CFP: CLE/CEU symposium on outstanding challenges in healthcare reform implementation

With the help of Medica Health Plans, the Health Law Institute at Hamline University School of Law and the Hamline Law Review seek proposals for presentations and papers for our all-day CLE/CEU Symposium that will examine the outstanding challenges confronting the implementation of healthcare reform.  The Symposium will take place on Friday, October 24, 2014, at Hamline University’s main campus in Saint Paul, Minnesota.

Anyone interested in speaking at the Symposium and/or publishing in the Hamline Law Review’s Symposium issue should submit both a CV and a 500-word abstract to healthlaw@hamline.edu by April 15, 2014.  While the primary focus of the presentation or paper need not be Minnesota-specific, please explain the regional relevance of your topic and thesis.

Additional information can be found here. Please feel free to share this information with anyone you think may be interested.

Global Health Governance: Call for Submissions

Global Health Governance will be publishing a special issue on a proposed Framework Convention on Global Health (FCGH) in December 2014. The proposal for an FCGH would create a new international framework, grounded in the international human right to health, that would support health at the national and global levels.

For this FCGH special issue, Global Health Governance invites submission of theoretical and empirical policy research articles that examine and analyze how the FCGH could improve health through improved governance and realization of the right to health. We have particular interest in articles on: Continue reading

DUE MONDAY: Call for Abstracts for Petrie-Flom Center 2014 Annual Conference

The Petrie-Flom Center invites abstracts for its 2014 Annual Conference: “Behavioral Economics, Law, and Health Policy.” The conference will be held at Harvard Law School on May 2 and 3, 2014, and seeks to address the following questions:

  • Are there features unique to health and health care that prevent individuals, groups, and policymakers from making the best decisions?  What is a “best” decision, i.e., whose perspective should be paramount?
  • What types of barriers exist to rational decision making in the health care context, and what does rational decision making look like here?
  • Is exploitation of framing effects, default rules, nudges, and other elements of choice architecture appropriate when it comes to human health, or is this an area where pure autonomy should reign – or perhaps strong paternalism is needed? Is health policy special?
  • What should policymakers do when there is conflict between outcomes that might be good for individuals but not society more generally, and vice versa?  Where should the nudges push?
  • Which areas of health law, bioethics, and biotechnology policy are most amenable or resistant to manipulation of choice architecture?  When nudges are not plausible, what is the best way to overcome bounded rationality?
  • When might behavioral economics lead to the wrong results for health law, bioethics, and biotechnology policy?
  • How can manipulations of choice architecture be best evaluated empirically, and what ethical concerns might such research raise?
  • What are the most interesting or compelling health law, bioethics, and biotechnology policy nudges we should be thinking about today in the realms of obesity, organ donation, end-of-life care, biospecimen ownership and research, human subjects research, HIV testing, vaccination, health insurance, and other areas?

Please note that this list is not meant to be at all exhaustive; we hope to receive papers related to the conference’s general theme but not specifically listed here.

Calls for abstracts are due by December 2, 2013.

For a full conference description, including the call for abstracts and registration information, please visit our website.

Behavioral Economics for Health Law

This year, the PFC’s annual conference will focus on “Behavioral Economics, Law, and Health Policy” (the call for abstracts deadline is next week).   Apropos, last week, Reuters featured a story by Jill Priluck “The Overselling of Behavioral Economics,” which itself seems to be a press release for a new article by NYU’s Rick Pildes and Ryan Bubb, called “How Behavioral Economics Trims its Sails and Why.”  In several fields, including consumer finance, Pildes and Bubb chronicle examples where policymakers tried to put behavioral economics principles into practice, and seem to have failed to produce desired results or have caused unintended consequences.  Some of their examples are controversial (in terms of both the interventions tried and the success of the outcomes), but those points are best addressed by the experts in those fields.

As health law considers its relationship to behavioral economics, I think a larger point is in order.  Allow me to be provocative: there is no such thing as behavioral economics.

Instead, the core of what we have called “behavioral economics” is just a set of observations (usually from lab experiments) where idealized and assumption-laden economic models have failed to actually predict human behavior.  At least at this stage of its development, behavioral economics is best understood as a negative project, not a positive one.   Of course, we do put labels on those documented failures like “regret aversion” or “social norming” or “optimism bias,” and it is then tempting to make things out of those labels.  Instead, when the limits of those simplistic economic models are found, that should simply return social scientists and policymakers to a domain of open-minded common sense about how people will actually behave when we take them outside the lab and try to regulate them.

While the behavioral economics literature does provide its own theoretical frameworks, which can generate new hypotheses, the best teaching of behavioral economics is simply fallibilism and empiricism.  That is why the “Nudge Unit” (aka Behavioral Insights Team) in the United Kingdom has prioritized the use of randomized experimentation to evaluate every “nudge” that it tries, and the sister initiative here in the United States is doing likewise.  I am optimistic of that approach.

DUE IN ONE WEEK: Call for Abstracts for Petrie-Flom Center 2014 Annual Conference

The Petrie-Flom Center invites abstracts for its 2014 Annual Conference: “Behavioral Economics, Law, and Health Policy.” The conference will be held at Harvard Law School on May 2 and 3, 2014, and seeks to address the following questions:

  • Are there features unique to health and health care that prevent individuals, groups, and policymakers from making the best decisions?  What is a “best” decision, i.e., whose perspective should be paramount?
  • What types of barriers exist to rational decision making in the health care context, and what does rational decision making look like here?
  • Is exploitation of framing effects, default rules, nudges, and other elements of choice architecture appropriate when it comes to human health, or is this an area where pure autonomy should reign – or perhaps strong paternalism is needed? Is health policy special?
  • What should policymakers do when there is conflict between outcomes that might be good for individuals but not society more generally, and vice versa?  Where should the nudges push?
  • Which areas of health law, bioethics, and biotechnology policy are most amenable or resistant to manipulation of choice architecture?  When nudges are not plausible, what is the best way to overcome bounded rationality?
  • When might behavioral economics lead to the wrong results for health law, bioethics, and biotechnology policy?
  • How can manipulations of choice architecture be best evaluated empirically, and what ethical concerns might such research raise?
  • What are the most interesting or compelling health law, bioethics, and biotechnology policy nudges we should be thinking about today in the realms of obesity, organ donation, end-of-life care, biospecimen ownership and research, human subjects research, HIV testing, vaccination, health insurance, and other areas?

Please note that this list is not meant to be at all exhaustive; we hope to receive papers related to the conference’s general theme but not specifically listed here.

Abstracts are due by December 2, 2013.

For a full conference description, including the call for abstracts and registration information, please visit our website.

Call for Abstracts, Petrie-Flom Center 2014 Annual Conference

The Petrie-Flom Center invites abstracts for its 2014 Annual Conference: “Behavioral Economics, Law, and Health Policy.” The conference will be held at Harvard Law School on May 2 and 3, 2014, and seeks to address the following questions:

  • Are there features unique to health and health care that prevent individuals, groups, and policymakers from making the best decisions?  What is a “best” decision, i.e., whose perspective should be paramount?
  • What types of barriers exist to rational decision making in the health care context, and what does rational decision making look like here?
  • Is exploitation of framing effects, default rules, nudges, and other elements of choice architecture appropriate when it comes to human health, or is this an area where pure autonomy should reign – or perhaps strong paternalism is needed? Is health policy special?
  • What should policymakers do when there is conflict between outcomes that might be good for individuals but not society more generally, and vice versa?  Where should the nudges push?
  • Which areas of health law, bioethics, and biotechnology policy are most amenable or resistant to manipulation of choice architecture?  When nudges are not plausible, what is the best way to overcome bounded rationality?
  • When might behavioral economics lead to the wrong results for health law, bioethics, and biotechnology policy?
  • How can manipulations of choice architecture be best evaluated empirically, and what ethical concerns might such research raise?
  • What are the most interesting or compelling health law, bioethics, and biotechnology policy nudges we should be thinking about today in the realms of obesity, organ donation, end-of-life care, biospecimen ownership and research, human subjects research, HIV testing, vaccination, health insurance, and other areas?

Please note that this list is not meant to be at all exhaustive; we hope to receive papers related to the conference’s general theme but not specifically listed here.

Abstracts are due by December 2, 2013.

For a full conference description, including the call for abstracts and registration information, please visit our website.

CFP: Perspectives on Abortion, Assisted Reproductive Technologies, and Judicial Review

Call for Papers: Intersections in Reproduction:

Perspectives on Abortion, Assisted Reproductive Technologies,

and Judicial Review

Abortion and reproductive technologies have historically occupied separate realms in law, policy, and academia. In spite of some obvious and natural overlap, scholarship exploring the relationship between abortion and assisted reproduction is sparse. In 2014, Judith Daar (Whittier Law School) and Kimberly Mutcherson (Rutgers Law-Camden) will co-guest edit an issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics devoted to articles reflecting on this relationship. JLME is a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

The guest editors are open to a wide range of scholarship from authors steeped in various aspects of reproductive justice, reproductive rights and reproductive technologies who can explore the future of assisted reproduction and abortion as matters of scholarly concern and legal regulation, especially when viewed as part of a larger movement for reproductive rights and reproductive justice. The term reproductive technologies should be interpreted broadly in this context to go beyond IVF and include a range of techniques used in conjunction with assisted methods of conception.

Questions papers might choose to tackle include, but are in no way limited to:

Continue reading

Conference Announcement and Call for Abstracts, 2014 Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference

The Petrie-Flom Center has released the description and call for abstracts for its 2014 Annual Conference: “Behavioral Economics, Law, and Health Policy.” The conference will be held at Harvard Law School on May 2 and 3, 2014, and seeks to address the following questions:

  • Are there features unique to health and health care that prevent individuals, groups, and policymakers from making the best decisions?  What is a “best” decision, i.e., whose perspective should be paramount?
  • What types of barriers exist to rational decision making in the health care context, and what does rational decision making look like here?
  • Is exploitation of framing effects, default rules, nudges, and other elements of choice architecture appropriate when it comes to human health, or is this an area where pure autonomy should reign – or perhaps strong paternalism is needed? Is health policy special?
  • What should policymakers do when there is conflict between outcomes that might be good for individuals but not society more generally, and vice versa?  Where should the nudges push?
  • Which areas of health law, bioethics, and biotechnology policy are most amenable or resistant to manipulation of choice architecture?  When nudges are not plausible, what is the best way to overcome bounded rationality?
  • When might behavioral economics lead to the wrong results for health law, bioethics, and biotechnology policy?
  • How can manipulations of choice architecture be best evaluated empirically, and what ethical concerns might such research raise?
  • What are the most interesting or compelling health law, bioethics, and biotechnology policy nudges we should be thinking about today in the realms of obesity, organ donation, end-of-life care, biospecimen ownership and research, human subjects research, HIV testing, vaccination, health insurance, and other areas?

Please note that this list is not meant to be at all exhaustive; we hope to receive papers related to the conference’s general theme but not specifically listed here.

Abstracts are due by December 2, 2013.

For a full conference description, including the call for abstracts and registration information, please visit our website.

Call for Papers on “Buying and Selling Health Care”

The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics plans to publish a symposium issue in Winter 2014 exploring ethical, legal, and clinical issues triggered by the increasing commercialization of health care in the United States. The symposium will address a variety of dynamics present in this quintessentially American medical marketplace, with a particular focus on how commercialism impacts practitioners, patients, and policy makers at all levels.

Papers from any perspective or disciplinary background and concerning any aspect of the “buying and selling of health care” are welcome.

Deadlines and submission instructions below the fold.

Continue reading

Call for Papers: “Applied Feminism and Health”

The University of Baltimore School of Law’s Center on Applied Feminism seeks submissions for its Seventh Annual Feminist Legal Theory Conference.  This year’s theme is “Applied Feminism and Health.”  The conference will be held on March 6 and 7, 2014.  For more information about the conference, please visit law.ubalt.edu/caf.

With the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare) and renewed attacks on reproductive health in the United States, the time is right to consider the relationship between feminism and health across multiple dimensions.  This conference seeks to explore the intersections between feminist legal theory and physical, mental, public, and community health in the United States and abroad.  Papers might explore the following questions:  What impact has feminist legal theory had on women’s health policy and practice? How might feminist legal theory respond to the health challenges facing communities and individuals, as well as increase access to health care?  What sort of support should society and law provide to ensure good health?  How do law and feminist legal theory conceptualize the role of the state in relation to health rights and reproductive justice?  What are the links between health, feminist legal theory, and sports?  Are there rights to good health and what are their foundations?  How do health needs and conceptions of rights vary across cultural, economic, religious, and other identities?  What are the areas where health justice is needed and how might feminist legal theory help?

Continue reading

AALS Section on Law, Medicine & Health Care Call for Papers

2014 Annual Meeting Section Panel

Saturday, January 4, 2014, 2:00–3:45 p.m.

 Sustainability and Health

This panel will explore the effects of the environment on health in western nations and the role that sustainability initiatives play with regard to wellness. The panel will be interdisciplinary, broadly spanning topics in health, environmental, and animal law and policy as well as public health, land use, and urban planning. Possible topics include: the effects of urban planning on food access and obesity, the consequences of factory farming for human health, the effects of local and sustainable food movements on human health, the health impacts of environmental laws, the environmental impacts of health laws, and the link between ground water and air pollution and illness.

Interested speakers should submit an abstract of up to 300 words electronically by August 31, 2013 to: Ani B. Satz, Chair-Elect, AALS Section on Law, Medicine & Health Care,  asatz at law.emory.edu. Selected speakers will have the option of publishing original papers not committed for publication or in print prior to the Annual Meeting in a special issue of the peer reviewed Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

Call for Proposals: Frontiers of Informed Consent

3rd Annual Workshop in Applied Ethics

Northeastern University, Boston, MA, September 27-29, 2013 

Informed, autonomous consent is widely considered to be central to the ethics of human subjects research. However, it remains both conceptually and practically underspecified. A conceptually clear account of informed consent that is appropriate to the broad array of human subjects research, from medical to social science, has been elusive. Moreover, it has proven to be difficult to operationalize informed consent in practice. These challenges to the ethics of informed consent have been compounded by the globalization of research and rapid technological developments.

This interdisciplinary workshop will bring together practitioners and theorists at the leading edge of the ethics of informed consent to share their research and discuss the future of informed consent. The workshop is designed to be highly interactive, and to provide speakers with constructive feedback from colleagues working on related issues.

We invite the submission of abstracts (no more than 750 words) from researchers working on the theoretical and practical challenges of informed consent. Possible topics include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Conducting research on vulnerable populations
  • Conducting cross-cultural research
  • Conducting research in virtual environments
  • Informed consent and incidental health findings (MRI, genetic)
  • Community health research
  • Community-based participatory research and its challenges to traditional informed consent
  • Community research boards
  • Ethical issues in reporting data to participants
  • When IRBs confuse human subjects protection with research design
  • Genetic testing outside institutional contexts (e.g. mail order)
  • Theories/definitions of informed consent
  • Alternatives to informed consent for human subjects research
  • Theoretical/definitional work on informed consent and its role in human subjects research
  • Informed consent, parental/guardian responsibilities, and minors
  • Extending informed consent to nonhuman research subjects

Please email submissions (and questions) to Ronald Sandler (r.sandler@neu.edu).

The abstract submission deadline is May 1st, 2013. Abstracts will be reviewed by a program committee. Those selected for the program will be asked to submit completed papers one month prior to the workshop, and papers will be made available on the workshop website.  Papers can be of any length, but speakers will be limited to twenty-five minutes to present their ideas, followed by thirty minutes of discussion. For more information about the workshop go to http://www.northeastern.edu/ethics/. This workshop is sponsored by Northeastern’s Ethics Institute, Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute, and Department of Philosophy and Religion.

Call for Abstracts on Research Methods for Evaluating Patient Health Outcomes in Rare Diseases

The Effective Health Care Program within the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality is accepting abstract submissions for a journal supplement on research methods for evaluating patient health outcomes in rare diseases. The proposed supplement will focus on innovative patient-centered health outcomes research methodology and its application to rare diseases or drugs/devices used to treat such patients.  Topics areas of interest include:

1. Rare disease patients’ health outcomes in clinical trials, including outcomes arising from novel trial designs, such as adaptive clinical trials or n-of-1 trials

2. Emerging data sources for observational research on rare disease patients’ health outcomes, including the process of data aggregation and building disease registries or federated data networks

3. Novel analytic methods for observational research and prospective observational monitoring for rare disease patients’ health outcomes

4. Integrating stakeholder involvement in assessing rare disease patient health outcomes, particularly studies that describe or test how patient-centered health outcomes can be applied to enhance the development or evaluation of therapeutics for rare diseases

5. Economic, regulatory, ethical, legal, and social issues related to the study of rare disease health outcomes.  Authors may present empirical data or seek to collaborate in developing consensus statements outlining basic principles in these areas.

Proposals for original research articles and insightful reviews will be given highest priority.  Submissions are encouraged from authors with expertise in a broad range of study designs and from across multiple disciplines, including authors with methodological expertise in clinical trials, health outcomes studies, health services research, health policy, biostatistics, epidemiology, social science, and qualitative research.  The selected authors will be invited to submit a complete manuscript for peer-review and publication in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, a widely indexed journal with an international audience among practicing clinicians and general medical researchers. Abstract submissions are due by May 31, 2013.

More information and the submission form are available on the Effective Health Care Web site at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/call-for-abstracts-rare-diseases/

Effective Health Care Program
http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov

Call for Abstracts: 2013 Health Law Scholars Workshop

The Center for Health Law Studies at Saint Louis University and the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics (ASLME) are pleased to announce the 2013 Health Law Scholars Workshop. The Health Law Scholars Workshop is a collegial forum in which junior faculty who are new to health law and bioethics scholarship present works-in-progress and receive in-depth advice from experienced scholars and teachers in the field of health law and bioethics. The workshop encourages health and bioethics scholarship, fosters the professional development of emerging scholars and furthers the sense of community among health law academics. The full brochure may be found here.

A nominating committee selects the papers to be presented at the workshop. The committee looks for papers that have an original thesis and will contribute to scholarly literature. The workshop is designed primarily to provide feedback on articles intended for spring submission to law review journals. The workshop is not designed to review published work or papers already accepted for publication.

Those interested in presenting a health law or bioethics work-in-progress at the Health Law Scholars Workshop should submit a 500-word abstract of the proposed paper together with a resumé to Cheryl Cooper ( ccoope22 at slu.edu) at Saint Louis University School of Law by April 1, 2013. Because a blind selection process is used, please do not include the author’s name or institutional affiliation on the abstract. Questions about the submission process should be directed to Prof. Sidney D. Watson at  watsons at slu.edu or 314-977-2751.

American Society for Bioethics and Humanities – Call for Proposals

The 2013 ASBH Call for Proposals is now open. Details regarding the call can be found on the ASBH homepage  www.asbh.org). There you will find a link to the abstract submission site as well as a PDF containing the submission guidelines, including instructions for the Student Paper Competition. Abstracts will be accepted until 4:00 pm (CST), March 4, 2013.

CFP: Symposium on Blinding as a Solution to Conflicts of Interest

When does less information result in better decisions?

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

A Multidisciplinary Symposium on Blinding as a Solution to Institutional Corruption

Symposium:  November 1-2, 2013
Proposal Deadline:  February 15, 2013

Harvard University

With the support of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, Christopher Robertson (James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona) and Aaron Kesselheim (Harvard Medical School) are organizing a multidisciplinary symposium to examine potential solutions to institutional corruption that use the strategy of concealing biasing information from decision makers.  The symposium will take place on November 1 and 2, 2013 at Harvard University.

This event is part of the Institutional Corruption Lab.  Larry Lessig (Safra Center Director and Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School) has defined ‘institutional corruption’ as the consequence of an influence within an economy of influence that illegitimately weakens the effectiveness of an institution especially by weakening the public trust of the institution.  The concept provides a more systematic approach to decision-making problems that can arise as a result of financial relationships and other conflicts of interest.

Institutional corruption may arise in many contexts, from medical research to forensic science, from political campaign finance to financial auditing.  There are many potential solutions to institutional corruption, but we are particularly interested in practical mechanisms that acknowledge the existence of potential influences, but prevent that biasing information from reaching a decision maker.  Such mechanisms may include blinding, masking, placebos, strategic ignorance, information aversion, veil of ignorance rules, blind trusts, walls of separation, or similar concepts.  We are interested in reviews of relevant literature, and new laboratory, empirical, historical, and theoretical research that explores the functions, modalities, costs, benefits, and limitations of concealing a source of information to improve decision making.   We are interested in established uses of blinding, and potential new applications.

We welcome contributions that have been previously published, as well works in progress.  We plan for this symposium to generate collaborative research opportunities, and anticipate publishing many of the presented works in an edited volume from a major academic book press or journal.

To apply, please send a one-page abstract describing your proposed contribution by February 15, 2013, as a PDF attachment, to Professors Robertson and Kesselheim ( chris.robertson at law.arizona.edu and  akesselheim at partners.org).  Include a link to or copy of your CV.  We encourage applications from newer scholars and practitioners, as well as those more established in their fields.  Travel stipends will be available for some speakers.  Please indicate whether you request such a stipend, and the likely origin of your travel.  Please also indicate whether you would be interested in publishing your contribution in the edited volume, pending further information.  The organizers also welcome preliminary inquiries about potential topics and approaches.

Here is a PDF of this Call for Proposals.  Feel free to circulate.

Today’s the Day – Abstracts Due for Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference

Last call! Abstracts for the Petrie-Flom Center’s annual conference – this year entitled “The Food and Drug Administration in the 21st Century” - are due today.  This one and a half day event will take place Friday and Saturday, May 3-4, 2013, at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

For further details, see the Call for Papers/Presentations.

Reminder: Abstracts for Petrie-Flom Annual Conference Due 12/14/12

Another reminder: abstracts for the Petrie-Flom Center’s annual conference – this year entitled “The Food and Drug Administration in the 21st Century” - are due one week from today, no later than December 14, 2012.  This one and a half day event will take place Friday and Saturday, May 3-4, 2013, at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

For further details, see the Call for Papers/Presentations.

Reminder: Abstracts for Petrie-Flom Annual Conference Due 12/10/12

Just a reminder, abstracts for the Petrie-Flom Center’s annual conference – this year entitled “The Food and Drug Administration in the 21st Century” - are due no later than December 10, 2012.  This one and a half day event will take place Friday and Saturday, May 3-4, 2013, at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

For further details, see the Call for Papers/Presentations.