On October 21, two Ohio counties are slated to present their opioid claims in a federal trial. However, last week, 13 states and the District of Columbia signed onto a brief requesting that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals stay the upcoming trials. Their reasoning? States should control lawsuits for harms within the state; cities and counties do not have authority to sue on their own. While it makes sense that Ohio’s attorney general, spearheading this effort, would want more power and control over opioid claims, the move has the potential to harm public health by disempowering local governments from addressing public health crises. Ohio’s three main arguments will be discussed in turn.
Argument 1: Violation of State Sovereignty
First, Ohio argues that the county lawsuits violate state sovereignty and disrupt the “federal dual-sovereign structure” of the United States:
Once again this past Thursday, the Democratic presidential candidate debate began on the topic of health care reform, and moderator George Stephanopoulos quickly steered the discussion to what he termed “the heart” of the debate. Should the United States increase access to care by building on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or by replacing ACA with a single-payer, Medicare-for-All system?
While this is an important question, there is an even more important question for the candidates to discuss. We need to hear them talk more about health than about health care.
As the suicide rate increases across the United States, researchers at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health approached the issue by considering the financial anxiety caused by low wages. Alex Gertner, Jason Rotter, and Paul Shafer used the LawAtlas minimum wage dataset to explore the associations between state minimum wages and suicide rates in the United States.
Public health experts know that the social determinants of health—the environments in which we live, work, learn, and play—all have important effects on our health and well-being. As further evidence of this, in October 2018, researchers from Opportunity Insights collaborated with the Census Bureau to unveil the Opportunity Atlas, an interactive tool tracking data from more than 20 million Americans from childhood through their mid-30s, across each of the country’s 70,000 census tracts. The Opportunity Atlas gives us crucial insight into the level of geography that can impact adult outcomes: beyond the state and city, the neighborhood matters, sometimes tremendously. Read More
Lots of questions and debate this week in housing equity and law. Here’s the latest for the week of February 21-27, 2017:
After a win for the Civil Gideon movement in New York, Next City asks if other cities could follow New York City’s lead and extend the right to counsel to low income tenants facing eviction?
There is a known racial wealth gap in the United States. Many attribute the wealth gap to the legacy of housing policies, such as redlining, that did not allow property of people of color to appreciate in the same manner as property of white Americans. Does that mean that today the solution to the wealth gap is in housing? Not necessarily argues Dorothy Brown of Emory University, via Forbes.
What does a Trump administration and large business tax cuts mean for affordable housing? Developers in California are concerned in the face of uncertainty as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program might become less attractive to banks and investors, via the LA Times.
While the research community still debates the extent to which gentrification leads to displacement, a new study in Journal of Urban Health assess the health outcomes of those who stay. Analysis via CityLab, paper here.
Dr. Bonastia discusses the active role federal agencies and courts have played in creating and perpetuating residential segregation. He points to the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, the Federal Housing Administration, the Veterans Administration, and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development as significant players in segregation and desegregation.
Understanding the roots of segregation and policy attempts to desegregate is key to understanding housing as a social determinant of health. Empirical research has shown associations between black-white segregation and an increased black infant mortality rate, elevated rates of black mortality, black homicide rates, and other negative individual and public health outcomes. Addressing racial residential segregation is imperative when attempting to improve any of those health outcomes.
Christopher Bonastia is professor of sociology at Lehman College and the City University of New York Graduate Center, as well as associate director of the Lehman Scholars Program and Macaulay Honors College at Lehman. He is the author of Southern Stalemate: Five Years without Public Education in Prince Edward County, Virginia as well as Knocking on the Door: The Federal Government’s Attempt to Desegregate the Suburbs.
Our team read Knocking on the Door during our initial research period on housing, health equity and legal levers. Continue reading below for our interview with Dr. Bonastia about this book and ongoing research in this area.