Much of the initially flat‐​footed response of public health officials to the coronavirus pandemic was due to cumbersome, inflexible, and outdated regulations controlling the development and distribution of drugs and tests. It is important that policymakers recognize the regulatory obstacles that have accumulated over the years that make our system less nimble in responding to unexpected events, and work to reform those laws.

• “To Help Solve the Surgical Mask Shortage, Get the FDA out of the Way,” by Paul Matzko
• “Coronavirus Testing Delays Caused by Red Tape, Bureaucracy and Scorn for Private Companies,” by Jeffrey A. Singer
• “Health Care Scope of Practice Laws Reveal Another Weakness in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic,” by Jeffrey A. Singer
• “From Spirits to Sanitizer,” by Jeffrey Miron and Erin Partin

Needle exchange programs are a proven means of reducing the spread of HIV and hepatitis among intravenous drug users. They are endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the surgeon general of the United States, the World Health Organization, the American Public Health Association, and the American Medical Association. Nevertheless, needle exchange programs are legally permitted to operate in only 30 states and the District of Columbia. Critics of needle exchange programs claim they “enable” or “endorse” illicit drug use. “Not‐​in‐​my‐​backyard” attitudes fuel opposition in local communities. Experts came to Cato to discuss the efficacy and role of this harm‐​reduction strategy as well as the political challenges to its widespread adoption.