Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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). 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.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-021-00519-0

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.

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.

In 2010, 46.2 million Americans were living below the official poverty line, the highest number in the fifty-two years in which the Census Bureau has gathered figures.1 Additionally, the poverty rate among women rose to 14.5%, the highest rate in seventeen years.2 This means that more than 17 million women were living in poverty, compared with 12.6 million men.3 The \"extreme poverty rate\"4 among women was the highest ever recorded at 6.3%; and women are poorer than men in all racial and ethnic groups.5 Black and Latina women face particularly high rates of poverty: over 25% of black women and 25% of Latina women are poor.6 Every one of these women, and the families and communities to which they are connected, interact with legal systems on a daily basis, often to their own detriment.

In 1988, Senators Lowell Weicker, Tom Harkin and twelve other cosponsors in the Senate, and Congressman Tony Coelho and 45 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, introduced the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), S. 2345 and H.R. 4498, respectively.4 This version of the ADA was based on a bill drafted by Robert Burgdorf, then a staff attorney with the National Council on Disability (NCD), an independent federal agency charged with making recommendations to the President and Congress.5 Burgdorf's draft was modeled generally on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, albeit with some important differences. [...] the bill represented a critical first step in the enactment of the ADA since its introduction prompted subsequent activity on the part of both the business and disability communities.8 The effort to pass the subsequent version of the ADA in the 101st Congress was guided by a sophisticated, organized, and coherent strategic effort.9 Between 1989 and 1990, thirty to forty members of the disability community, under the umbrella of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Rights Task Force, worked tirelessly to pass the ADA.10 Various individuals took on different roles: a lead sttategist, a lobby manager working with many dedicated lobbyists, a legislative lawyer team, grassroots activists, and communications and media people.11 In 1989, during the first five months of the 101st Congress, staff members for Senators Tom Harkin and Edward Kennedy drafted a new version of the ADA, in consultation with members of the disability rights community.12 With respect to the definition of disability under the new bill, Senators Harkin and Kennedy chose to use the definition of handicap that governed Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act at the time because a new definition seemed both politically infeasible and legally unnecessary.13 On May 9, 1989, Senators Harkin and Kennedy and thirty-two cosponsors introduced a new version of the ADA, S. 933, in the Senate, and Congressman Steny Hoyer and forty-five cosponsors in the House of Representatives introduced an identical bill in the House, H.R. 2273.