Rates of Opioid Overdose Among Racial and Ethnic Minority Individuals Released From Prison.

This cross-sectional study examines opioid overdose patterns by race and ethnicity among individuals released from prison in Massachusetts.

Expiration of State Licensure Waivers and Out-of-State Telemedicine Relationships.

This cross-sectional study compares the use of telemedicine in states where COVID-19 pandemic­related licensure waivers expired vs states where waivers continued.

Improving Labor Outcomes among People with Mild or Moderate Mental Illness through Law and Policy Reform.

Mild and moderate mental illnesses can hinder labor force participation, lead to work interruptions, and hamper earning potential. Targeted interventions have proven effective at addressing these problems. But their potential depends on labor protections that enable people to take advantage of these interventions while keeping jobs and income.

The United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, neuroscience, and criminal legal capacity.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities requires states parties to 'recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life.' This mandate has sparked debate about the interpretation of legal capacity, including within the criminal context as applied to the retrogressively named 'insanity defense.' Yet, under-examined are two questions: First, what defenses should defendants with psychosocial disabilities be able to invoke during criminal prosecutions? Second, what kind of evidence is consistent with, on the one hand, determining a defendant's decision-making capacity to establish culpability and, on the other hand, the right to equal recognition before the law? Developments in neuroscience offer a unique prism to grapple with these issues. We argue that neuroscientific evidence of impaired decision-making, insofar as it presents valid and interpretable diagnostic information, can be a useful tool for influencing judicial decision-making and outcomes in criminal court. In doing so, we oppose the argument espoused by significant members of the global disability rights community that bioscientific evidence of psychosocial disability should be inadmissible to negate criminal responsibility. Such a position risks more defendants being punished harshly, sentenced to death, and placed in solitary confinement.

State Policies Could Impede New Efforts to Increase Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder.

This Viewpoint discusses state policies that could impede access to medications for opioid use disorder via telemedicine.

Ending Restrictive Housing in Prisons for People With Mental Disorders.

A recent federal investigation of prisons in Massachusetts has presented findings on the criminal legal system's continued failure to provide humane care for incarcerated individuals with mental disorders. The findings show that people in mental health crisis are placed in restrictive housing, where they lack monitoring and mental health resources-a practice that has led to frequent instances of self-harm and suicide. Since the investigation, Massachusetts has vowed to stop its use of restrictive housing. Skepticism remains about whether the state's decision will result in meaningful change in carceral mental health practices. This column explores the investigation's process, findings, and implications.

Expanding Therapeutic Jurisprudence Across the Federal Judiciary.

A patchwork of drug courts and other problem-solving courts currently exists to divert individuals with mental illness and substance use disorders away from the criminal justice system. We call for a broader implementation of problem-solving courts, particularly at the federal level, that would operate according to the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence (i.e., a framework that aims to maximize the health benefits of judicial and legislative policies and practices). Expanding federal problem-solving courts will better serve individuals with mental illness and substance use disorders in the federal criminal justice system and allow them to benefit from rehabilitation and diversion programs. This effort will also signal that the federal judiciary has recognized the criminal justice system's failure to address inmate mental health care, and that it is willing to institute changes to provide appropriate, evidence-based interventions.