Category: Law

Categories
Emotion Empathy Law Public Health

Through the Green Lens

By Rana Moawad

When will we learn that children belong running around, not lying under the dirt?

School days are interrupted by loud bangs of shots and dead bodies hitting the hard ground. Only 150 days in 2023, and we had 263 mass shootings, but who is counting anyway? Mass shootings are becoming the new norm; we scroll past the news reports like we are scrolling through ads. I refuse to be negligent of our children’s plight. Wearing my medical student white coat means I have a duty to serve my community. I joined Promise Neighborhoods of the Lehigh Valley (PNLV) to end gun violence.

While interviewing community members at PNLV on their views of healthcare, I met “Green.” She embodies the story of many women before and after her. A daughter of an immigrant woman trapped in an abusive relationship, Green ran away from home when she was 11 years old. She survived the streets and bore two boys.  It was not long until the violence outside made its way into their home.  No mother should have to say a final goodbye to her 17-year-old son, gone too soon from the bullets. A child is gone and another is in prison. Yet still, guns here and there.

How much more can the fragile heart take before it shatters? They say they care about people like us, but all they see is a paycheck waiting to come. Never taking the time to listen, but they call themselves healers and changers. Listen to our pain and our hardships, and maybe then you will make a difference. Do this, do that, take this, take that; medicine is nothing but a to-do list, with practitioners needing to take the time to listen. They tell me I have this disease and that, but do they even know my name? If they took the time to listen, they would see the Green I embody. 

Inside her green eyes lie the stories of those before her and those to come: a warrior, a grandmother, a mother, and an activist. She stands for all those who do not have a voice.

When will we fight together to prevent gun violence? Gun violence is killing our youth, waiting for the next victim…would that be me or you?

Bullets are flying. Children are dying. We need to change this broken system. We need gun regulations. We need more robust background checks and decrease easy access to dangerous weapons. Green stands up for all mothers so they can hug their children to bed rather than their pillows, soaked with tears and what-ifs.

Green embodies the story of many women before and after her. She taught me the true meaning of medicine. We must advocate for our community to heal our children and invest in our future.

My time at PNLV taught me that just like Green’s life, our communities have the potential to be like newly green-cut grass with hope and potential waiting to flourish where our children can safely play instead of lying seven feet under.

Categories
Clinical General Healthcare Costs Healthcare Disparities Law Public Health Quality Improvement

On Public Charge

A step forward or a step back from self-sufficiency?

By: Souma Kundu

At the start of 2020, I remember the Trump administration celebrating what it saw as a victory for “self-sufficiency,” and “protecting law-abiding legal citizens from undue tax burdens”. Following a battle in the lower court, in a much-anticipated Supreme Court ruling, the court sided 5-4 with the administration, allowing enforcement of the 2019 expansion of the Public Charge rules.

This court ruling on Public Charge marks only the latest iteration of a policy dating back to the 1882 Immigration Act. While the definition and enforcement has varied over time, the essence of the law remains true to its origins: immigrants who are deemed unable to take care of themselves without becoming dependent on public assistance are unsuitable for American citizenship and therefore denied entry. Historically, public charge was determined by a holistic review of an applicant’s circumstances including age, health, financial status, education and skills. The use of public benefits for cash assistance and long-term institutionalization could be considered in this review, but other programs such as nutritional/housing assistance or public insurance were not included. In 2019, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) expanded on the existing criteria to consider public benefits such as supplemental nutrition assistance, Medicaid or public housing. Additionally, it stipulated that the use of any of these public benefits for more than twelve months within any 36 month period may classify an applicant as a “public charge” effectively making them ineligible for permanent residency.

At the heart of this policy’s long-standing history is a deep-rooted belief that self-reliance is inextricably linked to the worth of an individual. It also posits that requiring public assistance is not only a burden to society, but one that is unlikely to be paid off or utilized for eventual gain.

But is this policy, and its predecessors really helping us increase self-sufficiency? Or is it robbing the US of its vast current and future population of contributing citizens? Even more pressing in 2020, is the impact of enforcing public charge during a pandemic leading to an underutilization of health care and resources only to increase morbidity and mortality across the nation?

From the lens of a healthcare worker, the general concern that efforts to rehabilitate lead to dependence baffles me. In medicine, from a sprained ankle to a surgery, achieving ultimate goals of “returning maximum function” all depend on how we can aid the healing process along the way. Generally, the use of a brace to offload the weight of a broken foot is not contested. Neither is the need for physical therapy to retrain our muscles after injury. But when it comes to rehabilitation of a person, our nation is much more skeptical of the process.

The abundance of research in the US and other countries on long-term effects of various welfare programs such as cash assistance, nutrition, and housing, point to the overwhelming benefits to the health of the recipients. Interestingly, benefits can also be seen towards community, by way of increased rates of labor participation, education attainment, employment status and productivity (Banerjee, Blattman, et. al). In a 2019 study on long-term economic impacts of childhood Medicaid, researchers found Medicaid-eligible children had higher wages starting in their twenties with wages increasing as they age. By the time these children reach age 28, their expected annual tax on earnings will return 58 cents for each Medicaid dollar spent to the government (Brown 2020). Providing basic human needs can be life changing – and it seems not just an ethical imperative, but a sound investment.

As many physicians, policy makers, immigration lawyers and researchers have feared, the changes to public charge determination is adding fear and confusion, resulting in underutilization of services available to immigrant families. Even programs such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which is exempt from public charge review, have experienced a decrease in utilization.  An early impact study of public charge since enforcement began in February 2020, showed a 1% increase in the US’ noncitizen population that was associated with a 0.1% drop in child Medicaid use, estimated as a decline in coverage of 260,000 children. Researchers attribute this drop in enrollment to the fear and misinformation spreading amongst immigrants around public charge (Barofsky 2020).

As a medical student in San Diego where roughly two-thirds of our county’s population is Spanish-speaking, the impact of fear-mongering could not be more clear. Since the start of the pandemic, our once overflowing children’s hospital emergency department has been eerily quiet. Parents are worried for the safety of their families at the cost of health consequences from delays in care. At a time when access to medical care is imperative, our patients without documentation fear being turned away, or worse, turned in.

Meanwhile, disenrollment affects more than just immigrant families foregoing public assistance. Safety-net hospitals which rely heavily on Medicaid and CHIP payment are estimated to be at risk for a loss of $68 billion in health care services for Medicaid and CHIP enrollees (Raphael 2020). A drop in Medicaid enrollees will lead to increases in uncompensated care, lower Medicaid and CHIP revenue, alongside the cost of complications and emergencies secondary to foregoing early/preventive care. The fear and reluctance that public charge has created is not a simple reduction in federal spending, but rather a shifting of the burden with downstream financial havoc.

With the ample evidence that negates the assertion that the use of public assistance dooms one to a lifetime of dependency, and evidence to the contrary, that foregoing use has downstream effects on society, I urge us to rethink the dominant narrative around welfare and its implications for our nation. If we reject the belief that we must limit the use of public resources in favor of nurturing our communities most in need, we are much more likely to manifest our nation’s values of self-sufficiency and unlocking its potential. I’m not asking you to give up on self-reliance, I’m asking you to invest in it.

References:

  1. Blattman C, Jamison J, Green E, Annan J. The returns to cash and microenterprise support among the ultra-poor: a field experiment. SSRN Journal. Published online 2014.
  2.  Banerjee AV, Hanna R, Kreindler G, Olken BA. Debunking the stereotype of the lazy welfare recipient: evidence from cash transfer programs worldwide. SSRN Journal. Published online 2015.
  3. Brown DW, Kowalski AE, Lurie IZ. Long-term impacts of childhood medicaid expansions on outcomes in adulthood. Review of Economic Studies. 2020;87(2):792-821.
  4. Barofsky J, Vargas A, Rodriguez D, Barrows A. Spreading fear: the announcement of the public charge rule reduced enrollment in child safety-net programs: study examines whether the announced change to the federal public charge rule affected the share of children enrolled in medicaid, snap, and wic. Health Affairs. 2020;39(10):1752-1761.
  5. Raphael JL, Beers LS, Perrin JM, Garg A. Public charge: an expanding challenge to child health care policy. Academic Pediatrics. 2020;20(1):6-8.
Categories
Clinical General Law Public Health

Let Me Be Brief: Politics in Medicine

A series of briefs by the Texas Medical Students

By: Shubhang Bhalla, Chelsea Nguyen, and Alejandro Joglar

There are only two possible scenarios: either the Mayans were inept seers, or they ran out of stone. In any case, the predicted end of the world missed its appointment by exactly eight years. With nearly three million deaths globally, COVID-19 has quickly assumed its standing as one of the leading communicable causes of mortality.1 Despite the novel therapeutics to combat the pandemic, recent scientific models and  health information now report that masks could have prevented nearly 12% of mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2.2 Surprisingly, this simple piece of personal protective equipment has become politicized, with some opponents claiming that masks are an infringement on human liberty. In the current sociopolitical climate, we are amid two pandemics: one of SARS-CoV-2 and another of misinformation—both equally harmful. Much like the historical precedent set in 1918 with the formation of     the Anti-Mask League, public health leaders of the twenty-first century must face the challenge of juggling objective science, pandering politics, and devastation left in the wake of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Public health has been consistently linked to leading political efforts of the time. From the development of environmental regulations, seatbelt laws, and smoking zones, to the contentious debate over mandatory vaccinations, efforts to improve public health sometimes impinge on various political ideologies and interests.3 Often, these debates can be broken down to the fundamental balance of individual autonomy and communal benefits. This intricate relationship between public health and politics has become increasingly strained during the current pandemic. Many critics of the pandemic response argue that by “flattening the curve,” individual autonomy has been infringed upon. Undoubtedly, the pandemic has catalyzed the transformation of established social operations: business closures, online education, and disruptive daily living. However, among what some call “liberty-depriving” mandates, the mandatory mask  usage remains a significantly contentious proposal. Wearing a mask serves to fulfill two broader, complementary goals: individual responsibility and adherence to a common, public paradigm to eradicate the pandemic. Despite its complementary nature, the wearing of masks has become a catalyst for political conflict, becoming a form of divisive political symbolism for the American public.

Today, only twenty-five states currently mandate face masks in public;4 however, as restrictions begin to  lift due to mounting public pressure, it is critical to understand that the origins of the mask resistance is the consequence of inconsistent scientific recommendations, actions of political figures, and America’s long-standing principle of liberty. The argument of wearing masks is simple: viruses are transmitted via droplets, and properly constructed masks can prevent the spread of infected droplets. According to the CDC, this is called “source control.”1 However, the delivery of this message has been muddled. In April, the World Health Organization (WHO) instructed the public not to use masks, while the CDC recommended the opposite. In June, the WHO adjusted its guidance to state that the public should wear nonmedical masks only in specific instances of high risk of infectivity. However, the CDC director touted universal mask wearing as “one of the most powerful weapons” to curb the rates of COVID-19.5 The net  result of conflicting recommendations was a divided population who sought concrete guidance from political figures.

Yet, political figures further allowed for festering sentiments against masks to transform into a symbolic ideology. Initially, the conflict arose with protest against government mandates, cited by some as “extensive governmental reach into individual action,” but as the debates shifted towards masks, a new conflict—one of the “culture war”—reigned.6 In this battle, masks were described as “muzzles . . . restricting His [God’s] respiration mechanism.”6 As these views gained popularity, politicians’ action indirectly supported these protests. Top officials, such as Donald Trump and Mike Pence, sought to erroneously show strength by limiting mask usage or outright denying the need for the equipment. In Montana on September 14, 2020, former Vice President Mike Pence stood in front of a large crowd to support the state’s Republicans. However, many individuals who attended the event, including Mike Pence, were not wearing a mask despite a mask order that was in effect for the surrounding county.7 Furthermore, at the national level, Congress denied passing the Masks for All Act of 2020, an initiative to provide high-quality masks for all individuals.8 Contradictions between the scientific community, state policy, and actions of key figures downplayed the severity of the virus, influenced public’s perception, and shifted support towards the anti-mask masses.

As of May 19th, approximately 125.5 million people in the United States have been fully vaccinated, either  by the two-dose series by Pfizer and Moderna or Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine.9 Per the CDC, it is predicted that 90% of the total US population will be vaccinated by July 12th.9 Despite this incredible progress, it is still important to continue following mask-wearing protocols as new research is being developed about effectiveness of the vaccine. For example, it is still unknown whether fully vaccinated individuals can transmit COVID-19 to unvaccinated individuals.10 Additionally, the rise of new variants of COVID-19 may influence the effectiveness of vaccines and the spread of COVID-19 among susceptible individuals. The uncertainty surrounding the vaccines and COVID-19 means it is essential to continue following public health mandates, including mask wearing if unvaccinated, social distancing, and following travel and local guidelines regardless of vaccination status. Dr. Anthony Fauci even mentioned during an interview with CNN that it is “possible” that Americans will be wearing masks in 2022.11

As medical students, we can play an important role by engaging with and educating our communities about the most effective methods of maintaining safety during the pandemic. It is important that we talk with our friends and family about why unvaccinated individuals should continue to wear a mask and follow certain precautions and remaining guidelines (ex: wearing masks on public transport) as well as recommending trusted resources for more information, such as the CDC. As new research develops and guidelines change, being a clear and comprehensive line of communication between science and the public is more important than ever before.

  1. Infection Control: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) | CDC. Centers Dis Control Prev. Published online 2020:1-4. Accessed May 9, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html
  2. Matuschek C, Moll F, Fangerau H, et Face masks: Benefits and risks during the COVID-19 crisis. Eur J Med Res. 2020;25(1). doi:10.1186/s40001-020-00430-5
  3. Bekker MPM, Greer SL, Azzopardi-Muscat N, McKee M. Public health and politics: How political science can help us move forward. Eur J Public Health. 2018;28(suppl_3):1-2. doi:10.1093/eurpub/cky194
  4. Markowitz Does Your State Have a Mask Mandate Due to Coronavirus? AARP. Published 2021. Accessed May 9, 2021. https://www.aarp.org/health/healthy-living/info-2020/states-mask-mandates-coronavirus.ht ml
  5. CDC and WHO offer conflicting advice on masks. An expert tells us why. Accessed May 9, 2021. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-offer-conflicting-advice-masks-expert-tells-us/story?id= 70958380
  6. Dyson, (2020). Are they masks or muzzles? Two discussions highlight different opinions | Latest News | starexponent.com. Free Lance Star. https://starexponent.com/news/are-they-masks-or-muzzles
  7. The Mask Hypocrisy: How COVID Memos Contradict the White House’s Public Face | Kaiser Health Accessed May 9, 2021. https://khn.org/news/mask-wearing-hypocrisy-how-covid-white-house-memos-contradict-ad ministration-coronavirus-defense-policy/
  8. Masks for All Act of 2020 (2020; 116th Congress S. 4339) – GovTrack.us. Accessed May 9, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s4339
  9. Covid-19 Vaccinations: County and State Tracker – The New York Times. Accessed May 9, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-19-vaccine-doses.html
  10. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC Issues First Set of Guidelines on How Fully Vaccinated People Can Visit Safely with Others. Accessed May 9, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0308-vaccinated-guidelines.html
  11. Fauci: “Possible” Americans will be wearing masks in 2022 to protect against Covid-19 – Accessed May 9, 2021.
Categories
Clinical General Healthcare Costs Law Opinion Patient-Centered Care Primary Care Public Health Reflection

Discontinuity in Care

My resident tries fairly hard to take care of his patients. When he is with them, I catch him paying attention to all sorts of details that he could have easily let slip past. So it made it all the more difficult when I saw him enraged. When he opened up his list of clinic appointments one morning, on the list was a patient he did not want to see. It was not just that she was a new patient to him. It was not just that her problem list went on like a run-on sentence. It was that both were true, and my resident was still expected to see her in only 15 minutes.

While chart reviewing, he learned that the only consistency in this patient’s medical care at our clinic had been a history of inconsistent providers—and based on their notes, none of them had the complete story. “Why am I even seeing her?!” my resident asked rhetorically, as he frantically searched for answers he knew he did not have the time to find. I wondered, too. This visit seemed to benefit no one except the Billing Department, and even that would depend on whether the Medicare reimbursements actually made it through.

That patient’s experience was hardly unique, though. While rotating through various specialties as a medical student, I have met several patients who were passed from one provider to another. Maybe the provider had to switch services. Maybe they left the institution for better opportunities elsewhere. The reasons were myriad. Stories like those suggest that continuity of care may still only be a priority in primary care literature.

I think one reason for this reality is a lack of incentives to keep doctors and patients together. In any field, including medicine, we see money driving people’s attention and vice versa. Since our country has historically kept primary care on the back burner, there is little evidence to believe that practical incentives for continuity of care will spontaneously appear in the near future.

So, for the primary care fans out there, it might be worth it to start speaking up.

 

Photo credit: Norbert von der Groeben/Stanford School of Medicine, posted by National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences

Categories
General Law

Not Science Fiction: American immigration politics threaten scientific advances

The year 2017 was an anti-science roller-coaster ride. From the plentiful deniers of climate change to the seven words rumored to be banished from the CDC’s vocabulary[1] to Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s questionable words equating fossil fuel consumption with the prevention of acts of sexual violence,[2] science seemed to be the biggest loser of 2017. Even the tax bill, the capstone of the year, appeared to be steeped in anti-science rhetoric, with several proposed provisions aimed at dismantling research. Among these were the taxation of tuition assistance for graduate researchers and increased taxation of companies examining renewable energy sources, both of which thankfully failed to make it into the final bill.[3]

Alongside all the powerful and disturbing hits to science, the country continues to see our administration make tactical maneuvers against immigration. As a humanitarian, I feel a deep sense of indignation that we have forgotten our history as a nation of immigrants and turned our backs on people who enrich our country both by strengthening our workforce and adding to our cultural melting pot. As a member of the medical community, however, I am worried that the disassembly of our immigration program will act as yet another catalyst to dismantle the country’s scientific endeavors.

From 1960 to 2014, 28 of the Nobel Prize winners in medicine have been scientists and physicians who immigrated to America. The numbers are similarly high in the fields of chemistry and physics, with 23 and 22 immigrants winning in these fields, respectively. Thankfully, nobody in our political administration has openly come out against cancer research, but considering that in 2014, 42% of the researchers in the top seven American cancer research centers are from 50-plus foreign countries, the administration placing severe restrictions on immigration deals a huge blow to science in our country and is in effect a stance against cancer research. Even the inventor of chemotherapy, George Clowes, immigrated to the United States from England to conduct research on chemotherapy and went on to found the American Association for Cancer Research.[4] In terms of the contemporary research landscape, American graduate institutions award approximately 30,000 doctoral degrees in the fields of science and engineering each year. Foreign-born researchers are responsible for 40 percent of these degrees. A high number of academic institutions coupled with more job opportunities in the fields of science and technology, as well as higher wages, are some of the factors attracting researchers from abroad to the US.[5]

So what would the American scientific landscape without immigrant scientists and medical researchers look like? In a word: prehistoric. The Nature Index ranks America as the number-one research-producing country, and had immigration restrictions prevented the aforementioned individuals from completing their research on American soil, perhaps we would still be learning about the four humors and spending our clinical years of medical school bleeding people with leeches. Most of us completing medical school will be entering into clinical practice that would not be possible without the contributions of researchers, many of whom are foreign-born. I hope that as a medical community, 2018 is an opportunity for us to recognize and celebrate the efforts of our colleagues who come from faraway lands to conduct valuable and potentially lifesaving research here in America before Jurassic immigration policies further threaten the well-being of our patients.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/16/health/cdc-banned-words/index.html

[2] http://time.com/5007787/rick-perry-fossil-fuels-sexual-assault/

[3] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/researchers-win-some-lose-some-final-us-tax-bill

[4] https://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/ie_mayjun15_front_lines.pdf

[5] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-us-produce-too-m/

Photo Credit: Victoria Pickering

Categories
General Law Lifestyle Public Health

Keeping Abreast of Lactation Laws

“Infant forced to go without milk, Mom says it’s not her fault.” This seems like the kind of terrifying headline that would be on the five O’clock news. Yet this is exactly what happens every day when the rights of women to breastfeed or express milk on the job go unprotected. One politician, Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), has made it her mission to make sure that women can breastfeed without repercussions. I have to admit that when I first heard about Representative Maloney’s Supporting Working Moms Act, I was baffled to think that in the year 2017, breastfeeding in the workplace could cost a woman her livelihood. With a little research, I started to realize just how ill-informed I was on the legality of breastfeeding.

I was surprised to learn that currently, no federal legal protections exist to protect public breastfeeding. Furthermore, only 47 states have laws that legalize public breastfeeding.[1] Of those states, Michigan’s law is a mere three years young. Astonishingly, Iowa offers no legal protections for breastfeeding. Even though public breastfeeding might be legal in most states, it wasn’t until 2010 that breastfeeding in the workplace received its own set of protections. A federal breastfeeding provision called “Break Time for Nursing Mothers,” which was added as an amendment to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), makes it mandatory for companies with 50 employees or more to provide “reasonable” break time for women to express milk during the first year of their child’s life. This same provision also requires companies to provide a clean and dedicated space for breastfeeding in the workplace.[2] However, this provision only ensures the rights of “nonexempt” workers, meaning only those who earn hourly wages as opposed to salaries are protected. Even with the laws that protect the right to breastfeed in public, women can still face repercussions that range from fines to docked pay to even termination as a direct consequence of breastfeeding in the workplace . With the ACA in jeopardy of being repealed (possibly by the time this article is published), the future of breastfeeding is more vulnerable than ever. The Supporting Working Moms Act is meant to provide federal breastfeeding laws independent of the ACA, as well as expand protection to 12 million additional women, including public school teachers.[3]

The issue of breastfeeding is close to my heart, not only as someone who hopes to one day become a mother, but also as a future physician: I know the powerful impact that breastfeeding can have on a child’s health. In their policy statement on the use of human milk, the American Academy of Pediatrics affirmed their position that infants should be breastfed exclusively for the first six months of their lives whenever possible.[4] Breastfeeding can be challenging for a number of reasons, and it is important to respect the fact that not all mothers are able to breastfeed their children. However, for those who can and choose to do so, the benefits can be profound for both the mother and the child. According to the National Institutes of Health, breastfeeding helps infants fight infection, lower their risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and could possibly serve as a protective factor against developing asthma, allergies, and even diabetes.[5] Studies show that babies who are breastfed attain better educational achievement than their non-breastfed peers by the age of five.[6] From an economic perspective, breastfeeding has been shown to lower healthcare costs by reducing disease burden in the population.[7] Even though many of us will not be pursuing careers in obstetrics, at some point in our careers, we will all establish some connection to a new mother, whether she is your patient, your partner, or yourself. Being informed about the legality of breastfeeding can help us to provide these women with support and guidance and make sure that our littlest patients have the healthy start in life that they deserve.

References:

[1] http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/breastfeeding-state-laws.aspx

[2] https://www.dol.gov/whd/nursingmothers/Sec7rFLSA_btnm.htm

[3] https://maloney.house.gov/issues/womens-issues/breastfeeding-0

[4] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/129/3/e827

[5]https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/breastfeeding/conditioninfo/Pages/benefits.aspx

[6] https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:13bde0c7-0070-43c6-9ae3-307478e8c42c

[7] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-breastfeeding-study-idUSTRE6342ZG20100405

Photo Credit: Roberto Saltori

Categories
Clinical General Law Opinion Patient-Centered Care Pharmacology Public Health

Access to Contraception

Contraception is essential to a woman’s health, empowerment, equality, and independence. This belief is championed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood, and others. More importantly, governing bodies of health care overwhelmingly defend access to contraception:

 “Contraception is a pillar in reducing adolescent pregnancy rates.”

  • The American Academy of Pediatrics [1]

 “Clinicians should discuss all contraceptive methods that can be used safely by the patient, regardless of whether a method is available on site and even if the patient is an adolescent or a nulliparous woman.”

  • American Academy of Family Physicians [2]

“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG] supports access to comprehensive contraceptive care and contraceptive methods as an integral component of women’s health care and is committed to encouraging and upholding policies and actions that ensure the availability of affordable and accessible contraceptive care and contraceptive methods.”

  • American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology [3]

“Access to safe, voluntary family planning is a human right. Family Planning is central to gender equality and women’s empowerment, and it is a key factor in reducing poverty.”

  • United Nations Population Fund [4]

“This policy supports the universal right to contraception access in the United States and internationally.”

  • American Public Health Association [5]

“Family Planning, an integral component of sexual and reproductive health, is a critical pillar for health and development; it is also a human rights issue…When women are denied their right to and choice of family planning methods, they become trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty, poor health outcomes from ill-timed pregnancies and limited capacity to fully realize their potential.”

  • World Health Organization [6]

 

Contraception is regarded by the CDC as one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.[7] Of the many reversible contraceptive options available, implant and intrauterine device are most effect, with less than 1% risk of failure for both perfect and typical use compared to an 18% failure rate for typical male condom use.[8] Of course, condoms are the only available contraceptive method that also protects against transmission of infections, including the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and human papilloma virus transmission through certain makes of condoms.

Benefits of contraception include: improved health and well-being, reduced global maternal mortality, pregnancy spacing and subsequent health benefits, increased participation of females in the workforce, and economic independence for women.[9]

In the United States, 70% of women ages 15 to 44 years old are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant. Thus, 70% of reproductive aged women are at risk of unintended pregnancy. The Guttmacher Institute, a leading researcher of reproductive health, reported that consistent and correct use of modern contraception (i.e. condom, hormonal contraception, long-acting method, or permanent method) without any gaps in use during all months a woman is sexually active resulted in 68% of sexually active reproductive age women avoiding an unintended pregnancy.[10] These women accounted for only 5% of unintended pregnancies that occurred in 2008. In comparison, 41% of the 3 million unintended pregnancies were a result of inconsistent modern contraceptive use and 54% resulted from nonuse.[10]

Sadly, in addition to other Catholic-based religious organizations, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops argues that contraception does not prevent unintended pregnancy nor reduce abortion rates.[11] The USCCB also does not believe that contraception is basic health care.[12] Instead, the USCCB states,

 “Contraception is an elective intervention that stops the healthy functioning of healthy women’s reproductive systems. Medically it is infertility, not fertility, that is generally considered a disorder to be treated.”

Let me be clear. Access to contraception is basic health care. 222 million women globally have an unmet need for modern contraception.[4] This burden is highest in vulnerable populations such as adolescents, those from low socioeconomic households, those with HIV, and internally displaced persons.[4]

The WHO issued guidance and recommendations on “Ensuring human rights in the provision of contraceptive information and services,” in which officials outline nine priority actions policy makers and providers need to take to ensure that human rights are protected in the provision of contraceptive information and services.[13] These steps include:

  1. Non-discrimination in provision of contraceptive information and services
  2. Availability of contraceptive information and services
  3. Accessibility of contraceptive information and services
  4. Acceptability of contraceptive information and services
  5. Quality of contraceptive information and services
  6. Informed decision-making
  7. Privacy and confidentiality
  8. Participation
  9. Accountability [of programs that deliver contraceptive information and services]

In regards to current politics and policy proposals, accessibility of contraceptive options includes affordability.

Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) healthcare law, preventative women’s health services—including well-woman visits; screening for gestational diabetes; human papilloma virus testing; counseling for sexually transmitted diseases; counseling and screening for HIV; contraceptive methods and counseling; breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling; and screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence—are covered without any co-payment, co-insurance, or deductible.[14] For reference, if the ACA healthcare law were not in place, the average out-of-pocket cost for birth control would be $78-$185 per year.[14] For myself, my oral contraceptive pills cost $30 per month, totaling $360 per year! This was a financial burden as a student—but essential for my overall health—and so, I budgeted. But not everyone has that capability.

The ACA’s expansion of health care coverage and improved access to care also resulted in reductions in delayed care, as well as improved maternal and newborn outcomes. From 2010 to 2014, the proportion of women who reported delaying or forgoing care due to cost concerns dropped by 3.4%.[15] The health care law also funded the Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns Initiative, a collaboration between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Administration on Children and Families. The initiative aims to reduce preterm birth rates and improve maternal and newborn health outcomes. This is key because full-term babies have improved outcomes compared to those born in an early, term elective delivery.

The United States Human Health and Services notes that actuaries, insurers, and economists generally estimate that contraception provisions are at least cost-neutral and may, in some cases, result in cost-savings when taking into account the costs and benefits of unplanned pregnancies.[14] In 2009, the UNPF and Guttmacher Institute published a detailed report explaining how family planning and maternal and newborn health services saves lives and money. Preventing and/or postponing unintended pregnancies results in fewer expenses due to the decreased need for maternal and newborn health care and the management of unsafe abortions.[16] In addition, ensuring standards of maternal and newborn health care reduces the rates of complications and subequently incurred high costs.

Keeping these considerations in mind, our current political climate is of great concern because on January 20, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to repeal the ACA.[17]

I received an email update this week from ACOG reporting that the AAFP, American College of Physicians, AAP, ACOG, and American Osteopathic Association mailed a joint letter representing over 500,000 physicians asking the White House and Congressional leaders to “stand with us and for America’s women” because “healthy women can better participate in our economy and our workforce, and can reach higher levels of educational attainment.” The letter also identifies four priorities moving forward, one of which is to ensure that women have affordable access to evidence-based care.[18]

ACOG’s committee opinion on access to contraception emphasizes full implementation of the ACA requirement that,

“…new and revised private health insurance plans cover all U.S. Food and Drug administration-approved contraceptives without cost-sharing, including non-equivalent options from within one method category (eg. levonorgestrel as well as copper intrauterine devices).” [3]

Throughout the next few months and years when you are voting or exercising your right to debate the very real challenge we face to reduce health care costs, please remember that investing in family planning and maternal and newborn health care services saves money. And remember that leading healthcare organizations—the very governing bodies who set the standards for evidence-based care—strongly advise that the White House and Congress to write healthcare laws that ensure affordable women’s health care and access to contraception. I urge readers to fight for access to contraception, a necessary and significant human right.

For more information about available contraceptive options, please see the “Birth Control (Contraception): Resource  Overview” published by ACOG, available at http://www.acog.org/Womens-Health/Birth-Control-Contraception#Patient.

References

  1. Committee on Adolescence. Policy Statement: Contraception for Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2014
  2. Klein DA, Arnold JJ, and Reese ES. Provision of Contraception: Key Recommendations from the CDC. Am Fam Physician. 2015;91(9): 625-633.
  3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Access to contraception. Committee Opinion No. 615. Obstet Gyneco.l 2015;125:250-5.
  4. United Nations Population Fund and Center for Reproductive Rights. Family Planning. Available at: http://www.unfpa.org/family-planning. Accessed November 29, 2015.
  5. American Public Health Association. Universal Access to Contraception; Policy 20153. November 2015. http://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2015/12/17/09/14/universal-access-to-contraception. Accessed: November 28, 2016.
  6. World Health Organization. Family Planning Summit, 11 July 2012: WHO’s Commitment. Available at: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/family_planning/WHO_commitment_fp.pdf?ua=1. Accessed: November 30, 2016.
  7. Sonfield A, Hasstedt K, Kayanaugh MI, Anderson R. The social and economic benefits of women’s ability to determine whether and when to have children. New York (NY) Guttmacher Institute; 2013. Available at: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/social-economic-benefits.pdf. Accessed: November 29, 2016.
  8. Guttmacher Institute. Contraceptive Use in the United States. September 2016. Available at: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states. Accessed: November 29, 2015.
  9. Starbird E, Norton M, and Marcus R. Investing in Family Planning: Key to Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016;4(2):191-210.
  10. Guttmacher Institute. Infographic: Contraception is highly effective. July 2013. Available at: https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2013/06/infographic-contraception-highly-effective. Accessed: November 28, 2016.
  11. Emergency Contraception Fails to Reduce Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion. Available at: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/contraception/fact-sheets/emergency-contraception-fails-to-reduce-unintended-pregnancy-abortion.cfm Accessed: February 2, 2017.
  12. Fact Sheet: Contraceptive Mandates. Available at: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/contraception/fact-sheets/contraceptive-mandates.cfm Accessed: February 2, 2017.
  13. Ensuring human rights in the provision of contraceptive information and services: Guidance and recommendations; 2016. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/102539/1/9789241506748_eng.pdf?ua=1. Accessed: November 28,2016.
  14. S. Department of Health & Human Services. Fact Sheets: Women and the Affordable Care Act. Available at: https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts-and-features/fact-sheets/women-and-aca/index.html. Accessed: November 28, 2016.
  15. Simmons A, Taylor J, Finegold K, Yabroff R, Gee E, and Chappel A. The Affordable Care Act: Promoting Better Health for Women. ASPE Issue Brief;2016:1-10.
  16. UNFPA and Guttmacher Institute. Adding it Up 2014: The Costs and Benefits of Investing in Sexual and Reproductive Health. UNFPA, Guttmacher Institute. 2016;1-56.
  17. The White House Office of Press Secretary. Executive order minimizing the economic burden of the patient protection and affordable care act pending repeal. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/2/executive-order-minimizing-economic-burden-patient-protection-and. Accessed: January 2, 2017.
  18. Healio Family Medicine. AAFP, ACP, others join forces in new effort to protect women’s health. Available at: http://www.healio.com/family-medicine/womens-health/news/online/%7B1b88e282-cd33-402c-a97a-bea5ef45238f%7D/aafp-acp-others-join-forces-in-new-effort-to-protect-womens-health . Accessed: January 2, 2017.

Photo credit:

Blue coat photos

Categories
Emotion Empathy General Law

Gratitude: A Good Recipe for Holiday Cheer

The “most wonderful time of the year” is often filled with stark contrasts. While glitz and opulence surround us, sorrow and despair seem to grow emboldened. Nowhere is this truer than in a big city, where poverty and privilege so closely intermingle. Minutes after I walked down Fifth Avenue, basking in the glow of the Christmas lights infinitely multiplied in the facets of glittering diamonds displayed on shop windows, I found myself peering down into a simple metal container full of school supplies. This school-in-a-box, provided by the United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef), was on display as part of an exhibit called “Insecurities: Tracing Displacement and Shelter”. Insecurities represents one installation in the Citizens and Borders series organized by the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York City. The Citizens and Borders project aims to highlight experiences of migration, territory, and displacement[1]. Standing in front of this school-in-a-box, I thought of our medical school, replete with its high-tech anatomy lab, treadmill desks, and air conditioning system so powerful it sometimes forces us to use blankets in our lecture halls for warmth. I thought of my comfortable bed at home, and of the night table that stands next to it, teeming with books, and of the shelf above it filled with movies.

Once more, we find ourselves in the midst of the holiday season, awash with bright lights and commercial cheer. This year’s winter holidays occur on the heels of an extremely draining presidential election season that left over fifty percent of Americans feeling stressed and anxious.[2] Already this month, I have seen patients who have related somatic complaints to the election, cooking, and spending time with their extended family To add insult to inury, the commercialism of the season which suggests we ought to see the world through the rosy hues of a colored ornament can exacerbate feelings of stress and anxiety in those who are already overwhelmed and not feeling their healthiest.. As a caregiver, I realize that it is important for us all to be especially sensitive this year to patients who may be feeling a bit less than the usual holiday cheer.

Peering down into the school-in-a-box reminded me of how grateful I am for the many privileges in my life. Some of these privileges, like a loving and supportive family, or being born in a country with free speech and democratic elections, are pure happenstance. Others I have worked hard for, like the privilege of attending medical school and caring for patients. It is important, now more than ever, that we have gratitude for our privileges in life, and help our patients extend an outlook of gratitude in their own life.

Gratitude has11522685876_5d27ebdb25_o consistently been shown to have a positive impact on mental health. Dr. Martin E. P. Seligman, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, asked study participants to write letters of gratitude to people in their lives whose important contributions had previously gone unacknowledged. He then quantified the impact of these letters on the study participants’ letter writers by providing them with a happiness score. Unsurprisingly, the mere act of writing the letter and expressing gratitude was found to boost each participant’s happiness score.[3] As physicians, we ought to support many outlets for creative expression, from yoga to painting, as ways to contribute to our patients’ well being, but we also need to consider gratitude as its own kind of healing salve. Whether we encourage our patients to write expressions of gratitude to special people in their lives, or just to reflect on the small blessings in their everyday lives, gratitude should have a place in our roster of medical advice. We cannot and should not strive to take away the things in our patients’ lives that cause them discomfort, anxiety, and sorrow, whether they be personal events or national political outcomes. Good medicine is not about making the world a more comfortable place, but rather, making our patients more comfortable within the world.

[1] https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/1653?locale=en

[2] http://www.npr.org/2016/11/06/500931825/how-to-deal-with-election-anxiety

[3] http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/in-praise-of-gratitude

 

Photo credit: Timo Gufler

Categories
Forensics Law

Forensic Pathology and Death Investigation in the United States

This piece is the first in a three part series on Forensic Pathology in the United States. I will focus on how death investigation works in this country, the critical role physicians play in the process, and how to fix the enormous shortcomings of our current system.

It is perhaps necessary to begin by distinguishing medical examiners from coroners. Coroners do not have to be medical doctors in most states, and are usually elected. Typically a sheriff or another member of law enforcement fills the role of coroner. The requirements for being a coroner vary, but in most states no intensive training is required. For example, in California (where I live), a coroner must take a 2 week course, after which he or she may write death certificates in traumatic injury cases. Coroners do not perform autopsies, but do have the final say regarding the cause of death. They may or may not send bodies out to contracted pathologists for autopsies, and may or may not follow the recommendations of the pathologists who perform the autopsies.

A medical examiner is, by definition, a medical doctor. He or she is usually board certified in forensic pathology with the American Board of Pathology. Becoming board certified requires 4 years of medical school, plus a 3-4 year residency in anatomic pathology, plus a one year fellowship in forensic pathology. Once this extensive training has been completed, the individual may perform autopsies and present evidence as a medical expert in a court of law.

In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a report entitled Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States:  A Path Forward, which outlines how death investigation in the United States is conducted. The report begins in the following manner: “Recognizing that significant improvements are needed in forensic science, Congress directed the National Academy of Sciences to undertake the study that led to this report.” Clearly, the government saw that there was a need to look into the way forensic science is practiced. As it stands, each state and each county has a different system put in place for death investigation. The following map shows this patchwork of systems:

coroners_map_624-984843ef9bf65fc47d2a04b4ae952caf047bfae6-s800-c85
Photo courtesy of NPR

 

Unfortunately, this means that where an individual dies determines the quality of investigation into his or her death. Many factors contribute to the quality of the investigation, including whether there is adequate funding for the coroner and/or medical examiner’s office, and whether the physician performing the autopsy happens to be board certified in forensic pathology. There are no national standards for this; the National Academy of Sciences report mentioned above states that “the hodgepodge and multiplicity of systems and controlling statutes makes standardization of performance difficult, if not impossible.” There is no proficiency testing for the individuals who carry out these investigations, which results in incompetent practitioners being able to work unnoticed for decades.

Occasionally, court cases with heavy media coverage will bring the glaring need for standardization front-and-center. Horror stories abound about lost body parts, bullet holes being overlooked, wrongful convictions, murderers walking free as a result of botched autopsies, etc.

In cases involving police brutality, conflicts of interest often arise because elected coroners usually have strong ties to law enforcement. If an individual in custody is beaten to death, or if there is a police shooting similar to the one making headlines now in Ferguson, Missouri, do we really want the person in charge of the body and/or in charge of the entire death investigation to be an ex- or current police officer?

PBS Frontline: Post Mortem aired in 2011 and took a look at the problems mentioned above. This program featured two forensic science professionals who shared their opinions about the deplorable state of death investigations in the United States:

“In this country, many medical-legal offices are producing garbage.”
-Vincent Dimaio, M.D., former Chief Medical Examiner, San Antonio, TX


“It amazes me that such an important aspect of our government as medical-legal death investigation doesn’t have accreditation.”
-Ross Zumwah, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, New Mexico

Clearly, we need to improve on our processes, and as future physicians and citizens we need to understand the importance of forensic pathology and death investigation, for the sake of our communities at large and for the sake of the families of those who have passed away. Our patients do not stop being our patients after they pass away; everyone deserves the right to a proper investigation surrounding the circumstances of their death.

Featured image:
Forensics – Spurensuche by Margrit

References:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/forensic_science___may_2014.pdf
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/post-mortem/map-death-in-america/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/post-mortem/
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFPW016ocXI/

 

Categories
Law Opinion

Medicolegal Issues: Physician Involvement in Litigation

The medical and legal landscapes are intertwined much more so than ever before. With the advent of this close relationship between the medical and legal fields, physicians have become involved in a multitude of legal proceedings. Physician involvement ranges from consultation on legal matters to testifying in open court to contesting malpractice lawsuits. In part 2 of our review of medicolegal issues, we are going to look at a few different types of legal cases that physicians are involved in, and what their roles are in those proceedings.

Social Security or Supplemental Security Disability Hearings

One of the major case types in which physicians are involved is for determination of an individual’s eligibility for Social Security or Supplemental Security Income Disability. Both of these programs provide financial assistance for those with disabilities. Social Security Income Disability pays benefits to people who are “insured”, meaning those who have worked for a certain number of years and have paid Social Security taxes. Supplemental Security Income does not have those restrictions, and pays benefits based on the financial requirements of the applicant.

Cases involving income disability center around a hearing, where citizens can appeal decisions made by the Social Security Administration (SSA) involving eligibility or specific monetary payouts. In these types of cases, physicians often testify for both the claimant and SSA. When physicians testify for the claimant, their purpose is usually to summarize key information about the claimant’s medical history and to provide the judge with evidence justifying the awarding of income disability. When physicians testify for the SSA, the purpose of their testimony remains to summarize key information about the claimant’s medical history. However, physicians are often called by the SSA to help support SSA decisions and prevent the case from being remanded or appealed again. Irrespective of which party the physician testifies for, they are also exposed to questioning by the other side involved in the hearing.

Criminal Trials

Another key case type that physicians testify in, and probably the one most notable to the public, is criminal trials. In criminal trials there are two notable roles that physicians may play.   Physicians in the field of forensic pathology fill the first notable role. Forensic pathology is a sub-specialty of pathology and requires an additional year of fellowship training after completion of a pathology residency program. The role of forensic pathologists is multiple, with their primary objective being to analyze biological evidence. This analysis can include such things as performing autopsies on postmortem specimens to determine cause of death, examining wounds for possible etiology, inspecting histological slides to identify a disease process, or interpreting toxicology screens to determine drug exposure or impairment. Forensic pathologists are often called upon as expert witnesses to provide their testimony in open court, and they are subject to questioning by both parties involved in a case.

Forensic psychiatrists fill the second notable role for physicians in criminal trials. Forensic psychiatry is a sub-specialty of psychiatry, with an additional year of fellowship training after completing a psychiatry residency program. The responsibilities of a forensic psychiatrist include determining a person’s ability to stand trial in the context of mental competence. Further responsibilities include giving an opinion to the court about the mental state of a person during the commission of a crime. If a forensic psychiatrist determines that the party in question has some mental defect or illness, the party may be found “not guilty by reason of insanity.” The validity of these judgments are controversial, as many are suspicious of attorneys using “insanity defenses” when they are not typically warranted. Like forensic pathologists, forensic psychiatrists are subject to questioning by both parties involved in any legal case in which they testify.

Malpractice Cases

Medical malpractice is defined as professional negligence by a health care provider where the treatment provided falls below, or deviates from, accepted standards of care. The specific course of action taken by the health care provider results in injury or death of the patient. In these types of cases physicians are the defendants, and they often employ legal advisors to aid in their defense. In order to further protect themselves from malpractice suits, physicians and hospital systems spend significant sums of money on malpractice insurance.

The statistics behind medical malpractice are both interesting and striking. In 2012, malpractice payouts totaled $3.6 billion from 12,142 claims. Cases involving death (31%) and significant permanent injuries (19%) encompassed 50% of all payouts. 5 states (New York, Pennsylvania, California, New Jersey, and Florida) had total payouts exceeding $200 million. The significant monetary burden of malpractice claims has created a controversy surrounding tort reform. Malpractice tort reform will be the topic of the next installment of the series, so stay tuned!

 

Sources

  1. http://www.ssa.gov/disability/
  2. http://www.disabled-world.com/disability/legal/ssdi-hearings.php
  3. http://www.ssdrc.com/disabilityquestions1-49.html
  4. http://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2013/05/16/10-things-you-want-to-know-about-medical-malpractice/
  5. http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/29-statistics-on-medical-malpractice-payouts-and-lawsuits.html

Featured image:
Cast Aluminium Nurse with Stethoscope (Ne Kensington, PA) by takomabibelot