Healthcare

Pacemakers, ICDs, and ICMs – oh my! Implantable heart detection devices

Janae Aune, MJLST Staffer

Heart attacks and heart disease kill hundreds of thousands of people in the United States every year. Heart disease affects every person differently based on their genetic and ethnic background, lifestyle, and family history. While some people are aware of their risk of heart problems, over 45 percent of sudden heart cardiac deaths occur outside of the hospital. With a condition as spontaneous as heart attacks, accurate information tracking and reporting is vital to effective treatment and prevention. As in any market, the market for heart monitoring devices is diverse, with new equipment arriving every year. The newest device in a long line of technology is the LINQ monitoring device. LINQ builds on and works with already established devices that have been used by the medical community.

Pacemakers were first used effectively in 1969 when lithium batteries were invented. These devices are surgically implanted under the skin of a patient’s chest and are meant to help control the heartbeat. These devices can be implanted for temporary or permanent use and are usually targeted at patients who experience bradycardia, a slow heart rate. These devices require consistent check-ins by a doctor, usually every three to six months. Pacemakers must also be replaced every 5 to 15 years depending on how long the battery life lasts. These devices revolutionized heart monitoring but involve significant risks with the surgery and potential device malfunctioning.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) are also surgically implanted devices but differ from pacemakers in that they deliver one shock when needed rather than continuous electrode shocks. ICDs are similar to the heart paddles doctors use when trying to stimulate a heart in the hospital – think yelling “charge” and the paddles they use. These devices are used mostly in patients with tachycardia, a heartbeat that is too fast. Implantation of an ICD requires feeding wires through the blood vessels of the heart. A subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) has been newly developed and gives patients who have structural defects in their heart blood vessels another option of ICDs. Similar to pacemakers, an ICD monitors activity constantly, but will be read only at follow-up appointments with the doctor. ICDs last an average of seven years before the battery will need to be replaced.

The Reveal LINQ system is a newly developed heart monitoring device that records and transmits continuous information to a patient’s doctor at all times. The system requires surgical implantation of a small device known as the insertable cardiac monitor (ICM). The ICM works with another component called the patient monitor, which is a bedside monitor that transmits the continuous information collected by the ICM to a doctor instantly. A patient assistant control is also available which allows the patient to manually mark and record particular heart activities and transmit those in more detail. The LINQ system allows a doctor to track a patient’s heart activity remotely rather than requiring the patient to come in for the history to be examined. Continuous tracking and transmitting allow a patient’s doctor to more accurately examine heart activity and therefore create a more effective treatment approach.

With the development of wearable technology meant to track health information and transmit it to the wearer, the development of devices such as the LINQ system provide new opportunities for technologies to work together to promote better health practices. The Apple Watch series 4 included electrocardiogram monitoring that records heart activity and checks the reading for atrial fibrillation (AFB). This is the same heart activity pacemakers, ICDs, and the LINQ system are meant to monitor. The future capability of heart attack and disease detection and treatment could be massively impacted by the ability to monitor heart behavior in multiple different ways. Between the ability to shock your heart, continuously monitor and transmit information about it, and report to you when your heart rate may be experiencing abnormalities from a watch it seems as if a future of decreased heart problems could be a reality.

With all of these newly developed methods of continuous tracking, it begs the question of how all of that information is protected? Health and heart behavior, which is internal and out of your control, is as personal as information gets. Electronic monitoring and transmission of this data opens it up to cybersecurity targeting. Cybersecurity and data privacy issues with these devices have started to be addressed more fully, however the concerns differ depends on which implantable device a patient has. Vulnerabilities have been identified with ICD devices which would allow an unauthorized individual to access and potentially manipulate the device. Scholars have argued that efforts to decrease vulnerabilities should be focused on protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information transmitted by implantable devices. The FDA has indicated that the use of a home monitor system could decrease the potential vulnerabilities. As the benefits from heart monitors and heart data continue to grow, we need to be sure that our privacy protections grow with it.


Wearable, Shareable, Terrible? Wearable Technology and Data Protection

Alex Wolf, MJLST Staffer

You might consider the first wearable technology of the modern-day to be the Sony Walkman, which celebrates its 40th anniversary this year. After the invention of Bluetooth 1.0 in 2002, commercial competitors began to realize the vast promise that this emergent technology afforded. Fifteen years later, over 265 million wearable tech devices are sold annually. It looks to be a safe bet that this trend will continue.

A popular subset of wearable technology is the fitness tracker. The user attaches the device to themselves, usually on their wrist, and it records their movements. Lower-end trackers record basics like steps taken, distance walked or run, and calories burned, while the more sophisticated ones can track heart rate and sleep statistics (sometimes also featuring fun extras like Alexa support and entertainment app playback). And although this data could not replace the care and advice of a healthcare professional, there have been positive health results. Some people have learned of serious health problems only once they started wearing a fitness tracker. Other studies have found a correlation between wearing a FitBit and increased physical activity.

Wearable tech is not all good news, however; legal commentators and policymakers are worried about privacy compromises that result from personal data leaving the owner’s control. The Health Insurance Portability and Protection Act (HIPAA) was passed by Congress with the aim of providing legal protections for individuals’ health records and data if they are disclosed to third parties. But, generally speaking, wearable tech companies are not bound by HIPAA’s reach. The companies claim that no one else sees the data recorded on your device (with a few exceptions, like the user’s express written consent). But is this true?

A look at the modern American workplace can provide an answer. Employers are attempting to find new ways to manage health insurance costs as survey data shows that employees are frequently concerned with the healthcare plan that comes with their job. Some have responded by purchasing FitBits and other like devices for their employees’ use. Jawbone, a fitness device company on its way out, formed an “Up for Groups” plan specifically marketed towards employers who were seeking cheaper insurance rates for their employee coverage plans. The plan allows executives to access aggregate health data from wearable devices to help make cost-benefit determinations for which plan is the best choice.

Hearing the commentators’ and state elected representatives’ complaints, members of Congress have responded; Senators Amy Klobuchar and Lisa Murkowski introduced the “Protecting Personal Health Data Act” in June 2019. It would create a National Task Force on Health Data Protection, which would work to advise the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) on creating practical minimum standards for biometric and health data. The bill is a recognition that HIPAA has serious shortcomings for digital health data privacy. As a 2018 HHS Committee Report noted, “A class of health records that can be subject to HIPAA or not subject to HIPAA is personal health records (PHRs) . . . PHRs not subject to HIPAA . . . [have] no other privacy rules.”  Dena Mendolsohn, a lawyer for Consumer Reports, remarked favorably that the bill is needed because the current framework is “out of date and incomplete.”

The Supreme Court has recognized privacy rights in cell-site location data, and a federal court recognized standing to sue for a group of plaintiffs whose personally identifiable information (PII) was hacked and uploaded onto the Dark Web. Many in the legal community are pushing for the High Court to offer clearer guidance to both tech consumers and corporations on the state of protection of health and other personal data, including private rights of action. Once there is a resolution on these procedural hurdles, we may see firmer judicial directives on an issue that compromises the protected interests of more and more people.

 


Mystery Medicine: How AI in Healthcare is (or isn’t) Different from Current Medicine

Jack Brooksbank, MJLST Staffer

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a funny creature. When we say AI, generally we mean algorithms, such as neural networks, that are “trained” based on some initial dataset. This dataset can be essentially anything, such as a library of tagged photographs or the set of rules to a board game. The computer is given a goal, such as “identify objects in the photos” or “win a game of chess.” It then systematically iterates some process, depending on which algorithm is used, and checks the result against the known results from the initial dataset. In the end, the AI finds some pattern— essentially through brute force  —and then uses that pattern to accomplish its task on new, unknown inputs (by playing a new game of chess, for example).

AI is capable of amazing feats. IBM-made Deep Blue famously defeated chess master Gary Kasparov back in 1997, and the technology has only gotten better since. Tesla, Uber, Alphabet, and other giants of the technology world rely on AI to develop self-driving cars. AI is used to pick stocks, to predict risk for investors, spot fraud, and even determine whether to approve a credit card application.

But, because AI doesn’t really know what it is looking at, it can also make some incredible errors. One  neural network AI trained to detect sheep  in photographs instead noticed that sheep tend to congregate in grassy fields. It then applied the “sheep” tag to any photo of such a field, fluffy quadrupeds or no. And when shown a photo of sheep painted orange, it handily labeled them “flowers.” Another cutting-edge AI platform has, thanks to a quirk of the original dataset it was trained on, a known propensity to spot giraffes where none exist. And the internet is full of humorous examples of AI-generated weirdness, like one neural net that invented color names such as  “snowbonk,” “stargoon,” and “testing.”

One area of immense potential for AI applications is healthcare. AIs are being investigated for applications including diagnosing diseases  and aiding in drug discovery. Yet the use of AI raises challenging legal questions. The FDA has been given a statutory mandate to ensure that many healthcare items, such as drugs or medical devices, are safe. But the review mechanisms the agency uses to ensure that drugs or devices are safe generally rely on knowing how the thing under review works. And patients who receive sub-standard care have legal recourse if they can show that they were not treated with the appropriate standard of care.  But AI is helpful essentially because we don’t know how it works—because AI develops its own patterns beyond what humans can spot. The opaque nature of AI could make effective regulatory oversight very challenging. After all, a patient mis-diagnosed by a substandard AI may have no way of proving that the AI was flawed. How could they, when nobody knows how it actually works?

One possible regulatory scheme that could get around this issue is to have AI remain “supervised” by humans. In this model, AI could be used to sift through data and “flag” potential points of interest. A human reviewer would then see what drew the AI’s interest, and make the final decision independently. But while this would retain a higher degree of accountability in the process, it would not really be using the AI to its full potential. After all, part of the appeal of AI is that it could be used to spot things beyond what humans could see. And there would also be the danger that overworked healthcare workers would end up just rubber stamping the computer’s decision, defeating the purpose of having human review.

Another way forward could be foreshadowed by a program the FDA is currently testing for software update approval. Under the pre-cert program, companies could get approval for the procedures they use to make updates. Then, as long as future updates are made using that process, the updates themselves would be subject to a greatly reduced approval burden. For AI, this could mean agencies promulgating standardized methods for creating an AI system—lists of approved algorithm types, systems for choosing the dataset the AI are trained on—and then private actors having to show only that their system has been set up well.

And of course, another option would be to simply accept some added uncertainty. After all, uncertainty abounds in the current healthcare system today, despite our best efforts. For example, Lithium is prescribed to treat bipolar disorder, despite uncertainty in the medical community of how it works. Indeed, the mechanism for many drugs remains mysterious. We know that these drugs work, even if we don’t know how; perhaps using the same standard for AI in medicine wouldn’t really be so different after all.


Changing Families: Time for a Change in Family Law?

MJLST Staffer, Hannah Mosby

 

Reproductive technology allows individuals to start families where it may not otherwise have been possible. These technologies range from relatively advanced procedures—those using assisted reproductive technology (or “ART,” for short)—to less invasive fertility treatments. ART encompasses procedures like in vitro fertilization—in fact, the CDC defines ART as including “all fertility treatments in which both eggs and embryos are handled” (Link to: https://www.cdc.gov/art/whatis.html)—while other kinds of reproductive assistance range from artificial insemination to self-administered fertility drugs. In a study published by the CDC, the number of ART procedures completed in 2014 in the U.S. alone was almost 170,000. As scientific knowledge grows and new procedures develop, that number will undoubtedly increase.

Individuals choosing to utilize these reproductive technologies, however, can find themselves in legal limbo when it comes to determining parentage. In instances where an individual uses a donor gamete (a sperm or an egg) to conceive, that donor could be a legal parent of the offspring produced—even if that result wasn’t intended by the any of the parties involved. For example, the 2002 version of the Uniform Parentage Act—variations of which have been adopted by many states—provides for the severance of the parental rights of a sperm donor in the event of consent by the “woman,” as well as consent or post-birth action by the “man” assuming paternal rights. If statutory conditions aren’t met, the donor could retain his parental rights over any offspring produced by the procedure. To further complicate things, the use of gendered terms makes it unclear how these statutes apply to same-sex couples. A new version of the Act was proposed in 2017 to comply with the Supreme Court’s recognition of marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges, but it has yet to be adopted by any state . Even murkier than the laws governing donor gametes are those governing surrogacy contracts, which some states still refuse to legally recognize. Overall, these laws create an environment where even the most intentional pregnancies can have unintended consequences when it comes to establishing legal parentage.

For further illustration, let’s revisit artificial insemination. Jane and John, a Minnesotan couple, decide to undergo an artificial insemination procedure so that Jane can become pregnant. However, they aren’t married. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 257.56, the couple’s marriage is a necessary condition for the automatic severance of the sperm donor’s parental status—therefore, since Jane and John aren’t married, the sperm donor retains his parental rights. The statute also requires that the procedure be performed “under the supervision of a licensed physician” in order for severance to occur. If there was no doctor present, then the sperm donor—and not John—would have legal parental status over the offspring produced. The example becomes more complicated if the couple is same-sex rather than heterosexual, because the statute requires the consent of the “husband” to the procedure. Further still, if Jane lived in a different state, the sperm donor might be able to establish parental rights after the fact—even if they were initially severed—by maintaining a relationship with the child. As one can imagine, this makes the use of known donors (rather than anonymous donors) particularly complicated.

Ultimately, ART and related procedures provide opportunities for individuals to create the families they want, but could not otherwise have—an enormously impactful medical development. However, utilization of these procedures can produce legal consequences that are unforeseen—and, often, unwanted—by the parents of children born using these procedures. The state law that exists to govern these procedures is varied and lagging. In the age of marriage equality and donor gametes, such laws are highly inadequate. . . In order for society to reap the biggest benefit from these life-creating technologies, the legal world will have to play a serious game of catch-up.

 


Prevalence of Robot-Assisted Surgery Illustrates the Negatives of Fee-For-Service Systems

Jacob Barnyard, MJSLT Staffer

 

In 2000, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of the da Vinci Surgical System, a robot designed to aid surgeons perform minimally invasive surgeries. The system consists of multiple arms carrying a camera and surgical instruments controlled by a nearby surgeon through a specialized console.

While few would argue the cool-factor of this technology, the actual benefits are significantly less clear. Researchers have conducted multiple studies to determine how the system affects patient outcomes, with results varying based on the type of procedure. One finding has been fairly consistent, however: unsurprisingly, costs associated with the use of robots are significantly higher.  

The use of the da Vinci Surgical System has increased enormously since its initial release, even in surgeries with little or no evidence of any benefit. A rational consumer, however, would try to maximize expected utility by only undergoing robotically-assisted surgery if the expected benefits for that particular surgery outweighed the expected increase in cost. A possible explanation for part of the growing popularity of this technology may be the prevalence of fee-for-service models in the U.S. healthcare system.  

In a fee-for-service model, each service provider involved in a patient’s care charges separately and charges for each service provided. As a result, these providers have an incentive to perform as many different services as possible, frequently providing unnecessary care. The consumer has little reason to care about these increased costs because they are often paid by insurance companies. Consequently, when a surgeon suggests the use of the da Vinci Surgical System, the patient has no incentive to research whether the system actually provides any benefits for the surgery they are undergoing.

A proposed alternative method to the fee-for-service model is a system using bundled payments. Under this system, a provider charges one lump sum for its services and divides it between each party involved in providing the care. This eliminates the incentive to provide unnecessary care as that would only increase the provider’s costs without increasing revenue. Robots would theoretically only be used in surgeries if they actually provide a net benefit. A potential drawback, however, is a decrease in potentially helpful services in an effort to cut costs. Currently, the available evidence suggests that this is not an issue in practice, however, and that some performance indicators may actually improve.  

The Affordable Care Act included incentives to adopt the bundled payment system, but fee-for-service is still vastly more common in the United States. While bundled payments have been shown to lead to a modest decrease in healthcare costs, many physicians are unsurprisingly opposed to the idea. Consequently, change to a bundled payment system on a meaningful scale is unlikely to occur under the incentive structure created by current laws.


Perpetuating Inequality and Illness Through Environmental Injustice

Nick Redmond, MJLST Staffer

In Sidney D. Watson’s Lessons from Ferguson and Beyond, published in issue 1 of MJLST’s 18th volume, the author focuses on issues of inherent racial bias in access to health care for African Americans, and how the Affordable Care Act may be able to help. The author “explores the structural, institutional, and interpersonal biases that operate in the health care system and that exacerbate Black/white health disparities.” The article’s focus on health care in particular is a critical component of inequality in the U.S., but it also only briefly touches on another important piece of the disparity puzzle: environmental justice. Conversations about environmental justice have taken place in multiple contexts, and in many ways serve to emphasize the multiple facets of racial disparity in the U.S., including police violence, access to health care, access to education, and other issues which are all influenced by the accessibility and the dangers of our built environment.

Such systemic inequalities can include access to public transportation and competitive employment, but they can also be problems of proximity to coal plants or petroleum refineries or even a lack of proximity to public natural spaces for healthy recreation. Lack of access to safe, clean, and enjoyable public parks, for instance, can serve to exacerbate the prevalence of diabetes and obesity, and even take a toll on the mental health of residents trapped in concrete jungles (which the article refers to as “social determinants” of poor health). Though there is some indication that environmental factors can harm neighborhoods regardless of income, industrial zones and polluted environments tend to lie just around the corner from low-income neighborhoods and disproportionately affect those who live there, primarily communities of color.

Often the result of urban development plans, housing prices, and even exclusionary zoning, issues of environmental justice are an insidious form of inequality that are often on the periphery of our national political conversations, if addressed at all. Indeed, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Civil rights (established in 1993) has not once made a formal finding of discrimination, despite President Bill Clinton’s executive order which made it the duty of federal agencies to consider environmental justice in their actions. When the primary federal agency tasked with ensuring access to environmental justice appears to be asleep at the wheel, what recourse do communities have? The answer, it seems, is depressingly little.

A high profile example in our current discourse, environmental justice appears to have failed Flint, Michigan, and it seems likely that the issue won’t be resolved any time soon. Other examples like Columbus, Mississippi and Anniston, Alabama, are becoming more and more prevalent at a disturbingly high rate. Impoverished people with little political or legal recourse struggle against the might of the booming natural gas industry and new advances in hydraulic fracturing, and as water runs out these communities will be the first to feel the squeeze of rising food prices and access to the most essential resource on the planet.

At risk of sounding apocalyptic, there is some hope. National groups like the NRDC or the ACLU have long litigated these issues with success, and more local or regional groups like the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy or the Southern Environmental Law Center have made enormous impacts for communities of color and the public at large. But as Sidney Watson states at the end of her article: “[w]e need to talk about race, health, and health care. We need to take action to reduce and eliminate racial inequities in health care.” These same sentiments apply to our built environment and the communities that we have pushed to the periphery to take the brunt of the harmful effects of our dirty technologies and waste. Few people would choose to live near a coal plant; those who are forced to do so are often trapped in an endless cycle of illness, poverty, and segregation.


No Divorce Just Yet, But Clearly This Couple Has Issues: Medicaid and the Future of Federal-State Health Policy

Jordan Rude, MJLST Staffer

With the recent demise of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will remain in effect, at least for now. One of the crucial issues that divided the Republican caucus was Medicaid—specifically, whether the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid should remain in place or be rolled back (or eliminated entirely). Moderate or centrist Republicans, and particularly some Republican governors, wanted to retain the expansion, while the House Freedom Caucus and other conservatives wanted to eliminate it, either immediately or in the near future.

Sara Rosenbaum, in her article Can This Marriage Be Saved? Federalism and the Future of U.S. Health Policy Under the Affordable Care Act examined the changing relationship between federal and state health policy under the ACA. Two areas in which this relationship was most affected were the ACA’s health insurance marketplaces and expansion of Medicaid: In both, the ACA significantly increased the federal government’s role at the expense of state control. The Supreme Court’s ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius held that the federal government could not require states to expand their Medicaid coverage, pushing back against increased federal power in this area. As of today, approximately 20 states have taken advantage of this ruling and chosen not to expand their programs. Rosenbaum argued that the tension between the ACA’s promise of universal coverage and some states’ refusal to expand Medicaid would defeat the purpose of the ACA, and she proposed a federal “Medicaid fallback” to replace lost coverage in those states.

The AHCA proposed a different, and simpler, solution to this problem—phase out the Medicaid expansion over time until it is completely gone. As noted above, this did not have much of a positive reception. Now that the AHCA’s proposal has been shelved, if only momentarily, some states that had not previously expanded Medicaid (such as Kansas) are moving forward with plans to expand it now. Such plans still face stiff opposition from conservatives, but the failure of the AHCA, along with the ACA’s growing popularity, may shift the argument in favor of expansion.

The end result of this recent healthcare debate, however, was retention of the status quo: The ACA is still in effect, and a significant number of states have still not expanded Medicaid coverage. The underlying issue that Rosenbaum discussed in her article has still not been addressed. The clash between federal and state policy continues: The marriage is not over, but it is not clear whether it can be saved.


This Time It’s Personal(ized): Pharmaceutical Companies, Dosing Regimen Patents, and Personalized Medicine

Peter Selness, MJLST Staffer

An area of developing healthcare garnering attention in both the medical community and areas of intellectual property law is that of personalized medicine.   Personalized medicine changes the old one-size-fit-all approach of medication dosing to instead tailor medications to each individual patient based upon their genetic make-up.  This practice promises numerous benefits for patient healthcare, but also has some substantial road blocks to overcome before becoming a reality.  Among the issues facing this field of medicine is the controversy surrounding the patentability of personalized medicine methods.  Several recent cases such as Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. have raised serious concerns over whether or not personalized medicine methods are based on patentable subject matter.

This concern was taken one step further in the recent article Decline of Dosage Regimen Patents in Light of Emerging Next-Generation DNA Sequencing Technology and Possible Strategic Responses, which discussed the potential impact this may have on the pharmaceutical industry.  Among the concerns addressed was the impact of not being able to obtain patents on dosing regimens for drugs developed by pharmaceutical companies.  While a pharmaceutical company should have no problem patenting a novel medication it has developed, adding additional patent protection to its patent portfolio surrounding that product, such as patents on dosing regimens, has long been a practice utilized to keep competitors at bay.  Considering the massive investment in research and development required to bring a new drug to market (sometimes billions of dollars), pharmaceutical companies are rightly alarmed by any potential loss of patent protection they may experience on their product.  As the article mentioned, this issue will also surely be compounded by the transition to personalized medicine and integrated healthcare, but it may also be a self-solving problem.

Though the article is concerned with the impact personalized medicine may have on pharmaceutical companies if they no longer can obtain patent protection on dosing regimens, researchers developing personalized medicine methods currently face the same issues.  In order for personalized medicine to have an impact on pharmaceutical companies, it must be a fully developed method that has been integrated into everyday healthcare practices.  For that to happen, researchers must have a fundamental understanding of what specific genes give rise to differences in patients’ responses to medication.  This has proven to be a long and expensive process requiring the systematic sequencing of millions of genes from numerous subpopulations of patients; and all of this work is expensive.  Given that the end result of personalized medicine research is a method of administering medication based on an individual’s genetic make-up, patents on personalized medicine fall victim to the same issue facing pharmaceutical companies’ dosing regimen patents.

Lacking the ability to obtain patent protection on personalized medicine methods, the economic feasibility of research in this area becomes more questionable.  To circumvent this dilemma, those within the field of personalized medicine will most certainly be looking for the same solutions as pharmaceutical companies.  Therefore, one of two results will likely occur, both of which may solve the issues of dosing regimen patentability facing the pharmaceutical companies.  One possibility is that the field of personalized medicine will be unable to economically sustain future research without patent protection and fully integrated healthcare will never become a reality; making this issue disappear for pharmaceutical companies.  The other, more likely, possibility is that in order for research in the field of personalized medicine to continue, those researchers will solve the very dilemma that pharmaceutical companies fear will be brought about by the emergence of integrated healthcare.  Either way, pharmaceutical companies’ dosing regimen patents are so closely tied to the fate of personalized medicine patents that the emergence of integrated healthcare most likely cannot occur in a manner that will be detrimental to pharmaceutical companies’ patent portfolio.


Bet on Science: Transplantation Without Human Donation

Rhett Schwichtenberg, MJLST Staffer

There is no question that the American organ donor process is flawed. An individual makes the selfless decision to become an organ donor, but upon death their organs remain in their body.  Although the law states that the donor is the only person that can revoke an anatomical gift, hospital practice will almost never harvest an organ without the family’s consent. A recent article published in the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology has proposed a solution to the 120,000 Americans waiting for organs: paying the donor $5,000 per organ. This solution could have many positive impacts, but many negative ones as well.

First, this solution will have a strong influence on the socio-economically poor, as an individual could make up to $40,000 for their family by donating the eight organs currently eligible for donation (not including hands and face, added in 2014). This amount of money would put low-income families in a horrible position where they might choose to forego medical treatment in order to provide for their family. This reward manages to take the decision away from the socio-economically poor by incentivizing death. Though middle-class individuals might also elect to choose money over treatment, the decision is based more on want than on need.

Second, with advancing technologies, organs harvested from fatalities will become less frequent. Take, for instance, the new technology of self-driving cars. In the near future, self-driving cars will dominate the automotive industry. Given that in 2016, 13.6 percent of organ donors died in a road accident, the number of available organs will only decrease in years to come. In a very recent article, Elon Musk stated that nearly all new cars will be self-driving within ten years.

Although self-driving cars might be farther down the road than Musk declared, scientists have made a major breakthrough in the biological field. Researchers have successfully used an enzyme to integrate human stem cells into developing pig embryos. This technology makes it possible to edit a pig’s DNA sequence coding for a certain organ, and insert code that would “theoretically grow a human organ for patient transplantation.” Artificially creating human organs would single-handedly eliminate the need for organ donation.

In addition to biological advancements, the tech industry has been a major player in organ creation. The use of 3D printing in the medical industry was instantly commercialized for its ability to create prosthetics and fake organs to practice surgical procedures. Today, Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine has developed a 3D printer capable of “print[ing] tissues and organs by utilizing cells as the main filament or component of the 3D printer.” Using an individual’s own cells to 3D print new organs for them would also eliminate the need for organ donation.

With such large advancements in science and technology, I do not believe there is a need to incentivize organ donation. This would result in a disparity between rich and poor and create situations where an individual has to choose between life or death for all the wrong reasons. Until science reaches the point where human organs can be created, individuals who wish to donate their organs upon death need to take steps to ensure their wish is fulfilled. Such steps include preparing an advance directive or a living will, signing a donor card, obtaining a health care power of attorney, and informing family members of their decision. Paying someone for their organs is simply not the solution.


Dinner for Two? Federal Regulations Indicate a Newfound Love for the Pediatric Medical Device Market

Angela Fralish, MJLST Invited Blogger

In December 2016, President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act which includes Subtitle L “Priority Review for Breakthrough Devices” and Subtitle M “Medical Device Regulatory Process Improvement.” Subtitle L addresses efficiency in medical device development by allowing inventors to request an expedited review for inventions that target disease, and for which there is no alternative device is currently on the market. Subtitle M requires FDA staff to be trained in least burdensome concept reviews and allocates $500 million to speed up commercialization.

This Act presents growth opportunities for the pediatric medical device market which often lacks device development due to time and expense. Under the Cures Act, if the device targets a childhood disease and there is no alternative, this new regulation requires a priority review determination within 60 days from the FDA Secretary. Additionally, there are now $500 million supporting implementation of the priority review.

Currently, pediatric devices can take up to 10 years and $94 million to develop. Market incentives often drive device innovation and the market for children is small. Consequently, most developments are not initiated for profit, but for personal interest in children’s health.

For example, despite using an expedited review process under a humanitarian device exemption, an implantable rib to prevent thoracic collapse took 13 years just to get FDA approval to begin the commercialization process. The pediatric medical device market is viewed by some as a crisis and the 21st Century Cures Act has the potential to improve kids’ health.

For lawyers, scientists and engineers, an increase in device development leads to an increase in demand for regulatory, design, reimbursement and scientific technology experts. Lawyers can make a major difference in getting devices from bench-to-bedside. On the other side of the fence is demand for the same to protect consumers from manufacturers taking advantage of the Cures Act. In fact, some tort lawyers directly oppose the Cures Act for fear of watered-down processes for safety in devices.

However, regardless of one’s stance on the issue, it’s a good time to show some legal love to the kiddos in need of growth in the pediatric medical device market.