is now accepting applications for JD, Graduate Programs, and Online Professional Certificates at https://law.unh.edu  Legal topics include health law, covid19, pandemic, osha, vaccines

Today we're sharing with you a discussion we had on June 22nd with the Cato Institute on medical malpractice litigation, legislation, and the future of reform.   I'm joined by Professor David Hyman, a physician, the Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy at Georgetown University Law Center, and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.  He is the coauthor of Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works — Why Tort Reform Hasn't Helped, the book we are discussing today. You can find it linked in our show notes.   I'm also joined by Dr. Richard Anderson, the chairman and CEO of The Doctors Company, the nation's largest physician-owned medical malpractice insurer.  He was a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and is past chairman of the Department of Medicine at Scripps Memorial Hospital, where he served as senior oncologist for 18 years.  Dr. Hyman and Dr. Anderson agree there are serious problems with medical malpractice litigation today, but each advocate different solutions.  

Acting Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has come out as the clear winner in Armenia's snap election which was held following a devastating military loss for the country in Nagorno-Karabakh. Will he be able to rebuild relations in the Caucasus region? Also, vaccine Passports are fast becoming a global reality. Soon enough, people may not be able to go to restaurants or concerts without them. In fact it's already happening in Russia and Israel. Recently, European Union vaccine passports were issued in 17 countries from the block. However, the World Health Organisation is yet to endorse vaccine passports for travel, citing concerns around inequality, privacy and a lack of common standards and infrastructure. Guests: Matthew Bryza Non-Resident Fellow With the Atlantic Council and the Former Us Ambassador to Azerbaijan Samuel Ramani Researcher at Oxford University, Specialising in Russian and Middle Eastern Foreign Policy (edited) Glenn Cohen Professor of Law at the James Attwood Center and Faculty Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School

On Friday, April 16, 2021, the Federalist Society's Georgetown Student Chapter hosted a webinar featuring professors Gregg Bloche, Larry Gostin, David Hyman, and Timothy Westmoreland discussing the current state of healthcare policy in the United States.Featuring:- M. Gregg Bloche, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Health Law, Policy, and Ethics, Georgetown University- Lawrence Gostin, University Professor and Director, O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University- David A. Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown University- Timothy M. Westmoreland, Professor from Practice, Georgetown University- [Moderator] Patrick Lyons, Co-President, The Federalist Society's Georgetown Student ChapterVisit our website – https://RegProject.org​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

A discussion about the results and implications of the just-released Role of Faculty in Student Mental Health survey. The survey explores faculty members' perspectives on the state of student mental and behavioral health and their role as gatekeepers. Our guests are Sarah K. Lipson, PhD, Principal Investigator of the study and Assistant Professor of Health Law Policy and Management at the Boston University School of Public Health; and Zoe Ragouzeos, PhD, Executive Director of Counseling and Wellness Services at New York University and Mary Christie Foundation President. Drs. Lipson and Ragouzeos walk through the survey findings and explain what steps faculty and college administrators can take to improve student wellbeing. You can find the report here (https://marychristiefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/The-Role-of-Faculty-in-Student-Mental-Health.pdf). Tomorrow (4/8) at 1:00pm, a webinar presentation will dive further into the findings with a panel discussion on the important implications for programs, prevention strategies, and campus policy. Register for the event here (https://www.bigmarker.com/communities/mcf/conferences).

You've probably seen the posts on social media from your loved ones, getting their COVID vaccinations or flashing their vaccine cards. Then you pause for a second and wonder how they were eligible to get vaccinated. And you're pretty sure that person cut the vaccine line. Those who did cut the line have set off some pretty heated debates among those closest to them. Carmel Shachar is executive director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics at Harvard Law School.It took a while to get here. But after several missteps, some supply and organizational problems and lots of frustrations, California is just about ready to offer up COVID vaccinations to every adult who wants one. Catherine Flores-Martin is the executive director of the California Immunization Coalition and a member of the California COVID-19 Vaccine Advisory Committee.Two things you've likely been missing over these last few months: vacations and vaccinations. You can head down to the U.S. Virgin Islands, which have a very healthy supply of COVID vaccine doses. Angela East is the coordinator and director of the COVID vaccine program at Plessen Healthcare on St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands Krispy Kreme offered up what certainly seemed like a well-intentioned and delicious incentive: bring in proof of receiving a COVID vaccine, and we'll give you a free glazed donut. But the offer set off a sometimes bitter debate among physicians and scientists over using an unhealthy treat to incentivize the healthy act of vaccination. Dr. Uche Blackstock is an emergency medicine physician and the founder and CEO of Advancing Health Equality. She's also a medical contributor to Yahoo News.  To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You've probably seen the posts on social media from your loved ones, getting their COVID vaccinations or flashing their vaccine cards. Then you pause for a second and wonder how they were eligible to get vaccinated. And you're pretty sure that person cut the vaccine line. Those who did cut the line have set off some pretty heated debates among those closest to them. Carmel Shachar is executive director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics at Harvard Law School. It took a while to get here. But after several missteps, some supply and organizational problems and lots of frustrations, California is just about ready to offer up COVID vaccinations to every adult who wants one. Catherine Flores-Martin is the executive director of the California Immunization Coalition and a member of the California COVID-19 Vaccine Advisory Committee. Two things you've likely been missing over these last few months: vacations and vaccinations. You can head down to the U.S. Virgin Islands, which have a very healthy supply of COVID vaccine doses. Angela East is the coordinator and director of the COVID vaccine program at Plessen Healthcare on St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands  Krispy Kreme offered up what certainly seemed like a well-intentioned and delicious incentive: bring in proof of receiving a COVID vaccine, and we'll give you a free glazed donut. But the offer set off a sometimes bitter debate among physicians and scientists over using an unhealthy treat to incentivize the healthy act of vaccination. Dr. Uche Blackstock is an emergency medicine physician and the founder and CEO of Advancing Health Equality. She's also a medical contributor to Yahoo News.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today's podcast is with Shailin Thomas (@shailinthomas), who is a fifth-year student (and third year medical student) in a joint MD/JD program between Harvard Law School and the New York University School of Medicine. He received his B.S. from Yale University where he stuied cognitive neuroscience—exploring the anatomy and hysiology behind social phenomena. His interests lie at the intersection of clinical medicine and the legal forces that shape it. Prior to graduate school, Shailin worked on both the administrative and clinical sides of health care, and as a research associate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. While in graduate school, he has served as a Student Fellow at Harvard Law School’s Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics, and as an Admissions Ambassador with the NYU School of Medicine Office of Admissions — helping to recruit the next generation of physician leaders. His writing has been published in a number of outlets, including the Journal of the American Medical Association. Podcast Episode Summary 1:16 - How he's every Asian-American immigrant's dream for their son (going to Harvard, becoming a doctor and a lawyer...need I say more?) 2:12 - Why he decided to go into an eternity of schooling (and is deciding to go through with residency) 8:36 - How he took his gap years and why he worked at Harvard before he became a medical student 10:16 - How he reasons through topics in health law and how he finds topics to write about 22:54 - The origins of health law and how we can design a better liability penalties and design framework for the healthcare system 31:00 - How to balance deregulation in the healthcare industry with a legal solace for patients to get the right treatment 34:51 - His opinions on healthcare coverage and how they impact patient care; how he addresses my devil's advocate comments about shielding cost from consumers and the implications of moral hazard and more!

New viral strains continue to spread across the country, which has added to the urgency of getting as many people vaccinated as possible. With supplies of the two vaccines currently available in the U.S. falling well short of demand, mandating vaccination is likely not a realistic scenario now. But it could be in the coming months. Is it legal for states, private employers, and even airlines, to mandate a vaccine that has only been approved for emergency use? Who could be held responsible if something goes wrong after getting the shot? Carmel Shachar, JD, executive director of The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy at Harvard Law School, joins us to explore those legal questions, and more.

Medical innovation has made modern life miraculous by historical standards, as demonstrated by the unprecedented medical response to the COVID-19 pandemic. What made this possible? What's the best way to ensure future innovation in the treatment of viruses like COVID-19, and of other diseases like hepatitis, diabetes, and cancer?This live podcast explores the legal rules and institutions best-suited to promote the development and commercialization of new drugs and vaccines. One key question is whether to use a prize or patent system to incentivize drug development. Another is whether consumers pay twice for patented drugs developed using funding from the National Institutes of Health. Experts debate these questions and discuss the the legal, economic, and policy considerations at play for efforts to promote new medical innovation.Featuring:- David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown University- Brian O'Shaughnessy, Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP and Past President, Licensing Executives Society, USA & Canada- [Moderator] Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Prof. Colleen Flood discusses the legalities around requiring health care workers to be vaccinated against the virus that causes COVID-19, both at the employer or hospital level and at the provincial government level. Colleen Flood is a professor in the faculty of law and the inaugural director of the Centre for Health Law Policy & Ethics, both at the University of Ottawa. She co-authored, with Prof. Bryan Thomas and Dr. Kumanan Wilson, an analysis article published in CMAJ. It's titled "Mandatory vaccination for health care workers: an analysis of law and policy." To read the analysis article published in CMAJ: www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.202755 ----------------------------------- This podcast episode is brought to you by Audi Canada. The Canadian Medical Association has partnered with Audi Canada to offer CMA members a preferred incentive on select vehicle models. Purchase any new qualifying Audi model and receive an additional cash incentive based on the purchase type. Details of the incentive program can be found at www.audiprofessional.ca. ----------------------------------- Subscribe to CMAJ Podcasts on Apple Podcasts, iTunes, Google Play, Stitcher, Overcast, Instacast, or your favourite aggregator. You can also follow us directly on our SoundCloud page or you can visit www.cmaj.ca/page/multimedia/podcasts.

GUEST: Michael Wolfson - Former assistant chief statistician at Statistics Canada and a member of the Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics at the University of Ottawa   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Listen to today's episode of The Marketplace of Ideas to hear Robert Jerry, Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor Emeritus of Law at University of Missouri School of Law, and David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy at Georgetown University Law Center, discuss Professor Jerry's recent article on "COVID-19: Responsibility and Accountability in a World of Rationing" in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences.  Robert H. Jerry, II is the Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor of Law-Emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Law. From 1998 to 2003, he held the Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professorship at the University of Missouri School of Law. From 2003 to 2014, he served as dean of the University of Florida Levin College of Law, where he also held the Levin Mabie and Levin Professorship (through 2015). He returned to MU Law as the Isidor Loeb Professor of Law in 2015, a position he held until his retirement on September 1, 2019 as the Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor-Emeritus. At the University of Missouri School of Law, he has been affiliated with the Center for Dispute Resolution as a Senior Fellow since 2003. As an emeritus faculty member, he maintains an active research agenda. He received his JD from the University of Michigan Law School, where he was a member of the Michigan Law Review, and his undergraduate degree from Indiana State University. Dr. David Hyman focuses his research and writing on the regulation and financing of health care. He teaches or has taught health care regulation, civil procedure, insurance, medical malpractice, law & economics, professional responsibility, and tax policy. He is the author of dozens of scholarly articles in leading legal and medical journals, and several books including Overcharged: Why Americans Pay Too Much For Health Care published by the Cato Institute in 2018 and co-authored with Charles Silver, and the Economics of Health Law published by Edward Elgar in 2016 and co-authored with Ronen Avraham and Charles Silver. Hyman received his BA, JD and MD from the University of Chicago. 

In the fourth episode in a special series on Flourishing, we spoke with Dr. Zoe Ragouzeos, the Executive Director of Counseling and Wellness Services at New York University and president of the Mary Christie Foundation, and Dr. Sarah Lipson, assistant professor in the Department of Health Law Policy and Management at the Boston University School of Public Health and co-Principal Investigator of the national Healthy Minds Study. Drs. Ragouzeos and Lipson discuss the importance of expanding communities of support for college students, and the role that faculty can play in responding to student wellbeing concerns. This series is based on the report, “Creating Environments for Flourishing” released by the Mary Christie Foundation and Georgetown University.

As drugmakers race to develop a vaccine against the coronavirus, several legal questions are emerging: could the government require people to get it? Could people who refuse to roll up their sleeves get banned from stores or lose their jobs? The short answer is yes, according to Dov Fox, a law professor and the director of the Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics at the University of San Diego. Support the show: https://paypal.me/waynedupree

As drugmakers race to develop a vaccine against the coronavirus, several legal questions are emerging: could the government require people to get it? Could people who refuse to roll up their sleeves get banned from stores or lose their jobs? The short answer is yes, according to Dov Fox, a law professor and the director of the Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics at the University of San Diego.

As our nation battles the COVID-19 pandemic, our president’s response and leadership is being tested. Ventilators are in short supply, hospitals across the states are in desperate need of masks, supplies, tests, and beds, and governors across the country have been hitting the airwaves pleading for assistance from the federal government. So, what are the respective roles of the federal government and the state governments in a time of crisis? On today’s Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Robert L. Tsai, constitutional law professor at the American University College of Law, and professor Glenn Cohen, faculty director at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics at Harvard Law School, as they explore the concepts of federalism and states’ rights, the tug of war between the governors and the president over COVID-19, leadership during a crisis, and the constitutional underpinnings. Special thanks to our sponsors, Blue J Legal.

As our nation battles the COVID-19 pandemic, our president’s response and leadership is being tested. Ventilators are in short supply, hospitals across the states are in desperate need of masks, supplies, tests, and beds, and governors across the country have been hitting the airwaves pleading for assistance from the federal government. So, what are the respective roles of the federal government and the state governments in a time of crisis? On today’s Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Robert L. Tsai, constitutional law professor at the American University College of Law, and professor Glenn Cohen, faculty director at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics at Harvard Law School, as they explore the concepts of federalism and states’ rights, the tug of war between the governors and the president over COVID-19, leadership during a crisis, and the constitutional underpinnings. Special thanks to our sponsors, Blue J Legal.

Governments at all levels are figuring out how to make sure sick people are treated and that coronavirus doesn’t spread. Some experts are now drawing attention to possible regulatory reforms (https://www.rstreet.org/2020/03/18/small-regulatory-reforms-that-can-help-people-during-the-pandemic/), as early reports suggested that federal agencies may have prevented private testing for COVID-19 before slowly issuing approval.Others are calling for state-level reforms, such as changes to occupational licensing requirements. Existing occupational licensing laws arguably restrict medical professionals, including nurses and pharmacists, from practicing to the full scope of their training by limiting what duties they can take on and making nurses practice under doctor supervision. Licenses rarely transfer across state lines. This means that qualified doctors in one state cannot practice in other states, severely restricting their ability to provide telehealth services to potential patients. Advocates posit that these doctors should be allowed to prioritize the most pressing cases on telehealth. Many states have implemented emergency reforms regarding these issues to help prevent physician burnout and make sure medical professionals can focus their energies where needed.Municipal-level reforms are also being discussed as vital to avoid penalizing residents for acting responsibly. In many localities, working from home requires the worker to overcome regulatory requirements. Some view this as generally unwise but are now drawing even greater attention to the topic because Americans are being urged to stay inside.Further, while some regulations like parking limits make perfect sense in normal times, is suspending such rules worth considering in the current environment? This episode will discuss these issues and more.Featuring:- David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown University- Roger Klein, Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science & Innovation, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law- Shoshana Weissmann, Senior Manager of Digital Media and Fellow, R Street InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Governments at all levels are figuring out how to make sure sick people are treated and that coronavirus doesn’t spread. Some experts are now drawing attention to possible regulatory reforms (https://www.rstreet.org/2020/03/18/small-regulatory-reforms-that-can-help-people-during-the-pandemic/), as early reports suggested that federal agencies may have prevented private testing for COVID-19 before slowly issuing approval.Others are calling for state-level reforms, such as changes to occupational licensing requirements. Existing occupational licensing laws arguably restrict medical professionals, including nurses and pharmacists, from practicing to the full scope of their training by limiting what duties they can take on and making nurses practice under doctor supervision. Licenses rarely transfer across state lines. This means that qualified doctors in one state cannot practice in other states, severely restricting their ability to provide telehealth services to potential patients. Advocates posit that these doctors should be allowed to prioritize the most pressing cases on telehealth. Many states have implemented emergency reforms regarding these issues to help prevent physician burnout and make sure medical professionals can focus their energies where needed.Municipal-level reforms are also being discussed as vital to avoid penalizing residents for acting responsibly. In many localities, working from home requires the worker to overcome regulatory requirements. Some view this as generally unwise but are now drawing even greater attention to the topic because Americans are being urged to stay inside.Further, while some regulations like parking limits make perfect sense in normal times, is suspending such rules worth considering in the current environment? This episode will discuss these issues and more.Featuring:- David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown University- Roger Klein, Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science & Innovation, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law- Shoshana Weissmann, Senior Manager of Digital Media and Fellow, R Street InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Host: Maurice Pickard, MD Guest: Dov Fox Reproductive negligence occurs in three major areas: deprived pregnancy or parenthood, imposed pregnancy, and confounded efforts. Joining Dr. Maurice Pickard to explain each of those areas—and why there’s such a controversy surrounding them—is Dov Fox, a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law where he directs the Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics.

Host: Maurice Pickard, MD Guest: Dov Fox Reproductive negligence occurs in three major areas: deprived pregnancy or parenthood, imposed pregnancy, and confounded efforts. Joining Dr. Maurice Pickard to explain each of those areas—and why there’s such a controversy surrounding them—is Dov Fox, a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law where he directs the Center for Health Law Policy and Bioethics.

I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law and faculty director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics at Harvard Law School, delivers an interesting overview of the many and varied ethical issues that pertain to new and emerging technologies. Professor Cohen is a noted expert on the nexus of bioethics (often referred to as ‘medical ethics') and the law, inclusive of the health law. Cohen is also heavily involved in the education opportunities regarding the civil procedure. Cohen has spoken at countless legal, medical, and industry conferences at spots all across the globe. His celebrated work has been featuredin or covered by, numerous media outlets including PBS, ABC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, The NewYork Times, Mother Jones, the New Republic, and many more. Cohen talks about his extensive background and training in law and medical ethics, as well as philosophy. Cohen's expertise covers a wide swath of subject matter, from artificial intelligence and healthcare to gene editing, organ transplantation, food and drug law, translational medicine, and others. Cohen talks about artificial intelligence, machine learning, and neural net applications as they relate to predictive medical applications and decision-making specifications for patient care. Cohen expands our understanding in the areas of pattern recognition as it relates to medical applications, and how algorithms must adapt to differing variables, for example, the differences between people such as racial makeup, citing a specific example about breast density and mammograms. He explains that the algorithm training data must accommodate all the options and variables in order to produce successful outcomes/results. And he discusses privacy issues as they relate to data. The Harvard professor details electronic health records, and how some physicians are experiencing burnout with the input of data, and how it is critical that data be input accurately and thoroughly in order for viable medical information to be helpful. He discusses reproduction, cloning, and some other issues related to genes within the context of technology. Cohen delves into gene editing further, discussing a particular case in China. Cohen explains that there was no real medical need for the gene edit and that caused quite a stir.Cohen talks about other use cases, and where things will go in the gene-editing world, and how regulations surrounding gene editing will perhaps become more relaxed if the benefits are justified. Cohen states that in the future we will probably see more debate about what is acceptable and what is not, in regard to gene editing. While there is clear prohibition right now, things could change as more scientists around the globe push the envelope.

In this episode, Matthew Lawrence, Assistant Professor of Law at Pennsylvania State University Dickinson Law School and affiliate of the Harvard Law Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics, discusses his article "The Social Consequences Problem in Health Insurance and How to Solve It," forthcoming in the Harvard Law & Policy Review. Lawrence begins by defining the social consequences problem in health insurance, in that a combination of economic, emotional, and social consequences combine to provide additional stresses on patients and their loved ones. He details how the status quo of medical coverage, where patients must pay co-pays and deductibles out of pocket directly to medical providers, creates perverse incentives for providers who now hold a status of both practitioner and bill collector. He provides an account of how the legal environment of healthcare coverage developed and discusses potential solutions and their challenges to the social consequences problem. And he concludes by discussing what insurers, providers, and policymakers should take away when trying to address this issue. Lawrence is on Twitter at @mjblawrence.This episode was hosted by Luce Nguyen, a college student and the co-founder of the Oberlin Policy Research Institute, an undergraduate public policy research organization at Oberlin College. Nguyen is on Twitter at @NguyenLuce. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

When humanities scholars talk about exploring and pursuing "alt-ac" and "post-ac" careers, two concerns often dominate the conversation: 1) Graduate studies in the humanities don't prepare us for or aren't relevant to non-academic career paths, and 2) We don't know where to look for or how to apply for non-academic jobs. Whether you are a scholar thinking about non-academic careers or a faculty member interested in supporting students engaged in such searches, join our panel of career services experts to discuss the many careers that are open to - and even looking for! - people with advanced training in the humanities. Panelists will discuss existing resources and where to find them, as well as ways that departments, universities, and professional organizations like the AAR can better support scholars in non-academic careers. Panelists: Amy Defibaugh, Assistant Director, Academic Affairs, Temple University - Susan Lawler, Director of Career Services, Harvard Divinity School - Brooke Noonan, Executive Director, UChicagoGRAD Experience, University of Chicago - Susannah Laramee Kidd, Mellon-ACLS Public Fellow, Los Angeles County Arts Commission Presiding: Cristine Hutchinson-Jones, Administrative Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics Harvard Law School This session was recorded on November 19, 2017 at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion in Boston, Massachusetts.

Health spending continues to outpace wages and GDP, while some new insurance designs transfer greater shares of that to patients’ own out of pocket costs. In this talk co-hosted with the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School, Dr. John Freedman, President & CEO of Freedman HealthCare discusses what is driving health care costs up, who is benefiting, and how data is harnessed to study problems and remedy them. More info on this event here: https://cyber.harvard.edu/events/2018/luncheon/02/Freedman

A companion to our last episode, which focused on what students can do to prepare for nonacademic careers, this podcast highlights how religious studies faculty and graduate programs can create a variety of career paths for their students. In recent years as the job market for tenure-track academic positions has tightened and the use of contingent faculty has exploded, increasing numbers of graduate degree seekers are intending to pursue nonacademic careers. While some areas of study present obvious nonacademic options, for scholars in the humanities, nonacademic career opportunities and the best preparation for them may not be obvious and religious studies faculty are exploring how graduate programs can—and should—prepare all alumni for multiple employment outcomes. This panel brings together faculty members from a variety of institutions to discuss some of the problems confronting their students and their programs as more people turn—by necessity and by choice—to nonacademic career paths. Panelists: - Cristine Hutchison-Jones, Administrative Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School - Martin Kavka, Professor of Religion, Florida State University - Stephen Prothero, Professor of Religion, Boston University - Kathryn McClymond, Professor of Religious Studies, Georgia State University - Sarah E. Fredericks, Assistant Professor of Environmental Ethics, University of Chicago Divinity School This panel discussion was recorded during the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion on November 20, in San Antonio, Texas.

Worried about the job market? Thinking that a career in higher ed no longer matches your interests and goals? Or just wondering about options? The panelists in this discussion hold or are working on masters and doctoral degrees in a variety of religious studies and theology programs and talk about fields including: publishing and editing; freelance writing; nonprofits and foundations; government; religious communities; academic administration; and more. They discuss their own experiences of exploring nonacademic career options in the context of their graduate studies, and they suggest the ways faculty, departments, and the AAR might better support scholars as they consider careers beyond the academy. An insightful Q&A with the audience follows. Panelists: – Cristine Hutchison-Jones, Administrative Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School – Jana Riess, writer and editor – J. Shawn Landres, Los Angeles County Quality and Productivity Commission and City of Santa Monica Social Services Commission – Natasha Mikles, PhD candidate, University of Virginia – Andrew Henry, PhD candidate, Boston University – Peter Manseau, Lilly Endowment Curator of American Religious History at the National Museum of American History – Robert N. Puckett, Director of Meetings at the American Academy of Religion This panel discussion was recorded during the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion on November 20, in San Antonio, Texas.

Missouri legislature has recently passed two bills that change the way health insurance is managed in our state. These changes have been a long time coming and finally put Missouri on par with many other states. For this episode, we are joined by Sidney Watson, the Jane and Bruce Robert Professor in the SLU LAW Center for Health Law Studies. Professor Watson teaches Health Law Policy and Advocacy where she empowers her students to enable change in Missouri legislation.

This week we're learning about the regulatory frameworks that try to balance scientific progress with the safety of research subjects. We'll speak to Holly Fernandez Lynch and I. Glenn Cohen of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School about their book "Human Subjects Research Regulation: Perspectives on the Future." And we'll speak to health journalist and editor Hilda Bastian about research, journalism, ethics and "The Chocolate Hoax."

Prof. Holly Lynch is the Executive Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Managing Editor of the Journal. H.F. Lynch. Discrimination at the Doctor's Office. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1668-70.

The New England Compounding Center (NECC) shipped out tainted steroid shots to 23 states in what authorities believe resulted in a national fungal meningitis outbreak. Lawyer2Lawyer host Craig Williams chats with Attorney Michael F. Barrett, a personal injury attorney from the firm, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, PC and Glenn Cohen, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School, about the litigation stemming from this meningitis scare, the role of the FDA and CDC and regulation.