Travelers Face Greater Use of Personal Data

Travelerswashingtonpost.com: By Paul Lewis and Spencer S. Hsu

The United States and the European Union have agreed to expand a security program that shares personal data about millions of U.S.-bound airline passengers a year, potentially including information about a person's race, ethnicity, religion and health.

Under the agreement, airlines flying from Europe to the United States are required to provide data related to these matters to U.S. authorities if it exists in their reservation systems. The deal allows Washington to retain and use it only 'where the life of a data subject or of others could be imperiled or seriously impaired,' such as in a counterterrorism investigation.

According to the deal, the information that can be used in such exceptional circumstances includes "racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious orphilosophical beliefs, trade union membership" and data about an individual's health, traveling partners and sexual orientation.

Airlines do not usually gather such data, but officials say it could wind up in passenger files as a result of requests for special services such as wheelchairs, or through routine questioning by airline personnel and travel agents about contacts, lodging, next of kin and traveling companions. Even a request for a king-size bed at a hotel could be noted in the database. ...

Although Homeland Security has said it will move passenger information to "dormant" status after seven years and "expects" to erase it after 15 years, it notified the E.U. that expiration of data will be subject to "further discussions."

Dutch lawmaker Sophia Veld, the European Parliament's standing rapporteur on Passenger Name Records, said the agreement gives a green light to U.S. authorities to use confidential information for unstated purposes. Stavros Lambrinidis of Greece, vice chairman of the parliament's civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee, warned that it allows extra data collection not just in counterterrorism cases but for "a vast and in some cases unidentified number of crimes. So we have function creep."

And make the king suite non-smoking, please. Got that down?

The Hillary Letters II: Avoid Introspection, Refuse to Self-Define, Run for President

New York Times:

Ms. Rodham skates earnestly on the surface of life, raising more questions than answers. “Last week I decided that even if life is absurd why couldn’t I spend it absurdly happy?” she wrote in November of her junior year. She then challenges herself to “define ‘happiness’ Hillary Rodham, acknowledged agnostic intellectual liberal, emotional conservative.”

From there, she deems the process of self-definition to be “too depressing” and asserts that “the easiest way out is to stop any thought approaching introspection and to advise others whenever possible.”

The Hillary Letters I: Neoliberalism or "Compassionate Misanthropy"?

New York Times:

But in many ways her letters are more revealing about her search for her own sense of self.

“Can you be a misanthrope and still love or enjoy some individuals?” Ms. Rodham wrote in an April 1967 letter. “How about a compassionate misanthrope?”

Cancer Patients, Lost in a Maze of Uneven Care

New York Times:By Denise Grady

Cancer, more than almost any other disease, can be overwhelmingly complicated to treat. Patients are often stunned to learn that they will need not just one doctor, but at least three: a surgeon and specialists in radiation and chemotherapy. Diagnosis and treatment require a seemingly endless stream of appointments. Doctors do not always agree, and patients may find that at the worst time in their lives, when they are ill, frightened and most vulnerable, they also have to seek second opinions on biopsies and therapy, fight with insurers and sort out complex treatment options.

The decisions can be agonizing, in part because the quality of cancer care varies among doctors and hospitals, and it is difficult for even the most educated patients to be sure they are receiving the best treatment. “Let the buyer beware” is harsh advice to give a cancer patient, but it often applies. Excellent care is out there, but people are often on their own to find it. Patients are told they must be their own advocates, but few know where to begin. ...

...When she joined a cancer support group, she recalled, “It was amazing to me the different experiences people were having based on what they could afford or who their provider was. I was able to say, ‘If the provider won’t pay, my family will. I don’t care, I’m going for a second opinion.’ ”

In the support group, it saddened her to hear other patients with advanced disease take the word of a single oncologist, because she believes that if she had done that, she would already be dead. She has come to think that survival may depend on money and access, and, she said, on “your own drive and motivation — are you Type A? — your education and your ability to sort through the medical world and the insurance world terminology.”

This promises to be quite a series.
For all the fuss and negative comment about Michael Moore's narrative techniques, he gets some big things right, as this more conventionally reported piece demonstrates.
Many American patients have their troubles securing a first opinion, let alone a second at a mega-center of their choice. And the disparities in approach, expertise, and outcomes are startling in a field supposedly dominated by science and widespread access to research reports. It would be interesting to know more about comparisons in these regards to the better rated universal systems, such as Canada, France and Germany. (Maybe not Cuba on this one, Michael.)

On Trial for your Life

New York Times:By Denise Grady

Presbyterian rejected two appeals, he took his case to a state review board, where he represented himself because he could not afford a lawyer. Presbyterian showed up with two lawyers, a doctor and a nurse. Dr. Bordenave and a gastroenterologist from Albuquerque testified on Mr. Hendrickson’s behalf.

Mr. Hendrickson and his wife had studied the details of their insurance policy and had also learned — with the help of M. D. Anderson — that in the previous five years, the five surgeons Presbyterian had recommended had performed a total of five Whipple operations.

Ultimately, Mr. Hendrickson won the case, and Presbyterian Health Plan paid the entire bill.

A spokesman for Presbyterian said the case had led the company to allow more patients to be treated at high-volume centers if there was evidence that the results would be better.

Mr. Hendrickson said it was “tough to stand up to attorneys and doctors. I don’t know why I was able to do it. I’m stubborn, I guess. I don’t like to be told what to do. Too many people, I know, they just let it go and they die.”"

Getting effective care for the seriously ill--known in the trade as "medical losses". There probably is an important place in any health care system for effective means of utilization review--that is, are patients receiving appropriate care likely to be helpful to their condition (and not just to the pocketbooks of those proving expensive interventions). It doesn't follow that reviewers should have strong personal financial incentives (amply documented in Michael Moore's SiCKO) to deny care. This is a challenge for any health care system, perhaps not best addressed at the bedside of each individual patient, but through research and medical consensus panels. Achieving universal coverage will not make all such problems go away, but it will give us a better shot at getting the incentives right--and considerably more humane (except for those patients with unlimited resources...)

Sending Back the Doctor’s Bill

New York Times: By ALEX BERENSON

“I always find it ironic that when I go to doctor groups and such, they always talk about the cost of prescription drugs,” said Dana Goldman, director of health economics at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research institute in Santa Monica, Calif.In the United States, nearly all doctors are paid piecemeal, for each test or procedure they perform, rather than a flat salary. As a result, physicians have financial incentives to perform procedures that further drive up overall health care spending.

Prescription drugs cost, on average, 30 percent to 50 percent more in the United States than in Europe. But the difference in doctors’ salaries is far larger, Dr. Goldman said.

Doctors in the United States earn two to three times as much as they do in other industrialized countries. Surveys by medical-practice management groups show that American doctors make an average of $200,000 to $300,000 a year. Primary care doctors and pediatricians make less, between $125,000 and $200,000, but in specialties like radiology, physicians can take home $400,000 or more.

In Europe, however, doctors made $60,000 to $120,000 in 2002, according to a survey sponsored by the British government in 2004....[T]he lower salaries are a significant part of the reason that European countries spend less on health care than the United States does — a fact liberals avoid mentioning when they preach the advantages of a European-style single-payer system. ...

Doctors are paid little for routine examinations and very little for “cognitive services,” such as researching different treatment options or offering advice to help patients get better without treatment.

“I don’t have a view on whether doctors take home too much money or not enough money,” Dr. Bach said. “The problem is the way they earn their money. They have to do stuff. They have to do procedures.”

Primary care doctors and pediatricians, who rarely perform complex procedures, make less than specialists. They are attracting a declining percentage of medical students, and some states are facing a shortage of primary care doctors. ...

Medicare, especially, does not like to second-guess doctors’ clinical decisions, said Dr. Stephen Zuckerman, a health economist at the Urban Institute. “There’s not a lot of utilization review or prior authorization in Medicare,” he said. “If you’re doing the work, you can expect to get paid.”

As a result, doctors have steadily increased the number of procedures they perform on Medicare beneficiaries — and thus have increased their income from Medicare, Dr. Zuckerman said. But the extra procedures have not helped patients’ health much, he said. “I don’t think there’s any real strong evidence of improvements in health status.”

Swabs in Hand, Hospital Cuts Deadly Infections

New York Times:

...Every room and corridor is equipped with dispensers of foamy hand sanitizer. Blood pressure cuffs are discarded after use, and each room is assigned its own stethoscope to prevent the transfer of microorganisms. Using these and other relatively inexpensive measures, the hospital has significantly reduced the number of patients who develop deadly drug-resistant infections, long an unaddressed problem in American hospitals.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention projected this year that one of every 22 patients would get an infection while hospitalized — 1.7 million cases a year — and that 99,000 would die, often from what began as a routine procedure. The cost of treating the infections amounts to tens of billions of dollars, experts say....

Several European countries, including the Netherlands and Finland, have all but eliminated MRSA through similarly aggressive campaigns. But at many American hospitals, experts say, high infection rates have been accepted as a cost of doing business. Barely a quarter of American hospitals screen patients for bacterial colonies in any methodical way, a recent survey found.

“People don’t believe it’s in their institution, and, if it is, that it’s too big to do anything about, that you just have to accept it...

...[S]ome infection-control experts warn that [certain measures] may have unintended consequences, including lesser care for patients who linger in isolation. Studies have found that patients in isolation are seen by hospital staff members half as frequently and tend to suffer more from falls, bed sores and stress. ...

A major emphasis at the Pittsburgh hospitals has been hand hygiene. Studies have consistently shown that busy hospital workers disregard basic standards more than half the time. At the veterans hospital, where nurses have taken to pushing elevator buttons with their knuckles, annual spending on hand cleaner has doubled.

The least bad plan for leaving Iraq

Slate Magazine: By Fred Kaplan

Back in the spring of 2004, when Galbraith first proposed splitting Iraq into a loose federation of three ethnic enclaves, I criticized the idea. He did have a point. 'Iraq' was an artifice from its outset, the product of a scheme to widen the British Empire in the wake of the First World War. When the American-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein, it also imploded the artifice of a unified Iraqi nation, and there was no way to put the monster back together. It would be better, Galbraith argued, to let the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds govern themselves in autonomous regions, with a central authority doing little more than equitably distributing oil revenue. ...

My objections remain, but the context has changed. Amputation seems a terrible idea when one's limbs are still flexing. It's a bit more palatable when the alternative is death, and, in Iraq, the gangrene is spreading.

"The Iraq war is lost," Galbraith starkly declares in his new article. "Defeat," he continues, "is defined by America's failure to accomplish its objective of a self-sustaining, democratic, and unified Iraq. And that failure has already taken place....

He has now abandoned his plan for a partitioned federation, regarding the southern two-thirds of Iraq—the areas dominated by Shiite and Sunni Arabs—as hopeless. ...Galbraith no longer describes Iraq as consisting of Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. Rather, he calls it "a land divided along ethnic lines into Arab and Kurdish states with a civil war being fought within its Arab part."

Galbraith's own analysis points to one possible approach. Back when he advocated a tripartite federation, he noted (correctly) that Iraq was already moving in that direction—only violently. Now, more each day, sectarian militias are ethnically cleansing neighborhoods, even whole towns, where Shiites and Sunnis once casually mixed.

Before they withdraw, U.S. troops could try to help minorities relocate into areas where their ethnic brethren are in the majority—providing the means of transportation and, to the extent possible, safe passage. Iraqi troops and police may be very keen to assist, if not lead the way, in this mission—at least if Shiite forces are called on to help Shiites, Sunni forces to help Sunnis.

It's extremely discomfiting to abet ethnic segregation—but less so when the alternative might open the gates to mass murder.

Peter Galbraith and Les Gelb were among the early voices recognizing that the quest for a unified Iraq (post-military conflagration) was an illusion, and some form of soft-partition a necessity. Joe Biden signed on sometime later, but has been a pretty solitary voice in Congress in pushing this (as opposed to withdrawal of American troops without a specified future strategy) as a serious foreign policy alternative. Apparently Galbraith has thrown in the towel on effectively separating Sunni and Shi'a domains, and is now focusing on the Kurds. I have yet to read his most recent piece explaining this transition in his thinking (or in conditions on the ground); would that more political and military leaders had recognized the wisdom of this analysis long ago. Some catastrophes just keep getting worser and worser and alternatives (all bad, but some a bit less bad) fewer and fewer.

Iraq Math: From One, Make Three

New York Times: By HELENE COOPER

Mr. Biden’s so-called soft-partition plan — a variation of the blueprint dividing up Bosnia in 1995 — calls for dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions, held together by a central government. There would be a loose Kurdistan, a loose Shiastan and a loose Sunnistan, all under a big, if weak, Iraq umbrella.

“The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group — Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab — room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests,” Mr. Biden and Mr. Gelb wrote in their Op-Ed on May 1, 2006. “We could drive this in place with irresistible sweeteners for the Sunnis to join in, a plan designed by the military for withdrawing and redeploying American forces, and a regional nonaggression pact.”

The proposal acknowledges forthrightly what a growing number of Middle East experts say is plain as day: Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis are not moving toward reconciliation; they still haven’t managed to get an oil law passed, and de facto ethnic cleansing is under way as Sunnis flee largely Shiite neighborhoods and towns, and vice versa.

See my comments on the following post, which also apply to this one.

Mr. Gonzales’s Never-Ending Story

New York Times (Editorial):

"If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales."

Well, well.

Gonzales Testimony Part of Broader Effort to Conceal Surveillance Program

TPMmuckraker : By Spencer Ackerman and Paul Kiel

There's a lot of evidence to suggest that Gonzales's careful, repeated phrasing to the Senate that he will only discuss the program that 'the president described' was deliberate, part of a concerted administration-wide strategy to conceal from the public the very broad scope of that initial program. When, for the first time, Program X (as we'll call it, for convenience's sake) became known to senior Justice Department officials who were not its original architects, those officials -- James Comey and Jack Goldsmith, principally -- balked at its continuation. They did not back down until the program had undergone as-yet-unspecified but apparently significant revisions. But when President Bush announced what he would call the 'Terrorist Surveillance Program' in December 2005, he left the clear impression that the program had always functioned the same way since its 2001 inception.

The administration's consistent refusal to discuss any aspect of the program -- current or former -- aside from what President Bush disclosed in December 2005 appears to be intended, specifically, to gloss over Comey and Goldsmith's objections. If that's the case, it could mean that the public has been presented with an inaccurate picture of the origins and scope of Program X. The Bush administration is currently contesting a Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documentation establishing Program X's history -- in essence, trying to ensure that the public never learns more about the program and the internal deliberations over it than what President Bush chooses to reveal. ...

The different phases of the program’s implementation did not become clear until Comey’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in May of this year. Comey did not identify the program, only calling it “a particular classified program.” We won't rehash his story in full here. But during his brief reign as acting attorney general, Comey refused to reauthorize Program X in March of 2004 (here’s an explanation as to why it took two years for this to happen). Comey’s refusal was based on the concerns of Jack Goldsmith, the head of the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, but the precise nature of Goldsmith’s concern isn’t publicly known. Goldsmith declined to comment for this story.

It all came to a head on March 10, 2004, with the deadline for reauthorizing Program X looming. That afternoon, the White House called a meeting with the so-called "Gang of Eight" -- those congressional leaders briefed about Program X -- and Gonzales and Andrew Card made their infamous visit to Ashcroft’s hospital bed that night. The President initially opted to continue the program despite Ashcroft’s refusal to overrule Comey. But the next day, March 11, when faced with the possible resignation of the top echelon of Department of Justice leadership, the President personally told Comey to recommend what changes needed to be made to Program X in order for the Department of Justice to sign off on its legality. ...

In essence, the issue is this: if Gonzales succeeds in convincing the committee that there really is a material distinction between the program as it existed before and after Comey’s intervention, he won't just save himself from perjury. He will perhaps have preserved an administration strategy of concealing the scope of Program X from the public and most of Congress -- making it appear that the program that Bush disclosed in December 2005, incorporating Comey's objections, is the same program that existed since October 2001, long before Comey put the brakes on at least some aspects of it. That may be at the heart of the White House's claim of executive privilege to prevent the Senate Judiciary Committee from seeing documents detailing the genesis of Program X.

Justice Dept. Lawyers Join Chorus Criticizing Gonzales

New York Times: By PHILIP SHENON and JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, July 27 — Daniel J. Metcalfe, a lawyer who began his government career in the Nixon administration and retired from the Justice Department last winter, said morale at the department was worse under Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales than during Watergate.

John S. Koppel, who continues to work at the department as a civil appellate lawyer in Washington, wrote this month that he was “ashamed” of the department and that if Mr. Gonzales told the truth in recent Congressional testimony, “he has been derelict in the performance of his duties and is not up to the job.”

Even though they worry that it may hinder their career prospects, a few current and former Justice Department lawyers have begun to add to the chorus of Mr. Gonzales’s critics who say that the furor over his performance as attorney general, and questions about his truthfulness under oath, could do lasting damage to the department’s work. ...

Mr. Metcalfe, the retired lawyer who was the founding director of the department’s Office of Information and Privacy, said in an interview that the questions over Mr. Gonzales’s competence and credibility had shattered morale at the department, especially after the attorney general’s testimony this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“When you have an attorney general with his personal integrity and credibility so repeatedly reduced to shreds, not to mention in so public a forum, that’s just antithetical to the very nature of the Justice Department and its role in upholding the rule of law,” Mr. Metcalfe said. “This is the Department of Justice and the attorney general, where absolute integrity is Job 1.”

In an opinion article that was first published this month in The Denver Post and has since been circulated in the department, Mr. Koppel, the civil appellate lawyer, said that under the Bush administration the department had been “thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful.”

Mr. Koppel, who has been with the department since 1981, wrote that his decision to issue such a public criticism of Mr. Gonzales and the department “subjects me to a substantial risk of unlawful reprisal from extremely ruthless people who have repeatedly taken such action in the past.”

“But I am confident,” Mr. Koppel continued, “that I am speaking on behalf of countless thousands of honorable public servants, at Justice and elsewhere.”

Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour

The Huffington PostMax Blumenthal
This video is worth a few minutes by those perplexed by the "Christians United for Israel" phenomenon, or interested in the descent of Joseph Lieberman.

New Heart Monitor Battery for Cheney

New York Times: By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney was in the hospital Saturday for minor surgery to replace the battery that powers a device monitoring his heart rhythms."

Power devolved on George W. Bush during the procedure.

Details of Cheney's informed consent form reveal that he declined the offer to implant some heart during the procedure. Physicians remain mystified at precisely what the heart monitor is monitoring.

The Education of Eliot

New York Times: By Gail Collins

When a new chief executive arrives, legislators are usually unsure of themselves for a while, and this is the precious soft spot when they can be pushed into doing big, bold things. If you screw it up, they’ll instantly revert to their preference for doing small, expensive things instead. (One of Hillary Clinton’s great pluses as a presidential candidate is that having been part of the great screwing up of the beginning of her husband’s administration in 1993, she may have figured out how not to do it again.)

Fat Comes in on Little Cat Feet

New York Times: By Gail Collins

Meanwhile, the researchers say they do not want to encourage the shunning of overweight people, in part because losing a good friend is — like every single other thing in the universe except parsnips — bad for one’s health. (Rather than lose your original chunky friend, Dr. Christakis proposes bringing a third, thin person into the relationship. This sounds like a sitcom of the Fox fall schedule.)

G!d save us from what is likely to follow from this research result. Prejudice against the overweight (of which I am a conspicuous member) is among the last acceptable biases in polite society. Despite the extensive research on the biological bases of obesity, and the overwhelming statistics on the failure rates of diets in producing sustainable weight loss, look for an onslaught of calls for personal responsibility. There are apparently few sensations more pleasurable to the biologically slim than blaming fat folks for their condition.

Meanwhile, health insurance typically refuses to cover bariatric surgery, or even the costs of medical side effects associated with such surgery. Medical costs associated with failed suicide attempts and drunken accidents are generally covered, but not side effects of medically indicated and recommended bariatric procedures. Think about that.

Michael Moore says he's been served

United Press International :

BURBANK, Calif., July 26 (UPI) -- Michael Thursday said the Bush administration has served him with a subpoena regarding his trip to Cuba during the making of his new film, 'Sicko.'

The Oscar-winning filmmaker, who appeared Thursday on NBC's 'The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,' said he was notified about the subpoena at the network's studios in Burbank, Calif.

I wonder if there is some kind of privilege he can invoke to be able to ignore the subpoena--there's a lot of that going around. Maybe one called the First Amendment?

A Day in the Life of Oscar the Cat

NEJM : David M. Dosa, M.D., M.P.H.

Making his way back up the hallway, Oscar arrives at Room 313. The door is open, and he proceeds inside. Mrs. K. is resting peacefully in her bed, her breathing steady but shallow. She is surrounded by photographs of her grandchildren and one from her wedding day. Despite these keepsakes, she is alone. Oscar jumps onto her bed and again sniffs the air. He pauses to consider the situation, and then turns around twice before curling up beside Mrs. K.

One hour passes. Oscar waits. A nurse walks into the room to check on her patient. She pauses to note Oscar's presence. Concerned, she hurriedly leaves the room and returns to her desk. She grabs Mrs. K.'s chart off the medical-records rack and begins to make phone calls.

Within a half hour the family starts to arrive. Chairs are brought into the room, where the relatives begin their vigil. The priest is called to deliver last rites. And still, Oscar has not budged, instead purring and gently nuzzling Mrs. K. A young grandson asks his mother, 'What is the cat doing here?' The mother, fighting back tears, tells him, 'He is here to help Grandma get to heaven.' Thirty minutes later, Mrs. K. takes her last earthly breath. With this, Oscar sits up, looks around, then departs the room so quietly that the grieving family barely notices.

On his way back to the charting area, Oscar passes a plaque mounted on the wall. On it is engraved a commendation from a local hospice agency: "For his compassionate hospice care, this plaque is awarded to Oscar the Cat." Oscar takes a quick drink of water and returns to his desk to curl up for a long rest. His day's work is done. There will be no more deaths today, not in Room 310 or in any other room for that matter. After all, no one dies on the third floor unless Oscar pays a visit and stays awhile.

Note: Since he was adopted by staff members as a kitten, Oscar the Cat has had an uncanny ability to predict when residents are about to die. Thus far, he has presided over the deaths of more than 25 residents on the third floor of Steere House Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Providence, Rhode Island. His mere presence at the bedside is viewed by physicians and nursing home staff as an almost absolute indicator of impending death, allowing staff members to adequately notify families. Oscar has also provided companionship to those who would otherwise have died alone. For his work, he is highly regarded by the physicians and staff at Steere House and by the families of the residents whom he serves.

More Blather on Necklines

New York Times Blog:

Ms. Givhan’s piece uses the neckline as a tool with which to examine Mrs. Clinton’s uneasy balancing act with femininity as she seeks power in a male-dominated world.

The campaign, meanwhile, is using the article as a tool to build up its bank account. From Ms. Lewis’s appeal:

Frankly, focusing on women’s bodies instead of their ideas is insulting. It’s insulting to every woman who has ever tried to be taken seriously in a business meeting. It’s insulting to our daughters — and our sons — who are constantly pressured by the media to grow up too fast.

Ms. Lewis also lamented that Mrs. Clinton’s wardrobe became a subject in Monday’s Democratic presidential debate. When asked to mention something he didn’t like about Mrs. Clinton, John Edwards expressed reservations about her coral pink jacket, while Senator Barack Obama defended it.

It took some doing to find an excerpt without the "C" word. (not referring to "Clinton", or the other one)

State Official Upholds Race-Conscious Admissions at U. of Wisconsin

Chronicle.com: Peter Schmidt

W

isconsin’s attorney general has issued an informal legal opinion to state legislators concluding that a race-conscious freshman-admissions policy adopted by the University of Wisconsin’s Board of Regents for the entire university system does not conflict with a state law intended to prevent the system’s campuses from engaging in discrimination.

Soon after the board adopted the policy, in February, 15 state representatives and four state senators sent Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen a letter challenging the legality of the policy, which calls for system campuses to consider race and ethnicity as part of a comprehensive review of applicants. Specifically, their letter alleged that the new policy conflicted with a 1973 law prohibiting the system from making admissions decisions using “sectarian or partisan tests or any tests based upon race, religion, national origin of U.S. citizens, or sex.”

A separate letter, signed by another group of lawmakers, urged Mr. Van Hollen to uphold the policy as legal. They argued that it did not impose any “test,” as described in the 1973 law, and called it “thoughtfully and carefully written to allow admissions officials the flexibility they need to select the student body necessary to ensure the continued success of the institution.”

In the legal opinion, Mr. Van Hollen said the term “test” in the 1973 law was used to refer to an admissions standard that would disqualify any applicants who did not meet it. Because the system’s new admissions policy calls for campuses to consider race as just one of many factors in weighing applicants, it does not impose the sort of racial “test” that the 1973 law prohibits, he said.

Mr. Van Hollen’s letter contained a note of caution for the university system, however, saying that it must make sure applicants are considered as individuals, as required by the U.S. Supreme Court in its key rulings dealing with race-conscious admissions. ...