Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeffrey Shook, Professor of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh

Data released in January 2026 to Allegheny County officials offers a clear look at who is being held at Highland Detention Center – and how much it costs taxpayers. The numbers show short stays, significant racial disparities and millions spent to operate the facility. These findings raise new questions about whether detention is being used effectively in the county’s youth justice system.

In 2025, 220 young people passed through the center. The county paid nearly US$800 per day for each of the 12 beds in the facility, whether they were occupied or not.

The center operates at the site of the former Shuman Juvenile Detention Center in Allegheny County. After a documented history of child abuse, medical issues, unauthorized use of restraints and other violations, Shuman closed in September 2021 when the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services revoked its license.

Shuman opened in 1974 with an occupancy of approximately 120 beds. At the time it was closed, the daily population had dropped to 20 juveniles at an annual cost of $11 million.

As a professor of social work at the University of Pittsburgh, my research centers on law, policy and child welfare. I have spent my career studying how the juvenile justice system can shape – and also damage – the lives of young people while creating significant costs to taxpayers.

Here’s what local taxpayers in Pennsylvania are paying for juvenile detention.

A costly reinvention

Allegheny County signed a five-year, $73 million contract with nonprofit organization Adelphoi to operate a detention facility at the old Shuman site in 2023. It was renamed Highland Juvenile Detention Facility.

The county agreed to pay $650.25 per bed, per day for the first year of the contract. That rate, the contract specifies, “shall be adjusted each year.” By the end of 2025, it had already climbed to $825 per day. In total, the county paid Adelphoi nearly $7 million last year to hold kids for an average stay of 13 days.

The facility offered 12 beds in 2025. The contract calls for that number to increase to 60 beds, with the costs also rising to $19 million annually. The county has an option to renew the contract when it expires at the end of 2028.

In March 2026, there were seven juveniles being held at Highland. As of late February 2026, there were approximately 12 to 14 juveniles held in the Allegheny County Jail. They can be held in the jail for a variety of reasons but are primarily there if they are being charged as an adult.

Who’s being locked up

Statistics show a correlation between juvenile detention and adult involvement with the criminal legal system.

According to The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, more than a third of people in state prisons have served time in a juvenile facility.

Black youth are more than five times more likely to be placed in juvenile facilities than white peers, and two-thirds of state prisoners experienced an arrest before age 19.

In the juvenile system, detention is intended to be short term and is generally used prior to an adjudication, the determination of someone’s guilt or innocence.

Detention is typically used for kids who pose a threat of committing additional crimes or a risk of not appearing in court, based on a determination by a probation officer, a state risk-assessment test or a judge, typically. Dentention is not a destination but part of a continuum with a goal of moving a young person to less restrictive alternatives, such as community-based programs and services that allow youth to remain at home, in school and in their communities while receiving supervision, treatment and support. These alternatives are often more effective at reducing recidivism and less costly than secure confinement.

While kids in detention have the right to receive a free public education and should be offered physical, behavioral, mental health and recreational services, according to state law, detention is not a treatment facility.

EG: There’s usually a brief caption beneath video links like this one.

The number of kids in detention facilities in the U.S has dropped substantially over the past 20 years, from approximately 400,000 to 135,000. However, an average of 13,000 to 14,000 kids remain in detention facilities across the country daily. Youth of color are disproportionately represented, and many kids are detained for minor crimes, technical violations or status offenses, such as breaking curfew.

Based on available data and my own experience working in and with detention facilities, it is clear that youth locked in these facilities are not only those at risk of committing another crime or not appearing in court. Many have education, mental health and substance abuse needs, come from poor families or identify as LGBTQ+. In many respects, detention facilities have served as a dumping ground for youth dealing with a vast array of issues in their lives.

The juvenile justice system was built primarily around managing risk and ensuring court appearances. It does little to address the underlying needs of the children moving through it. Unstable housing, missed school and lack of supervision can trigger detention even when a child poses no real threat. In many cases, juvenile detention ends up filling a gap left by social services.

Doubling down on detention

Despite its limited capacity, the Allegheny County Highland Detention Center dashboard shows 220 youths were detained at Highland in 2025. Eighty-six percent of these kids are Black. Firearms charges are the most common offense.

More than half had an individualized education plan, a legally binding document that outlines the specific educational support and services a student with a physical or mental disability is entitled to receive in school.

Over 60% were involved with the child welfare system, 88% had family involvement in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and 72% had received a crisis mental health service at some point before entering Highland.

Research shows that young people who are detained are more likely to commit additional offenses when they are released, experience educational and economic disruption, and face increased mental health challenges. Detention does not promote the social development of young people or community safety.

A variety of alternatives to detention exist that have been shown to be more effective and cost significantly less – such as mentoring programs, family therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy and restorative justice programs.

Restorative justice programs bring victims, accused youth and trustworthy adults in their lives together to discuss the harm caused by the offense. They come up with a plan to help make things “right” between the parties to avoid subsequent offenses and help the youth learn from the incident.

The dollars being spent to confine kids in Allegheny County could be reinvested in the young people themselves and in their families, schools and communities. The new advisory board was appointed to Highland in July 2025. The board was created to provide a layer of accountability over the facility and Adelphoi – but what that looks like in practice remains up in the air.

Jeffrey Shook does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Pittsburgh spends millions on juvenile detention – research points to cheaper, more effective alternatives – https://theconversation.com/pittsburgh-spends-millions-on-juvenile-detention-research-points-to-cheaper-more-effective-alternatives-275043

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Tal Slemrod, Associate Professor of Special Education, California State University, Chico

K-12 teachers and students across the country are increasingly using AI in and out of classrooms, whether it is teachers turning to AI to refine lesson plans or students asking AI to help them research a particular topic.

An estimated 85% of K-12 public school teachers recently reported that they used AI during the 2024-2025 school year – often for curriculum and content development.

In 2023, 13% of teens said they used ChatGPT to complete their schoolwork, while 26% of them said in 2025 that they were using ChatGPT for this purpose.

Similarly, 86% of K-12 students shared in 2025 that they have used AI in general. An estimated 50% of students reported that they use it for schoolwork, such as for learning more about topics outside of what was taught in class, tutoring on specific subjects, receiving help with a homework assignment or asking for college advice.

However, policies and training have not kept pace with how frequently teachers and students are using AI.

Only 35% of school district leaders reported in 2025 that they provided students with any AI training, according to the global policy think tank RAND Corporation. Additionally, 45% of principals reported school or district policies or guidance on the use of AI in schools, according to these findings.

Another challenge is that students are also using AI for potentially dangerous uses. There are recent examples of students who self-harmed or died by suicide after they used AI for mental health support. A 2025 study found that when a chatbot responded to 60 simulated scenarios that posed mental health questions, the chatbots sometimes made harmful proposals – such as cutting off all human contact for a month or dropping out of school.

So, is it safe for young students to use AI? Does using AI provide better learning outcomes for students when compared to traditional instruction? Does AI help teachers reduce their workload?

The answers to these questions are complicated. It is not yet clear how AI influences learning in K-12 settings or when and how it is best for teachers and students to use AI.

Some clear pros

As an associate professor of inclusive teacher education, I’m trying to answer some of these big questions about AI and K-12 education.

Some university centers that I’ve worked with, such as the Center for Innovation, Design, and Digital Learning at the University of Kansas, are conducting research on how AI can be used to support students with learning disabilities.

In 2025, 57% of special education teachers said they use AI to help develop individualized plans, often called an individualized education program, for their students with learning disabilities.

I believe there is no doubt that AI can, in some ways, reduce barriers and support students with disabilities. In my own research, for example, my co-authors and I show that AI can help students learn by adapting assignments to meet their personal learning needs and pace. It can also help teachers reduce their time spent grading or editing assignments.

There remain concerns over student privacy and whether AI systems will reinforce bias, but special education teachers are testing the benefits of generative AI.

The missing evidence

Among the broader available research and evidence on AI and K-12 education, some studies from 2019 through 2022 show that AI might help students learn and stay motivated by providing a personalized learning experience. However, the evidence appears less promising when considering how students learn after they use AI and then stop using it.

For example, Guilherme Lichand, an economics scholar at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, found in 2026 that when students use AI and then are told they can no longer use it for their studies, students actually perform worse than those who never used AI. This shows that additional research on how AI influences students’ long-term learning and development is necessary.

The Brookings Institution also recently warned in a 2026 AI and K-12 education report that the risks of using generative AI in education overshadow its benefits. These risks include weakened relationships between students and teachers, as well as students’ safety.

A 2025 report by the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology also shows that an average of 71% of K-12 teachers reported that when students use AI to complete their schoolwork, it is hard for the teachers to understand whether student work is their own.

Similarly, almost two-thirds of parents of K-12 students said in 2025 that AI is weakening important academic skills that their child needs to learn, such as writing, reading comprehension and critical thinking.

Lessons from the past

AI is being introduced to K-12 classrooms faster than evidence and understanding can support. But schools have rushed to incorporate educational technologies into their classrooms before.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, schools needed to quickly equip teachers and students with online platforms for remote learning.

But the rush also challenged educators to learn how to effectively teach and provide individual support for each student – and to ensure that all students, including students with disabilities, could participate in remote learning.

Similarly, not long ago, some educators thought that social media and smartphones would bring the next frontier in education, with the idea that these technologies could increase student engagement. Yet we now know the dangers that both social media and smartphones pose for children.

Slowing down how students especially are using AI in the classroom does not mean rejecting it altogether. I think it means being responsible – especially when there is a good chance children’s academic skills, behaviors or emotions are at risk.

New evidence on AI and education is coming from scholars like me and my colleagues. There is little doubt that AI and future technologies are game changers in society and education.

I think it is also critical that we slow down and follow the evidence that is available. Speed is a choice, and education deserves intention.

Tal Slemrod receives funding from the US Department of Education.

– ref. More and more teachers and students are using AI – even though it might do more harm than good – https://theconversation.com/more-and-more-teachers-and-students-are-using-ai-even-though-it-might-do-more-harm-than-good-275650

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Peter Gunderman, Assistant Clinical Professor of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University

Recently, a patient came to the hospital where I work with a persistent cough. Their doctor had ordered a CT scan – a type of imaging that creates detailed cross-sectional pictures of the body’s interior – to look for pneumonia or another infection.

The scan ruled that out, but it also showed something unexpected: calcium buildup in the walls of the coronary arteries. That finding had nothing to do with the cough, but it pointed toward a much more serious problem. After weighing other risk factors, the patient and their doctor decided to start medication to reduce the risk of a heart attack.

Stories like this are becoming more common, and I think about them differently than I used to. I am a cardiothoracic radiologist at Indiana University. In practice, that means I use imaging to diagnose diseases of the heart and lungs. My job is to answer the clinical question in front of me.

But every scan contains far more information than anyone requested, and most of it never gets reported. That is not a failure of any individual radiologist; it is a gap built into how medicine processes imaging data. Closing that gap could matter enormously for patients.

Data hiding in plain sight

A single chest CT produces hundreds of cross-sectional images. Within those images, a trained eye – or an increasingly capable algorithm – can see calcium accumulating in coronary arteries, assess the condition of the muscles along the spine, estimate bone density and detect early changes in the liver. None of this requires an extra scan, radiation or appointment. The information is already there.

This is the idea behind opportunistic screening: using imaging ordered for one purpose to identify other health risks at the same time.

Coronary artery calcium

Coronary artery calcium, or CAC, is probably the best demonstration of what opportunistic screening can accomplish. When calcium builds up in the walls of the coronary arteries, it reflects underlying atherosclerosis, the disease process behind most heart attacks. CAC scoring is one of the strongest predictors of future heart attacks, and it adds predictive information beyond what traditional risk calculators provide.

Dedicated cardiac CT scans can measure this calcium precisely. So can a standard lung cancer screening CT, if someone takes the time to look. Studies have found that calcium measurements from lung screening CTs agree closely with those from dedicated cardiac scans, meaning the information is there even when the scan was not designed for cardiac evaluation.

That overlap matters because roughly 19 million noncardiac chest CTs are performed each year in the United States. Every one of those scans passes through the heart. The presence of calcium is visible in the images – yet studies find that when CAC is present, radiologists report it in fewer than half of cases.

The connection runs in both directions. In research my team conducted at Indiana University studying nearly 15,000 patients undergoing dedicated cardiac calcium scans, roughly 1 in 4 were potentially eligible for lung cancer screening, yet fewer than 11% had ever been screened. Patients at risk for heart disease and those at risk for lung cancer overlap substantially, and right now, medicine is not doing enough for either group.

The scale of this missed opportunity becomes clearer when you look at the National Lung Screening Trial, a study that established low-dose CT as an effective lung cancer screening tool. Among participants in that trial, the most common cause of death was not lung cancer. It was cardiovascular disease. More people died of heart attacks than of the cancer the trial was designed to detect.

When high-risk patients are already getting these scans, the question of whether doctors should be doing more with the data becomes hard to ignore.

Other findings worth looking for

Coronary calcium is the proof of concept, but it is not the only finding hiding in these images.

CT scans can measure muscle loss – a condition called sarcopenia – and patients with low muscle mass consistently face higher rates of postoperative complications and death compared with those with normal muscle mass. Bone density from CT predicts fractures related to osteoporosis, and liver fat visible on CT can flag early metabolic disease before a patient has any symptoms. Each of these findings is present in scans already being done, at essentially no added cost.

The point is not to turn every radiology report into a comprehensive evaluation of a patient’s health. It is to capture measurable findings that point toward something treatable, and to make sure that information actually reaches someone who can act on it.

Getting there is difficult. CT protocols vary across institutions, and measurement accuracy depends on how a scan was acquired. Radiology reports are often written in plain prose rather than structured data fields, which is hard to analyze systematically. And extracting data is only half the problem. Using that data in a way that actually changes care requires coordination across radiology, cardiology and primary care that most health systems have not yet built.

Artificial intelligence is beginning to help. Automated tools can now measure bone density, muscle mass, body fat and coronary calcium from routine scans with reasonable accuracy. A study published in March 2026 found that AI analysis of routine mammograms can identify calcium deposits in breast arteries that predict heart attacks and strokes in women. As these tools become more integrated into everyday radiology practice, a scan that answers the question it was asked and also catches something else worth knowing becomes less of an aspiration and more of a realistic near-term goal.

What you can do now

There are practical steps that patients can take while health systems catch up to advances in medical imaging.

If you are undergoing imaging for any reason, it is worth asking your doctor whether the scan showed anything else relevant to your overall health. That question does not always get a full answer, but asking opens a door that otherwise stays closed.

If you are between 50 and 80 with a significant smoking history, you may already qualify for annual lung cancer screening with low-dose CT. Only about 1 in 5 eligible patients are currently being screened. If you have not discussed it with your doctor, bring it up. Cancers found early are far more likely to be cured, and there is good evidence that the same scan can uncover cardiovascular risk that’s worth knowing about.

The mechanic who changes your oil and mentions that your brake pads are worn is not overstepping. He is doing what an attentive, skilled person in his position should do. Opportunistic screening asks whether radiology can be that kind of attentive – not just occasionally and by chance, but routinely and at scale. The data is already there. The only thing missing is the will to use it.

Peter Gunderman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Millions of CT scans are done every year – most leave important data behind – https://theconversation.com/millions-of-ct-scans-are-done-every-year-most-leave-important-data-behind-264736

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Adrienne Lapidos, Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, University of Michigan

Imagine your dream is to get a job at the local library. You have a love for people and for books. You also have schizophrenia, a psychiatric disability that makes life in the community more challenging.

You often have extreme psychological experiences. When you leave your apartment, you hear voices that tell you it’s not safe, and you feel scared. People seem to keep their distance from you. You feel lonely sometimes.

Most of the people you spend time with are mental health staff members, who provide medications and psychological therapies to make the voices and paranoia less intense. Their treatment philosophy is based on the belief that by reducing the symptoms, working at the library might be possible for you someday.

But what if they have it backward? What if waiting for your symptoms to get better means waiting too long, or even forever?

That’s where the concept of psychiatric rehabilitation, or PSR, turns traditional mental health treatment on its head. While PSR does not minimize the significance of psychiatric symptoms, reducing those symptoms is seen as neither necessary nor sufficient for improving quality of life. Instead of asking “What are your symptoms?” and “How can we make them better?” providers instead ask, “What do you want to do?” and “What’s getting in the way?”

These questions might lead to interventions that are not traditionally considered mental health services: practicing job interviews, scheduling wake-up calls, learning unfamiliar bus routes or making environmental changes like negotiating accommodations. Irrespective of symptoms, such interventions can support people diagnosed with psychiatric disabilities like schizophrenia, major depression and bipolar disorder.

We are psychologists and researchers who have worked in these settings and who study ways to support people with psychiatric disabilities like schizophrenia. And we believe rehabilitative approaches to psychiatric disabilities can help people engage in activities they value, including work, relationships, passions and public service.

Origins of psychiatric rehabilitation

Psychiatric rehabilitation originated at a time of upheaval and hope. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed the Community Mental Health Act into law, establishing mental health centers in the community with the goal of decreasing the number of people living in long-term psychiatric institutions. By 1975, the number of patients in state and county mental hospitals had rapidly declined by 62%.

However, the law never really fulfilled its promise. Even when connected to outpatient care, people with psychiatric disabilities had unmet needs related to community living, including educational attainment, employment, housing and community participation, leading to a lower quality of life.

But what if building a meaningful and self-directed life in the community really was possible, if people were given the right support?

Psychiatric rehabilitation emerged during the 1970s and 1980s in part as a response to the deinstitutionalization movement, where more and more people with psychiatric disabilities lived in the community. Psychologist William Anthony, a pioneer of psychiatric rehabilitation, described the purpose and values of this approach as analogous to physical rehabilitation. Both are centered on improving patients’ ability to live within their chosen environment.

For example, in physical rehabilitation, a person with a serious mobility impairment would not only receive treatment that improves their ability to walk on their own, but also supervised practice using a wheelchair. Modifying their environment, such as adding curb cuts to public sidewalks, is also critical.

Psychiatric rehabilitation challenges mental health professionals to consider questions like “What is the equivalent of a wheelchair or curb cut for a person with schizophrenia?”

One key example of this approach is a form of supported employment called individual placement and support. In this model, employment specialists learn from patients about their goals and preferences; help them search for jobs and identify potential employers; and assist with applications, resumes and interview preparation. Staff will systematically visit businesses in the community to learn about their needs and hiring preferences. Research has shown that this model effectively increases competitive employment for people with psychiatric disabilities, and that most who become employed have a better quality of life.

In addition to gaining employment, psychiatric rehabilitation can help people with severe psychiatric disabilities reduce hospital admissions, obtain housing, improve cognitive function and reduce stigma. Each of these interventions is designed to improve a person’s functioning in the community, either by modifying their skills or their environment.

Because many of these services can be delivered by people without advanced degrees, psychiatric rehabilitation also opens careers in mental health services to a broader swath of the community.

The future of psychiatric rehabilitation

Despite its effectiveness, many factors limit access to psychiatric rehabilitation, including underfunding, lack of appropriate Medicaid reimbursement, an unprepared workforce and an overemphasis on pharmaceutical treatment.

Psychiatric rehabilitation practices could improve the extent to which they are culturally tailored and centered on serving the most vulnerable and disenfranchised populations. For example, research has found that having a low income is correlated with worse outcomes in these services, and that not enough programs consider cultural diversity.

Progress in treating mental illness has been elusive, and it’s not because researchers don’t know which treatments are effective. Rather, it’s because care quality varies greatly and the best services are often inaccessible. Psychiatric rehabilitation relies primarily on financing through state mental health agencies and Medicaid, and its future depends on sustainable financing.

Until investments match need, disparities in the health and quality of life of people living with psychiatric disabilities will continue.

In community, with support

Just like those recovering from a physical illness, we believe people recovering from psychiatric disabilities are deserving of comprehensive rehabilitation services that enable their full participation in community life.

So imagine once more that you love books, love the library and live with schizophrenia. You got confirmation from your employment specialist that she found a library in the community seeking a part-time worker. She mentioned you to them, and they’re willing to give you a chance.

You and your peer support specialist take the bus back and forth to the library one more time to make sure you’re confident about the route. To prepare for your interview, you sit in your community mental health center’s computer lab and use a virtual reality program to practice your job interview skills. Later that afternoon, you share your excitement and fears with peers in a Hearing Voices Network support group.

Tomorrow’s your interview. With your support network at your back, you believe your dream could come true.

Adrienne Lapidos’s research work is funded by the CareQuest Foundation, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Institutes of Health. She is Associate Editor of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal.

Elizabeth Thomas receives funding from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. She is Associate Editor of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal.

Kristen Abraham has received funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Veterans Health Administration and the Michigan Disability Rights Coalition. She maintains an appointment at the Veterans Health Administration Serious Mental Illness Treatment Resource and Evaluation Center and is Editor of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal.

– ref. What’s the equivalent of a wheelchair for a person with schizophrenia? How psychiatric rehabilitation brings community into care – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-equivalent-of-a-wheelchair-for-a-person-with-schizophrenia-how-psychiatric-rehabilitation-brings-community-into-care-274724

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Matthew D. Dean, Assistant Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Irvine

When the power goes out and stays off for hours, the result can be more than just a hassle – for millions of Americans who rely on medical equipment, losing electricity can become a medical emergency.

Your neighbor might rely on an oxygen concentrator to breathe – a machine the size of a carry-on bag that hums quietly through the night. Or they might need a CPAP – continuous positive airway pressure – machine to keep them breathing safely in their sleep, or a ventilator.

Most home medical devices run on backup batteries that last only 3 to 8 hours. Yet people in over half of U.S. counties experienced at least one outage lasting more than eight hours between 2018 and 2021. Power outages are becoming more common in the U.S., too. They grew 9% more frequent and lasted 56% longer between 2014 and 2023, driven by severe weather, winter storms, hurricanes and wildfires linked to climate change.

Studies following major blackouts show an increase in disease-related deaths, including a 25% rise during a three-day blackout in New York City in August 2003. Emergency rooms can become overwhelmed with device users seeking backup power and medical care.

But not everyone with a medical device faces the same risks during a power outage. In a new study published in the journal Environmental Research: Health, we show which groups need the most help and who is slipping through the cracks in life-threatening ways.

Four very different realities

We analyzed data from more than 2,600 households reporting the use of medical devices, drawn from a nationally representative federal survey of nearly 18,500 American homes. Using statistical modeling, we identified four distinct groups, each facing a very different situation when the power goes out.

About 60% of medically dependent households are financially stable homeowners. They face outages, but they are the most likely group to have backup generators.

A second group, roughly 20%, are homeowners who struggle to pay their energy bills and sometimes skip medicine or meals to keep the lights on, but who also tend to have backup power sources. This group had the highest likelihood of experiencing dayslong power outages in the past year, but was also more likely to have a generator or access to solar power than the average American.

A third group is apartment renters who can afford their electricity bills but are typically unable to make long-term upgrades for more resilient power supplies. For example, they can’t install solar panels or add permanent backup power because those decisions belong to their landlord, not them.

The fourth class is the smallest, roughly 7% of medical device households, and by far the most at risk. These are mostly low-income urban renters, and they face two compounding problems: They struggle to pay their electricity bills every month, and they have almost no backup resources when the power goes out.

Nearly 58% of these at-risk renters said they had received a disconnection notice from their utility within the previous year. One in eight had needed medical attention because their home got too hot or too cold. This group is also disproportionately Black or Hispanic.

Our findings confirm what researchers have long suspected: Energy insecurity among medical device users is deeply tied to income, housing type and race. Our study also shows the importance of understanding where people are both energy insecure and less likely to have access to backup power sources during outages.

What communities are doing today

Some communities are finding ways to tackle pieces of this problem.

Most utility companies maintain lists of households with medical devices, and they are supposed to notify customers ahead of power shutoffs and prioritize restoring power to their homes. However, studies show that these registries capture only a fraction of the people who qualify.

If medical device users were instead automatically enrolled during a doctor’s visit, or if landlords were required to notify new tenants of these registries, those steps could help reach more people.

Portable battery programs, like those run by California’s largest utilities, provide free or low-cost rechargeable batteries and a solar panel kit to homeowners and renters with medical devices who are most at risk of power shutoffs. Contractors can work with households to choose an appropriate battery to ensure it isn’t too heavy or difficult to transport if evacuating because of a wildfire or other disaster.

As climate change makes blackouts longer and more frequent – and as federal low-income energy assistance programs face cuts – providing help to residents falls increasingly on states and cities. Knowing which households face the greatest risks can make it easier to target aid to those in need.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Power outages can threaten the lives of medical device users – knowing who is most at risk will help cities respond – https://theconversation.com/power-outages-can-threaten-the-lives-of-medical-device-users-knowing-who-is-most-at-risk-will-help-cities-respond-276501