Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

Boston Globe Op-ed: Amidst COVID-19, Hospital Siting Decisions Have Equity Implications

One of the most telling aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic has been its disparate impact on minority communities in the United States. At least three factors seem to be at work in the elevated death rate: uneven access to health care, greater prevalence of preexisting (and often inadequately treated) comorbidities, and greater likelihood of on-the-job exposure. Writing in the Boston Globe last week, CPR Member Scholar Shalanda Baker, together with co-authors Alecia McGregor, Camara Jones, and Michelle Morse, point out yet another way that the pandemic is taking a particular toll on low-income communities and communities of color.

They point to a decision by a for-profit hospital chain, Steward Health Care, to convert Carney Hospital in Dorchester, Mass., which under normal conditions serves as a safety net hospital for low-income residents, into a dedicated COVID-19 hospital.

The co-authors note that while the decision was initially deemed a "welcome expansion of hospital capacity in response to the outbreak," it has other notable downstream impacts. Viewed through a different lens, the choice of Carney means that low-income Dorchester residents won't have access to their nearby hospital for non-COVID-19 purposes, but other Steward hospitals in the area will be able to resume more profitable procedures. They write,

Dedicating Carney to critically ill COVID-19 patients appeared to us to be a move to free up Steward’s other Massachusetts hospitals to schedule better-reimbursed procedures, though the hospital’s management says this is not the case. Although the Emergency Department remains open, the move also, critically, temporarily removes other types of inpatient care from the local community. Viewed more cynically, it may be a strategic way, in the middle of a crisis, to turn Steward’s money-losing location into a potential source of additional revenue.

They go on:

Over the last several decades, urban hospitals have been more likely to close in majority-Black neighborhoods than in other locales. People of color and low-wealth individuals are also disproportionately affected by the underlying conditions that have been identified as risk factors for critical complications of COVID-19. Thus, the accessibility of ICU beds in this time is paramount, and this critical care must be distributed equitably.

You can read the entire op-ed here.

Showing 2,818 results

Matthew Freeman | May 6, 2020

Boston Globe Op-ed: Amidst COVID-19, Hospital Siting Decisions Have Equity Implications

One of the most telling aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic has been its disparate impact on minority communities in the United States. At least three factors seem to be at work in the elevated death rate: uneven access to health care, greater prevalence of preexisting (and often inadequately treated) comorbidities, and greater likelihood of on-the-job exposure. Writing in the Boston Globe last week, CPR Member Scholar Shalanda Baker, together with co-authors Alecia McGregor, Camara Jones, and Michelle Morse, point out yet another way that the pandemic is taking a particular toll on low-income communities and communities of color.

Michael C. Duff | May 6, 2020

Novel Smithfield Foods Public Nuisance Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice

In what for me is an ominous development, the Smithfield Foods public nuisance case, about which I blogged earlier, has been summarily denied by a Missouri federal district court and the case has been dismissed. The decision took all of twelve days. In a nutshell, the court accepted the primary jurisdiction arguments that I have previously discussed but will not repeat here. Sometimes cases are illustrative of clear legal principles. This, for me, is not one of those cases. Sometimes cases set "mood points." And I fear that is the situation here. I have great concern about the prospect for an unreflective, anti-liability fervor enveloping the Great Reopening, though this decision did not directly reach questions of liability that could impact state workers' compensation or tort law.

Darya Minovi | May 5, 2020

Webinar Recap: Vulnerability and Resilience to COVID-19 and the Climate Crisis

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads across the globe, public health data continues to show that the virus’s worst effects are felt by communities already weighed down by the burden of multiple social and environmental stressors. As of May 3, in CPR’s home city of Washington, DC, African Americans account for 79 percent of coronavirus deaths, despite making up only 45 percent of the city’s population and 47 percent of diagnosed cases. This inequitable trend appears to be playing out across the country. These issues and more were addressed last week in CPR’s fourth installment of our climate justice webinar series, titled, “Vulnerability and Resilience to COVID-19 and the Climate Crisis.” The featured speakers were Dan Farber, Dr. Monica Schoch-Spana, and Dr. Aaron Bernstein.

Michael C. Duff | May 5, 2020

The Public Nuisance Litigation in a Smithfield Foods Meatpacking Case: Workers’ Compensation Implications?

As Senate Republicans and corporations continue to lobby for the broadest possible "liability shields" in connection with the Great Reopening, a novel lawsuit framed in terms of public nuisance theory is being litigated in a Missouri federal court.

Matt Shudtz, Rachel Micah-Jones | May 4, 2020

Baltimore Sun Op-ed: More Needs to Be Done to Protect Our Meat and Poultry Workers

President Donald Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to order meat and poultry plants to continue operating despite COVID-19 outbreaks, exposing Maryland's poultry workers to enormous risks. Poultry processors haven't demonstrated they're able to keep workers safe and healthy, but they know that many of these low-wage workers will be forced to return. To top it all off, one of the president's goals with this order was to provide legal immunity to companies, so that they can't be sued by employees who are infected as a result of unsafe working conditions.

Sean B. Hecht | May 4, 2020

In Support of Public Health Federalism

For decades, "states' rights" has been a rallying cry of the right wing. Most Americans are familiar with the dynamics that required the federalization of civil rights law, both in the 1860s and again in the 1960s, the protection of much of our nation's federal lands, and the national crises that necessitated the federal government to enact national minimum standards to protect public health and the environment. Many of us are also familiar with the right-wing backlash to these movements—indeed, the devolving of baseline environmental standards and public land management to the state and local level has been a keystone of the political right since at least Ronald Reagan's presidency. But federalism—the division of authority between state and local governments, on one hand, and the federal government on the other—doesn't have to tilt in one (rightward) political direction.

Karrigan Bork, Steph Tai, Thomas Harter | May 1, 2020

Supreme Court Ruling Finds Old, New Middle Ground on Clean Water Act’s Application to Groundwater

Last week, the Supreme Court decided a case involving discharge from a wastewater reclamation facility owned and operated by the County of Maui, which discharged 3 to 5 million gallons of treated wastewater per day into four injection wells about half a mile from the ocean. Recent research showed that much of the injected waste eventually discharges to the ocean. Environmental groups sued the county for not obtaining a Clean Water Act permit, arguing that point source discharge of pollutants that eventually reach surface water is governed under the Act. Justice Breyer, writing for the Court majority, wrote "we do not see how Congress could have intended to create such a large and obvious loop hole in one of the key regulatory innovations of the Clean Water Act." On the "fairly traceable" approach, the opinion stated that such interpretation "would require a permit in surprising, even bizarre circumstances".

Michael C. Duff | April 30, 2020

President Orders Continued Meat Production; And Then There’s the 13th Amendment

The president's invocation of the Defense Production Act to order meat producers back to work apparently comes with broad liability immunity for producers compelled to comply with its terms. Michael Duff writes, "So 'anti-liability' is apparently coming by executive order and by Mitch McConnell edict. I think it remains to be seen how far into state law the immunization will purport to intrude. But if this goes much further the constitutional dimensions of tort law may be tested a lot more starkly than in prior periods of 'tort reform.'"

Robert Verchick | April 30, 2020

Did FEMA Take Your Mask?

No one really expected FEMA’s leadership of the coronavirus response to be inspiring or even, to put it bluntly, moderately competent. Still, I’ve been puzzled by several reports from state leaders and others that federal authorities have been confiscating purchased medical supplies without explanation or, at least in one case, compensation. I don’t mean situations where a federal agency outbids someone or orders a vendor to sell to the federal government instead. That happens, too, and the practice is controversial. I’m talking about instances in which federal officials show up unannounced at a warehouse or a port and physically seize crates of medical gear that had been on their way to some needy hospital or test center that had paid or agreed to pay for them. The agent flashes a badge, the goods are trucked out, and no one knows where they go.