Patenting genes and gene sequences: Analysis of public health implications and the law

At issue is whether or not isolated DNA is patent eligible under the U.S. Patent Law and the implications of that determination on public health. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued patents on DNA since the 1980s, and scientists and researchers have proceeded under that milieu since that time. Today, genetic research and testing related to the human breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 is conducted within the framework of seven patents that were issued to Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation between 1997 and 2000. In 2009, suit was filed on behalf of multiple researchers, professional associations and others to invalidate fifteen of the claims underlying those patents. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears patent cases, has invalidated claims for analyzing and comparing isolated DNA but has upheld claims to isolated DNA. The specific issue of whether isolated DNA is patent eligible is now before the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide the case by year's end. In this work, a systematic review was performed to determine the effects of DNA patents on various stakeholders and, ultimately, on public health; and to provide a legal analysis of the patent eligibility of isolated DNA and the likely outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. ^ A literature review was conducted to: first, identify principle stakeholders with an interest in patent eligibility of the isolated DNA sequences BRCA1 and BRCA2; and second, determine the effect of the case on those stakeholders. Published reports that addressed gene patents, the Myriad litigation, and implications of gene patents on stakeholders were included. Next, an in-depth legal analysis of the patent eligibility of isolated DNA and methods for analyzing it was performed pursuant to accepted methods of legal research and analysis based on legal briefs, federal law and jurisprudence, scholarly works and standard practice legal analysis. ^ Biotechnology, biomedical and clinical research, access to health care, and personalized medicine were identified as the principle stakeholders and interests herein. Many experts believe that the patent eligibility of isolated DNA will not greatly affect the biotechnology industry insofar as genetic testing is concerned; unlike for therapeutics, genetic testing does not require tremendous resources or lead time. The actual impact on biomedical researchers is uncertain, with greater impact expected for researchers whose work is intended for commercial purposes (versus basic science). The impact on access to health care has been surprisingly difficult to assess; while invalidating gene patents might be expected to decrease the cost of genetic testing and improve access to more laboratories and physicians' offices that provide the test, a 2010 study on the actual impact was inconclusive. As for personalized medicine, many experts believe that the availability of personalized medicine is ultimately a public policy issue for Congress, not the courts. ^ Based on the legal analysis performed in this work, this writer believes the Supreme Court is likely to invalidate patents on isolated DNA whose sequences are found in nature, because these gene sequences are a basic tool of scientific and technologic work and patents on isolated DNA would unduly inhibit their future use. Patents on complementary DNA (cDNA) are expected to stand, however, based on the human intervention required to craft cDNA and the product's distinction from the DNA found in nature. ^ In the end, the solution as to how to address gene patents may lie not in jurisprudence but in a fundamental change in business practices to provide expanded licenses to better address the interests of the several stakeholders. ^

The movement toward patient safety: State action related to reporting and disclosure of healthcare-associated infections

Increasing attention has been given to the problem of medical errors over the past decade. Included within that focused attention has been a strong interest in reducing the occurrence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Acting concurrently with federal initiatives, the majority of U.S. states have statutorily required reporting and public disclosure of HAI data. Although the occurrence of these state statutory enactments and other state initiatives represent a recognition of the strong concern pertaining to HAIs, vast differences in each state’s HAI reporting and public disclosure requirements creates a varied and unequal response to what has become a national problem.^ The purpose of this research was to explore the variations in state HAI legal requirements and other state mandates. State actions, including statutory enactments, regulations, and other initiatives related to state reporting and public disclosure mechanisms were compared, discussed, and analyzed in an effort to illustrate the impact of the lack of uniformity as a public health concern.^ The HAI statutes, administrative requirements, and other mandates of each state and two U.S. territories were reviewed to answer the following seven research questions: How far has the state progressed in its HAI initiative? If the state has a HAI reporting requirement, is it mandatory or voluntary? What healthcare entities are subject to the reporting requirements? What data collection system is utilized? What measures are required to be reported? What is the public disclosure mechanism? How is the underlying reported information protected from public disclosure or other legal release?^ Secondary publicly available data, including state statutes, administrative rules, and other initiatives, were utilized to examine the current HAI-related legislative and administrative activity of the study subjects. The information was reviewed and analyzed to determine variations in HAI reporting and public disclosure laws. Particular attention was given to the seven key research questions.^ The research revealed that considerable progress has been achieved in state HAI initiatives since 2004. Despite this progress, however, when reviewing the state laws and HAI programs comparatively, considerable variations were found to exist with regards to the type of reporting requirements, healthcare facilities subject to the reporting laws, data collection systems utilized, reportable measures, public disclosure requirements, and confidentiality and privilege provisions. The wide variations in state statutes, administrative rules, and other agency directives create a fragmented and inconsistent approach to addressing the nationwide occurrence of HAIs in the U.S. healthcare system. ^

The prevalence of burnout among psychologists and psychological associates in the state of Texas

This study investigates the prevalence of burnout among a sample of Texas psychologists and psychological associates as well as differences between the three categories of practitioners within that group (Licensed Psychology Health Care Providers (LPHCP), Licensed Psychologists - Certified Psychologists (LP-CP), Psychological Associates (PA)).^ The Maslach Burnout Inventory and a questionnaire seeking demographic information was used in this cross-sectional survey. Sample size was 654. A stratified proportionate random sample of Texas Psychologists was drawn. The response rate based on usable returns was 55% (n = 359). General demographic characteristics were determined mainly by frequency distributions. For comparing means of samples, t and multiple range tests were used. A series of one-way and two-way analysis of variance procedures were used to compare subgroup differences in burnout.^ The universe was representative for the sample and for the three categories of psychologists. Urban subjects were more likely to respond, as were male PAs. Practitioners were as likely male as female, working in an urban area, in their present job eight years, and in the occupation for fifteen. The LPHCP group were older, had been in psychology and at their present job longer, and were more likely to belong to both state and local professional organizations than the other two groups. Males outnumbered females in this group and in LP-CPs. This gender trend was reversed for PAs. Of the total sample, 76% reported high job satisfaction and 77% had high levels of perceived job autonomy. There was no significant difference between the study sample and the mental health norms in emotional exhaustion (EE). Our sample had significantly less feelings of depersonalization (DP) and higher feelings of personal accomplishment (PA). Psychological Associates felt significantly less personal accomplishment than the other groups. Predictors for the total sample indicated younger practitioners and those with low job satisfaction had significantly higher burnout, as did males when compared to their female cohorts. Some types of jobs were more likely to contribute to burnout than others. Membership in their local area professional organization lessened the chances for burnout significantly. Predictors for categories of psychologists indicated that males in the LPHCP and LP-CP groups were at higher risk than females. Further, for LP-CPs low job satisfaction and job autonomy, as well as job sites, were significant. Those in this group who worked as school psychologists were at the highest risk for burnout. Job dissatisfaction was the major predictor of burnout for psychological associates. Practitioners working in state or government agencies, school systems and administrative jobs generally had higher burnout than those on a university faculty or in private practice. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) ^