Social Citizenship,Housing Wealth and the Cost of Social Care: Is the Care Act 2014 ‘Fair'?

This article assesses the extent to which it is ‘fair’ for the government to require owner‐occupiers to draw on the equity accumulated in their home to fund their social care costs. The question is stimulated by the report of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support, Fairer Care Funding (the Dilnot Commission) and the subsequent Care Act 2014. The enquiry is located within the framework of social citizenship and the new social contract. It argues that the individualistic, contractarian approach, exemplified by the Dilnot Commission and reflected in the Act, raises questions when considered from the perspective of intergenerational fairness. We argue that our concerns with the Act could be addressed by inculcating an expectation of drawing on housing wealth to fund older age: a policy of asset‐based welfare.     

Are Forensic Evaluations “Health Care” and Are They Regulated by HIPAA?

Forensic mental health providers (FMHPs) typically do not release records to the examinee. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) federal regulations might change this position, given that they have created a basic right of access to health care records. This legislation has led to a disagreement regarding whether HIPAA regulates forensic evaluations. The primary argument (and the majority of scholarly citations) has been that such evaluations do not constitute “health care.” Specifically, in this position, the nature and purpose of forensic evaluations are not considered related to treatment (amelioration of psychopathology) of the patient. In addition, it asserts that HIPAA applies solely to treatment services; thus, forensic evaluations are inapplicable to HIPAA. We describe the evidence for and against this argument, the strengths and limitations of the evidence, and recent court decisions related to it. The weakest part of the “HIPAA does not regulate forensics” argument is that HIPAA has no exclusion criteria based on type of services. It only creates an inclusion criteria for providers; once “covered,” all services provided by that provider are thence forward “covered.” Authoritative evidence for patient access can be found in the HIPAA regulations themselves, the US Department of Health and Human Services’ commentaries, additional statements and disciplinary cases, the research literature, other agency opinion, and legal opinion. It appears that the evidence strongly suggests that, for those forensic mental health practitioners who are covered entities, HIPAA does apply to forensic evaluations. The implication is that FMHPs potentially face various federal, state, and civil sanctions for refusing to permit patient access to records.     

Justice in Health Care Decision-Making: Patients’ Appraisals of Health Care Providers and Health Plan Representatives

This study describes the development of two versions of a Health Care Justice Inventory (HCJI). One version focuses on patients interactions with their providers (HCJI-P) and the other focuses on patients interactions with the representatives of their health plans (HCJI-HP). Each version of the HCJI assesses patients appraisals of their interactions (with either their Provider or representatives of their Health Plan) along three common dimensions of procedural justice: Trust, Impartiality, and Participation. Both the Provider and Health Plan scales assess indices that are relatively independent of patients demographic characteristics. In addition, patients appraisals of their interactions with their provider were only moderately related to their appraisals of their interactions with representatives of their health plan, indicating that the Provider and Health Plan scales tap distinct aspects of patients overall experience with the health care system. Overall, procedural justice dimensions were significantly related to patient satisfaction in both the Provider and the Health Plan contexts. As predicted, procedural justice factors were more strongly tied to patient satisfaction in the Provider than in the Health Plan context, and health care decisions based on distributive justice principles of Need (rather than Equity or Equality) were most closely tied to patient satisfaction in both contexts.     

Tackling Voyeurism: Is The Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 A Wasted Opportunity?

The Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 amended the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to introduce a new offence that would seek to tackle so‐called ‘upskirting’. Whilst it originated as a Private Members Bill, it was quickly taken over by the Government following a backbench blocking manoeuvre. The Act ostensibly seeks to fill a loophole that exists within the law and to protect the sexual autonomy and inherent dignity of women. Instead, I will argue, the legislation deals with a niche area and is a wasted opportunity. Parliament chose to kick the issue into the long grass, from where it will be difficult to recover, with parliamentary time likely to be scarce over the coming years.     

The Housing and Planning Act 2016: Rewarding the Aspiration of Homeownership?

In May 2016 the Housing and Planning Act 2016 became law, the first purely Conservative government intervention on housing in England since the 1990s. This article examines the Act's key provisions pertaining to social housing and the government's stated aim of increasing rates of homeownership. The Act, through the Starter Homes Scheme, extension of the right to buy to housing association tenants and changes to security of tenure in the social sector, has been heralded as a ‘landmark’ piece of legislation. This article scrutinises these policy measures and assesses their effectiveness and likely impact. It is contended that the Act exposes the government's promotion of homeownership above all other housing tenures. The article further explores the deep moralisation at the heart of the homeownership narrative and the intensification in the residualisation of social housing in England which, it is argued, is the inevitable consequence of the reforms.     

The Significance of R(BG and Anor) v Suffolk CC (2021): Meeting ‘Eligible Need[s]’ in Social Care?

Liverpool Law Review - The reasoning in Suffolk offers a partial redefinition of the notions of wellbeing and individual need, via its detailed analysis of the legislative frameworks associated...     

The nearest relative in the Mental Health Act 2007: still an illusionary and inconsistent safeguard?

Abstract

The role of nearest relative (NR) is intended as a safeguard in the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended in 2007) to curb the excesses of professional discretion and protect patients from unwarranted compulsory hospitalisation. It is unique to the mental health compulsory detention process in England and Wales. There are, however, evident tensions in the role and a lack of clarity surrounding the precise functions of the NR. There is also some uncertainty and confusion among practitioners about the scope of the NR involvement, and government plans announced recently to review mental health legislation will include a focus on the role of family and carers in the care of detained patients. Despite long-standing concerns about the role, there is remarkably little published research available to date on its use and effectiveness, in so far as evaluating the extent to which it provides an adequate safeguard for patients, as intended by the legislation. This article will briefly explore the background to the role, highlight some of the difficulties and tensions within it and conclude with some observations about where further research and reform may be needed to provide greater protection and clarity for patients, relatives and health and social care practitioners.     

The Consequences of Social Inequality for the Health and Development of India’s Children: The Case of Caste,Sanitation, and Child Height

Social Justice Research - The links among social inequality, economic inequality, and health have long been of interest to social scientists, but causal links are difficult to investigate...     

The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009: A Constitutional Dangerous Dogs Measure?

The scandal which broke over MPs' abuses of the allowances system during the course of the last parliamentary session shows little sign of abating. As a result of an audit undertaken by Sir Thomas Legg, some MPs have been required to repay sums which were successfully claimed up to five years ago. Although this development has been welcomed by the public, it has been condemned by some in Parliament as being retrospective and unfair. In this article, the discussion focuses on the key provisions of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 which was enacted in order to tackle the issues raised by the expenses scandal. It considers their import and how they are likely to apply in practice. Since the Act is a further example of ‘fast‐track’ legislation, there was no opportunity for pre‐legislative scrutiny. This may help to explain why the Act differs in several important respects from the Bill which was originally introduced. It is highly likely that the 2009 Act will be the subject of post‐legislative scrutiny, especially since it contains a renewal provision.     

Is Enforced Self-regulation a Form of Risk Taking?: The Case of Railway Health and Safety

Enforced self-regulation exemplifies a number of regulatory trends, in particular the co-existence of public and private forms of regulation, state moves to harness other sources of regulation and the growing attempt of the state to penetrate deep into corporate life. This paper explores the limits of enforced self-regulation through discussion of corporate responses to occupational health and safety regulation in Britain. It takes the example of the railway industry where a particularly extreme version of enforced-self regulation eventually led to tragic consequences.