Envelope from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services with the American flag on top/U.S. immigration concept.

Health Justice for Immigrants, Revisited

By Medha D. Makhlouf

A major contribution of health justice is that it provides a framework for understanding how universal access to health care protects collective, as well as individual, interests. The pandemic has underscored the collective nature of the health and wellbeing of every person living in the United States, regardless of immigration status.

In a 2019 article, Health Justice for Immigrants, I adopted and adapted the health justice framework to the problem of disparities in immigrant access to subsidized health coverage. I argued that, in future health care reforms, health justice requires that immigrants be included in the “universe” of universal access to health care. In this blog post, I revisit this argument in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This blog post applies the health justice lens to inequities in immigrant health and access to health care, drawing out lessons for the pandemic and post-pandemic eras. It describes three examples illustrating the utility of health justice for catalyzing cross-sector initiatives to improve health, reducing the role of bias in the design of interventions to address health disparities, and ensuring that such efforts are serving the needs of historically subordinated communities.

Read More

elderly person's hand clasped in young person's hands

Vulnerability Theory and Health Justice

By Matthew B. Lawrence

If we want to understand how changes to the law might affect health outcomes, we must remain mindful that the law not only regulates how we behave in the world as it is, but also shapes the institutions and structures that make the world the way it is.

The dominant theoretical frameworks of classical liberalism and behavioral economics obscure this critical relationship.

In this blog post, I suggest that health justice and vulnerability theory fill this theoretical gap, and serve as invaluable, and largely complementary, frameworks for understanding health law and policy.

Read More

Bracket fungi, or shelf fungi produce shelf- or bracket-shaped or occasionally circular fruiting bodies called conks. They are mainly found on trees.

Whack-a-Mole, Fungi, and Intersectionality, or What I’ve Learned from Health Justice

By Mary Crossley

Nearly three decades ago, I published my first law review article considering the law’s ability to address unequal treatment in a health care setting. The newly minted Americans with Disabilities Act was the law, and physicians’ reluctance to provide treatment to infants believed to be infected with HIV was the inequality. Eventually I expanded my horizon beyond disability law to consider potential legal remedies for physician bias across a range of patient traits. As I did so, I described the thread tying together my scholarly projects as “how the law responds (or fails to respond) to instances of health care inequality.”

The key word in that description was “instances.” It suggested that health inequality presents discrete problems for the law to address. Given those problems’ ubiquity, however, policy makers, regulators, and advocates deploying law against health inequities found themselves in a game of Whack-a-Mole. Whack one mole, and another one pops its head up. Address one instance of health injustice, and another pops up. The problem is that, no matter how quick our reaction times are, health inequality surrounds us, firmly embedded in American society. We need to look deeper to find its roots.

Over the last decade, the development of health justice frameworks, along with increasing public and legal attention to social determinants of health, have changed how I frame my scholarship, in several ways.

Read More

A range of contraceptive methods: DMPA, vaginal ring, IUD, emergency contraceptive, contraceptive pills.

Connecting the Dots: Reproductive Justice + Research Justice = Health Justice

By Monica R. McLemore

I believe that together, reproductive justice and research justice should result in health justice.

I am choosing to focus on research because it is the evidence base that is foundational to clinical care provision and because teaching is generated by research.

Thus, research serves as one root cause of harm associated with clinical care and teaching, and a potential barrier to realizing health justice, which has been outlined as a comprehensive approach to resolve the social determinants of health and develop jurisprudence toward health equity. Research justice is critical to the conceptualization, development and implementation of these measures.

However, the law cannot establish health justice without reproductive justice, at least not for pregnant-capable people. Reproductive health, rights, and justice have been the proverbial canaries in the coal mine when considering the loss of bodily autonomy and human rights.

Read More

Scales of justice and gavel on table.

Symposium Introduction: Health Justice: Engaging Critical Perspectives in Health Law and Policy

By Ruqaiijah Yearby and Lindsay F. Wiley

Public health scholars, advocates, and officials have long recognized that factors outside an individual’s control act as barriers to individual and community health.

To strive for health equity, in which everyone “has the opportunity to attain . . . full health potential and no one is disadvantaged from achieving this potential because of social position or any other socially defined circumstance,” many have adopted the social determinants of health (SDOH) model, which identifies social and economic factors that shape health. Yet, health equity has remained elusive in the United States, in part because the frameworks that most prominently guide health reform do not adequately address subordination as the root cause of health inequity, focus too much on individuals, and fail to center community voices and perspectives.

The health justice movement seeks to fill these gaps. Based in part on principles from the reproductive justice, environmental justice, food justice, and civil rights movements, the health justice movement rejects the notion that health inequity is an individual phenomenon best explained and addressed by focusing on health-related behaviors and access to health care. Instead it focuses on health inequity as a social phenomenon demanding wide-ranging structural interventions.

This digital symposium, part of the Health Justice: Engaging Critical Perspectives in Health Law & Policy Initiative launched in 2020, seeks to further define the contours of and debates within the health justice movement and explore how scholars, activists, communities, and public health officials can use health justice frameworks to achieve health equity.

Read More

Gavel and a house on a white background. Concept art for eviction.

Eviction Moratorium Cases Reveal Courts’ Misunderstanding of Public Health

By Mahathi Vemireddy and Faith Khalik

Amid the COVID-19 Delta variant surge, the federal eviction moratorium — a key public health protection — will soon expire, and faces tough prospects for extension due to a series of legal battles.

These legal challenges highlight a narrow — and dangerous — conception of public health held by some courts, one which fails to recognize how social conditions such as housing can compound the impact of a virus. To protect our nation’s health, this misunderstanding of public health must be remedied.

Read More

Emergency room.

Worsening Health Inequity During Pandemic for People Experiencing Homelessness

This piece was adapted from a post that originally ran at On the Flying Bridge on March 28, 2021.

By Michael Greeley

With great fanfare last week, DoorDash announced an initiative to provide same-day home delivery of approved COVID-19 test collection kits.

Much of the business model innovation in health care today is to move as much care as is feasible to the home. But what does that mean for the homeless?

Read More

Grocery store.

How Restrictions on SNAP Harm Health

By Molly Prothero

One of President Biden’s earliest actions in office was to sign an executive order asking Congress and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to expand the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP).

President Biden proposed that Congress extend the 15% SNAP benefit increase, originally passed in late December. Biden’s executive order also directed the USDA to issue new guidance documents enabling states to increase SNAP allotments in emergency situations and update the Thrifty Food Plan, the basis for determining SNAP benefits, to better reflect the cost of a nutritious diet today.

President Biden’s actions stand in sharp contrast to Trump, who sought to limit the reach of SNAP benefits during his time in office. In December 2019, Trump’s USDA issued a final rule restricting SNAP eligibility for unemployed adults without dependents.

Read More

Gavel and a house on a white background. Concept art for eviction.

Why Biden’s Extension of the Eviction Moratorium Isn’t Enough

By Molly Prothero

On President Joe Biden’s first day in office, he signed an executive order calling on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to extend its federal eviction moratorium through March 2021.

But this action protects only a subset of tenants who meet specific qualifications and, crucially, know to fill out a CDC Affidavit and submit it to their landlords. And despite skyrocketing COVID-19 case counts, most state eviction moratoriums have now lifted, leaving tenants vulnerable to displacement and homelessness.

Read More

gavel.

How to Reduce Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System

By Caroline Hinnenkamp

Racial disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system are well documented –– people of color are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and incarcerated.

Diversion efforts –– so named for their approach, which is to divert individuals away from the court process and instead offer opportunities for rehabilitation –– risk perpetuating these same racially disparate trends. Particularly if diversion programs have eligibility constraints based on prior records, people of color are more likely to be denied entry, because they are arrested and convicted at a higher rate than their white counterparts.

Historically, prosecutors tended to justify these constraints as mechanisms used to gauge an applicant’s capacity for rehabilitation, with recidivism (the tendency of a convicted criminal to reoffend) reduction as the central goal of diversion. Diversion was an alternative offered to the lucky few deemed “eligible” or “deserving,” with the implication being that reoffenders have a criminal disposition that is not amenable to rehabilitation.

But programs that use these screening methods tend to overlook the underlying facts and circumstances that might have brought about the applicant’s priors, such as implicit bias in law enforcement or the over-policing of specific communities. Without additional safeguards, the seemingly neutral constraint of “priors” fails to account for relevant pre-existing conditions, and risks barring entry to applicants who might otherwise benefit from diversion.

Read More