The tipping point for Dr. Paula Braveman came when a longtime patient of hers at a community clinic in San Francisco's Mission District slipped past the front desk and knocked on her office door to say goodbye. He wouldn't be coming to the clinic anymore, he told her, because he could no longer afford it.
It was a decisive moment for Braveman, who decided she wanted not only to heal ailing patients but also to advocate for policies that would help them be healthier when they arrived at her clinic. In the nearly four decades since, Braveman has dedicated herself to studying the "social determinants of health" — how the spaces where we live, work, play and learn, and the relationships we have in those places, influence how healthy we are.
As director of the Center on Social Disparities in Health at the University of California-San Francisco, Braveman has studied the link between neighborhood wealth and children's health, and how access to insurance influences prenatal care. A longtime advocate of translating research into policy, she has collaborated on major health initiatives with the health department in San Francisco, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization.
Braveman has a particular interest in maternal and infant health. Her latest research reviews what's known about the persistent gap in preterm birth rates between Black and white women in the United States. Black women are about 1.6 times as likely as whites to give birth more than three weeks before the due date. That statistic bears alarming and costly health consequences, as infants born prematurely are at higher risk for breathing, heart and brain abnormalities, among other complications.
Braveman co-authored the review with a group of experts convened by the March of Dimes that included geneticists, clinicians, epidemiologists, biomedical experts and neurologists. They examined more than two dozen suspected causes of preterm births — including quality of prenatal care, environmental toxics, chronic stress, poverty and obesity — and determined that racism, directly or indirectly, best explained the racial disparities in preterm birth rates.
(Note: In the review, the authors make extensive use of the terms "upstream" and "downstream" to describe what determines people's health. A downstream risk is the condition or factor most directly responsible for a health outcome, while an upstream factor is what causes or fuels the downstream risk — and often what needs to change to prevent someone from becoming sick. For example, a person living near drinking water polluted with toxic chemicals might get sick from drinking the water. The downstream fix would be telling individuals to use filters. The upstream solution would be to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals.)
KHN spoke with Braveman about the study and its findings. The excerpts have been edited for length and style.
Q: You have been studying the issue of preterm birth and racial disparities for so long. Were there any findings from this review that surprised you?
The process of systematically going through all of the risk factors that are written about in the literature and then seeing how the story of racism was an upstream determinant for virtually all of them. That was kind of astounding.
The other thing that was very impressive: When we looked at the idea that genetic factors could be the cause of the Black-white disparity in preterm birth. The genetics experts in the group, and there were three or four of them, concluded from the evidence that genetic factors might influence the disparity in preterm birth, but at most the effect would be very small, very small indeed. This could not account for the greater rate of preterm birth among Black women compared to white women.
Q: You were looking to identify not just what causes preterm birth, but also to explain racial differences in rates of preterm birth. Are there examples of factors that can influence preterm birth that don't explain racial disparities?
It does look like there are genetic components to preterm birth, but they don't explain the Black-white disparity in preterm birth. Another example is having an early elective C-section. That's one of the problems contributing to avoidable preterm birth, but it doesn't look like that's really contributing to the Black-white disparity in preterm birth.
Q: You and your colleagues listed exactly one upstream cause of preterm birth: racism. How would you characterize the certainty that racism is a decisive upstream cause of higher rates of preterm birth among Black women?
It makes me think of this saying: A randomized clinical trial wouldn't be necessary to give certainty about the importance of having a parachute on if you jump from a plane. To me, at this point, it is close to that.
Going through that paper — and we worked on that paper over a three- or four-year period, and so there was a lot of time to think about it — I don't see how the evidence that we have could be explained otherwise.
Q: What did you learn about how a mother's broader lifetime experience of racism might affect birth outcomes versus what she experienced within the medical establishment during pregnancy?
There were many ways that experiencing racial discrimination would affect a woman's pregnancy, but one major way would be through pathways and biological mechanisms involved in stress, and stress physiology. In neuroscience, what's been clear is that a chronic stressor seems to be more damaging to health than an acute stressor.
So it doesn't make much sense to be looking only during pregnancy. But that's where most of that research has been done: stress during pregnancy and racial discrimination, and its role in birth outcomes. Very few studies have looked at experiences of racial discrimination across the life course.
My colleagues and I have published a paper where we asked African American women about their experiences of racism and we didn't even define what we meant. Women did not talk a lot about the experiences of racism during pregnancy from their medical providers; they talked about the lifetime experience, and particularly experiences going back to childhood. And they talked about having to worry, and constant vigilance, so that even if they're not experiencing an incident, their antennae have to be out to be prepared in case an incident does occur.
Putting all of it together with what we know about stress physiology, I would put my money on the lifetime experiences being so much more important than experiences during pregnancy. There isn't enough known about preterm birth, but from what is known, inflammation is involved, immune dysfunction, and that's what stress leads to. The neuroscientists have shown us that chronic stress produces inflammation and immune system dysfunction.
Q: What policies do you think are most important at this stage for reducing preterm birth for Black women?
I wish I could just say one policy or two policies, but I think it does get back to the need to dismantle racism in our society. In all of its manifestations. That's unfortunate, not to be able to say, "Oh, here, I have this magic bullet. And if you just go with that, that will solve the problem."
If you take the conclusions of this study seriously, you say, well, policies to just go after these downstream factors are not going to work. It's up to the upstream investment in trying to achieve a more equitable and less racist society. Ultimately, I think that's the take-home, and it's a tall, tall order.
This story is from a partnership that includes KQED, NPR and KHN.
When Billy Lemon was trying to kick his methamphetamine addiction, he went to a drug treatment program at the San Francisco AIDS Foundation three times a week and peed in a cup. If it tested negative for meth, he got paid about $7.
As the pandemic has raged, so has the country's drug epidemic. Health officials have been struggling with methamphetamine and cocaine abuse, in particular, because of a lack of effective treatment for those stimulants.
Listen to Lemon's story and to understand how California's unconventional treatment works.
"For somebody who had not had any legitimate money ― without committing felonies ― that seemed like a cool thing," said Lemon, who was arrested three times for selling meth before starting recovery.
The payments were part of an addiction treatment called contingency management, which gives drug users incentives ― money or gift cards ― to stay off drugs. At the end of 12 weeks, after all his drug tests came back negative for meth, Lemon received $330. For him, it was about more than just the money. It was being told: Good job.
Phebe Cox grew up in what might seem an unlikely mental health danger zone for a kid: tony Palo Alto, California, in the heart of Silicon Valley. But behind its façade of family success and wealth, she said, is an environment of crushing pressure on students to perform. By 2016, when Cox was in middle school, Palo Alto had a teen suicide rate four times the national average.
Cox's family lived by the railroad tracks where many of the suicides occurred. She got counseling. But that option, she told KHN, is not always easily available to teens in crisis — and she and her peers regarded school mental health services as their last choice because of concerns about either confidentiality or anonymity.
A new program, designed largely by the people who use it, provides an alternative. Called Allcove, it offers standalone health and wellness sites to those ages 12 to 25, often on a walk-in basis, at minimal or no cost. Although Allcove is built to support a wide range of physical, emotional and social needs, its overarching goal is to deal with mental health challenges before they develop into deeper problems.
Allcove is yet in its infancy, with two sites just opened in the Bay Area and five more in the pipeline around California. It's modeled on a 15-year-old program in Australia, Headspace, which has 130 such clinics. Headspace has inspired programs in other countries as well, including Jigsaw in Ireland and Foundry in Canada. All of them, including Allcove, also offer online and phone services.
Allcove's core values resonate with Cox, now 19 and a student at Pitzer College in Claremont, California, and one of dozens of young people who have offered advice on the program's structure and services.
"Right away, I knew it was going to be a big thing," Cox said. "I felt pretty helpless as a young teenager, but Allcove is all about the students and the students' needs."
About half of all lifetime mental illness begins by age 14, and 75% before age 25, according to researchers. Yet access to mental healthcare in the U.S. is lacking. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, some 30 million adults and children with mental health conditions go without treatment, and 129 million people live in areas with shortages of mental health professionals. A 2017 survey found that Californians were five times more likely to go outside their private insurance network for mental health office visits than for medical or surgical needs.
Allcove meets some of that head-on by providing fully staffed safe spaces for teens and young adults to discuss and deal with their health, both mental and physical, along with substance misuse issues and educational support. California law allows those 12 and older to get outpatient mental health or counseling services without a guardian's consent.
Allcove's sites in Palo Alto and San Jose are filled with vibrant colors and plenty of open space, the result of input by a youth advisory group that numbers a dozen or more members and changes out about once a year. Inside Allcove, clients can access group or individual care, ask a doctor about a problem, and even get help preparing for college.
Unlike the Australian program, Allcove has no ongoing funding source yet. Allcove is "a really big lift, and we [at the state level] want to say, 'How can we help you?'" said Toby Ewing, executive director of the California Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, which administers the fund that seeded the first two sites with $15 million.
Funding eventually may come from a combination of state, private and nonprofit sources, as well as Medi-Cal reimbursements, said Dr. Steven Adelsheim, a psychiatrist who directs Stanford University's Center for Youth Mental Health and Wellbeing.
Adelsheim previously spent nearly 30 years in New Mexico, helping that state build a network of school-based health centers. His experience convinced him that many students were likely to avoid mental health services at school. They were reluctant, he said, to discuss such issues with their own counselors, who might be the same people writing the students' letters of recommendation for college and might unwittingly breach privacy.
That realization led Adelsheim in 2014 to get exploratory funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to create Allcove. (KHN, which produces California Healthline, also receives funding support from the foundation.) "There is a crying need in the U.S. to reach kids with early intervention and help," Adelsheim said.
The idea struck a chord with Santa Clara County officials, who'd seen Palo Alto lashed by teen suicide clusters during the 2009-10 and 2014-15 school years. "The saddest part of the story is that a teen didn't reach out earlier, didn't have the opportunity to get help when and where they needed it," County Supervisor Joe Simitian said in announcing Allcove's opening in June. "The appeal of the Allcove model is it's designed to engage young people who are struggling, long before they hit a crisis point."
When Cox moved from middle school to Palo Alto's Henry M. Gunn High School, her therapist told her about Adelsheim's project and suggested Cox apply to be part of Allcove's youth council. One of Cox's contributions was to suggest weekday hours extending at least to 7 p.m., "because young adults are doing things and on the move all day. It's the evenings — and even the weekends — when we're dealing with things or feeling more helpless. For a lot of my friends, at night is when things can get overwhelming."
Both Foundry, the Canadian program, and Allcove address physical health as well. Steve Mathias, CEO of Foundry, said his program's emphasis is "on health and wellness, not just mental health, which is a part of wellness." Said Adelsheim, "Sometimes a kid may come in with a physical complaint, and only after a few visits is the mental suffering brought out into the open." When that happens, Allcove can make a "warm handoff" to a mental health specialist on-site.
The most significant difference between Headspace and Allcove may be funding. Headspace is part of the Australian government's mental health initiative, and thus budgeted. Allcove is essentially building on the fly, and its long-term ability to grow will depend on money.
California's Proposition 63, written in 2004 by then-Assembly member Darrell Steinberg (now the mayor of Sacramento), levies a 1% tax on personal incomes over $1 million to fund community mental health services. This year, the tax may yield $2.4 billion, Ewing said. Most of that goes to existing programs, but about 5% each year — more than $100 million in 2021 — feeds an innovation fund to encourage new approaches to mental health.
Santa Clara County got $15 million from that fund to launch Allcove. The state also has helped fund Allcove sites, in Sacramento, San Mateo and Orange counties, and two in Los Angeles County.
"We've made a $30 million-plus investment in this model," Ewing said. "We are assuming that it's going to be successful."
Success, say Adelsheim and Cox, would mean the establishment of hundreds of Allcove centers up and down the state, readily available to young people. The hope is that, if it catches on, Allcove could become a well-known brand for young Californians — and, eventually, others around the country.
Groups representing the nursing profession say "students should be vaccinated when clinical facilities require it" to complete their clinical training.
This article was published on Monday, October 4, 2021 in Kaiser Health News.
Kaitlyn Hevner expects to complete a 15-month accelerated nursing program at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville in December. For her clinical training this fall, she's working 12-hour shifts on weekends with medical-surgical patients at a hospital.
But Hevner and nursing students like her who refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are in an increasingly precarious position. Their stance may put their required clinical training and, eventually, their nursing careers at risk.
In early September, the Biden administration announced that workers at healthcare facilities, including hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers, would be required to receive COVID vaccines. Although details of the federal rule won't be released until October, some experts predict that student nurses doing clinical training at such sites will have to be vaccinated, too.
Groups representing the nursing profession say "students should be vaccinated when clinical facilities require it" to complete their clinical training. In a policy brief released Monday, the National Council of State Boards of Nursing and eight other nurse organizations suggested that students who refuse to be vaccinated and who don't qualify for an exception because of their religious beliefs or medical issues may be disenrolled from their nursing program or be unable to graduate because they cannot fulfill the clinical requirements.
"We can't have students in the workplace that can expose patients to a serious illness," said Maryann Alexander, chief officer for nursing regulation at the national council. "Students can refuse the vaccine, but those who are not exempt maybe should be told that this is not the time to be in a nursing program."
"You're going to go into practice and you're going to be very limited in your jobs if you're not going to get that vaccine," Alexander said.
Hevner, 35, set to finish her clinical training in early October, said she doesn't feel it's acceptable to benefit from a vaccine that was developed using fetal cells obtained through abortion, which she opposes. (Development of the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine involved a cell line from an abortion; the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines were not developed with fetal cell lines, but some testing of the vaccines reportedly involved fetal cells, researchers say. Many religious leaders, however, support vaccination against COVID.)
With vaccines for nursing students still optional in many healthcare settings, nursing educators are scrambling to place unvaccinated students in healthcare facilities that will accept them.
Down the coast from Jacksonville in Fort Pierce, Florida, 329 students are in the two-year associate degree nursing program at Indian River State College, said Roseann Maresca, an assistant professor who teaches third-semester students and coordinates their clinical training. Only 150 of them are vaccinated against COVID, she said.
Not all of the eight medical facilities that have contracts with the school require student nurses to be vaccinated.
"It's been a nightmare trying to move students around this semester" to match them with facilities depending on their vaccination status, Maresca said.
Commonly, healthcare facilities have long required employees to be vaccinated against various illnesses such as influenza and hepatitis B. The pandemic has added new urgency to these requirements. According to a September tally by FierceHealthcare, more than 170 health systems mandate COVID vaccines for their workforces.
In May, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made it clear that under federal law employers can mandate COVID vaccinations as long as they allow workers to claim religious and medical exemptions.
Under the Biden administration's COVID plan, roughly 50,000 healthcare facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid payments must require workers to be vaccinated. Until the administration releases its draft rule in October, it is unclear how nursing students assigned to healthcare sites for clinical training will be treated.
But the federal rule published in August that lays out regulations for government hospital payments in 2022 offers clues. It defined healthcare personnel that should be vaccinated as employees, licensed independent contractors and adult students/trainees and volunteers, said Colin Milligan, director of media relations at the American Hospital Association.
In addition to staff members, the Biden plan says mandates will apply to "individuals providing services under arrangements" at healthcare sites.
A spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declined to clarify who would be covered by the Biden plan, noting the agency is still writing the rules.
Nonetheless, vaccination mandates threaten to derail the training of a relatively small proportion of nursing students. A recent survey by the National Student Nurses' Association reported that 86% of nursing students and 85% of new nursing graduates who responded to an online survey said they had been or planned to be vaccinated against COVID.
But the results varied widely by state, from 100% in New Hampshire and Vermont on the high end to 63% in Oklahoma, 74% in Kentucky and 76% in Florida on the low end. The survey had 7,501 respondents.
Students who don't want to be vaccinated are asking schools to offer them alternatives to on-site clinical training. They suggest using life-size computer-controlled mannequins or computer-based simulations using avatars, said Marcia Gardner, dean of the nursing school at Molloy College in Rockville Centre, New York.
Last year, when the pandemic led hospitals to close their doors to students, many nursing programs increased simulated clinical training to give nursing students some sort of clinical experience.
But that's no substitute for working with real patients in a healthcare setting, educators say. State nursing boards permit simulated clinical study to varying degrees, but none allow such instruction to exceed 50% of clinical training, said Alexander. A multisite study found that nursing students could do up to half their clinical training using simulation with no negative impact on competency.
The policy brief by the council of state nursing boards states that nursing education programs "are not obligated to provide substitute or alternate clinical experiences based on a student's request or vaccine preference."
As more nursing students become vaccinated, the issue will grow less acute. And if the Biden plan requires nursing students to be vaccinated to work in hospitals, the number of holdouts is likely to further shrink.
Hevner, the University of North Florida student, said she's not opposed to vaccines in general and would consider getting a COVID vaccine in the future if she could be assured it wasn't created using aborted fetal cells. She filed paperwork with the college to get a religious exemption from vaccine requirements. It turned out she didn't need one because Orange Park Medical Center, where she is doing her clinical training, doesn't require staffers or nursing students to be vaccinated against COVID "at this time," said Carrie Turansky, director of public relations and communications for the medical center, in Orange Park, Florida.
Although Hevner opposes getting the vaccine, "I take protecting my patients and protecting myself very seriously," she said. She gets tested weekly for COVID and always wears an N95 mask in a clinical setting, among other precautions, she said. "But I would ask: Do we give up our own religious rights and our own self-determination just because we work in a healthcare setting?"
She hopes the profession can accommodate people like her.
"I'm concerned because we're in such a divisive place," she said. But she is eager to find a middle ground because, she said, "I think I would make a really great nurse."
San Juan County, Colorado, can boast that 99.9% of its eligible population has received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, putting it in the top 10 counties in the nation, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
If vaccines were the singular armor against COVID's spread, then on paper, San Juan County, with its 730 or so residents on file, would be one of the most bulletproof places in the nation.
Yet the past few months have shown the complexity of this phase of the pandemic. Even in an extremely vaccinated place, the shots alone aren't enough because geographic boundaries are porous, vaccine effectiveness may be waning over time and the delta variant is highly contagious. Infectious-disease experts say masks are still necessary to control the spread of the virus.
The county logged its first hospitalizations of the pandemic in early August — this year, not 2020. Five summer residents were hospitalized. Three ended up on ventilators: Two recovered and the third, a 53-year-old woman, died at the end of August. All were believed to be unvaccinated.
Those cases and even the ones that didn't need hospitalization raised the alarms for the county with a single incorporated town: Silverton. It's a tightknit former mining community nestled in the mountains of southwestern Colorado, where snowstorms and avalanches often block the lone road that passes through.
"The pandemic is just still going on," said DeAnne Gallegos, the county's public information officer and director of the local chamber of commerce. "We kept thinking it was going to end before this summer. Then we were thinking in November. Now we're like, 'No, we don't know when.'"
So the county decided to backtrack: "We went back to the tools that we knew we had," Gallegos said. "Mask mandate indoors and then discouraging indoor events." Outdoor events continued, such as a brass band concert on the courthouse steps, and the area's signature Hardrockers Holidays mining competition, with its pneumatic mucking and spike driving.
On the whole, once the under-12 set is taken into account, 85% of the county's total population is fully vaccinated. But in the summer, the population nearly doubles as seasonal residents roost in second homes and RV parks, some vacationing while others take up seasonal jobs. Then, there's what Gallegos described as "the tsunami of tourism" — the daily influx of people arriving on the historical railroad from Durango and the dusty jeep trails through the mountains. Many of those visitors are of unknown vaccination status.
The county's two-week incidence shot up in August to the highest rate in the state, and stayed there for most of the month. Even though that spike amounted to a grand total of about 40 known cases, it was nearly as many as the county had logged during the entirety of the pandemic — and cases spilled into the vaccinated as well.
Any number of cases would be a big deal in a small place without its own hospital. "We are all one-man bands just trying to make it happen," Gallegos said. The county's public health director, Becky Joyce, for example, does everything from contact tracing and COVID testing to putting shots in arms. And when the county restarted its mask mandate, it was Gallegos who designed the signs and spent her weekend zip-tying them around town.
The biggest concentration of COVID cases happened at an RV park and a music festival driven indoors by rain.
"It makes sense that coming out of three or four weeks of just jamming tourism, people were starting to get sick who work in the restaurants, at the RV parks," Gallegos said. "And then you bring all the locals condensed together for a couple of nights of concerts and it was just the trifecta."
Dana Chambers, who runs the hardware store in Silverton, was vaccinated as soon as possible. She said returning to a mask mandate felt in some ways like "a step back." But, she said, businesses like hers need the summer tourism rush to survive the quiet winter, when just a few hundred tourists come, largely to jump out of helicopters onto ski terrain. "If we have to wear the mask, that's what we'll do."
Julia Raifman, a Boston University School of Public Health epidemiologist who is following state pandemic policies, isn't surprised COVID can attack a place like San Juan County despite high vaccination rates.
Data shows the vaccines protect against death and hospitalization due to COVID. But even effective vaccines are no match for the transmissibility of delta. "Even in the best-case scenario — if vaccines reduce transmission by 80% — you're actually twice as likely to get COVID now than you were in July," Raifman said, due to the virus's recent proliferation. "It's impossible statistically to achieve herd immunity with the delta variant."
Meanwhile, many local and national leaders, including in Colorado, continue to focus on the vaccines almost exclusively as the path forward.
Talia Quandelacy, an epidemiologist with the University of Colorado-Denver and the Colorado School of Public Health, said the concept of herd immunity in this pandemic has been oversimplified and over-relied-on. "It's a useful guide to have some sort of target to aim for," she said. "But usually, if we hit a certain metric, that doesn't mean that transmission or the pandemic is just going to disappear."
Many scientists agree that, especially with most of the world still unvaccinated, COVID is likely here to stay, eventually morphing into something more like the common cold. "It's probably going to be a matter of a couple of years," Quandelacy said. "But that seems to be the trajectory that we are on."
For that reason, the "finish line" language used by many politicians has frustrated Anne Sosin, a policy fellow at the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center for Public Policy at Dartmouth College studying COVID and rural health. The vaccines are doing what they're supposed to do — keeping people from getting really sick, not keeping them from ever getting infected — but that hasn't been communicated well. "The messaging around this has not been very nuanced," she said.
She pointed to the experience of an epidemiologist who wrote in August in The Baltimore Sun that he'd caught COVID at a house party where all 14 guests and the host were vaccinated. The host had infected him and nine others. "As miraculous as they are in keeping people out of the hospital and alive, we can't rely on them alone to prevent infection," Sosin said of the vaccines.
And public health experts said San Juan County shows that measures such as masks, ventilation and distancing are also needed. They are circulating the "Swiss cheese" model of COVID defense, in which each prevention measure (or layer of cheese) has holes in it, but when stacked together they create an effective defense. Sosin said rural places, in particular, may need those layers of defense because residents are often tightly connected, and disease travels quickly within social networks.
Joyce, the public health director, who declined an interview request, wrote on Facebook in August that the county's recent experience proved "the vaccine creates a line of defense but does not make us invincible to this disease or the variants."
Raifman views that realization — paired with San Juan's ensuing indoor mask requirement — as a success at a pivotal moment. The month-long mandate was then lifted Sept. 10, as the county had dropped back to a low COVID transmission rate. At the time, it was the only county in Colorado with such low transmission.
"This is the moment where we kind of define: How are we managing the virus over the longer term?" Raifman said. "So far, we're defining that we don't manage it; we let it manage us."
Even after lifting its mask mandate, the Facebook page of the county's public health department urges residents to wear masks and "pay attention to the COVID-19 situation just as you pay attention to the weather."
When triple-digit temperatures hit the Pacific Northwest this summer, the emergency room at Seattle's Harborview Medical Center was ill prepared. Doctors raced to treat heat-aggravated illness in homeless people, elderly patients with chronic ailments, and overdosing narcotics users.
"The magnitude of the exposure, this was so far off the charts in terms of our historical experience," said Dr. Jeremy Hess, an emergency medicine physician and professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Washington.
Doctors, nurses and hospitals increasingly are seeing patients sickened by climate-related problems, from overheating to smoke inhalation from wildfires and even infectious diseases. One recent assessment predicts annual U.S. heat deaths could reach nearly 60,000 by 2050.
For some medical professionals, this growing toll has stimulated a reckoning with the healthcare industry's role in global warming. U.S. hospitals and medical centers consume more energy than any industry except for food service, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Hospitals consume 2.5 times as much energy per square foot as typical office buildings, on average. They also contribute mountains of medical waste and emit atmosphere-damaging gases used in surgery and other procedures.
But the healthcare sector is beginning to respond. The Health and Human Services Department's newly created Office of Climate Change and Health Equity, in addition to focusing on climate-related illness, says it will work "to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and criteria air pollution throughout the healthcare sector." The office could help change regulations that restrict sustainability efforts, climate activists say.
Already, many U.S. hospitals have begun installing solar panels, while others are trying to cut surgical waste and phase out ozone-damaging chemicals. Activists are pressing for the industry to cut back on energy-intensive protocols, such as ventilation requirements that mandate a high level of air circulation, measured as air changes per hour. They say they could be reduced without harming patients.
"I think there is recognition among physicians that climate change is likely to continue and worsen over time," said Hess. "We don't necessarily do as much as we could otherwise to reduce our footprint and advance sustainability, and that's where I'd like to see our health systems go."
But the industry is moving cautiously to avoid harm to patients — and legal liability. They "don't want to make any mistakes. And part of not making mistakes is a resistance to change," said Dr. Matthew Meyer, co-chair of University of Virginia Health's sustainability committee.
The University of Vermont Medical Center was one of the first U.S. hospital systems to focus on sustainability initiatives. It has succeeded in reducing emissions by roughly 9% since 2015 by renovating and building structures to be more energy-efficient and converting off-site medical centers to run 50% on renewable natural gas. One of its hospitals cut waste by more than 60% through reuse and recycling.
Managed-care nonprofit Kaiser Permanente, meanwhile, has focused on greening its energy consumption. By September 2020, all of its 39 hospitals and 727 medical offices had achieved carbon neutrality. At most Kaiser Permanente hospitals, solar panels provide one-quarter to one-third of energy needs.
Kaiser Permanente aims eventually to generate enough electricity through solar technology to eliminate the need for diesel-powered backup generators at its hospitals, which are heavily used in areas with stressed power grids. In 2017 and 2019, power company shut-offs in California forced the health network to evacuate its Santa Rosa Medical Center, and electricity was cut to its Vallejo Medical Center.
"To have those facilities be out for a week or more is just not tolerable," said Seth Baruch, Kaiser Permanente's national director for energy and utilities.
Increased energy sustainability has brought a small financial windfall. Kaiser Permanente saves roughly $500,000 a year in electricity costs through its grids and solar panels, Baruch said. (KHN is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.)
Reaching consensus on emission-lowering steps can be difficult. It took seven months for UVA's Meyer, an anesthesiologist, to persuade his hospital to phase out most uses of desflurane, a common anesthetic that damages the ozone layer and is a potent greenhouse gas.
Meyer argued other drugs could replace desflurane. But critics warned that the most common alternatives slowed patients' postoperative recovery, when compared with desflurane. They said there were ways to neutralize excess desflurane in operating room air without discontinuing it entirely.
The "first do no harm" ethos of medicine can also be an obstacle to the reduction of medical waste. The Joint Commission, which accredits more than 22,000 U.S. healthcare organizations, has in recent years pushed for hospitals to use more disposable devices instead of sanitizing reusable devices.
The commission's primary objective is to cut hospital infections, but more disposable items means less sustainability. About 80% of U.S. healthcare sector emissions arise from the manufacturers, and their suppliers and distributors, including the production of single-use disposable medical equipment, according to a study.
Complicating the issue, ethylene oxide — a chemical the Food and Drug Administration requires for sterilization of many devices — has been categorized as a carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency. In 2019, health concerns led communities to push for the closure of facilities that use the gas, which threatened to create a shortage of clean medical devices.
Maureen Lyons, a spokesperson for the Joint Commission, said the private accreditor lacks the authority to change regulations. The procurement of disposable versus reusable devices is a supply chain issue, "not one that the Joint Commission is able to evaluate for compliance."
For this reason, healthcare activists are lobbying for sustainability through policy changes. Healthcare Without Harm, an environmental advocacy group, seeks to undo state rules that impose what it sees as excessively energy-intensive ventilation, humidification and sterilization requirements.
In California, the group has sought to change a medical building code adopted statewide in July that will require a higher ventilation standard at healthcare facilities. The group says the new standard is unnecessary. While high rates of circulation are needed in intensive care units, operating rooms and isolation chambers, there is no evidence for maintaining such standards throughout a hospital, said Robyn Rothman, associate director of state policy programs at Healthcare Without Harm. She cited a 2020 study from the American Society for Healthcare Engineering.
Hospital groups have resisted sustainability commitments on the grounds they will bring more red tape and costs to their hospitals, Rothman said.
The American Society for Healthcare Engineering, a professional group allied with the American Hospital Association, has developed sustainability goals for reducing emissions. But existing regulations make it difficult to achieve many of them, said Kara Brooks, the group's sustainability program manager.
For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires hospitals that treat Medicaid and Medicare patients to have backup diesel generators.
"Hospitals will not be able to eliminate their use of fossil fuels based on the current regulations," Brooks said, but "we encourage hospitals to work toward their goals within the parameters given."
When COVID-19 struck last year, Travis Warner's company became busier than ever. He installs internet and video systems, and with people suddenly working from home, service calls surged.
He and his employees took precautions like wearing masks and physically distancing, but visiting clients' homes daily meant a high risk of COVID exposure.
"It was just like dodging bullets every week," Warner said.
In June 2020, an employee tested positive. That sent Warner and his wife on their own hunt for a test.
Because of limited testing availability at the time, they drove 30 minutes from their home in Dallas to a free-standing emergency room in Lewisville, Texas. They received PCR diagnostic tests and rapid antigen tests.
When all their results came back negative, it was a huge relief, Warner said. He eagerly got back to work.
Then the bill came.
The Patient: Travis Warner, 36, is self-employed and bought coverage from Molina Healthcare off the insurance marketplace.
Medical Service: Two COVID tests: a diagnostic PCR test, which typically takes a few days to process and is quite accurate, and a rapid antigen test, which is less accurate but produces results in minutes.
Total Bill: $56,384, including $54,000 for the PCR test and the balance for the antigen test and an ER facility fee. Molina's negotiated rate for both tests and the facility fee totaled $16,915.20, which the insurer paid in full.
Service Provider: SignatureCare Emergency Center in Lewisville, one of more than a dozen free-standing ERs the company owns across Texas.
But Warner's PCR bill of $54,000 is nearly eight times the most notable charge previously reported, at $7,000 — and his insurer paid more than double that highest reported charge. Health policy experts KHN interviewed called Warner's bill "astronomical" and "one of the most egregious" they'd seen.
Yet it's perfectly legal. For COVID tests — like much else in American healthcare — there is no cap to what providers can charge, said Loren Adler, associate director of the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy.
COVID testing has been in a special category, however. When the pandemic hit, lawmakers worried people might avoid necessary testing for fear of the cost. So they passed bills that required insurers to pay for COVID tests without copays or cost sharing for the patient.
For in-network providers, insurers can negotiate prices for the tests, and for out-of-network providers, they're generally required to pay whatever price the providers list publicly on their websites. The free-standing ER was out of network for Warner's plan.
While the policy was intended to help patients, health experts say, it has unintentionally given providers leeway to charge arbitrary, sometimes absurd prices, knowing that insurers are required to pay and that patients, who won't be billed, are unlikely to complain.
"People are going to charge what they think they can get away with," said Niall Brennan, president and CEO of the Healthcare Cost Institute, a nonprofit that studies healthcare prices. "Even a perfectly well-intentioned provision like this can be hijacked by certain unscrupulous providers for nefarious purposes."
A report from KFF published earlier this year found that hospital charges for COVID tests ranged from $20 to $1,419, not including physician or facility fees, which can often be higher than the cost of the tests themselves. About half the test charges were below $200, the report noted, but 1 in 5 were over $300.
"We observed a broad range of COVID-19 testing prices, even within the same hospital system," the authors wrote.
Realistically, the cost of a COVID test should be in the double digits, Brennan said. "Low triple digits if we're being generous."
Medicare pays $100 for a test, and at-home tests are sold for as little as $24 for an antigen test or $119 for a PCR test.
Warner's charges were fully covered by his insurance.
But insurance policy premiums reflect how much is paid to providers. "If the insurance company is paying astronomical sums of money for your care, that means in turn that you are going to be paying higher premiums," Adler said.
Taxpayers, who subsidize marketplace insurance plans, also face a greater burden when premiums increase. Even those with employer-sponsored health coverage feel the pain. Research shows that each increase of $1 in an employer's health costs is associated with a 52-cent cut to an employee's overall compensation.
Even before the pandemic, wide variability in the prices for common procedures like cesarean sections and blood tests had been driving up the cost of healthcare, Brennan said. These discrepancies "happen every single day, millions of times a day."
Resolution: When Warner saw that his insurance company had paid the bill, he first thought: "At least I'm not liable for anything."
But the absurdity of the $54,000 charge gnawed at him. His wife, who'd received the same tests the same day at the same place, was billed $2,000. She has a separate insurance policy, which settled the claim for less than $1,000.
Warner called his insurer to see if someone could explain the charge. After a game of phone tag with the ER and the ER's billing firm, and several months of waiting, Warner received another letter from his insurer. It said they'd audited the claim and taken back the money they had paid the ER.
In a statement to KHN, a spokesperson for Molina Healthcare wrote, "This matter was a provider billing error which Molina identified and corrected."
SignatureCare Emergency Centers, which issued the $54,000 charge, said it would not comment on a specific patient's bill. However, in a statement, it said its billing error rate is less than 2% and that it has a "robust audit process" to flag errors. At the height of the pandemic, SignatureCare ERs faced "unprecedented demands" and processed thousands of records a day, the company said.
SignatureCare's website now lists the charge for COVID tests as $175.
The Takeaway: COVID testing should be free to consumers during the public health emergency (currently extended through mid-October, and likely to be renewed for an additional 90 days). Warner did his insurer a big favor by looking carefully at his bill, even though he didn't owe anything.
Insurers are supposed to have systems that flag billing errors and prevent overpayment. This includes authorization requirements before services are rendered and audits after claims are filed.
But "there's a question of how well they work," Adler said. "In this case, it's lucky [Warner] noticed."
At least one estimate says 3% to 10% of healthcare spending in the U.S. is lost to overpayment, including cases of fraud, waste and abuse.
Unfortunately, that means the onus is often on the patient.
You should always read your bill carefully, experts say. If the cost seems inappropriate, call your insurer and ask them to double-check and explain it to you.
It's not your job, experts agree, but in the long run, fewer overpayments will save money for you and others in the American healthcare system.
Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KHN and NPR that dissects and explains medical bills. Do you have an interesting medical bill you want to share with us? Tell us about it!
Hours after the Supreme Court in 2012 narrowly upheld the Affordable Care Act but rejected making Medicaid expansion mandatory for states, Obama administration officials laughed when asked whether that would pose a problem.
In a White House briefing, top advisers to President Barack Obama told reporters states would be foolish to turn away billions in federal funding to help residents lacking the security of health insurance.
Flash-forward nearly a decade, and it's clear to see the consequences of that ruling.
Today, 12 Republican-controlled states have yet to adopt the Medicaid expansion, leaving 2.2 million low-income adult residents uninsured.
Tired of waiting for Republican state lawmakers, congressional Democrats are moving to close the Medicaid coverage gap as they forge a package of new domestic spending that could run as high as $3.5 trillion over 10 years and would significantly enhance other federal health programs. But the cost is raising concerns within the party, and the competition to get initiatives in the package is fierce.
With Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, health experts say this could be the only time such a fix to the "Medicaid gap" will be possible for many years.
"This is a last best chance to do this," said Judith Solomon, a senior fellow with the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Here are six things to know about what's at stake for Medicaid.
1. Who would be helped?
The adults caught in the coverage gap have incomes that are too high for them to qualify under their states' tight eligibility rules that predated the 2010 health law but are below the federal poverty level ($12,880 a year for an individual). When setting up the ACA, Congress expected that people making less than the poverty guideline would be covered by Medicaid, so the law provides no subsidies for coverage on the ACA marketplaces.
About 59% of adults in the coverage gap are people of color, according to a KFF analysis. Nearly two-thirds live in a household with at least one worker.
The states that have not expanded Medicaid are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
About three-quarters of those in the coverage gap live in four states: Texas (35%), Florida (19%), Georgia (12%) and North Carolina (10%).
2. Why haven't states expanded?
Republicans in these states have listed a litany of reasons. They assert that Medicaid, a state-federal program launched in 1966 that today covers 1 in 4 Americans, is a broken system that doesn't improve health, despite dozens of studies to the contrary. Or they say working adults don't deserve government help with health insurance. They also complain it's too expensive for states to put up their 10% share (the federal government pays the rest), and they don't trust Congress will keep up its funding promises for expansion states.
Each time Medicaid expansion has made it onto a ballot in a Republican-majority state, it has passed — most recently in 2020 in Oklahoma and Missouri.
3. How would the Democrats' plan work?
The House plan has two phases. Under the bill passed by the Energy and Commerce Committee, starting in 2022, people in the coverage gap with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level (about $17,774 for an individual) would be eligible for subsidies to buy coverage on the marketplace.
Enrollees wouldn't pay a monthly premium because the tax credits would be enough to cover the full cost, according to an analysis by Solomon. There would be no deductibles to meet and only minimal copays, like most state Medicaid programs.
Help not typically available under the ACA would be offered. For example, Solomon's analysis notes, low-paid workers wouldn't be barred from enrolling in marketplace plans because they have an offer of employer coverage. In addition, people could enroll at any time during the year, not just during open enrollment season in late fall/early winter.
Phase two would begin in 2025. That's when people in the coverage gap would transition to a federally operated Medicaid program run by managed-care plans and third-party administrators.
Enrollees would not pay any cost sharing in the federal Medicaid plan.
4. Would the coverage be as good as if the states adopted expansion?
It would be very close, Solomon said. The new plan would include coverage for all services defined by the law as "essential" health benefits, such as hospital services and prescription drugs.
One difference is coverage for nonemergency transportation services would not start until 2024. In addition, during those early years of the plan, some long-term services for medically frail people typically covered under Medicaid would not be included and some screening and treatment services for 19- and 20-year-olds would not be offered.
The first phase would also not provide retroactive coverage for the three months prior to application. Medicaid today covers medical expenses incurred in the three months before an individual applies if the person is found to have been eligible during those months.
One potential benefit of using the marketplace plans is they could have broader networks of doctors than those associated with Medicaid programs.
5. How much would it cost?
The Congressional Budget Office has not yet revealed estimates, although the price tag would likely be in the billions of dollars.
The federal cost for covering people by helping them buy marketplace plans is higher than it would be if the states had expanded Medicaid. That's because marketplace plans generally pay higher fees to doctors and hospitals, making them more costly, Solomon explained.
6. Could states that have already expanded Medicaid rescind that policy and require residents to get coverage under the new setup?
The bill offers incentives for states to keep their current Medicaid options. If a state opts to stop spending funds on the Medicaid expansion, it may have to pay a penalty based on the number of enrollees that move to the federal program, potentially amounting to millions of dollars.
Rural Americans are dying of COVID at more than twice the rate of their urban counterparts — a divide that health experts say is likely to widen as access to medical care shrinks for a population that tends to be older, sicker, heavier, poorer and less vaccinated.
While the initial surge of COVID-19 deaths skipped over much of rural America, where roughly 15% of Americans live, nonmetropolitan mortality rates quickly started to outpace those of metropolitan areas as the virus spread nationwide before vaccinations became available, according to data from the Rural Policy Research Institute.
Since the pandemic began, about 1 in 434 rural Americans have died of COVID, compared with roughly 1 in 513 urban Americans, the institute's data shows. And though vaccines have reduced overall COVID death rates since the winter peak, rural mortality rates are now more than double urban rates — and accelerating quickly.
In rural northeastern Texas, Titus Regional Medical Center CEO Terry Scoggin is grappling with a 39% vaccination rate in his community. Eleven patients died of COVID in the first half of September at his hospital in Mount Pleasant, population 16,000. Typically, three or four non-hospice patients die there in a whole month.
"We don't see death like that," Scoggin said. "You usually don't see your friends and neighbors die."
Part of the problem is that COVID incidence rates in September were roughly 54% higher in rural areas than elsewhere, said Fred Ullrich, a University of Iowa College of Public Health research analyst who co-authored the institute's report. He said the analysis compared the rates of nonmetropolitan, or rural, areas and metropolitan, or urban, areas. In 39 states, he added, rural counties had higher rates of COVID than their urban counterparts.
"There is a national disconnect between perception and reality when it comes to COVID in rural America," said Alan Morgan, head of the National Rural Health Association. "We've turned many rural communities into kill boxes. And there's no movement towards addressing what we're seeing in many of these communities, either among the public or among governing officials."
Still, the high incidence of cases and low vaccination rates don't fully capture why mortality rates are so much higher in rural areas than elsewhere. Academics and officials alike describe rural Americans' greater rates of poor health and their limited options for medical care as a deadly combination. The pressures of the pandemic have compounded the problem by deepening staffing shortages at hospitals, creating a cycle of worsening access to care.
It's the latest example of the deadly coronavirus wreaking more havoc in some communities than others. COVID has also killed Native American, Black and Hispanic people at disproportionately high rates.
Vaccinations are the most effective way to prevent COVID infections from turning deadly. Roughly 41% of rural America was vaccinated as of Sept. 23, compared with about 53% of urban America, according to an analysis by The Daily Yonder, a newsroom covering rural America. Limited supplies and low access made shots hard to get in the far-flung regions at first, but officials and academics now blame vaccine hesitancy, misinformation and politics for the low vaccination rates.
In hard-hit southwestern Missouri, for example, 26% of Newton County's residents were fully vaccinated as of Sept. 27. The health department has held raffles and vaccine clinics, advertised in the local newspaper, and even driven the vaccine to those lacking transportation in remote areas, according to department administrator Larry Bergner. But he said interest in the shots typically increases only after someone dies or gets seriously ill within a hesitant person's social circle.
Additionally, the overload of COVID patients in hospitals has undermined a basic tenet of rural health care infrastructure: the capability to transfer patients out of rural hospitals to higher levels of specialty care at regional or urban health centers.
"We literally have email Listservs of rural chief nursing officers or rural CEOs sending up an SOS to the group, saying, 'We've called 60 or 70 hospitals and can't get this heart attack or stroke patient or surgical patient out and they're going to get septic and die if it goes on much longer,'" said John Henderson, president and CEO of the Texas Organization of Rural & Community Hospitals.
Morgan said he can't count how many people have talked to him about the transfer problem.
"It's crazy, just crazy. It's unacceptable," Morgan said. "From what I'm seeing, that mortality gap is accelerating."
Access to medical care has long bedeviled swaths of rural America — since 2005, 181 rural hospitals have closed. A 2020 KHN analysis found that more than half of U.S. counties, many of them largely rural, don't have a hospital with intensive care unit beds.
Pre-pandemic, rural Americans had 20% higher overall death rates than those who live in urban areas, due to their lower rates of insurance, higher rates of poverty and more limited access to health care, according to 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics.
In southeastern Missouri's Ripley County, the local hospital closed in 2018. As of Sept. 27, only 24% of residents were fully vaccinated against COVID. Due to a recent crush of cases, COVID patients are getting sent home from emergency rooms in surrounding counties if they're not "severely bad," health department director Tammy Cosgrove said.
The nursing shortage hitting the country is particularly dire in rural areas, which have less money than large hospitals to pay the exorbitant fees travel nursing agencies are demanding. And as nursing temp agencies offer hospital staffers more cash to join their teams, many rural nurses are jumping ship. One of Scoggin's nurses told him she had to take a travel job — she could pay off all her debt in three months with that kind of money.
And then there's the burnout of working over a year and a half through the pandemic. Audrey Snyder, the immediate past president of the Rural Nurse Organization, said she's lost count of how many nurses have told her they're quitting. Those resignations feed into a relentless cycle: As travel nurse companies attract more nurses, the nurses left behind shouldering their work become more burned out — and eventually quit. While this is true at hospitals of all types, the effects in hard-to-staff rural hospitals can be especially dire.
Snyder warned that nursing shortages and their high associated costs will become unsustainable for rural hospitals operating on razor-thin margins. She predicted a new wave of rural hospital closures will further drive up the dire mortality numbers.
Staffing shortages already limit how many beds hospitals can use, Scoggin said. He estimated most hospitals in Texas, including his own, are operating at roughly two-thirds of their bed capacity. His emergency room is so swamped, he's had to send a few patients home to be monitored daily by an ambulance team.
When Britney Spears last went before a judge, in June, she bristled as she told of being forced into psychiatric care that cost her $60,000 a month. Though the pop star's circumstances in a financial conservatorship are unusual, every year hundreds of thousands of other psychiatric patients also receive involuntary care, and many are stuck with the bill.
Few have Spears' resources to pay for it, which can have devastating consequences.
To the frustration of those who study the issue, data on how many people are involuntarily hospitalized and how much they pay is sparse. From what can be gathered, approximately 2 million psychiatric patients are hospitalized each year in the United States, nearly half involuntarily. One study found that a quarter of these hospitalizations are covered by private insurance, which often has high copays, and 10% were "self-pay/no charge," where patients are often billed but cannot pay.
I am a psychiatrist in New York City, and I have cared for hundreds of involuntarily hospitalized patients. Cost is almost never discussed. Many patients with serious mental illness have low incomes, unlike Britney Spears. In an informal survey of my colleagues on the issue, the most common response is, "Yeah, that feels wrong, but what else can we do?" When patients pose an acutely high risk of harm to themselves or others, psychiatrists are obligated to hospitalize them against their will, even if it could lead to long-term financial strain.
While hospitals sometimes absorb the cost, patients can be left with ruined credit, endless collection calls and additional mistrust of the mental healthcare system. In cases in which a hospital chooses to sue, patients can even be incarcerated for not showing up in court. On the hospital side, unpaid bills might further incentivize a hospital to close psych beds in favor of more lucrative medical services, such as outpatient surgeries, with better insurance reimbursement.
Rebecca Lewis, a 27-year-old Ohioan, has confronted this problem for as long as she has been a psychiatric patient. At 24, she began experiencing auditory hallucinations of people calling her name, followed by delusional beliefs about mythological creatures. While these experiences felt very real to her, she nevertheless knew something was off.
Not knowing where to turn, Lewis called a crisis line, which told her to go to an evaluation center in Columbus. When she drove herself there, she found an ambulance waiting for her. "They told me to get into the ambulance," she said, "and they said it would be worse if I ran."
Lewis, who was ultimately diagnosed with schizophrenia, was hospitalized for two days against her will. She refused to sign paperwork acknowledging responsibility for charges. The hospital attempted to obtain her mother's credit card, which Lewis had been given in case of emergencies, but she refused to hand it over. She later got a $1,700 bill in the mail. She did not contact the hospital to negotiate the bill because, she said, "I did not have the emotional energy to return to that battle."
To this day, Lewis gets debt collection calls and letters. When she picks up the calls, she explains she has no intention of paying because the services were forced on her. Her credit is damaged, but she considers herself lucky because she was able to buy a house from a family member, given how challenging it would have been to secure a mortgage.
The debt looms over her psyche. "It's not fun to know that there's this thing out there that I don't feel that I can ever fix. I feel like I have to be extra careful — always, forever — because there's going to be this debt," she said.
Lewis receives outpatient psychiatric care that has stabilized her and prevented further hospitalizations, but she still looks back on her first and only hospitalization with scorn. "They preyed on my desperation," she said.
While it is likely that many thousands of Americans share Lewis' experience, we lack reliable data on debt incurred for involuntary psychiatric care. According to Dr. Nathaniel Morris, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of California-San Francisco, we don't know how often patients are charged for involuntary care or how much they end up paying. Even data on how often people are hospitalized against their wishes is limited.
Morris is one of the few researchers who have focused on this issue. He got interested after his patients told him about being billed after involuntary hospitalization, and he was struck by the ethical dilemma these bills represent.
"I've had patients ask me how much their care is going to cost, and one of the most horrible things is, as a physician, I often can't tell them because our medical billing systems are so complex," he said. "Then, when you add on the involuntary psychiatric factor, it just takes it to another level."
Similarly, legal rulings on the issue are sparse. "I've only seen a handful of decisions over the years," said Ira Burnim, legal director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. "I don't know that there is a consensus."
People who have been involuntarily hospitalized rarely seek a lawyer, Burnim said, but when they do, the debt collection agencies will often drop the case rather than face a costly legal battle.
The media will be obsessed with Britney Spears' next day in court, expected to be Sept. 29. She will likely describe further details of her conservatorship that will highlight the plight of many forced into care.
Others won't get that kind of attention. As Rebecca Lewis put it, reflecting on her decision not to challenge the bills she faces: "They're Goliath and I'm little David."
Dr. Christopher Magoon is a resident physician at the Columbia University Department of Psychiatry in New York City.