While infectious diseases (ID) are a well-documented public health issue in carceral settings, research on ID screening and treatment in jails is lacking. A survey was sent to 1,126 jails in the United States to identify the prevalence of health screenings at intake and characteristics of care for ID; 371 surveys were completed correctly and analyzed. Despite conflicting Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidance, only seven percent of surveyed jails test individuals for HIV at admission. In 46% of jails, non-healthcare personnel perform ID screenings. Jails in less urban areas were more likely to report healthcare screenings performed by correctional officers. Survey findings indicate that HIV, HCV and TB testing during jail admissions and access to PrEP are severely lacking in less urban jails in particular. Recommendations are provided to improve ID surveillance and address the burden of ID in correctional facilities.

Purpose of review: To describe existing evidence and identify future directions for intervention research related to improving HIV care outcomes for persons with HIV involved in the carceral system in the USA, a population with high unmet HIV care needs. Recent findings: Few recent intervention studies focus on improving HIV care outcomes for this population. Successful strategies to improve care outcomes include patient navigation, substance use treatment, and incentivizing HIV care outcomes. Technology-supported interventions are underutilized in this population. Notable gaps in the existing literature include intervention research addressing HIV care needs for cisgender and transgender women and those under carceral supervision in the community. Future research should address existing gaps in the literature and respond to emergent needs including understanding how the changing HIV care delivery environment resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and the approval of new injectable ART formulation shape HIV care outcomes in this population.

In a research letter in this issue, Rempel et al. compared community water systems that serve the Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) and three comparable rural communities in California that rely solely on groundwater sources.1 They found that for each of the four systems, arsenic concentrations in drinking water periodically exceeded the legal limit in violation of Safe Drinking Water Act regulations. The communities neighboring the prison benefited from local and federal remediation efforts. Yet, for people who were incarcerated, interventions such as free bottled water were often restricted.

As a consequence of mass incarceration and related social inequities in the United States, jails annually incarcerate millions of people who have profound and expensive health care needs. Resources allocated for jail health care are scarce, likely resulting in treatment delays, limited access to care, lower-quality care, unnecessary use of emergency medical services (EMS) and emergency departments (EDs), and limited services to support continuity of care upon release. Potential policy solutions include alternative models for jail health care oversight and financing, and providing alternatives to incarceration, particularly for those with mental illness and substance use disorders. Context: Millions of people are incarcerated in US jails annually. These individuals commonly have ongoing medical needs, and most are released back to their communities within days or weeks. Jails are required to provide health care but have substantial discretion in how they provide care, and a thorough overview of jail health care is lacking. In response, we sought to generate a comprehensive description of jails' health care structures, resources, and delivery across the entire incarceration experience from jail entry to release. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with jail personnel in five southeastern states from August 2018 to February 2019. We purposefully targeted recruitment from 34 jails reflecting a diversity of sizes, rurality, and locations, and we interviewed personnel most knowledgeable about health care delivery within each facility. We coded transcripts for salient themes and summarized content by and across participants. Domains included staffing, prebooking clearance, intake screening and care initiation, withdrawal management, history and physicals, sick calls, urgent care, external health care resources, and transitional care at release. Findings: Ninety percent of jails contracted with private companies to provide health care. We identified two broad staffing models and four variations of the medical intake process. Detention officers often had medical duties, and jails routinely used community resources (e.g., emergency departments) to fill gaps in on-site care. Reentry transitional services were uncommon. Conclusions: Jails' strategies for delivering health care were often influenced by a scarcity of on-site resources, particularly in the smaller facilities. Some strategies (e.g., officers performing medical duties) have not been well documented previously and raise immediate questions about safety and effectiveness, and broader questions about the adequacy of jail funding and impact of contracting with private health care companies. Beyond these findings, our description of jail health care newly provides researchers and policymakers a common foundation from which to understand and study the delivery of jail health care.

Objectives.:To compare opioid overdose death (OOD) rates among formerly incarcerated persons (FIPs) from 2016 to 2018 with the North Carolina population and with OOD rates from 2000 to 2015. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 259 861 North Carolina FIPs from 2000 to 2018 linked with North Carolina death records. We used indirectly standardized OOD mortality rates and ratios and present 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: From 2017 to 2018, the OOD rates in the North Carolina general population decreased by 10.1% but increased by 32% among FIPs. During 2016 to 2018, the highest substance-specific OOD rate among FIPs was attributable to synthetic narcotics (mainly fentanyl and its analogs), while OOD rates for other opioids were half or less than that from synthetic narcotics. During 2016 to 2018, the OOD risk for FIPs from synthetic narcotics was 50.3 (95% CI = 30.9, 69.6), 20.2 (95% CI = 17.3, 23.2), and 18.2 (95% CI = 15.9, 20.5) times as high as that for the North Carolina population at 2-week, 1-year, and complete follow-up after release, respectively. Conclusions: While nationwide OOD rates declined from 2017 to 2018, OOD rates among North Carolina FIPs increased by about a third, largely from fentanyl and its analogs.