The Affordable Care Act created new conditions of federal tax exemption for nonprofit hospitals, including a requirement that hospitals conduct a community health needs assessment (CHNA) every three years to identify significant health needs in their communities and then develop and implement a strategy responding to those needs. As a result, hospitals must now do more than provide charity care to their patients in exchange for the benefits of tax exemption. The CHNA requirement has the potential both to prompt a radical change in hospitals' relationship to their communities and to enlist hospitals as meaningful contributors to community health improvement initiatives. Final regulations issued in December 2014 clarify hospitals' obligations under the CHNA requirement, but could do more to facilitate hospitals' engagement in collaborative community health projects. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has a rich opportunity, while hospitals are still learning to conduct CHNAs, to develop guidance establishing clear but flexible expectations for how providers should assess and address community needs. This Article urges the IRS to seize that opportunity by refining its regulatory framework for the CHNA requirement. Specifically, the IRS should more robustly promote transparency, accountability, community engagement, and collaboration while simultaneously leaving hospitals a good degree of flexibility. By promoting alignment between hospitals' regulatory compliance activities and broader community health improvement initiatives, the IRS could play a meaningful role in efforts to reorient our system towards promoting health and not simply treating illness.

This article reviews recently promulgated Internal Revenue Service regulations for nonprofit hospitals seeking tax exemption and a new estimate of national hospital community benefit spending, and analyzes how they point to the value of hospitals working with community partners to address the social determinants of health. It then explains how unmet legal needs function as health determinants, and suggests how hospitals' participation in medical-legal partnerships can address those needs. This article was published on

Should Medicaid pay for supportive housing for homeless persons? After describing current limits on how states can use Medicaid funds to support housing, this article considers whether justice requires treating Medicaid recipients residing in nursing homes and Medicaid recipients needing supportive housing similarly.

Abstract:Since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, states have made significant progress in enabling Americans with disabilities to live in their communities, rather than institutions. That progress reflects the combined effect of the Supreme Court's holding in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, that states' failure to provide services to disabled persons in the community may violate the ADA, and amendments to Medicaid that permit states to devote funding to home and community-based services (HCBS). This article considers whether Olmstead and its progeny could act as a check on a potential retrenchment of states' support for HCBS in the event that states face severe reductions in federal funding for Medicaid, as was threatened by Republican efforts in 2017 to "repeal and replace" the Affordable Care Act and to restructure Medicaid. The article concludes that Olmstead provides a strong basis for challenging a state's elimination or severe curtailment of existing HCBS programs, but that the fact-specific nature of a state's likely "fundamental alteration" defense precludes predicting the outcome of such a challenge. Despite this legal uncertainty, protests mounted by people with disabilities, in which they demanded freedom from institutionalization, may have helped cement the idea that community integration is a civil right in the public's mind.

Reflecting on their service as mentors in the fellowship program, the authors describe their experiences and offer thoughts on lessons learned about mentoring, individuals' roles in institutional changes, their own professional growth, and implications for and evaluation of legal and interprofessional education.