Accomodating Racism in Hospitals

The Hurley Medical Center in Flint, Michigan is being sued for accommodating the request made by a parent that no African Americans tend to his newborn. The father, who allegedly sported a swastika tattoo, alerted a nurse that blacks were not to care for his baby.

To comply with the father’s request, nurse Tonya Battle, who was caring for the child in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) of the hospital was removed or reassigned from tending to the child.  A news video reporting on the incident can be found here. Battle is now suing the hospital.  According to her lawsuit, hospital staff complied with the father’s demand, posting a note next to the baby’s name on the assignment clipboard: “No African American nurse to take care of baby.”

Nurse Battle’s lawsuit claims that she was deeply shocked and offended–she’s worked for at the hospital for 25 years.  Professor Kimani Paul-Emile writes that such requests–based on race or ethnicity–are not unusual at U.S. hospitals and medical clinics.  See her article, Patients’ Racial Preferences and the Medical Culture of Accommodation, which is published in the U.C.L.A. Law Review here.  However, such instances of using racial preferences in the medical setting raise questions about the permissibility of such practices–not only as a legal matter, but also as matters of health and bioethics.  Some patients believe that the quality of their care is enhanced when provided by someone represented by their ethnic group; some even fear that their healthcare is compromised when delivered by medical staff outside of their ethnic group.  Should the law tolerate these forms of discrimination?  What about if racial perceptions have a positive placebo effect?  Post a comment.

The High Cost of Health Care: Why Some Pay $240 for a $9 Bottle of Pills

By Jonathan J. Darrow

An earlier post discussed the equivocal efficacy of Propecia (finasteride) as a baldness remedy, ending with the provocative assertion that, efficacy aside, “there is little reason for anyone ever to buy or consume Propecia (finasteride), or any doctor ever to prescribe it, since a much cheaper and identical chemical sold under the trade name Proscar (finasteride), is available.” This post continues the discussion, addressing one small component of the rising cost of healthcare—the cost of finasteride.  It explores why consumers pay as much as $240 for a bottle of Propecia (finasteride) when a $9 bottle of an equivalent, FDA-approved supply of the identical chemical is readily and legally available at nearby stores.

In the exorbitantly priced landscape of prescription drugs, there is at least one low-cost oasis: Wal*Mart.  Though some find reason to criticize the discount store, few would disapprove of the dozens of prescription medications Wal*Mart offers for an unbeatable $4 for a 30-day supply.  Cost-sensitive consumers can purchase everything from blood thinners to antidepressants to antibiotics at this price, while a 90-day supply is only $10 (and this price includes shipping to your doorstep).  A handful of drugs that cannot be sold at $4 per month sell for a still-modest $9.  For the 300 or so drugs on Wal*Mart’s list, this means there is no longer a need for $10 co-pays or snowy treks to the pharmacy in 15 degree weather.  That’s right: the Wal*Mart total price is less than most insurance company co-pays.  Finally, a major industry player seems to have put effective downward pressure on prescription drug prices.  Continue reading

HLS Health Law and Policy Workshop: Professor Michele Goodwin on Fetal Protection Laws: Moral Panic & The New Constitutional Battlefront

The Petrie-Flom Center at Harvard Law School is pleased to announce the continuation of this year’s Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics Workshop. We’re delighted again to welcome a stellar lineup of leading researchers and opinion-makers in fields at the intersection of health and law.  Professors Einer Elhauge and Glenn Cohen lead the 2012-13 workshop series.

The workshop’s next presenter is Bill of Health’s very own blogger: Michele Goodwin, Everett Fraser Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota School of Law (rescheduled from October 29, 2012).   She  will be presenting her paper “Fetal Protection Laws: Moral Panic & The New Constitutional Battlefront” on Monday, February 18th. A PDF of the paper is available here.

Workshops are held on selected Monday evenings, from 5-7 pm in Hauser Hall, room 105. Workshops are open to the public and copies of papers will generally be posted a week in advance on the Petrie-Flom Website.

Worth Reading This Week

By Nicolas Terry