Skip to main content

The Need for Medical-Legal Dialogue in Care of Older Adults

“They are just so judgmental and hard to talk to. They’ve got their own agenda and it’s not always about what is right.” 
I had asked my students, a group of health care providers and researchers who had come for a year of legal training, about their impressions of lawyers and of the legal system more generally. While some of the students noted positive attributes of lawyers such as in advocating social justice and fairness, there was a consistent thread of cynicism about the motivations and roles of lawyers.

Given that most providers think of lawyers or law only in the context of malpractice suits, this cynical impulse is not surprising, even for a group of health care professionals who voluntarily entered the legal world to become better acquainted with its rules and norms. Yet in the era of a rapidly aging population, daily unspooling of health reform, and growing appreciation of the link between social determinants and health, there is an urgent need to bridge this professional divide. The skills of lawyers and the tools of law can in fact have an important role to play in promoting the health of older adults, not just on a policy scale, but on an individual level as well.

Take for example the epidemic of financial elder abuse that is destabilizing the health and security of older adults. Providers observe the signs of such abuse early on, whether they are looking for it or not, and are in the best position to intervene to prevent further damage in the lives of their patients. However a “prescription” for a visit to the local Legal Aid for Seniors office is not part of the treatment plan for such a patient, despite the fact that such assistance could protect or recover the benefits and assets that contribute directly to health and well-being such as stable housing and access to food, appropriate caregiving, or medications. Lawyers have the tools to prevent, stop, or remedy financial abuse but often don’t encounter victims of abuse until a great deal of damage has already been done. Lawyers are thus most often forced to practice “ER” legal care with victims of elder abuse, who can least afford the time and stress, rather than preventive or “primary” legal care.

This problem of emergency legal care versus preventive legal care is also evident in advance health care planning: the lack of planning by older adults too often places physicians in sticky legal and ethical situations which could have been prevented through earlier and more frequent conversations about patient wishes. Some commentators, myself included, have posited that advance planning tools (health or financial) can fail to meet the ultimate goals of the older adult. To me, this only underscores the need for increased partnership between lawyers and providers to ensure that our policies surrounding care of older adults (which are enshrined in law) translate well into the clinical context and effectively meet the needs of this population.

Medical-legal collaboration is not a new concept. Such partnerships have proliferated in connection with the AIDs epidemic, or between national cancer advocacy organizations. The National Center for Medical-Legal Partnership has for the past decade attempted to formalize the model and to promote its potential impacts, particularly in pediatrics. However, significantly less attention has been paid to formal models of medical-legal collaboration on behalf of older adults. While a handful of partnerships exist across the country, the number is shockingly small given the demographics.

UC San Francisco and UC Hastings College of Law have partnered to address this gap and just this year launched the Medical-Legal Partnership for Seniors. The program places law students and attorneys in a UCSF geriatrics primary care clinic in order to provide free legal services for older adults. The co-location of legal and medical services promotes interprofessional education and dialogue, which allows for early detection of patient needs and improved ability for all involved professionals to address those needs. By focusing on planning and preventive legal care, we hope to help older adults live out their golden years in health and security.

This is an important moment for our professions and for the older adults we serve. While proliferation of formal, co-located medical-legal collaborations is certainly a goal, providers should not wait to start thinking about recommending legal assistance to patients as part of the care plan.

by: Sarah Hooper, JD


Ellen Lawton said…
Thank you for the terrific insights about the dynamics between health and legal professionals. Let's hope programs like UCSF/UC Hastings will help unleash a stampede of MLP's in the elder care world - where we know that legal issues, intertwined with health issues, are a certainty. By cross-training the next generation of helping professionals, patient/clients will get better care, more efficiently.
This is an important blog post! The NYC Elder Abuse Center (NYCEAC) agrees with you that medical-legal collaboration is critical - and thank you for using the example of financial exploitation, which physicians do detect and victims do then often require a referral to legal services. NYCEAC teaches physicians about the legal needs of elder abuse victims and works closely with attorneys as well. Hopefully medical-legal partnerships will proliferate nationally. It will require an investment of government and philanthropic resources to make legal services readily available for those who cannot afford to hire an attorney privately. It will also require an investment in resources to train physicians about the psychosocial needs of older adults. Elder justice won't happen without an active network of concerned professionals and citizens speaking out. Thank you for doing so.
Hi 'Sarah', thank you so much for this brilliant effort you showed us in this particular post. The medical aspects are so much important in elder care. There are so many people who face the medical problems at the time of their elder care.

Popular posts from this blog

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

Survival from severe sepsis: The infection is cured but all is not well

Severe sepsis is a syndrome marked by a severe infection that results in the failure of at least one major organ system: For example, pneumonia complicated by kidney failure. It is the most common non-cardiac cause of critical illness and is associated with a high mortality rate.

But what happens to those who survive their hospitalization for severe sepsis? An important study published in JAMA from Iwashyna and colleagues provides answers and tells us all is not well. When the patient leaves the hospital, the infection may be cured, but the patient and family will need to contend with a host of major new functional and cognitive deficits.

Iwashyna examined disability and cognitive outcomes among 516 survivors of severe sepsis. These subjects were Medicare enrollees who were participants in the Health and Retirement Study. The average age of patients was 77 years.

When interviewed after discharge, most survivors were left with major new deficits in their ability to live independently. …