Governments use statutes, regulations, and policies, often in innovative ways, to promote health and safety. Organizations outside government, from private schools to major corporations, create rules on matters as diverse as tobacco use and paid sick leave. Very little of this activity is systematically tracked. Even as the rest of the health system is working to build, share, and use a wide range of health and social data, legal information largely remains trapped in text files and pdfs, excluded from the universe of usable data. This article makes the case for the practice of policy surveillance to help end the anomalous treatment of law in public health research and practice. Policy surveillance is the systematic, scientific collection and analysis of laws of public health significance. It meets several important needs. Scientific collection and coding of important laws and policies creates data suitable for use in rigorous evaluation studies. Policy surveillance addresses the chronic lack of readily accessible, nonpartisan information about status and trends in health legislation and policy. It provides the opportunity to build policy capacity in the public health workforce. We trace its emergence over the past fifty years, show its value, and identify major challenges ahead.

The importance of legal epidemiology in public health law research has undoubtedly grown over the last five years. Scholars and practitioners together have developed guidance on best practices for the field, including: placing emphasis on transdisciplinary collaborations; creating valid, reliable, and repeatable research; and publishing timely products for use in decision-making and change. Despite the energy and expertise researchers have brought to this important work, they name significant challenges in marshalling the diverse skill sets, quality controls, and funding to implement legal epidemiology activities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has worked to develop cross-cutting research and translation on issues of national priority in legal epidemiology, and has explored ways to overcome some of these challenges. As such, this article describes a case study of the use of law to characterize states' prior authorization policies regarding medication used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a central component of a broader effort to improve behavior therapy options for young children with ADHD. This article highlights the types of legal epidemiology work we have undertaken, the application of this work to an emerging public health problem, and the lessons learned in creating impactful research for the field.

Background Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are preventable. Globally, laws aimed at reducing HAIs have been implemented. In the USA, these laws are at the federal and state levels. It is not known whether the state interventions are more effective than the federal incentives alone. Objective The aims of this study were to explore the impact federal and state HAI laws have on state departments of health and hospital stakeholders in the USA and to explore similarities and differences in perceptions across states. Methods A qualitative study was conducted. In 2012, we conducted semistructured interviews with key stakeholders from states with and without state-level laws to gain multiple perspectives. Interviews were transcribed and open coding was conducted. Data were analysed using content analysis and collected until theoretical saturation was achieved. Results Ninety interviews were conducted with stakeholders from 12 states (6 states with laws and 6 states without laws). We found an increase in state-level collaboration. The publicly reported data helped hospitals benchmark and focus leaders on HAI prevention. There were concerns about the publicly reported data (eg, lack of validation and timeliness). Resource needs were also identified. No major differences were expressed by interviewees from states with and without laws. Conclusions While we could not tease out the impact of specific interventions, increased collaboration between departments of health and their partners is occurring. Harmonisation of HAI definitions and reporting between state and federal laws would minimise reporting burden. Continued monitoring of the progress of HAI prevention is needed.

No abstract