Law enforcement agencies across the United States use aggressive policing strategies into their operations. Communities of color—particularly Black communities—are overexposed to these policing strategies and the health harms they engender.

In a new Health Policy Brief, Michael Esposito and coauthors dive into the negative mental and physical health outcomes associated with aggressive policing. They discuss how law enforcement institutions contribute to US population health, add to the hazards that racialized populations face, and amplify health disparities.

Esposito and coauthors also highlight several proposed policy interventions to reduce or eliminate the negative population health effects of aggressive policing, including greater transparency to hold law enforcement agencies responsible for providing comprehensive accounts of their interactions with civilians.

They write, "True progress will require federal standards that compel law enforcement agencies across the country to provide accurate, standardized data on their interactions with the public."

Listen to Health Affairs' Rob Lott talk with co-author Hedwig Lee about the brief on today's episode of Health Affairs This Week.

Also, in April’s Narrative Matters essay, David E. Velasquez describes the financial fallout after his uninsured father received treatment for a heart attack and subsequent medical bills totaling over $100,000. Velasquez describes the burdensome process of navigating the hospital charity care system, including the time, energy, and English-language capabilities needed to utilize it.

In the essay, Velasquez outlines ways to increase accessibility of financial assistance to those who need it, but emphasizes, "the ultimate goal for patients traversing the health care system’s complicated financial web is not enhanced charity care but affordable and comprehensive health insurance coverage."

Hear Velasquez read his essay on the Narrative Matters podcast.

Today Health Affairs Blog features two new posts about pharmaceutical-related march-in rights. First, Peter J. Pitts, pointing to a recent Government Accountability Office report on federal contributions to remdesivir, argues that exerting federal march-in rights would actually fail to achieve the best bang for the buck when it comes to public health. On the other hand, Peter S. Arno and coauthors argue that, although the prospect of utilizing march-in rights may keep drug prices in check, a recently proposed federal rule threatens to undermine that protection.

In a new GrantWatch post, Arielle Lawson and Ann Ritter report lessons learned from shifting a group prenatal care model to telehealth during the pandemic.

About Health Affairs

Health Affairs is the leading peer-reviewed journal at the intersection of health, health care, and policy. Published monthly by Project HOPE, the journal is available in print and online. Late-breaking content is also found through healthaffairs.org, Health Affairs Today, and Health Affairs Sunday Update.

Project HOPE is a global health and humanitarian relief organization that places power in the hands of local health care workers to save lives across the globe. Project HOPE has published Health Affairs since 1981.

Copyright © Project HOPE: The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.
Health Affairs, 7500 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 600, Bethesda, MD 20814, United States

Privacy Policy

To unsubscribe from this email, click here.