A legal amendment that should bring clarity to the arbitrary cut-off of 20 weeks’ gestation for abortion needs urgent redrafting.

After more than a decade of major achievements, the AIDS response is at a crucial juncture, both in terms of its immediate trajectory and its sustainability, as well as its place in the new global health and development agendas. In May, 2013, the UNAIDS–Lancet Commission—a diverse group of experts in HIV, health, and development, young people, people living with HIV and affected communities, activists, and political leaders—was established to investigate how the AIDS response could evolve in a new era of sustainable development.

In May 2015, the 21st Century Cures Act was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, with the goal of promoting the development and speeding the approval of new drugs and devices.1 Championed by the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and device industries, the bill was approved unanimously (51 to 0) in committee and continues to be debated. If enacted into law, some of its provisions could have a profound effect on what is known about the safety and efficacy of medical products, as well as which ones become available for use. (Perspective)

Many observers were surprised when Indiana Governor Mike Pence issued an executive order on March 26, 2015, declaring a public health emergency after a rapidly escalating outbreak of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was identified in Scott County, a rural region on the Kentucky border. Others, however, had seen it coming. (Perspective)

To achieve WHO's target to halt the rise in obesity and diabetes, dramatic actions are needed to improve the healthiness of food environments. Substantial debate surrounds who is responsible for delivering effective actions and what, specifically, these actions should entail. Arguments are often reduced to a debate between individual and collective responsibilities, and between hard regulatory or fiscal interventions and soft voluntary, education-based approaches. Genuine progress lies beyond the impasse of these entrenched dichotomies.

On Aug 31, 1665, Samuel Pepys noted dolefully in his diary: “Thus this month ends, with great sadness upon the public through the greatness of the plague, everywhere through the Kingdom almost. Every day sadder news of its increase. In the City died this week 7496; and of them 6102 of the plague.

Up-to-date evidence about levels and trends in disease and injury incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) is an essential input into global, regional, and national health policies. In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013), we estimated these quantities for acute and chronic diseases and injuries for 188 countries between 1990 and 2013.

The term drug reimbursement describes the policy system that determines whether or not a drug is entitled to reimbursement within the healthcare system. Countries make different decisions regarding which cancer treatments to routinely provide. As a result, depending on the cancer drug-indication and the country assessing it, the decision can be Favourable, Favourable with restrictions or Non-Favourable. The main objective of this paper is to describe the differences in drug reimbursement decisions on cancer drugs across ten European countries.