[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

How Should Regulations Help Health Care Organizations Manage Waste?

Learning Objectives
1. Explain a new or unfamiliar viewpoint on a topic of ethical or professional conduct
2. Evaluate the usefulness of this information for health care practice, teaching, or conduct
3. Decide whether and when to apply the new information to health care practice, teaching, or conduct
1 Credit CME
Abstract

Health care waste is a global problem. While most health care waste is harmless, some of it is hazardous. The volume of hazardous waste generated worldwide is enormous, and its disposal can be environmentally damaging. This article discusses how such waste disposal is regulated and the problems that currently exist with waste disposal regulation. The article also offers possible national and international regulatory solutions.

Background

Health care waste is simply the waste “generated by health-care activities.”1 Most health care waste is general or nonhazardous waste; only about 15% is classified as hazardous.1 Hazardous health care waste may include infectious waste, chemical waste, pathological waste, and radioactive waste.1Quiz Ref IDThe volume of hazardous waste generated is quite large, with high-income countries generating “up to 0.5kg of hazardous waste per hospital bed per day” and low-income countries generating “on average 0.2kg” per bed per day.1 The environmental impact of disposing this large volume of hazardous waste is profound and carries with it health risks. For example, “disposal of untreated health care wastes in landfills can lead to the contamination of drinking, surface, and ground waters.”1 Incineration of waste is a common disposal method, although inadequate or improper incineration “results in the release of pollutants into the air and in the generation of ash residue” and may also release human carcinogens and toxic metals into the environment.1

Quiz Ref IDInternationally, the disposal of hazardous waste is governed by the Basel Convention, which focuses on “transboundary movements of hazardous wastes.”2 Hazardous health care wastes are included under the convention, which stipulates that such waste should be reduced in an efficient manner that protects people and the environment. However, there are limitations to the effectiveness of the Basel Convention. While being a primary producer of worldwide waste, the United States has not ratified the treaty and therefore is not bound by it.3,4 Additionally, critics argue that, under the Basel Convention, some countries have become “garbage dumps,” as lower-income countries with lower waste disposal costs become attractive places for richer countries to dispose of their waste. The ambiguous language of the convention allows for loopholes in its application—for example, the definitions of waste and hazardous are not uniform, and nation states are left to interpret such key provisions as they see fit.3 Such “shortcomings” under the Basel Convention are the result of the “unfair influence” that developed countries often hold over developing countries.3

Quiz Ref IDIn the United States, health care waste was regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 1988 to 1991 under the Medical Waste Tracking Act (MWTA).5 The MWTA was created in response to “concern for the potential health hazards of medical wastes [that] grew in the 1980s after medical wastes were washing up on several east coast beaches.”5 However, the MWTA was only designed to last for 2 years, during which time the EPA gathered information on waste generation, concluding that “the disease-causing potential of medical waste is greatest at the point of generation and naturally tapers off after that point.”5 After the expiration of the MWTA in 1991, “states largely took on the role of regulating medical waste under the guidance developed from the two year program.”5 Funded by the EPA and informed by its findings, the guidance was published by the Council of State Governments,6 and, while some states have adopted some of these guidelines, there remain significant differences in how states have decided to regulate management of health care waste.5

Current Problems

There are a series of interlocking issues arising from the current patchwork of legal and regulatory regimes associated with health care waste management. The chief issues are (1) lack of a unified regulatory regime—both in the domestic and international context—with sufficient power to create and enforce reasonable and effective regulations and (2) the inefficient, environmentally damaging health care waste disposal methods that governments currently employ.

Quiz Ref IDLack of a unified regulatory regime. A key example of decentralization is the United States, where regulatory authority is largely delegated to the states. The resultant patchwork of legal structures lacks a single schema for how to deal with health care waste. Unnecessary complexity in regulation is inefficient and yields ineffective waste policy. Every state has different rules—for example, Alabama requires medical waste generators to register with the state whereas Colorado does not7,8—allowing interstate commerce to become fraught and error prone, as waste technicians moving across state lines need to be retrained in order to be able to comply with their new home state's regulations. Furthermore, a lack of a single regulatory framework makes it difficult for waste management programs to be scaled up because each state requires a particular program that is tailored to its particular set of rules; the first step to successful health care waste management is an integrated national policy,9,10 which the current lack of scalability prevents.

Regulatory concerns also persist in the international context, as there is no regulatory body that can deal with international health care waste. Despite the existence of the Basel Convention, there is no international regulatory body that can successfully train personnel, issue proper policies for health care waste management, and monitor performance. Such a lack of global oversight produces methods of dealing with health care waste that fall short of agreed-upon international standards, especially in developing countries.1116 Furthermore, because developing countries lack the resources to properly deal with health care waste, they are disproportionately impacted by the waste's negative consequences, further highlighting global health equity concerns.8,1719 This inequity is compounded by the fact that, because of the aforementioned structural inequalities built into the Basel Convention, low-income and developing countries frequently absorb and handle the waste of developed and high-income countries as well.

Health care waste disposal methods. Quiz Ref IDCurrently, the most common waste disposal method globally is incineration.20 However, in developing countries, incinerator malfunctions release large amounts of environmental pollutants, such as dioxins, furans, and antineoplastics, which are known carcinogens.20,21 The risk to public health is profound considering that, in the United States, 49% to 60% of medical waste is incinerated and that incinerators are located in heavily populated areas.21,22 This risk is an especially trenchant concern, given that 79% of all municipal solid waste incinerators in the United States are located in areas with low-income communities and communities of color.23

Landfills offer an alternative to incineration and are deemed both cheaper and safer, insofar as they are specifically engineered not to release polluted water and gases into the local environment.24,25 However, a concern about landfills leaking pollutants into the surrounding environment remains a potential point of failure.26 This concern is not unwarranted, as the EPA itself has concluded that all landfills will eventually leak due to the deterioration of their liners.27 Finally, it is important to note that landfills—while possibly being better for the environment than incineration—are not the best solution for health waste disposal and possess their own unique environmental risks and harms.2830 Studies have shown that there are significant health issues associated with proximity to waste disposal sites, including reproductive problems, cancer, heart and neural tube defects and chromosomal anomalies in offspring, and congenital malformations and anomalies.3138

Other methods of dealing with health care waste—such as autoclaving, pyrolysis, and using a steam augur—are superior to incineration or landfills. These alternatives do not lead to the emission of large amounts of carcinogens and allow the waste to be dealt with through the regular solid waste treatment system. However, because they may involve higher up-front costs, dedicated facilities cannot be located in hospitals, and they do not always reduce the actual amount of solid waste to be landfilled.21,39 Hence, these more environmentally friendly measures are not always feasible or favored options.

Interlocking divergent and inconsistent regulations—at state, federal, and international government levels—complicate waste disposal procedures. For example, some states allow the use of landfills for disposing of medical waste and others do not.24 Moreover, developing countries may not have the resources to adequately invest in the construction and regulation of medical waste landfills, which leads to disproportionately negative public health outcomes in poorer countries.4042

Solutions

A possible solution to the current patchwork of regulation and enforcement is a single national organization—eg, a federal agency—that handles regulation and enforcement of health care waste management and a single international organization that would do the same on a global scale. The organizations could interface to produce reasonable rules that are standardized in order to minimize confusion and complexity yet specific to the circumstances of the country in which the national agency is located. For example, an international organization managing health care waste would ideally focus on developing intelligible, communicable, and enforceable rules in order to minimize confusion and mismanagement, as well as on training waste disposal technicians and clinicians in understanding and implementing these rules, as this kind of training has been shown to lead to much higher levels of efficiency in waste management.43,44

This kind of international organization could operate under the auspices of the United Nations in a manner similar to the World Health Organization (perhaps as a subagency of the latter) and would therefore be subject to international democratic oversight, facilitate international cooperation, and ensure that the goals of justice are served by advancing the voices of developing countries, which currently bear a disproportionate burden of medical waste.

Such an international organization and analogous national organizations would ideally jointly commit to investment in dealing with waste in environmentally conscious ways. Creating one global framework could create dedicated, safe facilities for dealing with waste in efficient and environmentally sound ways, such as autoclaving facilities, and furthermore allow for such environmentally friendly measures to operate at scale, thus obviating the need for landfills and incinerators. This global framework would also serve the goals of environmental justice, as the pooling of resources for such a framework would lighten the burden on developing and disadvantaged countries, which bear a disproportionate burden of negative health effects due to improper waste disposal.

Alternatively, to avoid the need to craft such an international organization from scratch with little in the way of example, a “test run” could be conducted in the United States, where an organization, perhaps even the EPA itself, would play a lead role in standardizing the current patchwork regulatory regime in order to facilitate economies of scale, address concerns of distributive justice, and so on. Such a system would serve as an example of how a more global system could be organized; furthermore, a more efficiently run health care waste management system in the United States would allow for more domestic handling of such waste, which would lessen the burden on developing countries. Finally, this kind of trial run would allow for research on what kinds of regulatory regimes do and don't work and on which policies are most effective for reducing both the amount and the hazards of medical waste, which could later be applied in a global framework.

Conclusion

In response to the current regulatory deficiencies of health care waste management, several important measures could be taken to improve current policies: simplify the regulatory regime and unify it globally; invest in developing countries to aid them with managing their health care waste; and fund environmentally cleaner disposal methods that reduce public health threats. While practically implementing these suggested measures may be difficult or impossible in some instances due to the challenges of global politics, these measures can provide a starting point for policymakers to consider. Global governmental investment in these key measures may help resolve the gaps and deficiencies that exist in current regulatory policies.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

The AMA Journal of Ethics exists to help medical students, physicians and all health care professionals navigate ethical decisions in service to patients and society. The journal publishes cases and expert commentary, medical education articles, policy discussions, peer-reviewed articles for journal-based, video CME, audio CME, visuals, and more. Learn more

Article Information

AMA Journal of Ethics

AMA J Ethics. 2022;24(10):E959-966.

AMA CME Accreditation Information

Credit Designation Statement: The American Medical Association designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships.

If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure: The author(s) had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

The viewpoints expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the AMA.

Author Information:

  • Ariel Levchenko, MA is a research assistant at Baylor College of Medicine's Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy in Houston, Texas. He received a master of arts degree in bioethics from New York University; Scott J. Schweikart, JD, MBE is a senior policy analyst at the American Medical Association in Chicago, Illinois, where he is also the legal editor for the AMA Journal of Ethics. Mr Schweikart earned his MBE from the University of Pennsylvania, his JD from Case Western Reserve University, and his BA from Washington University in St Louis. He has research interests in health law, health policy, and bioethics.

References:
1.
 Health-care waste.  World Health Organization. February 8 , 2018. Accessed February 16, 2022. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/health-care-waste
2.
 Healthcare or medical waste: Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.  United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; 2020. Accessed February 16, 2022. https://unece.org/DAM/RCM_Website/UNEP-CHW-PUB-Factsheets-Healthcare-MedicalWaste-2020.English.pdf
3.
Shukla  N.  How the Basel Convention has harmed developing countries.  Earth.Org. March 30 , 2020. Accessed February 16, 2022. https://earth.org/how-the-basel-convention-has-harmed-developing-countries/Google Scholar
4.
 Amendment to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.  Basel Convention. Adopted September 22 , 1995. Accessed May 24, 2022. http://www.basel.int/Countries/StatusofRatifications/BanAmendment/tabid/1344/Default.aspx
5.
 Medical waste.  US Environmental Protection Agency. Updated May 14, 2022. Accessed August 10, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/rcra/medical-waste#expired
6.
Center for Environment.  Model guidelines for state medical waste management.  Council of Statement Governments; 1992. Accessed February 16, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-02/documents/model_guidelines_for_state_medical_waste_management.pdf
7.
 Permitting and registration.  Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Accessed June 30, 2022. https://adem.alabama.gov/programs/land/permitRegistration.cnt
8.
6 Colo Code Regs §1007-2, pt 1 (2022).
9.
Townend  WK, Cheeseman  C, Edgar  J, Tudor  T.  Factors driving the development of healthcare waste management in the United Kingdom over the past 60 years.  Waste Manag Res. 2009;27(4):362–373.Google ScholarCrossref
10.
Caniato  M, Tudor  T, Vaccari  M.  International governance structures for health-care waste management: a systematic review of scientific literature.  J Environ Manage. 2015;153:93–107.Google ScholarCrossref
11.
Bendjoudi  Z, Taleb  F, Abdelmalek  F, Addou  A.  Healthcare waste management in Algeria and Mostaganem department.  Waste Manag. 2009;29(4):1383–1387.Google ScholarCrossref
12.
Abanyie  SK, Amuah  EE, Douti  NB, Amadu  CC, Bayorbor  M.  Healthcare waste management in the Tamale Central Hospital, Northern Ghana. An assessment before the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ghana.  Environ Chall. 2021;5:100320.Google ScholarCrossref
13.
Kwikiriza  S, Stewart  AG, Mutahunga  B, Dobson  AE, Wilkinson  E.  A whole systems approach to hospital waste management in rural Uganda.  Front Public Health. 2019;7:136.Google ScholarCrossref
14.
Ciplak  N, Kaskun  S.  Healthcare waste management practice in the West Black Sea Region, Turkey: a comparative analysis with the developed and developing countries.  J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2015;65(12):1387–1394.Google ScholarCrossref
15.
Yazie  TD, Tebeje  MG, Chufa  KA.  Healthcare waste management current status and potential challenges in Ethiopia: a systematic review.  BMC Res Notes. 2019;12(1):285.Google ScholarCrossref
16.
Ali  M, Wang  W, Chaudhry  N, Geng  Y.  Hospital waste management in developing countries: a mini review.  Waste Manag Res. 2017;35(6):581–592.Google ScholarCrossref
17.
Dang  HTT, Dang  HV, Tran  TQ.  Insights of healthcare waste management practices in Vietnam.  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2021;28(10):12131–12143.Google ScholarCrossref
18.
Aung  TS, Luan  S, Xu  Q.  Application of multi-criteria-decision approach for the analysis of medical waste management systems in Myanmar.  J Clean Prod. 2019;222:733–745.Google ScholarCrossref
19.
Sharma  SK, Gupta  S.  Healthcare waste management scenario: a case of Himachal Pradesh (India).  Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2017;5(4):169–172.Google ScholarCrossref
20.
Kenny  C, Priyadarshini  A.  Review of current healthcare waste management methods and their effect on global health.  Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9(3):284.Google ScholarCrossref
21.
Windfeld  ES, Brooks  MSL.  Medical waste management—a review.  J Environ Manage. 2015;163:98–108.Google ScholarCrossref
22.
Batterman  S.  Findings on an Assessment of Small-Scale Incinerators for Health-Care Waste. World Health Organization; 2004. Accessed February 16, 2022. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/68775/a85187.pdf?sequence=1
23.
Baptista  AI, Perovich  A.  US Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators: An Industry in Decline. Tishman Environment and Design Center; 2019. Accessed May 4, 2022. https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CR_GaiaReportFinal_05.21-1.pdf
24.
Reinhart  DR, McCreanor  PT.  Medical waste management: where does the solid waste go?  Lab Med. 2000;31(3):141–145.Google ScholarCrossref
25.
Costa  AM, Alfaia  GDM, Campos  JC.  Landfill leachate treatment in Brazil—an overview.  J Environ Manage. 2019;232:110–116.Google ScholarCrossref
26.
Center for Health, Environment and Justice.  Landfill Failures: The Buried Truth. September 2016. Accessed February 16, 2022. http://chej.org/wp-content/uploads/LandfillFailures20191.pdf
27.
 Solid waste disposal facility criteria.  Fed Regist. 1988;53(168):33314–33422.Google Scholar
28.
Fazzo  L, De Santis  M, Beccaloni  E,  et al.  A geographic information system-based indicator of waste risk to investigate the health impact of landfills and uncontrolled dumping sites.  Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(16):5789.Google ScholarCrossref
29.
Makhadi  R, Oke  SA, Ololade  OO.  The influence of non-engineered municipal landfills on groundwater chemistry and quality in Bloemfontein, South Africa.  Molecules. 2020;25(23):5599.Google ScholarCrossref
30.
Danthurebandara  M, Van Passel  S, Nelen  D, Tielemans  Y, Van Acker  K.  Environmental and socio-economic impacts of landfills.  Linnaeus ECO-Tech. 2012:40–52. Accessed February 16, 2022. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278738702_Environmental_and_socio-economic_impacts_of_landfillsGoogle Scholar
31.
Fazzo  L, Minichilli  F, Santoro  M,  et al.  Hazardous waste and health impact: a systematic review of the scientific literature.  Environ Health. 2017;16(1):107.Google ScholarCrossref
32.
Kihal-Talantikite  W, Zmirou-Navier  D, Padilla  C, Deguen  S.  Systematic literature review of reproductive outcome associated with residential proximity to polluted sites.  Int J Health Geogr. 2017;16(1):20.Google ScholarCrossref
33.
Geschwind  SA, Stolwijk  JA, Bracken  M,  et al.  Risk of congenital malformations associated with proximity to hazardous waste sites.  Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135(11):1197–1207.Google ScholarCrossref
34.
Dolk  H, Vrijheid  M, Armstrong  B,  et al.  Risk of congenital anomalies near hazardous-waste landfill sites in Europe: the EUROHAZCON study.  Lancet. 1998;352(9126):423–427.Google ScholarCrossref
35.
Langlois  PH, Brender  JD, Suarez  L,  et al.  Maternal residential proximity to waste sites and industrial facilities and conotruncal heart defects in offspring.  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2009;23(4):321–331.Google ScholarCrossref
36.
Kuehn  CM, Mueller  BA, Checkoway  H, Williams  M.  Risk of malformations associated with residential proximity to hazardous waste sites in Washington State.  Environ Res. 2007;103(3):405–412.Google ScholarCrossref
37.
Brender  JD, Zhan  FB, Langlois  PH, Suarez  L, Scheuerle  A.  Residential proximity to waste sites and industrial facilities and chromosomal anomalies in offspring.  Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2008;211(1-2):50–58.Google ScholarCrossref
38.
Suarez  L, Brender  JD, Langlois  PH, Zhan  FB, Moody  K.  Maternal exposures to hazardous waste sites and industrial facilities and risk of neural tube defects in offspring.  Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17(10):772–777.Google ScholarCrossref
39.
Ferdowsi  A, Ferdosi  M, Mehrani  MJ.  Incineration or autoclave? A comparative study in Isfahan hospitals waste management system (2010).  Mater Sociomed. 2013;25(1):48–51.Google ScholarCrossref
40.
Ferronato  N, Torretta  V.  Waste mismanagement in developing countries: a review of global issues.  Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(6):1060.Google ScholarCrossref
41.
Ziraba  AK, Haregu  TN, Mberu  B.  A review and framework for understanding the potential impact of poor solid waste management on health in developing countries.  Arch Public Health. 2016;74(1):55.Google ScholarCrossref
42.
Khan  BA, Cheng  L, Khan  AA, Ahmed  H.  Healthcare waste management in Asian developing countries: a mini review.  Waste Manag Res. 2019;37(9):863–875.Google ScholarCrossref
43.
Tudor  TL, Marsh  CL, Butler  S, Van Horn  JA, Jenkin  LET.  Realising resource efficiency in the management of healthcare waste from the Cornwall National Health Service (NHS) in the UK.  Waste Manag. 2008;28(7):1209–1218.Google ScholarCrossref
44.
Rushbrook  P, Zghondi  R.  Better Health Care Waste Management: An Integral Component of Health Investment. World Health Organization; 2005. Accessed August 10, 2022. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/119762/dsa515.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
AMA CME Accreditation Information

CME Expiration Date: %creditExp:1%

Credit Designation Statement:  The American Medical Association designates this %creditFormat% activity for a maximum of %creditCount:1% AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to: 

  • %creditCount:1% Medical Knowledge MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;
  • %creditCount:1% Self-Assessment points in the American Board of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery’s (ABOHNS) Continuing Certification program;
  • %creditCount:1% MOC points in the American Board of Pediatrics’ (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program; and
  • %creditCount:1% Lifelong Learning points in the American Board of Pathology’s (ABPath) Continuing Certification program;

It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting MOC credit.

Close
Close
Close
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
Close
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close

My Saved Courses

You currently have no courses saved.

Close