Many countries that subscribe to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have committed to ensuring access to basic health services for their citizens. Health insurance has been considered and promoted as the major financing mechanism to improve access to health services, as well to provide financial risk protection.

Drug overdose, driven largely by overdose related to the use of opioids, is now the leading cause of unintentional injury death in the United States. The ongoing opioid crisis lies at the intersection of two public health challenges: reducing the burden of suffering from pain and containing the rising toll of the harms that can arise from the use of opioid medications. Chronic pain and opioid use disorder both represent complex human conditions affecting millions of Americans and causing untold disability and loss of function. In the context of the growing opioid problem, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched an Opioids Action Plan in early 2016. As part of this plan, the FDA asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to convene a committee to update the state of the science on pain research, care, and education and to identify actions the FDA and others can take to respond to the opioid epidemic, with a particular focus on informing FDA's development of a formal method for incorporating individual and societal considerations into its risk-benefit framework for opioid approval and monitoring.

This Volume of the AIDA Europe Research Series on Insurance Law and Regulation focuses on transparency as the guiding principle of modern insurance law. It consists of chapters written by leaders in the respective field, who address transparency in a range of civil and common law jurisdictions, along with overview chapters. Each chapter reviews the transparency principles applicable in the jurisdiction discussed. Whether expressly or impliedly, all jurisdictions recognize a duty on the part of the insured to make a fair presentation of the risk when submitting a proposal for cover to the insurers, although there is little consensus on the scope of that duty. Disputed matters in this regard include: whether it is satisfied by honest answers to express questions, or whether there is a spontaneous duty of disclosure; whether facts relating to the insured’s character, as opposed to the nature of the risk itself, are to be presented to the insurers; the role of insurance intermediaries in the placement process; and the remedy for breach of duty. Transparency is, however, a much wider concept. Potential policyholders are in principle entitled to be made aware of the key terms of coverage and to be warned of hidden traps (such as conditions precedent, average clauses and excess provisions), but there are a range of different approaches. Some jurisdictions have adopted a “soft law” approach, using codes of practice for pre-contract disclosure, while other jurisdictions employ the rather nebulous duty of (utmost) good faith. Leaving aside placement, transparency is also demanded after the policy has been incepted. The insured is required to be transparent during the claims process. There is less consistency in national legislation regarding the implementation of transparency by insurers in the context of handling claims.