New Dangers For Immigrants and the Health Care System [from Health Affairs Blog]

PHLW's Wendy E. Parmet and Elisabeth J. Ryan co-authored an article posted on the Health Affairs Blog about the potential changes to the definition of "public charge" and how that will negatively impact health care and the health care system. 

__________________________________________________________________________

New Dangers For Immigrants And The Health Care System

By Wendy E. Parmet and Elisabeth Ryan

The Trump administration’s crackdown on immigrants may soon create new perils for the health care system if a set of proposed regulations by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), leaked last month to the Washington Post, are promulgated. The regulations would dramatically expand the definition of “public charge,” a criteria used in immigration law to determine both admissibility to and deportability from the United States. As a result, many immigrants, including many low wage health care workers, may be deterred from using publicly-funded health care benefits to which they and their dependents, including their citizen children, are legally entitled.

The Immigration and Nationalization Act requires most non-nationals (other than refugees, asylees, and certain other protected classes) who seek a visa to show that they are not likely to become a “public charge,” that is, someone dependent on public benefits. Once they are in the United States, most immigrants must make a similar showing if they seek a change in status, for example, if they apply for a green card. In limited circumstances, even green card holders may be deported for becoming a public charge.

An Expanded Definition Of ‘Public Charge’

Under long-standing policy, the use of publicly funded health care benefits (other than long term care) did not render an immigrant a public charge. In January however, the State Department issued a revised Foreign Affairs Manual, used by the consular offices in reviewing visa requests, which expanded the definition of public charge to include consideration of health benefits. The proposed DHS regulations would apply that approach within the United States, treating the use of Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, and even benefits wholly funded by the states—but not Medicare—as a factor in determining whether an immigrant had been or would become a public charge. An immigrant could also be found to be a public charge if his or her dependents, including citizen children, used Medicaid or CHIP.

The implications of this potential change for patient care are significant. Non-citizen immigrants are already far less likely than citizens to have health insurance. In part, this is due to the fact that undocumented immigrants are ineligible to participate in the ACA’s exchanges or to receive federally funded health insurance (except for emergency Medicaid). Current law also denies most lawfully present immigrants from receiving Medicaid or CHIP for the first five years they have that status. With less access to insurance, it’s not surprising that immigrants are less likely than citizens to have a usual source of care, or preventive services.

Since the Trump administration took office, there have been widespread anecdotal reports that many immigrants have stopped showing up for their medical appointments. Undoubtedly some of this is due to the general climate of fear created by enhanced enforcement actions, which is especially frightening to those who are undocumented, as well as their families. But advocates also believe that a draft leaked in February 2017 of a proposed executive order expanding the definition of public charge led many immigrants to stay away from the health care system. In response, advocates and providers have tried to reassure immigrants that they should continue getting needed care.

Potential Consequences

If enacted, the proposed regulations will undermine that message, causing more immigrants to forgo needed care, meaning that easily treatable health conditions will go untreated until they become worse, and pregnant women will lack prenatal care. In addition, with immigrants afraid to access coverage for which they are eligible, hospitals and other safety net providers will be forced to bear more unreimbursed costs. The regulations may also create troubling new tensions between immigrant patients and their providers. For example, consider the possible predicament of a legal immigrant who gives birth to a child who needs neo-natal intensive care. By virtue of her birth, the child would be an American citizen and eligible for Medicaid, even if the mother was not eligible, as a result of her immigration status. Today, the hospital would likely work with the mother to enroll the child in Medicaid, so that the hospital could be paid for the child’s treatment. But with the new regulations in place, the mother might fear that enrolling her child in Medicaid would adversely affect her ability to get a green card and stay in the United States with her child. As a result, the mother’s interest and the hospital’s would be in conflict. Situations like this will likely arise every day, as patients fear enrolling in insurance to which they are entitled.

The regulations may also cause problems for many health care workers. While immigrants make up about 8 percent of the overall American workforce, they constitute 16 percent of the health care work force. Most non-citizen physicians and registered nurses receive health insurance through work, and will not be significantly affected by the proposed regulations. However, 22 percent of low skilled jobs in the health care sector, including nursing home workers and personal attendants, are filled by immigrants, many of whom lack access to employer-provided insurance.

For example, 25 percent of the home health aide workforce is non-United States born and one-third of home health aides rely on publicly-funded programs, including Medicaid and the ACA’s premium tax credits for insurance. If they avoid such programs for fear of becoming a public charge, they are likely to be uninsured, and unable to receive necessary care. That is likely to affect their ability to stay healthy and be productive workers. Making matters worse, the expanded definition of public charge will likely make it harder for low-skilled immigrants, including those who would otherwise work in the health care sector, to enter or stay in the country.  

The Administration defends the proposed regulations on the theory that they will advance self-sufficiency among immigrants. Self-sufficiency is an articulated goal in our immigration laws. But immigration law also establishes that many classes of immigrants are qualified for and entitled to federally-funded health benefits. So do many of our health laws, including the ACA and the laws authorizing CHIP. These laws reflect the realization that self-sufficiency with respect to health care is unrealistic. When it comes to health care, very few people are truly self-sufficient. Almost everyone needs insurance, and even the forms of insurance that the regulations favor depend upon public’s support. For example, employer-provided insurance receives preferential tax treatment, and Medicare is financed in part from general tax funds. And all but the very wealthy can find themselves relying on Medicaid or other public programs if a serious accident or disability befalls them.

Not only is self-sufficiency in health care unrealistic, it makes for bad health policy. The proposed regulations may be aimed primarily at keeping out unskilled workers, but by deterring taxpaying immigrants from accessing necessary care, they will spread costs throughout the health care system, add to health-related work losses, and harm the health of children and families.

There are still many steps before some version of the proposed regulations become law. The proposal is currently before the Office of Management and Budget, which could demand changes. It would then need to be published in the Federal Register for public comment. Should that happen, it is imperative that those who care about patients and the health care system weigh in, lest the Administration’s war against immigrants becomes a war against the American health care system.

Public Health Law Watch Comments on HHS Regulation Proposal: Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights

Public Health Law Watch, joined by our friends at the Public Health Law Center, submitted official comments to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to 45 CFR 88, "Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights; Delegations of Authority." Based on our combined expertise in public health law and policy, we offered comments on five main issues: (1) the lack of evidence that these rule revisions are necessary; (2) the absence of consideration for patients who face refusal of care; (3) the potentially dangerous expansion of existing definitions around “conscience protections;” (4) the potential harm these rules will cause for the LGBTQ population; and (5) the detriment these proposals would cause to reproductive health and rights.

---

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Office for Civil Rights

RIN 0945-ZA03Docket

HHS-OCR-2018-0002

Public Health Law Watch (PHLW) and the Public Health Law Center appreciate the opportunity to make comments on the proposed Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revisions to 45 CFR Part 88, “Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights; Delegations of Authority.” PHLW is a project of the George Consortium, a nationwide network of public health law scholars, experts, and practitioners.  The Public Health Law Center is nonprofit affiliate of the Mitchell Hamline School of Law, and a leading center of expertise in the use of law to prevent chronic disease.  The Center’s team of lawyers, law students, policy analysts and graduate students helps health leaders nationwide create communities where everyone can be healthy, with a focus on promoting healthy eating, encouraging physical activity, reducing the use of tobacco products, supporting health equity, and addressing cross-cutting legal issues that affect the nation’s health. Based on our combined expertise in public health law and policy, we offer the following comments on five main issues: (1) the lack of evidence that these rule revisions are necessary; (2) the absence of consideration for patients who face refusal of care; (3) the potentially dangerous expansion of existing definitions around “conscience protections;” (4) the potential harm these rules will cause for the LGBTQ population; and (5) the detriment these proposals would cause to reproductive health and rights.

First, we question the need for these regulatory revisions. As laid out in the Supplementary Information accompanying the proposed regulations, federal law already contains a plethora of provisions that protect individuals who invoke a religious objection to providing certain types of care, including abortion and assisted suicide. Yet, that information contained scant evidence that a pervasive discriminatory environment towards individuals and institutions who invoke these protections actually exists.  Rather, while the evidence provided describes an uptick in “conscience” complaints since the election of President Trump in late 2016, a total of only 44 complaints have been made since 2008. That represents less than 0.2% of the estimated 25,000 complaints that the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) receives every year. Most of the remaining claimed support in the accompanying information is based solely on anecdotal commentary rather quantifiable data. Expanding these existing protections also risks directly conflicting with numerous professional standards, including the American Medical Association acknowledgement that conscience protections are not unlimited and that physicians “are expected to provide care in emergencies, honor patients’ informed decisions to refuse life-sustaining treatment, and respect basic civil liberties and not discriminate against individuals in deciding whether to enter into a professional relationship with a new patient.”  The current version of 45 CFR Part 88 is fully adequate to properly address existing and potential complaints about conscience protection violations. HHS can also fully institute its stated goals of ensuring “knowledge, compliance, and enforcement” of existing conscience protections via administrative means that do not require revising and expanding the current regulations.

Second, we are concerned that the regulations contain no protections for patients who face denial of care when health care providers and entities invoke these “conscience protections.”  By leaving patient consideration out, these regulations not only devalue those patients as individuals, but also potentially put their lives at risk. We have no way to know exactly how many times such “conscience protections” have been invoked or the extent of harm caused, but we do know that providers have, for example, refused to inseminate a woman because of her sexual orientation, refused to help a profusely bleeding pregnant woman because the fetus would not survive the procedure necessary to save her life, and refused to transport a pregnant woman by ambulance to a clinic that provided abortions. As the American Academy of Family Physicians has emphasized, “There is a distinct difference between declining to participate in a procedure versus denying access to care to an individual patient. The former is a protected right, the latter is an unacceptable shirking of our basic responsibility to care for our patients and contrary to the key underpinnings of the Code of Medical Ethics.”  Even if OCR prioritizes “conscience protections” of the health care providers and entities, the regulations also need to adequately protect the health and lives of the patients affected when such conscience protections are invoked. Further, the regulations are focused solely on health care providers and entities that refuse to provide certain types of care, yet fail to protect health care workers who view providing services like abortion as moral imperatives and yet face constant barriers and little consideration for their views.

Third, though the regulations are intended to enforce the “conscience protection” provisions in federal law, several of the proposed definitions in section 88.2 are so wide as to significantly expand existing law. We are particularly alarmed about the broad proposed definition of the term “referral or refer for.” While some of the existing provisions include a right for health care workers not to provide a “referral” for a service they have a religious or moral objection to, this definition of referral includes “the provision of any information…by any method… that could provide any assistance in a person obtaining….a particular health care service, activity, or procedure[.]” (emphasis added). This expansive definition conceivably allows a health care provider to not only refuse to provide a direct referral for care, but also to present the health care services he or she is willing to perform as the only medical options available to the patient. This could deprive a patient of the ability to make a decision with informed consent and leave them unaware that they can seek alternative and appropriate care from another provider. Again, these regulations provide no recourse to a patient harmed by this situation; rather, the regulations consider only the provider.

Compounding the concern about the broad definition of “refer,” the terms “workforce” and “assist” also have definitions that include activities, omissions, and persons far beyond the scope of those already protected under federal law. “Workforce” includes not only health care entity employees and contractors but also includes unpaid volunteers. “Assist in the performance” means “to participate in any program or activity with an articulable connection to a…” procedure, activity, or program. This explicitly includes, but is not limited to, “counseling, referral, training, and other arrangements….” These exceptionally broad definitions expand the scope of those who can invoke “conscience protections” beyond those originally envisioned in many of the federal provisions at issue. By allowing such a broad population of individuals to invoke “conscience protections” in such a wide range of situations, the care of patients is further diminished. This particularly puts at risk the health of patients in areas with few existing resources; low-income U.S. residents are already more likely to live in areas with fewer physicians and fewer hospitals and to have significantly poorer health overall. Residents in rural and farm communities also face similar barriers to access and health disparities.  The regulations should ensure adherence to the federal laws so that they apply narrowly and therefore minimize the impact on patient care.

Fourth, we are deeply concerned that these regulations particularly imperil care of the LGBTQ population. Health care already has a long history of anti-LGBTQ discrimination, such as classification of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder and “treatment” that included electroshocks and “conversion” therapy. Partially as a result of this harm, LGBTQ populations have numerous health disparities, including higher rates of HIV, suicidal ideation and attempts, and violence victimization. They face frequent discrimination in health care contexts and these regulations would only enhance that discrimination by allowing a health care worker to raise a “moral objection” to, for example, homosexuality in general or to same-sex marriage. The objection could conceivably even be invoked to refuse treatment to children who have same-sex parents. Within the LGBTQ community, the transgender population is particularly at risk under these regulations. Absolutely no evidence exists that health care providers are being forced, for example, “to perform gender-affirming surgeries against their will…but what is happening every day, is transgender patients are being denied every kind of medical care you can think of.” A full 22% of transgender people in America already avoid doctors and medical care due to fear of discrimination and 31% have no access to regular health care at all. Those numbers are already alarming in the context of public health; these regulations risk leading to even wider denial of care, which would only increase that crisis.

Finally, the health care services explicitly targeted most often by these regulations (and by existing federal law) are those involving reproduction. In fact, the regulations often seem to be directly intended to “undermine existing legal and ethical protections for patients’ access to sexual and reproductive health information and services, and other critical care.” Many of the existing federal provisions explicitly allow providers and entities to invoke conscience protections in relation to directly providing abortions. But conscience protections have also been invoked to refuse access to emergency contraception for rape victims and to refuse to perform medically necessary procedures to save a woman’s life. The United States already has the worst rate of maternal deaths in the developed world, and this issue is further compounded by significant disparities: black mothers die at a rate 3-4 times more often than white mothers. To allow health care providers to invoke conscience protections to lifesaving reproductive health care even as a woman dies will escalate already unacceptably high rates. Further, these regulations also target – according to the supplementary information provided - laws requiring insurance coverage of reproductive health services, public notice requirements for “crisis pregnancy centers,” and attempts to require hospitals and healthcare professionals to provide abortion care when a woman’s life is endangered. These provisions go well beyond what the federal law currently covers, dangerously encroaching not only on a constitutionally protected right to reproductive health care but also on the very lives of women as patients. 

While protecting religious convictions has indeed been a long-respected – though never unlimited - right in the United States, HHS’s proposed regulations prioritize expansion provider protections without adequate consideration for how they endanger the health and lives of already vulnerable patient populations. We urge HHS not to adopt these proposed regulations.

Sincerely,

PHLW and PHLC

Public Health Law Watch

A project of the George Consortium

Publichealthlawwatch.org

Public Health Law Center

Publichealthlawcenter.org

Legal Skills Through a Health Justice Lens: First-Year Northeastern Law Students Work Toward Health, Equity, and Justice for Two Oppressed Groups

We have a really special post today - George Consortium member Jason Potter describes his innovative work as a professor and the work of his students here at Northeastern University School of Law. These first year law students studied legal skills through a lens of health justice and turned health justice theory into practice by partnering with non-profit organizations and creating tangible guidance on issues of safe consumption facilities and barriers to health care for transgender individuals. The students will present their work at two upcoming community presentations - if you are local to Boston, please join us!

Law Office 7’s presentation of their research to the community, entitled, Establishing a Safe Consumption Facility in Massachusetts: An Interdisciplinary Review of Legal Barriers and Avenues to Harm Reduction, will take place on Thursday, Mar. 29, 2018, from 2:00-3:00 p.m. in 160 Dockser Hall (Forsythe Street entrance).

Law Office 8’s presentation of their research to the community, entitled Winning Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Medicaid Recipients in New York, will take place on Thursday, Apr. 5, 2018, from 2:00-3:00 p.m. in 160 Dockser Hall (Forsythe Street entrance).

---

By Jason Potter, Associate Teaching Professor, Northeastern University School of Law

Poor health in any population affects everyone. Poor heath negatively affects, inter alia, the economy, wages, property values, education, healthcare costs, and crime rates. Despite legislative innovations mandating access to care, from EMTALA to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, improvements in the health of impoverished and minority populations remain incremental. Institutional racism, stigma, and bias—in the healthcare industry, in education, in employment, in social structures, and in legal systems—negatively impact the health of low-income, minority, immigrant, disabled, and non-conforming communities. As one scholar noted, the principles of “[h]ealth, equity, and justice” are the “keystones of a . . . thriving society,” and uniform application of these principles to all populations is a moral imperative. Today, these principles remain unfulfilled.

Social justice has been described as “a communitarian approach to ensuring the essential conditions for human well-being, including redistribution of social and economic goods and recognition of all people as equal participants in social and political life.”  Social justice and health are inexorably linked. According to Amartya Sen, “[i]n any discussion of social equity and justice, illness and health must factor as a major concern.” Sen further noted that “health equity cannot be but a central feature of the justice of social arrangements in general.” A “health justice” movement that treats law as a tool for achieving health, equity, and justice is well underway in the legal academy, and in legal education.

At Northeastern University School of Law, I teach in an innovative experiential program called “Legal Skills in a Social Context” (LSSC). In the LSSC Program, teams of first-year students (known as “law offices”) examine the complex interplay among law and diversity, values, and institutional oppression alongside learning traditional lawyering skills such as legal writing and research. Each law office partners with a nonprofit or government organization to complete a year-long social justice project. Given my interest in social determinants and the centrality of health to core social justice principles that also frame LSSC discourse, approaching the course through the lens of health justice and social determinants seemed both inevitable and novel. As it turns out, my students are likely the only first-year law students in the United States learning foundational legal writing in a health justice context.

Over the 2017-2018 academic year, my “law offices” served two oppressed and underserved groups of people. First, LSSC students in “Law Offices 7” confronted the enormous challenges facing people who use drugs (PWUD). There are significant “downstream” health consequences when drug enforcement laws are a primary means of addressing the harms of drug use. PWUD face “consequences associated with disclosure, including loss of employment, loss of housing, loss of child custody, loss of benefits, discrimination by medical professionals, and even arrest, prosecution, and incarceration.” Yet the view that addiction amounts to a moral failing, despite scientific evidence showing it is a chronic medical illness, remains the dominant one in the United States, particularly with respect to those who inject drugs. The resulting stigma and discrimination create an immense barrier to recovery and health for PWUD. Second, “Law Office 8” examined the unique healthcare needs of transgender individuals—needs that are problematized by discrimination in nearly every system, including the medical system. Of the 27,715 respondents to the 2015 National Transgender Discrimination Survey (conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force), 25% of respondents reported having difficulty with insurance related to their transition, and of the 87% of respondents who had sought care in the past year, 33% of them had at least one negative experience with a provider. Nearly a quarter of respondents reported that they needed care but didn’t seek it due to concerns about provider mistreatment. In their own unique ways, transgender individuals and PWUD both face significant barriers to health as a result of oppression.

Law Office 7’s project, on behalf of AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts, addressed, among other things, the nearly impervious set of federal and state drug laws that could thwart the establishment of an effective point of healthcare engagement for PWUD—the first Safe Consumption Facility (SCF) in the Commonwealth. In its traditional sense, an SCF is an environment, equipped with medical staff and equipment such as naloxone and clean needles, created for the purpose of reducing harm to clients as they consume pre-obtained drugs. The team used the traditional SCF model as the main vehicle for analysis, but also considered different SCF models (such as clinical and mobile medical unit models), and examined how these models interact with the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), federal regulations, the Massachusetts CSA, state regulations, zoning restrictions, and other requirements. Finally, the team explored potential ways forward in Massachusetts and provided general legislative recommendations. Law Office 7’s presentation of their research to the community, entitled, Establishing a Safe Consumption Facility in Massachusetts: An Interdisciplinary Review of Legal Barriers and Avenues to Harm Reduction, will take place on Thursday, Mar. 29, 2018, from 2:00-3:00 p.m. in 160 Dockser Hall (Forsythe Street entrance).

Law Office 8’s project, on behalf of the Legal Aid Society of New York, involved the challenges facing transgender New York residents in accessing medically-necessary, gender-affirming health care despite laws that guarantee Medicaid coverage for such care. The team created a guide with the aim of assisting a wide audience of attorneys, advocates, and individuals attempting to navigate the complex Medicaid and fair hearing process in New York. The comprehensive guide introduced transgender cultural competency, explored the process of accessing Medicaid benefits for gender-affirming care, furnished detailed steps for Medicaid recipients facing care denials and the internal insurance grievance process, discussed preparation and expectations for the fair hearing process (setting forth advocacy tips and practitioner insights), and described potential next steps in the event of an unfavorable fair hearing decision. The team’s goal in creating the guide was to provide insight and instruction on navigating the entire process of receiving Medicaid benefits for gender-affirming care, from beginning to end. Law Office 8’s presentation of their research to the community, entitled Winning Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Medicaid Recipients in New York, will take place on Thursday, Apr. 5, 2018, from 2:00-3:00 p.m. in 160 Dockser Hall (Forsythe Street entrance).

The principles of health, equity and social justice are not satisfied “when they do not apply equally to all members of society.” Explicit, implicit, and structural biases continue to shape the healthcare experiences of transgender individuals and PWUD, which negatively affects health outcomes in these communities. At the mercy of systems that are neither designed to consider their unique healthcare needs nor the social determinants of health, many transgender individuals and PWUD are incapable of realizing their full capabilities as human beings. This year, NUSL’s LSSC Students in Law Offices 7 and 8 didn’t just study health justice. They turned health justice theory into practice.

For more information about partnering with LSSC on a health justice project, visit the LSSC website and reach out to me directly (j.potter@northeastern.edu).

Immigration and Health Care Under the Trump Administration [from Health Affairs Blog]

PHLW is back with this post by our own Wendy E. Parmet on the Health Affairs Blog.  The piece about the current state of immigration and health care comes out of her recent presentation at the Harvard Law School Petrie-Flom Center Sixth Annual Health Law Year in P/Review in December 2016.

---

Immigration and Health Care Under the Trump Administration

by Wendy E. Parmet

Non-citizen immigrants are the canaries in the health care coal mine. Disproportionately poor, non-white, and non-English speaking, and without access to the franchise, they are among the most vulnerable groups in the United States. Consequently, they are often the first to experience the gaps, inefficiencies, and conflicts in our health care system. Meanwhile, anti-immigrant sentiment often spills into health policy debates, as was evident in 2009 when opponents of the bill that became the Affordable Care Act(ACA) focused their opposition on the erroneous claim that it would cover undocumented immigrants. It is therefore not surprising that the first year of the Trump administration, which has focused its domestic agenda on restricting immigration and repealing the ACA, has proven especially perilous for immigrants who need health care.

As a group, immigrants tend to be healthier than the native-born population. They are also far less likely to have insurance. In 2015, for example, 18 percent of lawfully present nonelderly adult immigrants, and 42 percent of undocumented immigrants were uninsured, compared to only 11 percent of United States citizens. Immigrants’ low insurance rate is partly due to the fact that they disproportionately work in sectors of the economy in which employer-sponsored insurance is uncommon. But the law also plays a significant role. Even before the Trump administration took office, immigrants faced an array of legal barriers to obtaining health insurance. Most importantly, the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PROWRA) prohibited undocumented immigrants from accessing most federally-funded insurance programs (including Medicaid, Medicare and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)). PRWORA also barred most authorized immigrants (except refugees) from benefiting from federally-funded programs for five years after obtaining legal status. And although the ACA made it easier for many documented immigrants to gain coverage, it left PROWRA in place. The ACA also limited participation in the exchanges to immigrants who are “lawfully present,” a category that the Obama administration decided did not include the approximately 800,000 young adults who participated in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. 

The Trump administration’s policies threaten to swell the number of uninsured immigrants, and deter those who have insurance from accessing needed care. For example, several of last year’s Republican proposals to repeal and replace the ACA included specific provisions to bar further classes of immigrants from purchasing insurance on the exchanges, even when they used their own money. Other proposals would have allowed states to deny Medicaid reimbursement for services rendered to eligible non-citizens prior to documentation of their immigration status. In addition, because immigrants tend to have lower incomes than the native-born population and are less likely to have employer-provided health insurance, they would have been disproportionately harmed by efforts to repeal the Medicaid expansion.

Read the entire piece on Health Affairs here: Immigration and Health Care Under the Trump Administration

Making America Healthy Again: Analyzing Trump's Take on the Social Determinants of Health [from Health Affairs Blog]

George Consortium member and Northeastern University professor Patricia Illingworth concludes on the Health Affairs Blog that the Trump administration shows "little interest in addressing the social determinants" of health, such as "education, socioeconomic status, poverty, the physical and social environment, employment, and discrimination, among others..."  

___________________________________________________________

Access to health care is critical for the health of individuals and for the well-being of the community, but health depends on more than medical care. Studies show that the social determinants of health, including education, socioeconomic status, poverty, the physical and social environment, employment, and discrimination, among others, are at least as important for health as is medical care. It is worth considering where the new administration stands with respect to the social determinants of health. President Trump’s budget, perhaps the best indication we have of his administration’s priorities, unfortunately appears to show little interest in addressing the social determinants.

The President’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget request, proposed back in May, targeted many of the social factors that impact health, slashing funding for education, energy, the environment, housing and urban development, among other social sectors. If the social determinants of health are underfunded, however, people’s need for health care will increase. As a result, these cuts would hurt the health and well-being of people living in the United States and would drive up the cost of health care. Take, for instance, the connection between education and health. According to economists David Cutler and Adriana Lleras-Muney, four extra years of education reduces the risk of heart disease by 2.16 percentage points and the risk of diabetes by 1.3 percentage points. People with more education are also less likely to smoke, drink excessively, use illegal drugs, or be overweight.

In a recent study published by the Brookings Institution, Princeton University economists Anne Case and Sir Angus Deaton show that “deaths of despair”—those associated with drugs, alcohol, and suicide—have risen significantly among middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans without a college degree. In this respect, the United States is unique among the affluent nations Case and Deaton compare. They largely attribute this rise to a decrease in work opportunities for people with lower levels of education. Trump’s proposed budget, rather than boosting education and training, cuts funding for the Department of Education by 13 percent and for the Department of Labor by 21 percent. It also reduces funding for before-school, after-school, and summer programs by over $1.2 billion.

Living conditions also impact health. Asthma has been found to be the leading cause of children’s visits to emergency rooms, hospitalizations, and school absenteeism. Exposure to parasites and infectious agents, air pollution from vehicles, and the construction of buildings with poor circulation and little fresh air are among the causes of asthma in children. Not surprisingly, asthma is more prevalent in poor and minority communities. There is also evidence that public housing is itself a risk factor for asthma. Instead of increasing support for housing, Trump’s budget proposes a 15.2 percent reduction to housing assistance over a 10-year period.

The burden of the proposed budget’s assault on the social determinants of health will be borne primarily by the poor, but not only by them. Because people are social, the health of one person can impact the health of many people in a community. Health has some of the qualities of a public good. People are social; they flourish in the company of others. Their health is affected by the health of others and it affects the health of others. Contagious diseases are one example of how the poor health of one person can affect the health of others. Herd immunity demonstrates how the good health of some confers health benefits on others. To put it differently, health has a spillover effect.

Studies show that people are healthier when incomes are relatively equal, when early education is high-quality and accessible, and when poverty is low. For better or for worse, our health depends upon the health of other people, and their health upon ours. Unless we are prepared to live solitary lives, policy that affects the social determinants of health must contend with the inextricable connection between our health and the health of others.

Given the social dimensions of health, failure to ensure the health of all people with, for example, enriched educational opportunities and adequate housing and social programs, puts everyone’s health at risk. There are important social justice reasons for promoting the social determinants of health. But one need not care about justice and ethics to want to provide for the health of others. Self-interest speaks for itself. In this case, the message is loud and clear: ignore the health of others at your peril.

Law Enforcement, Drugs, and the 'Public Health' Approach [from The Crime Report]

Leo Beletsky, George Consortium founding member and Associate Professor of Law and Health Sciences at Northeastern University School of Law, wrote "Law Enforcement, Drugs, and the 'Public Health' Approach," for The Crime Report in April 2016.  Watch tomorrow for a new piece about the law in Massachusetts that allows individuals with substance use disorders to be involuntarily committed to secure facilities for up to three months.  

_______________________________________________________________________

In a recent high-profile speech at the National Prescription Drug Abuse and Heroin Summit in Atlanta, President Barack Obama reaffirmed his Administration’s approach to addiction as a “public health problem, and not just a criminal problem.”

In its various iterations, the adage that “we can’t arrest our way out” of raging opioid overdose and addiction crisis now figures prominently in policy discussions at all levels of government.

This is, a welcome—and overdue—development. Opioid overdose, including deaths resulting from prescription drugs like Oxycontin as well as their chemical cousin heroin, is now killing as many as 80 Americans daily.

The precipitous rise in opioid misuse and overdose has occurred despite extraordinary financial and human investments in drug law enforcement, mass incarceration for drug-related crimes, and other criminal justice approaches. But the emerging rhetoric that an alternative, “public health” approach is necessary to curb the opioid crisis has yielded few actionable specifics for those on its front lines—police and other law enforcement officers.

As often happens, innovation has come from the bottom up.

One of the most widespread initiatives has been to equip police officers with the overdose antidote naloxone. First introduced as a tool for law enforcement in New Mexico in 2004, it has recently expanded to police forces across the country, on the principle that police are often the first to arrive at the scene of an overdose. (This is especially true in rural locales and other settings like tribal areas, where emergency medical service response times can be substantially longer than those of law enforcement personnel.)

Nationwide, law enforcement officers outnumber medical first responders by approximately a factor of three. Several hundred police agencies have now trained and equipped officers to resuscitate overdose victims, reversing over one thousand overdose events.

Aside from this direct role in rescue operations, law enforcement can also contribute to overdose prevention through other activities. These could include disseminating information about signs and symptoms of overdose, advice on accessing naloxone, promoting Good Samaritan (criminal amnesty for overdose victims and witnesses who call for help) policies, and referral to available addiction treatment programs.

A growing number of departments are embracing these kinds of outreach activities. For instance, Boston PD has recently formed an Opioid Response Unit, which provides education and resources to overdose victims and their families.

Another effort introduced in Gloucester, MA offers amnesty to anyone who presents at the police station seeking help to access substance use treatment. The so-called “Gloucester Angel Initiative” program has helped to launch a national movement: More than two dozen police departments have adopted similar policies, and recently formed The Police Assisted Addiction and Recovery Initiative (PAARI).

Finally, Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) programs offer a structure for pre-arrest diversion available to drug users and other non-violent offenders. First introduced in Seattle, LEAD provides access to a broad range of housing, job training, and other social services.

These efforts can offer unique benefits. Police professionals often have close interaction with hard-to-reach groups that are most at risk for substance abuse and overdose. They also promote operational collaboration with public health agencies, resulting in improved information sharing and other synergies.

In addition to direct public health benefits, police overdose response, public education, and referral programs can help both police agencies and the communities they serve.

A closer understanding of drug misuse, its root causes, and evidence-based prevention and treatment tools can empower criminal justice professionals and institutions to achieve better results. At the same time, a shift in police attitudes towards addiction can increase trust and communication with drug users and their families, as well as in the community at large. At a time of serious challenges to community-police relations, reaffirming law enforcement’s dedication to public wellbeing can strengthen collaboration with civil society, promote officer job satisfaction, and ultimately help police in their core public safety mission.

But a number of challenges remain before the “public health approach” rhetoric can be translated into evidence-based policing practice.

With the exception of Seattle’s LEAD program, the impact of these public health-oriented policing initiatives remains unclear. As we struggle to contain this crisis, their rapid dissemination has proceeded organically in the near-absence of robust evaluation that could inform their design and tailoring.

For example, it is not clear whether training and equipping police to conduct overdose rescues is equally cost-effective in urban areas already well-served by professional medical response, as it is in rural or tribal locales where medical first responders arrive with substantial delay.

While these innovations have certainly expanded the traditional law enforcement toolkit, they have yet to challenge our reliance on the more traditional drug law enforcement. Conducting interrogations at the scene of an overdose, using prescription drug monitoring data for investigative purposes, and charging small-time dealers with homicide for supplying drugs to overdose victims may be perceived by law enforcement officers as deterrents to substance misuse.

Unfortunately, rather than promoting public health, these actions can inadvertently fuel the very problems they seek to address.

Treating every overdose event as a crime scene and charging overdose witnesses with drug-induced homicide can deter help-seeking during overdose emergencies. Using prescription drug data to identify and prosecute patients can undermine trust between people with substance use problems and their providers, pushing vulnerable patients away from getting help at a time when they need it most.

At the policy level, proposals for higher-intensity enforcement measures and a renewed focus on legislation extending drug trafficking sentences run at cross purposes to 911 Good Samaritan laws and other amnesty measures.

To be clear, we do need accurate and timely information about dangerous street drugs and prescription drug patterns. But the work of gathering and applying this information must be done with a clear vision for the life-saving goal in our effort to mount an effective response to the opioid crisis. We must acknowledge what we have learned by now from experience: that wielding the stick of criminal justice against street-level drug use does little to stem it, while also driving users underground, away from helping hands.

To make a real impact in curbing the current crisis, police agencies can benefit most from evidence-driven guidance to translate the “public health” approach heralded by policymakers and community leaders into street-level operations. This is the real opportunity before us for shared innovation and exchange.

Leo Beletsky is an Associate Professor of Law and Health Sciences at Northeastern University. He’s on Twitter at @leobeletsky