"It was like you were being literally punished for getting sick": formerly incarcerated people's perspectives on liberty restrictions during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has greatly impacted the health of incarcerated individuals in the US. The goal of this study was to examine perspectives of recently incarcerated individuals on greater restrictions on liberty to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured phone interviews from August through October 2021 with 21 people who had been incarcerated in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities during the pandemic. Transcripts were coded and analyzed, using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Many facilities implemented universal "lockdowns," with time out of the cell often limited to one hour per day, with participants reporting not being able to meet all essential needs such as showers and calling loved ones. Several study participants reported that repurposed spaces and tents created for quarantine and isolation provided "unlivable conditions." Participants reported receiving no medical attention while in isolation, and staff using spaces designated for disciplinary purposes (e.g., solitary housing units) for public health isolation purposes. This resulted in the conflation of isolation and discipline, which discouraged symptom reporting. Some participants felt guilty over potentially causing another lockdown by not reporting their symptoms. Programming was frequently stopped or curtailed and communication with the outside was limited. Some participants relayed that staff threatened to punish noncompliance with masking and testing. Liberty restrictions were purportedly rationalized by staff with the idea that incarcerated people should not expect freedoms, while those incarcerated blamed staff for bringing COVID-19 into the facility. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted how actions by staff and administrators decreased the legitimacy of the facilities' COVID-19 response and were sometimes counterproductive. Legitimacy is key in building trust and obtaining cooperation with otherwise unpleasant but necessary restrictive measures. To prepare for future outbreaks facilities must consider the impact of liberty-restricting decisions on residents and build legitimacy for these decisions by communicating justifications to the extent possible.

COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and uptake: Perspectives from people released from the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

People in United States (US) prisons and jails have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. This is due to challenges containing outbreaks in facilities and the high rates of health conditions that increase the risk of adverse outcomes. Vaccination is one strategy to disrupt COVID-19 transmission, but there are many factors impeding vaccination while in custody. We aimed to examine the perspectives of former residents in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) regarding COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. Between September-October 2021, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 recently released individuals who were incarcerated before and during COVID-19 and coded transcripts thematically. We assessed perceptions of the vaccine rollout and factors shaping vaccination uptake in custody and after release. The vaccine was available to seven participants in custody, of whom three were vaccinated. Interviewees had mixed attitudes about how vaccines were distributed, particularly with priority given to staff. Most were reluctant to get vaccinated in custody for varying reasons including observing staff declining to be vaccinated, lack of counseling to address specific questions about safety, and general lack of trust in the carceral system. By contrast, twelve got vaccinated post-release because of greater trust in community health care and stated they would not have done so while incarcerated. For residents in the BOP, COVID-19 vaccination was not simply a binary decision, instead they weighed the costs and benefits with most deciding against getting vaccinated. Institutions of incarceration must address these concerns to increase vaccine uptake as the pandemic continues.

A Human Rights Framework for Advancing the Standard of Medical Care for Incarcerated People in the United States in the Time of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the lack of resources and oversight that hinders medical care for incarcerated people in the United States. The US Supreme Court has held that "deliberate indifference" to "serious medical needs" violates the Constitution. But this legal standard does not assure the consistent provision of health care services. This leads the United States to fall behind European nations that define universal standards of care grounded in principles of human rights and the ideal of equivalence that incarcerated and non-incarcerated people are entitled to the same health care. In this paper, we review a diverse legal and policy literature and undertake a conceptual analysis of policy issues related to the standard of care in correctional health; we then describe a framework for moving incrementally closer toward a universal standard. The expansion of Medicaid funding and benefits to corrections facilities, alongside a system of comprehensive and enforceable external oversight, would meaningfully raise the standard of care. Although these changes on their own will not resolve all of the thorny health problems posed by mass incarceration, they present a tangible opportunity to move closer to the human rights ideal.

COVID-19's Effect on Pregnancy Care for Incarcerated People.

Objective/background: Prisons and jails are high risk environments for COVID-19. Little is known about COVID-19's impact on pregnancy care for the tens of thousands of pregnant people who pass through these institutions each year. This study aimed to describe how COVID-19 has influenced prisons' and jails' pregnancy care services. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of U.S. prisons and jails and report descriptive statistics. Results: We received 17 responses. Sites reported changes in prenatal care delivery, support programming, housing, and visitation. Most sites implemented changes in housing arrangements to quarantine individuals at-risk for COVID-19. Many sites increased their use of virtual technology to supplement for suspended in-person appointments, programming, and visitation. Conclusions: The impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy care delivery and support services for incarcerated pregnant people is variable. As the pandemic continues, research and policy should ensure that incarcerated pregnant people have access to full scope pregnancy care.

Care for Incarcerated Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped health care delivery for all patients but has distinctly affected the most marginalized people in society. Incarcerated patients are both more likely to be infected and more likely to die from COVID-19. There is a paucity of guidance for the care of incarcerated patients hospitalized with COVID-19. This article will discuss how patient privacy, adequate communication, and advance care planning are rights that incarcerated patients may not experience during this pandemic. We highlight the role of compassionate release and note how COVID-19 may affect this prospect. A number of pragmatic recommendations are made to attenuate the discrepancy in hospital care experienced by those admitted from prisons and jails. Physicians must be familiar with the relevant hospital policies, be prepared to adapt their practices in order to overcome barriers to care, such as continuous shackling, and advocate to change these policies when they conflict with patient care. Stigma, isolation, and concerns over staff safety are shared experiences for COVID-19 and incarcerated patients, but incarcerated patients have been experiencing this treatment long before the current pandemic. It is crucial that the internist demand the equitable care that we seek for all our patients.

Rethinking "Elective" Procedures for Women's Reproduction during Covid-19.

Common hospital and surgical center responses to the Covid-19 pandemic included curtailing "elective" procedures, which are typically determined based on implications for physical health and survival. However, in the focus solely on physical health and survival, procedures whose main benefits advance components of well-being beyond health, including self-determination, personal security, economic stability, equal respect, and creation of meaningful social relationships, have been disproportionately deprioritized. We describe how female reproduction-related procedures, including abortion, surgical sterilization, reversible contraception devices and in vitro fertilization, have been broadly categorized as "elective," a designation that fails to capture the value of these procedures or their impact on women's overall well-being. We argue that corresponding restrictions and delays of these procedures are problematically reflective of underlying structural views that marginalize women's rights and interests and therefore threaten to propagate gender injustice during the pandemic and beyond. Finally, we propose a framework for triaging reproduction-related procedures during Covid-19 that is more individualized, accounts for their significance for comprehensive well-being, and can be used to inform resumption of operations as well as subsequent restriction phases.