US Medical-Legal Partnerships to Address Health-Harming Legal Needs: Closing the Health Injustice Gap

The medical-legal partnership (MLP) model is emerging across the USA as a powerful tool to address the adverse social conditions underlying health injustice. MLPs embed legal experts into healthcare teams to address health-harming legal needs with civil legal remedies. We conducted a narrative review of peer-reviewed articles published between 2007 and 2022 to characterize the structure and impacts of US MLPs on patients, providers, and healthcare systems. We found that MLPs largely serve vulnerable patient populations by integrating legal experts into community-based clinical settings or children's hospitals, although patient populations and settings varied widely. In most models, healthcare providers were trained to screen patients for legal needs and refer them to legal experts. MLPs provided a wide range of services, such as assistance accessing public benefits (e.g., Social Security, Medicaid, cash assistance) and legal representation for immigration and family law matters. Patients and their families also benefited from increased knowledge about legal rights and systems. Though the evidence base remains nascent, available studies show MLPs to be associated with greater access to care, fewer hospitalizations, and improved physical and mental health outcomes. Medical and legal providers who were engaged in MLPs reported interdisciplinary learning, and healthcare systems often experienced high returns on investment through cost savings and increased Medicaid reimbursement. Many MLPs also conducted advocacy and education to effect broader policy changes related to population health and social needs. To optimize the MLP model, more rigorous research, systematic implementation practices, evaluation metrics, and sustainable funding mechanisms are recommended. Broader integration of MLPs into healthcare systems could help address root causes of health inequity among historically marginalized populations in the USA.

Reductions In Hospitalizations Among Children Referred To A Primary Care-Based Medical-Legal Partnership

Medical-legal partnerships integrate legal advocates into health care settings to address health-related social needs. However, their effect on health outcomes is unclear. This retrospective cohort study examined the effect of referral to a medical-legal partnership on hospitalization rates among urban, low-income children in Greater Cincinnati, Ohio, between 2012 and 2017. We compared 2,203 children referred to a pediatric primary care-based medical-legal partnership with 100 randomly selected control cohorts drawn from 34,235 children seen concurrently but not referred. We found that the median predicted hospitalization rate for children in the year after referral was 37.9 percent lower if children received the legal intervention than if they did not. We suspect that this decrease in hospitalizations was driven by the ability of legal advocates to address acute legal needs (for example, threat of eviction and public benefit denial) and, when possible, to confront root causes of ill health (for example, unhealthy housing conditions). Interventions such as those provided through a medical-legal partnership may be important components of integrated, value-based service delivery models.

Screening and Interventions for Social Risk Factors: Technical Brief to Support the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Evidence-based guidance is limited on how clinicians should screen for social risk factors and which interventions related to these risk factors improve health outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To describe research on screening and interventions for social risk factors to inform US Preventive Services Task Force considerations of the implications for its portfolio of recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts (through 2018); Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network evidence library (January 2019 through May 2021); surveillance through May 21, 2021; interviews with 17 key informants.

STUDY SELECTION

Individual-level and health care system-level interventions with a link to the health care system that addressed at least 1 of 7 social risk domains: housing instability, food insecurity, transportation difficulties, utility needs, interpersonal safety, education, and financial strain.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

One investigator abstracted data from studies and a second investigator evaluated data abstractions for completeness and accuracy; key informant interviews were recorded, transcribed, summarized, and integrated with evidence from the literature; narrative synthesis with supporting tables and figures.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Validity of multidomain social risk screening tools; all outcomes reported for social risk-related interventions; challenges or unintended consequences of screening and interventions.

RESULTS

Many multidomain social risk screening tools have been developed, but they vary widely in their assessment of social risk and few have been validated. This technical brief identified 106 social risk intervention studies (N = 5 978 596). Of the interventions studied, 73 (69%; n = 127 598) addressed multiple social risk domains. The most frequently addressed domains were food insecurity (67/106 studies [63%], n = 141 797), financial strain (52/106 studies [49%], n = 111 962), and housing instability (63/106 studies [59%], n = 5 881 222). Food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation difficulties were identified by key informants as the most important social risk factors to identify in health care. Thirty-eight studies (36%, n = 5 850 669) used an observational design with no comparator, and 19 studies (18%, n = 15 205) were randomized clinical trials. Health care utilization measures were the most commonly reported outcomes in the 68 studies with a comparator (38 studies [56%], n = 111 102). The literature and key informants described many perceived or potential challenges to implementation of social risk screening and interventions in health care.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Many interventions to address food insecurity, financial strain, and housing instability have been studied, but more randomized clinical trials that report health outcomes from social risk screening and intervention are needed to guide widespread implementation in health care.

A Systematic Review of Interventions on Patients' Social and Economic Needs

CONTEXT

Healthcare systems are experimenting increasingly with interventions to address patients' social and economic needs. This systematic review examines how often and how rigorously interventions bridging social and medical care have been evaluated.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The review included literature from PubMed published between January 2000 and February 2017. Additional studies were identified by reference searches and consulting local experts. Included studies were based in the U.S.; addressed at least one social or economic determinant of health (e.g., housing, employment, food insecurity); and were integrated within the medical care delivery system. Data from included studies were abstracted in June 2015 (studies published January 2000-December 2014) and in March 2017 (studies published January 2015-February 2017).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Screening of 4,995 articles identified 67 studies of 37 programs addressing social needs. Interventions targeted a broad range of social needs and populations. Forty studies involved non-experimental designs. There was wide heterogeneity in outcome measures selected. More studies reported findings associated with process (69%) or social or economic determinants of health (48%) outcomes than health (30%) or healthcare utilization or cost (27%) outcomes. Studies reporting health, utilization, or cost outcomes reported mixed results.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare systems increasingly incorporate programs to address patients' social and economic needs in the context of care. But evaluations of these programs to date focus primarily on process and social outcomes and are often limited by poor study quality. Higher-quality studies that include common health and healthcare utilization outcomes would advance effectiveness research in this rapidly expanding field.

"Extra Oomph:" Addressing Housing Disparities through Medical Legal Partnership Interventions

Low-income households face common and chronic housing problems that have known health risks and legal remedies. The Medical Legal Partnership (MLP) program presents a unique opportunity to address housing problems and improve patient health through legal assistance offered in clinical settings. Drawn from in-depth interviews with 72 patients, this study investigated the outcomes of MLP interventions and compares results to similarly disadvantaged participants with no access to MLP services. Results indicate that participants in the MLP group were more likely to achieve adequate, affordable and stable housing than those in the comparison group. Study findings suggest that providing access to legal services in the healthcare setting can effectively address widespread health disparities rooted in problematic housing. Implications for policy and scalability are discussed with the conclusion that MLPs can shift professionals' consciousness as they work to improve housing and health trajectories for indigent groups using legal approaches.

Medical-legal partnerships: transforming primary care by addressing the legal needs of vulnerable populations

Health care is undermined when patients don't receive the benefit of laws intended to address social determinants of health, such as housing and food. Medical-legal partnerships, which now exist in more than 200 clinical sites in the United States, integrate lawyers into health care to address legal problems that create and perpetuate poor health. This paper describes how such medical-legal partnerships can change clinical systems--for example, by adding legal form letters to electronic health records to help low-income patients rectify substandard housing conditions. We recommend the integration of medical-legal partnerships into federal health care programs.