Legal Services for Veterans (LSV): Protocol for evaluating the grant-based LSV initiative supporting community organizations' delivery of legal services to veterans.

BACKGROUND: 1.8 million Veterans are estimated to need legal services, such as for housing eviction prevention, discharge upgrades, and state and federal Veterans benefits. While having one's legal needs met is known to improve one's health and its social determinants, many Veterans' legal needs remain unmet. Public Law 116-315 enacted in 2021 authorizes VA to fund legal services for Veterans (LSV) by awarding grants to legal service providers including nonprofit organizations and law schools' legal assistance programs. This congressionally mandated LSV initiative will award grants to about 75 competitively selected entities providing legal services. This paper describes the protocol for evaluating the initiative. The evaluation will fulfill congressional reporting requirements, and inform continued implementation and sustainment of LSV over time. METHODS: Our protocol calls for a prospective, mixed-methods observational study with a repeated measures design, aligning to the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) and Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) frameworks. In 2023, competitively selected legal services-providing organizations will be awarded grants to implement LSV. The primary outcome will be the number of Veterans served by LSV in the 12 months after the awarding of the grant. The evaluation has three Aims. Aim 1 will focus on measuring primary and secondary LSV implementation outcomes aligned to RE-AIM. Aim 2 will apply the mixed quantitative-qualitative Matrixed Multiple Case Study method to identify patterns in implementation barriers, enablers, and other i-PARIHS-aligned factors that relate to observed outcomes. Aim 3 involves a mixed-methods economic evaluation to understand the costs and benefits of LSV implementation. DISCUSSION: The LSV initiative is a new program that VA is implementing to help Veterans who need legal assistance. To optimize ongoing and future implementation of this program, it is important to rigorously evaluate LSV's outcomes, barriers and enablers, and costs and benefits. We have outlined the protocol for such an evaluation, which will lead to recommending strategies and resource allocation for VA's LSV implementation.

The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on overall well-being of practicing lawyers.

Every day lawyers provide counsel and advocacy to individuals, groups, and businesses in a multitude of settings. From court room to board room, attorneys are relied upon to guide their clients through difficult situations. In doing this, attorneys all too often internalize the stresses of those that they help. The legal system has long been considered a stressful occupation. This stressful environment was further taxed by the wider societal disruptions in 2020 as we dealt with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Beyond the illness itself, the pandemic forced widespread court closures and made it more difficult to communicate with clients. Based upon a survey of the membership of the Kentucky Bar Association, this paper considers the impact of the pandemic on attorney wellness in a variety of categories. These results demonstrated marked negative impacts on a variety of wellness measures which may result in significant reductions in service provision and efficacy for the people who need legal services. The pandemic made the practice of law harder and more stressful. Attorneys suffered increased incidence of substance abuse, alcohol consumption, and stress during the pandemic. These results were generally worse among those practicing in the areas of criminal law. In light of these adverse psychological effects facing attorneys, the authors argue the need for increased mental health support resources for attorneys, as well as establishing clear steps to raise awareness among the legal community about the importance of mental health and personal wellness.

Swimming Together Upstream: How to Align MLP Services with U.S. Healthcare Delivery.

Medical-legal partnership (MLP) embeds attorneys and paralegals into care delivery to help clinicians address root causes of health inequities. Notwithstanding decades of favorable outcomes, MLP is not as well-known as might be expected. In this essay, the authors explore ways in which strategic alignment of legal services with healthcare services in terms of professionalism, information collection and sharing, and financing might help the MLP movement become a more widespread, sustainable model for holistic care delivery.

Applying a Social Ecological Model to Medical Legal Partnerships Practice and Research.

The social ecological model (SEM) is a conceptual framework that recognizes individuals function within multiple interactive systems and contextual environments that influence their health. Medical Legal Partnerships (MLPs) address the social determinants of health through partnerships between health providers and civil legal services. This paper explores how the conceptual framework of SEM can be applied to the MLP model, which also uses a multidimensional approach to address an individual's social determinants of health.

Addressing Legal Needs as Violence Prevention: A National Survey of Legal Services Offered through Hospital-based Violence Intervention Programs.

Hospital-based violence intervention programs (HVIPs) provide comprehensive services to survivors of community violence to address social determinants of health (SDOH) as risks factors for future violence. Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) integrate lawyers into health care teams to address SDOH through the application of the law. Despite shared purposes, it is unknown if HVIP-MLPs exist. We sought to quantify the existing landscape of legal services provided by HVIPs, identify HVIP-MLPs, and characterize barriers to formation. Surveys and interviews were conducted in 2020 with 35 HVIPs of the Health Alliance for Violence Intervention (HAVI) concerning civil legal services. Most HVIPs screened for civil legal needs though none had an official MLP. Common civil legal needs included housing, mental health, and education. Barriers included no memorandum of understanding, legal confusion, funding, and overwhelming need. In 2021, no HVIP-MLP partnerships existed within HAVI. Establishing HVIP-MLPs may further support survivors of violence and address health inequity.

Camden Coalition Medical-Legal Partnership: Year One Analysis of Civil + Criminal MLP Model in Addiction Medicine Setting.

In 2022, the Camden Coalition Medical-Legal Partnership began providing civil and criminal legal services to substance use disorder patients at Cooper University Health Care's Center for Healing. This paper discusses early findings from the program's first year on the efficacy of the provision of criminal-legal representation, which is uncommon among MLPs and critical for this patient population. The paper concludes with takeaways for other programs providing legal services in an addiction medicine setting.

Integrating legal services to improve behavioral health, a challenge met from a different angle.

The United States' current healthcare delivery system is not prepared to address the expanding behavioral health (BH) crisis without treatment of upstream social determinants that contribute to downstream BH exacerbations. Medical Legal Partnerships (MLP) utilize lessons from integrated BH to create efficiencies, augment the reach of the current BH workforce, network community resources, and likely provide BH prevention at the family unit. Payment policy changes are needed, however, to provide sustainable access to these services. The current surge of federal and state funding for BH care needs may provide the policy window necessary to sustainably fund MLP lawyers as a novel, high-impact, professional on the integrated healthcare team. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Increasing LGBTQ+ Access to Legal Services via Medical-Legal Partnerships.

This Note details and proposes a solution to the deficit in access to justice and to care faced by the LGBTQ+ community due to historical and ongoing homophobia and transphobia in both the legal and medical fields. The proposed solution is the integration of medical-legal partnerships ("MLPs") into LGBTQ+ resource organizations. These organizations already serve and have the trust of the queer community, which lowers one barrier to access medical and legal services for the LGBTQ+ community: mistrust and negative past experiences. MLPs are the ideal solution to this problem because they would not only allow LGBTQ+ individuals to access medical and legal services, but to receive holistic services that account for their personal circumstances as well as their physical health. Underlying this premise is the concept of social determinants of health, which are environmental and social factors that create systemic roadblocks to wellness. By creating an integrated MLP, professionals can address these social determinants head on and remedy the underlying causes of poor health. This is especially important for LGBTQ+ people whose minoritized identities often lead them to have multiple negative social determinants of health. The integration of MLPs into LGBTQ+ resource organizations would allow queer individuals to get the care they need-not just physically, but socially and environmentally.

A care coordinator screening strategy to address health harming legal needs.

BACKGROUND: Medical legal partnerships provide an opportunity to help address various social determinants of health; however, the traditional practice of screening patients during clinical encounters is limited by the capacity of busy clinicians. Our medical legal partnership utilized care coordinators trained by the legal service attorneys to screen patients outside of clinical encounters for health harming legal needs. The goal of our study was to demonstrate that our novel model could successfully identify and refer patients of a safety-net healthcare system to appropriate legal services. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of the program. Data was collected during the implementation period of the program from March 2017 to August 2018. Operational data collected included number of patients screened, number of referrals to the legal partner, source and reason for referrals. Return on investment was calculated by subtracting program costs from the total reimbursement to the health system from clients' insurance benefits secured through legal services. RESULTS: During the 18-month study, 29,268 patients were screened by care coordinators for health harming legal needs, with 492 patients (1.7%) referred for legal assistance. Of the 133 cases closed in 2017, all clients were invited to participate in a telephone interview; 63 pre-consented to contact, 33 were successfully contacted and 23 completed the interview. The majority (57%) reported a satisfactory resolution of their legal barrier to health. This was accompanied by an improvement in self-reported health with a decrease of patients reporting less than optimal health from 16 (89%) prior to intervention to 8 (44%) after intervention [risk ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.20 (0.04, 0.91)]. Patients also reported improvements in general well-being for themselves and their family. The healthcare system recorded a 263% return on investment. CONCLUSIONS: In our medical legal partnership, screening for health harming legal needs by care coordinators outside of a clinical encounter allowed for efficient screening in a high risk population. The legal services intervention was associated with improvements in self-reported health and family well-being when compared to previous models. The return on investment was substantial.