A Clarion Call for Change: The MLP Imperative to Center Racial Discrimination and Structural Health Inequities.

Across the country, legal and health care professionals who understand that health outcomes are most influenced by social and environmental conditions have improved patient health by adopting the interdisciplinary MLP health care delivery model. However, the MLP field cannot advance population health, let alone long-term health equity, until it addresses the structural determinants of health inequity that are rooted in discrimination, segregation, and other forms of racial and ethnic subordination.

A database of US state policies to mitigate COVID-19 and its economic consequences.

BACKGROUND: Since COVID-19 first appeared in the United States (US) in January 2020, US states have pursued a wide range of policies to mitigate the spread of the virus and its economic ramifications. Without unified federal guidance, states have been the front lines of the policy response. MAIN TEXT: We created the COVID-19 US State Policy (CUSP) database ( https://statepolicies.com/ ) to document the dates and components of economic relief and public health measures issued at the state level in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Documented interventions included school and business closures, face mask mandates, directives on vaccine eligibility, eviction moratoria, and expanded unemployment insurance benefits. By providing continually updated information, CUSP was designed to inform rapid-response, policy-relevant research in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and has been widely used to investigate the impact of state policies on population health and health equity. This paper introduces the CUSP database and highlights how it is already informing the COVID-19 pandemic response in the US. CONCLUSION: CUSP is the most comprehensive publicly available policy database of health, social, and economic policies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the US. CUSP documents widespread variation in state policy decisions and implementation dates across the US and serves as a freely available and valuable resource to policymakers and researchers.

Variation in State-Level Eviction Moratorium Protections and Mental Health Among US Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Although evictions have been associated with adverse mental health outcomes, it remains unclear which stages of the eviction process are associated with mental distress among renters. Variation in COVID-19 pandemic eviction protections across US states enables identification of intervention targets within the eviction process to improve renters' mental health. Objective: To measure the association between the strength of eviction protections (ie, stages blocked by eviction moratoriums) and mental distress among renters during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used individual-level, nationally representative data from the Understanding Coronavirus in America Survey to measure associations between state eviction moratorium protections and mental distress. The sample of 2317 respondents included renters with annual household incomes less than $75 000 who reported a state of residence and completed surveys between March 10 and September 3, 2020, prior to the federal eviction moratorium order by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Exposures: Time-varying strength of state moratorium protections as a categorical variable: none, weak (blocking court hearings, judgments, or enforcement without blocking notice or filing), or strong (blocking all stages of the eviction process beginning with notice and filing). Main Outcomes and Measures: Moderate to severe mental distress was measured using the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire. Linear regression models were adjusted for time-varying state COVID-19 incidence and mortality, public health restrictions, and unemployment rates. Models included individual and time fixed effects as well as clustered standard errors. Results: The sample consisted of 2317 individuals (20 853 total observations) composed largely (1788 [78%] weighted) of middle-aged adults (25-64 years of age) and women (1538 [60%]); 640 respondents (23%) self-reported as Hispanic or Latinx, 314 respondents (20%) as non-Hispanic Black, and 1071 respondents (48%) as non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity. Relative to no state-level eviction moratorium protections, strong protections were associated with a 12.6% relative reduction (risk ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99) in the probability of mental distress, whereas weak protections were not associated with a statistically significant reduction (risk ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.06). Conclusions and Relevance: This analysis of the Understanding Coronavirus in America Survey data found that strong eviction moratoriums were associated with protection against mental distress, suggesting that distress begins early in the eviction process with notice and filing. This finding is consistent with the idea that to reduce mental distress among renters, policy makers should focus on primary prevention of evictions.

Expiring Eviction Moratoriums and COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated economic crisis have placed millions of US households at risk of eviction. Evictions may accelerate COVID-19 transmission by decreasing individuals' ability to socially distance. We leveraged variation in the expiration of eviction moratoriums in US states to test for associations between evictions and COVID-19 incidence and mortality. The study included 44 US states that instituted eviction moratoriums, followed from March 13 to September 3, 2020. We modeled associations using a difference-in-difference approach with an event-study specification. Negative binomial regression models of cases and deaths included fixed effects for state and week and controlled for time-varying indicators of testing, stay-at-home orders, school closures, and mask mandates. COVID-19 incidence and mortality increased steadily in states after eviction moratoriums expired, and expiration was associated with a doubling of COVID-19 incidence (incidence rate ratio = 2.1; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1, 3.9) and a 5-fold increase in COVID-19 mortality (mortality rate ratio = 5.4; CI: 3.1, 9.3) 16 weeks after moratoriums lapsed. These results imply an estimated 433,700 excess cases (CI: 365,200, 502,200) and 10,700 excess deaths (CI: 8,900, 12,500) nationally by September 3, 2020. The expiration of eviction moratoriums was associated with increased COVID-19 incidence and mortality, supporting the public-health rationale for eviction prevention to limit COVID-19 cases and deaths.

Eviction, Health Inequity, and the Spread of COVID-19: Housing Policy as a Primary Pandemic Mitigation Strategy.

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated catastrophic job loss, unprecedented unemployment rates, and severe economic hardship in renter households. As a result, housing precarity and the risk of eviction increased and worsened during the pandemic, especially among people of color and low-income populations. This paper considers the implications of this eviction crisis for health and health inequity, and the need for eviction prevention policies during the pandemic. Eviction and housing displacement are particularly threatening to individual and public health during a pandemic. Eviction is likely to increase COVID-19 infection rates because it results in overcrowded living environments, doubling up, transiency, limited access to healthcare, and a decreased ability to comply with pandemic mitigation strategies (e.g., social distancing, self-quarantine, and hygiene practices). Indeed, recent studies suggest that eviction may increase the spread of COVID-19 and that the absence or lifting of eviction moratoria may be associated with an increased rate of COVID-19 infection and death. Eviction is also a driver of health inequity as historic trends, and recent data demonstrate that people of color are more likely to face eviction and associated comorbidities. Black people have had less confidence in their ability to pay rent and are dying at 2.1 times the rate of non-Hispanic Whites. Indigenous Americans and Hispanic/Latinx people face an infection rate almost 3 times the rate of non-Hispanic whites. Disproportionate rates of both COVID-19 and eviction in communities of color compound negative health effects make eviction prevention a critical intervention to address racial health inequity. In light of the undisputed connection between eviction and health outcomes, eviction prevention, through moratoria and other supportive measures, is a key component of pandemic control strategies to mitigate COVID-19 spread and death.

Reducing the Justice Gap and Improving Health through Medical-Legal Partnerships.

A recent study by the Legal Services Corporation reported that 71% of low-income U.S. households experienced at least one civil legal problem in 2017 and that 86% of these needs went unresolved. In this article, we examine the potential for medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) to address this "justice gap." We draw on qualitative interviews, conducted with 20 parents and guardians in one pediatric MLP, to identify barriers to legal access and examine how the MLP model may uniquely address these barriers. Our data suggest that MLPs can (1) identify legal needs and create awareness of legal rights among individuals who would not have sought legal services; (2) create an access point for legal services; (3) improve access to legal advice and brief intervention; (4) support ongoing relationships between patients and lawyers that allow for the timely identification of subsequent legal needs; (5) foster trust and confidence in the legal system; and (6) address affordability concerns. These findings suggest that by improving access to justice, MLPs can address critical social and legal determinants of health and, ultimately, advance health equity.

Medical-Legal Partnership: Lessons from Five Diverse MLPs in New Haven, Connecticut.

This article examines five different Medical-Legal Partnerships (MLPs) associated with Yale Law School in New Haven, Connecticut to illustrate how MLP addresses the social determinants of poor health. These MLPs address varied and distinct health and legal needs of unique patient populations, including: 1) children; 2) immigrants; 3) formerly incarcerated individuals; 4) patients with cancer in palliative care; and 5) veterans. The article charts a research agenda to create the evidence base for quality and evaluation metrics, capacity building, sustainability, and best practices; it also focuses specifically on a research agenda that identifies the value of the lawyers in MLP. Such a focus on the "L" has been lacking and is overdue.

Health Justice: A Framework (and Call to Action) for the Elimination of Health Inequity and Social Injustice.

Every aspect of society is dependent upon the health of its members. Health is essential to an individual's well-being, quality of life, and ability to participate in society. Yet the healthcare industry, even at its optimal level of functioning, cannot improve the health of the population without addressing the root causes of poor health. The health of approximately 46.7 million individuals, most of whom are low-income and racial minorities, is threatened by economic, societal, cultural, environmental, and social conditions. Poor health in any population group affects everyone, leading to higher crime rates, negative economic impacts, decreased residential home values, increased healthcare costs, and other devastating consequences. Despite this fact, efforts to improve health among low-income and minority communities are impeded by inequitable social structures, stereotypes, legal systems, and regulatory schemes that are not designed to take into account the social determinants of health in decision making models and legal interpretation. As a result, a large segment of the population is continually denied the opportunity to live long, productive lives and to exercise their rights under democratic principles. Health, equity, and justice make up the keystone of a functional, thriving society. These principles are unsatisfied when they do not apply equally to all members of society. This Article describes the social and legal roots of poor health and how health inequity, social injustice, and poverty are inextricably linked. For example, it provides an in depth overview of the social determinants of health, including poverty, institutional discrimination and segregation, implicit bias, residential environmental hazards, adverse childhood experiences, and food insecurity. It then discusses how the law is a determinant of health due to court systems that do not evaluate individual circumstances, the enactment of laws that perpetuate poor health, and the lack of primary prevention laws. It demonstrates how addressing these issues requires true adherence to equality principles and making justice and freedom of opportunity accessible to everyone. Finally, it recommends the creation of "health justice," a new jurisprudential and legislative framework for the achievement and delivery of health equity and social justice.