Homelessness Law Blog

This week the Los Angeles Times published an article discussing the settlements of several hospitals that have dumped homeless patients at shelters or on the streets without following proper discharge procedures.  Other news articles in the past have explored the same topic, describing, for instance, how a homeless woman was once discharged to Los Angeles’ Skid Row with nothing but a hospital gown and slippers on.

Even under ordinary discharge situations, homeless individuals face a larger set of obstacles in post-hospital recovery than non-homeless individuals.  Homeless people are more likely to face difficulty in obtaining adequate food and rest, and in finding shelter in sanitary and unexposed environments.  These factors make it difficult for homeless individuals to maintain good health under average circumstances, even more so under improper discharge situations.

Several of the patient dumping situations cited in the article have led to costly settlements for hospital groups, such as $125,000 in penalties and charitable contributions paid by Centinela Freeman Holdings, and $1.6 million paid by College Hospital.  Settlements like these may lead hospital groups to think twice before engaging in improper discharge procedures, and could potentially help protect the interests of homeless individuals in the future.

In the long run however, punishing hospitals for homeless patient dumping will not address the underlying factors that create the problem.  Our nation was founded on the concept that all human beings are born equal and deserving of the same right to basic human dignity, yet these practices show how far we have strayed from that ideal. Our nation will need to confront the formidable healthcare and housing barriers that low-income and homeless individuals face daily before we will truly see the situation improve.

Articles such as Malcolm Gladwell’s “Million-Dollar Murray” show how costly it can be not to provide adequate housing and healthcare for homeless individuals.  Certainly, it is in our best interest economically to help homeless individuals attain a higher level of security and health. But equally as important, no human being deserves to be treated like trash, and we all need to take responsibility to re-humanize homeless persons so incidents like these never happen again.

-Stefani Cox, Bill Emerson National Hunger Fellow

Photo credit: Jose Gulao

In my work on housing rights for domestic violence survivors, I’m regularly aware of the impossibility of addressing the issue of homelessness in a vacuum.  While those of us engaged in legal and policy work at the Law Center tend to focus on specific subject areas, the boundaries of our fields of expertise, as is generally the case in poverty law, are increasingly porous.  For low-income women who have experienced domestic violence, homelessness is often the end of a long road paved with barriers to stability and self-sufficiency.  Only when these obstacles disappear will a path to safe and secure housing emerge for them.

One particularly shameful impediment to economic security for DV survivors has recently come to light during the national debate on health care reform.  As it turns out, DC has the dubious distinction of remaining among the handful of states that permit insurance companies to regard a history of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition for purposes of denying coverage .  As outrageous as this fact might seem in isolation, it is particularly disturbing when viewed in tandem with such additional barriers to stability as housing and employment discrimination.

Women who disclose their status as survivors already face a range of repercussions: loss of income, hostility from landlords wary of noise and property damage, and inaccessibility of safe and affordable housing.  Until federal health care reform is fully implemented in 2014, they may have one more reason to fear the consequences of seeking the help they need.  Fortunately, members of the DC Council have recently sought to remedy this injustice by proposing legislation to ban local insurers from denying coverage due to domestic violence history.  The Law Center enthusiastically supports this step towards greater economic security for survivors.

-Rachel Natelson, Domestic Violence Attorney