Courts and health policy: judicial policy making and publicly funded health care in Canada

The 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provided political actors with the opportunity to make rights-based challenges to public policy decisions. Two challenges launched by providers and consumers of health care illuminate the impact of judicial review on health care policy and the institutional capacity of courts to formulate policy in this field. The significant impact of rights-based claims on cross-jurisdictional policy differences in a federal regime is noted.     

Claiming the Right to Health in Brazilian Courts: The Exclusion of the Already Excluded?

The aim of this article is to test a widespread belief among Brazilian legal scholars in the area of social rights, namely, the claim that courts are an alternative institutional voice for the poor, who are usually marginalized from the political process. According to this belief, social rights litigation would be a means (supposedly “a better means”) of realizing rights such as the right to health care, since supposedly both the wealthy and the poor have equal access to the courts. To probe the consistency of this belief, we analyzed the socioeconomic profiles of plaintiffs in the city of Sao Paulo (Brazil) who were granted access to specific medications or medical treatments by judicial decisions. In this study, the justiciability of social rights has not proven to be a means of rendering certain public services more democratic and accessible.     

The dilemmas of citizenship: Limitations on canadian legal rights

Since the entrenchment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian courts have been burdened with a disproportionate number of cases concerned with issues arising from the newly introduced legal rights. However, the transition from the Canadian crime-control model to the American-style due-process model is far from complete. The rights of the accused are consistently deemed to be secondary to the aim of reinforcing the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Canadians' legal rights will in fact remain limited as long as judges continue to decide cases on the basis of harm done to the justice system, rather than individuals and groups. An earlier version of this paper was presented at a joint session of the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association and the Canadian Law and Society Association, Leamed Societies Conference, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario; June 7, 1993. I thank attending colleagues for their useful feedback. I am also grateful for the comments of Piers Beime.     

Antitrust, health care quality, and the courts

Antitrust law represents the principal legal tool that the United States employs to police private markets, yet it often relegates quality and nonprice considerations to a secondary position. While antitrust law espouses the belief that vigorous competition will enhance quality as well as price, little evidence exists of the practical ability of courts to deliver on that promise. In this Article, Professors Hammer and Sage examine American health care as a vehicle for advancing understanding of the nexus among competition, quality, and antitrust law. The Article reports results of a comprehensive empirical review of judicial opinions in health care antitrust litigation between 1985 and 1999, with specific attention to courts' handling of quality and other nonprice concerns. Professors Hammer and Sage conclude that, although antitrust law cannot be expected to serve as the sole oversight mechanism for industries as complex and quality dependent as health care, courts have been successful incorporating some nonprice factors into antitrust analysis.     

Human rights and health law

Important statutory and common law developments are changing the landscape of health law in Australia. Human rights considerations are formally included amongst the factors to be applied in the interpretation of statutory provisions and evaluating the lawfulness of actions on the part of government instrumentalities. The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) create limited bills of rights at State/Territory level in two Australian jurisdictions. Although neither is entrenched, they have the potential to make it more difficult for government to promulgate laws that are inconsistent with human rights, as defined. They will have important repercussions for the evolution of health law in these jurisdictions. The decision of Royal Women's Hospital v Medical Practitioners Board (Vic) [2006] VSCA 85 by the Victorian Court of Appeal has also provided a legitimation for parties to incorporate human rights perspectives in submissions about the interpretation of statutory provisions where health rights are in conflict.     

The Hermeneutics of Jurisdiction in a Public Health Emergency in Canada

This paper investigates the state of the law in Canada in regards to a public health emergency, and in particular the jurisdictional logic that might come into effect were a public health emergency to occur. Although there has yet to be a national public health emergency in Canada, threats of such crises are likely to arise in the future. It is therefore recognised as necessary to address Canada’s legal preparedness for a public health emergency and evaluate proposed reforms to the legal structure that could facilitate response. This paper contributes to this goal by identifying multiple jurisdictional factors that could inform legal interpretations in a public health emergency. It considers how the legal system and the courts are dealing with public health as a national security issue (political and collective matter) while taking into account s. 7 of the Canadian Charter (individual rights). It also looks at the power of the government defined in the Emergencies Act [1985, c. 22] and a proposed legal reform that would make it easier for the government to act unilaterally in a public health emergency. The paper draws on the legal theory of Robert Cover to analyse the hermeneutics of jurisdiction that characterise legal interpretations of public health in Canada, as well as the relationship between jurisdiction and legal violence that these hermeneutics imply. It then develops a case study of the use of medical triage in a public health emergency to explore the possibility of holding the state liable under private law for harm caused to individuals by public health decisions. The paper concludes by suggesting that the state’s public health power can be conceptualised as a form of legal violence and that the courts in Canada should adopt a jurisgenerative approach to legal interpretation in the area of public health.     

Why Does the Federal Government Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter of Rights Cases? A Strategic Explanation

Despite the impressive body of scholarship dedicated to analyzing litigation involving the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Supreme Court of Canada, there remains an incomplete understanding of why these cases come to the Court. Notably absent from the literature is sustained analysis of why governments, the most frequent class of appellant, bring Charter cases to the Supreme Court. Recent work has addressed the decision to appeal by the U.S. federal government and state attorneys general and provides an excellent theoretical starting point. I use case data collected from interviews with federal government lawyers and law reports to test whether the Canadian federal government's decisions to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter cases are also "procedurally rational." I conclude that these decisions are primarily shaped by strategic considerations related to policy costs, case importance, reviewability, and the prospect of winning on appeal, regardless of the party in power. In the process, the article further extends the application of strategic decisionmaking theory with regard to law and courts beyond judicial behavior, and beyond the U.S. context.     

From tobacco to health care and beyond--a critique of lawsuits targeting unpopular industries.

The 1998 settlement between state Medicaid agencies and the five major tobacco companies heralded a new form of litigation in which individual or government plaintiffs allied with private class action attorneys use economic, political and moral leverage to extract huge settlements from entire industries. Beginning with several class action suits filed in late 1999 against managed care companies by aggrieved HMO enrollees, and continuing with government suits against the paint and handgun industries, this new form of litigation has become a powerful vehicle for plaintiffs to punish unpopular--but entirely legal--industries. In this Note, the author demonstrates that the popular appeal of these suits conceals legal theories of recovery that probably could not survive courtroom scrutiny. The author argues that the thin legal merits of these class action claims are often tolerated by courts, who urge settlement in order to clear their dockets, and by the industries, who regard settlement merely as a cost of doing business. The author concludes that the tobacco litigation and its progeny encourage citizens and the executive branches of government to seek restitution and fundamental social change in the courts after losing in the legislative arena, thus forcing the judiciary branches into the unwise and improper role of policymaker.     

Legal Opportunity Structures and the Paradox of Legal Mobilization by the Environmental Movement in the UK

This article examines the strategic legal activity of the environmental movement in the United Kingdom over the past twenty years. Environmental non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) have increasingly turned to the courts in pursuit of their policy goals, despite significant losses on substantive legal issues, difficulties gaining standing and high costs awarded against them under the “loser pays” system. This presents a puzzle: why does the movement continue to pursue legal action in the face of what activists claim is a hostile legal opportunity structure (LOS)? This study explores this seeming paradox using a single‐country, cross‐temporal comparative approach, an original dataset of legal cases taken by NGOs as well as qualitative case studies of strategic litigation. It highlights the agency the movement exhibits within opportunity structures and suggests that NGOs that use litigation are able to highlight the failings of the existing system and improve future access to justice for themselves and other groups.     

The Tide in Favour of Equality: Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and England and Wales

The tide in favour of legal equality for gay and lesbian individualsand couples continues to roll forward on both sides of the Atlantic.In Canada, the federal Parliament recently passed legislation(the Civil Marriage Act) (CMA) that extends the legal capacityto marry for civil purposes to same-sex couples throughout thecountry. This change in the law was driven not by the executiveand legislative branches of government but by the courts, interpretingand applying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (theCharter). On the other side of the Atlantic, in England andWales, the Westminster Parliament in 2004 passed legislation(the Civil Partnership Act) (CPA) that will enable same-sexcouples to obtain legal recognition of their relationships,and to access most of the legal rights and responsibilitiesoffered to married couples. However, unlike the Canadian legislation,civil marriages between same-sex couples will still not be legallyrecognized. This article considers whether the English courtswill also facilitate the legal recognition of same-sex civilmarriage, like their Canadian counterparts. The author concludesthat, in light of recent case law, there is an increasinglystrong argument that the opposite-sex marriage requirement inEngland and Wales violates Article 14 (the equality provision)of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which isincorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act, 1998. However,the author also concludes that there are a number of reasonsto be cautious that a positive result would flow, at this point,from a domestic court challenge to the opposite-sex marriagerequirement.     

Unfinished business: how litigation relates to health care regulation

"Regulation by litigation" is a recently recognized trend in American legal governance that develops differently in each economic sector it affects. In health care, widespread litigation can be viewed as the product of three partial transformations: incomplete industrialization, incomplete consumerism, and incomplete social solidarity. One can argue that the public turns to the courts because other actors who might exercise judgment and authority to resolve problems appear unreliable. Because litigation has several features at odds with sound health policy--including its cost, its hindsight bias, and its adversarial character--it may be necessary to develop new discretionary institutions to address specific questions that regulators cannot or will not answer.     

When special needs categories for exceptional students overlap mental health diagnoses: The Canadian experience and its Charter implications

This paper explores Canadian 'educational' categorical systems for special needs students and their relation to mental health diagnoses. Parents wishing to access special education services for their children are generally required to consent to their children being formally assessed. Frequently, the school board committee will require a psychological or psychiatric assessment which may lead to diagnosis of a mental health disorder that overlaps with the special needs category to which the child is assigned. This paper explores whether Canadian parents of exceptional students are in fact providing fully informed and voluntary consent given: (a) frequent parental lack of understanding of the overlap between the so-called 'educational' special needs category and a mental health diagnosis; and (b) the power of the school board to proceed with a special education placement based on a particular category even without parental agreement. The argument is made that making special education service eligibility contingent on meeting the criteria for one or more government approved categories of 'disorder' or 'impairments', some of which overlap mental health diagnoses, infringes Canadian Charter s.15 equality rights as well as s.7 liberty and security of the person rights.     

Barcelona 2002: law, ethics, and human rights. Using the law to improve access to treatments

The XIII International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa in July 2000 focused worldwide attention on the problem of accessing treatments in developing countries. In the interim, thanks to the work of activists - from demonstrations to court cases, and from acts of public courage by people living with HIV/AIDS to ongoing lobbying of politicians and trade negotiators - some very significant developments have occurred. But the reality is that the vast majority of people living with HIV/AIDS still lack access to affordable, quality medicines. This article, a summary of a paper presented at "Putting Third First: Vaccines, Access to Treatments and the Law," a satellite meeting held at Barcelona on 5 July 2002 and organized by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the AIDS Law Project, South Africa, and the Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit, India, explores three approaches for improving access. In the first part, Richard Elliott provides an overview of the state of the right to health as embodied in international human rights law; comments on the experience to date in litigating claims to the right to health; and identifies potential strategies activists can adopt to advance recognition of the right to health. In the second part, Sharan Parmar and Vivek Divan describe price-control and drug-financing mechanisms used by industrialized countries to increase the affordability of medicines; and discuss how some of these mechanisms could be adapted for use in developing countries. Finally, Jonathan Berger describes the use of litigation in the courts by the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa.     

The third way in mental health policy: negative rights, positive rights, and the Convention

Mentally disordered patients may be said to have rights in two senses: negative rights to freedom from arbitrary detention or interference with their person; and positive rights to expect a certain minimum standard of service, be that in terms of treatment as an in-patient, or as a patient in the community. The Labour government has appointed a 'scoping group' to carry out a root-and-branch review of the Mental Health Act 1983. The 1983 Act was mainly concerned with in-patient treatment. The group is to look at the scope for introducing further compulsory powers in the community, enhancing the rights of carers and relatives, and is to take account of recent British and Strasbourg case law. The primary impact of the Convention on psychiatric patients has been in relation to protection against arbitrary detention under Article 5, unsoundness of mind being one of the permitted grounds of deprivation of liberty under Article 5(1)(e). This article explores the potential impact of Convention rights in developing what Gostin referred to in the early 1980s as a 'new legalism'. The new legalism linked concern for traditional rights to due process and review by the courts or other external bodies with the 'ideology of entitlement' to adequate treatment and services. The article outlines the current policy context of mental health services and looks at the development by the European Court of Human Rights of positive Convention rights to services out of Article 5, whose purpose seems at first sight to be the protection of due process rights. It examines the relevance of Convention rights to community powers.     

Determining health care rights from behind a veil of ignorance

Should our society establish positive rights to health care that each citizen could claim, as many health policy analysts believe? Or should it provide only background rules of contract and property law and leave the provision of health care to the free market, as Richard Epstein advocates in Mortal Peril? In this article, Professor Korobkin argues that this question should be addressed from the Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" perspective. That is, the question should be answered by asking what kind of society would individuals agree to form if they had no knowledge of their individual skills or endowments; if they did not know whether they were rich or poor, healthy or sick, weak or strong. Professor Korobkin contends that individuals behind such a veil of ignorance would balance their inherent risk aversion (which favors a safety net of "rights") against the inefficient incentives created by rights regimes that would reduce net social wealth (which favors a free market). Whether they would choose to establish rights to health care or not is ultimately an empirical question that turns on how inefficient any particular right would be. The question thus requires a case-by-case analysis of proposed rights. The article then considers the policy issues of (1) community rating of private health insurance and (2) the mandated provision of emergency medical care. It concludes that in these cases the inefficient incentives created by establishing rights are probably smaller and/or controllable enough to lead individuals behind the veil of ignorance to favor a regime of positive rights.     

MARRIAGE IN CANADA—EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION?*

On July 20, 2005, the Canadian Civil Marriage Act became law, extending equal access to civil marriage to same‐sex couples while respecting religious freedom. This article briefly traces the distinctive juridical factors that have contributed to the legislation: the constitutional comity or dialogue among Parliament, the courts and the people resulting from the constitutional entrenchment of a Charter of rights and freedoms; the growth of the substantive concept of equality in Canadian law; and the impact of the constitutional division of powers and the nature of Canadian federalism. Together, these factors contributed to a constructive debate centered on respect for diversity.     

Using law to fight a silent epidemic: the role of health literacy in health care access, quality, & cost

The dominant rhetoric in the health care policy debate about cost has assumed an inherent tension between access and quality on the one hand, and cost effectiveness on the other; but an emerging discourse has challenged this narrative by presenting a more nuanced relationship between access, quality, and cost. This is reflected in the discourse surrounding health literacy, which is viewed as an important tool for achieving all three goals. Health literacy refers to one's ability to obtain, understand and use health information to make appropriate health decisions. Research shows that improving patients' health literacy can help overcome access barriers and empower patients to be better health care partners, which should lead to better health outcomes. Promoting health literacy can also reduce expenditures for unnecessary or inappropriate treatment. This explains why, as a policy matter, improving health literacy is an objective that has been embraced by almost every sector of the health care system. As a legal matter, however, the role of health literacy in ensuring quality and access is not as prominent. Although the health literacy movement is relatively young, it has roots in longstanding bioethical principles of patient autonomy, beneficence, and justice as well as the corresponding legal principles of informed consent, the right to quality care, and antidiscrimination. Assumptions and concerns about health literacy seem to do important, yet subtle work in these legal doctrines--influencing conclusions about patient understanding in informed consent cases, animating decisions about patient responsibility in malpractice cases, and underlying regulatory guidance concerning the quality of language assistance services that are necessary for meaningful access to care. Nonetheless, health literacy is not explicitly treated as a legally relevant factor in these doctrines. Moreover, there is no coherent legal framework for incorporating health literacy research that challenges traditional assumptions about patient comprehension and decision-making, and that emphasizes the need for providers to improve communication and take affirmative steps to assess patient understanding. The absence of a clear and robust consideration of health literacy in these doctrines undermines core access and quality aims, and it means that such laws are of limited efficacy in promoting health literacy. Returning to the theme that the health literacy problem reflects a complementary view of access, quality and cost, it is likely that the cost implications of this problem (and not concerns about quality and access) will motivate the kind of health literacy reform that may ultimately strengthen existing quality and access standards. One recent example of this can be seen in reforms linked to government, insurer and provider attempts to reduce costly medication errors.     

Towards a common standard of protection of the right to housing in Europe through the charter of fundamental rights

The trend towards the financialisation of housing since the 1980s and the global financial crisis exposed a dramatic lacuna in the legal protection of the right to housing. Yet, the right to housing features not only in national and international human rights instruments, but also in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Charter rights are increasingly finding expression in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In particular, drawing on the Charter, the CJEU's interpretation of EU consumer law is moving towards a recognition of housing rights as inherent components of consumer protection. On the basis of such developments, this article examines whether there is scope to extend this human rights approach to new areas – namely, to the Mortgage Credit Directive (2014) – a major EU harmonising measure – and to the work of EU institutions now responsible for banking supervision. The article concludes that, if guided by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the case law of the CJEU and the practice of supranational banking supervision could significantly enhance the protection of the right to housing, both at EU and Member State level.     

In Defense of Asbestos Tort Litigation: Rethinking Legal Process Analysis in a World of Uncertainty, Second Bests, and Shared Policy-Making Responsibility

A central question in American policy making is when should courts address complex policy issues, as opposed to defer to other forums? Legal process analysis offers a standard answer. It holds that judges should act when adjudication offers advantages over other modes of social ordering such as contracts, legislation, or agency rule making. From this vantage, the decision to use common law adjudication to address a sprawling public health crisis was a terrible mistake, as asbestos litigation has come to represent the very worst of mass tort litigation. This article questions this view, arguing that legal process analysis distorts the institutional choices underlying the American policy‐making process. Indeed, once one considers informational and political constraints, as well as how the branches of government can fruitfully share policy‐making functions, the asbestos litigation seems a reasonable and, in some ways, exemplary, use of judicial power.     

The influence of the rulings of the Constitutional Court on the development of health law in Lithuania

This article highlights some recent developments in the constitutional doctrine of the right to health care in Lithuania, and more in particular the impact of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania on the development of health law. The right to health care, enshrined in the Constitution, is both an obligation of the state and an individual right. The Constitutional Court has developed a doctrine of the right to health care, as well a doctrine of certain other constitutional social rights, which is based on the understanding of the close interrelation between the different constitutional rights, the principle of indivisibility and equal importance of these rights, and the presumption of justiciability of social rights. The analysis is based on the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. Two cases on the disputes of the legal regulation concerning the pharmaceutical activities are presented in more detail.