ReportWire

Tag: health care reform

  • Get the Facts: Health insurance expected to rise if tax credits expire amid government shutdown

    [ad_1]

    At the core of the government shutdown is a debate about the extension of health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, first implemented in 2021.The shutdown began at the start of the new fiscal year, Oct. 1. In budget negotiations, Democrats were aiming to extend the expanded subsidies, set to expire at the end of 2025, while Republicans have emphasized reopening the government before beginning health care talks.If these tax credits expire, it’s estimated that the more than 24 million people enrolled in marketplace plans will pay twice as much out of pocket, according to Jeanne Lambrew, director of health care reform at the Century Foundation. KFF estimated the average premium payment would increase 114% from $888 to $1,904 without expanded subsidies.Plus, the impacts could be felt even sooner as open enrollment is set to begin Nov. 1 for people to select health insurance coverage for 2026. The ACA, sometimes referred to as “Obamacare,” was designed to make health care affordable and accessible via marketplaces, Lambrew said, who also worked on drafting and implementing the ACA during the Obama administration.The goal of the marketplaces were to fill in the gaps, according to Lambrew. It is for people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but also for people who don’t have access to affordable insurance through their work.Enrollment in the ACA has increased since its passage in 2014, but really climbed in the last five years. From 2020 to 2025, enrollment more than doubled as a result of expanded tax credits passed in the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021, which increased the subsidies and lifted a cap that disqualified people making four times the poverty level or more from being eligible for the subsidies. Under 2025 guidelines for the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the federal poverty level is $15,650 for a one-person household. At 400%, it’s $62,600.Nearly all states saw an increase in enrollment under the ACA from 2020 to 2025, with 20 states more than doubling in enrollment.Six states more than tripled in the number of people enrolled under the ACA — Texas, Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Georgia and Tennessee.States that President Donald Trump won in the 2024 election have the majority of enrollees, according to an analysis from KFF.“We know that three out of four enrollees in the health insurance marketplace live in states that voted for President Trump in 2024,” Lambrew said. “So this is not a partisan issue, it’s a nationwide issue, and it affects people in different ways, but the overall effect is significant.”Who is impacted?The subsidies, also called tax credits, at the center of the shutdown are utilized by about 92% of people enrolled in marketplace plans under the ACA, according to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.These expanded credits allow households of different sizes and income levels to be capped with maximum out-of-pocket costs.Once the expanded tax credits expire at the end of this year, the out-of-pocket maximums will increase across the board, and people making above four times the poverty level will become ineligible for any tax credits.More than 6.7% of those who were enrolled in ACA plans earned more than 400% of the federal poverty level, accounting for 1.6 million people. Once the subsidies expire, these enrollees would no longer qualify for the subsidies under the ACA.Also heavily impacted are people approaching retirement age. The age group with the highest enrollment in marketplace plans is ages 55 to 64, data shows. KFF estimated in March that about half the enrollees who would lose the tax credit upon expiration are between 50 and 64.As people grow closer to retirement age, they may not rely as much on employer-provided insurance before turning 65 and qualifying for Medicaid, according to Lambrew.How much would premiums change?KFF has estimated the average premium will more than double next year if the expanded subsidies were to expire.In addition to the potential ending of the subsidies, insurance rates are projected to rise across marketplace plans and employer-provided insurance.”I looked at Medicare history, employer-sponsored insurance history, marketplace history. Without a doubt, this is the highest one-year increase in premiums for people in history,” Lambrew said.The Get the Facts Data Team analyzed maximum out-of-pocket rate changes for benchmark plans to find how rates may change.A one-person household with an annual income of $25,000 — a little more than 1.5 times the federal poverty level — is estimated to go from paying a maximum $100 out of pocket annually to $1,168. They would pay a maximum of less than $98 a month — 10 times more than the previous payment of less than $9 a month.Households with an income between 100% and 150% of the federal poverty level made up the largest share of enrollees at almost 45%. Under the expanded subsidies, they aren’t required to pay anything out of pocket for benchmark plans.If the tax credits expire, they will pay a maximum between 2.1% and 4.19% of their income annually. At 1.5 times the federal poverty level, a one-person household would be earning $23,475 annually and may have to pay nearly $984 a year.The interactive below shows how the maximum out-of-pocket rates for benchmark plans may change if expanded subsidies expire for one, two and four-person households at various incomes. Estimates were calculated using maximum out-of-pocket rates from KFF published by the IRS, along with 2025 federal poverty level data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for the 48 contiguous states plus D.C. The tool is not intended to calculate an individual’s actual payments. Healthcare.gov and other state marketplaces are the best source for specific premium costs.PHNjcmlwdCB0eXBlPSJ0ZXh0L2phdmFzY3JpcHQiPiFmdW5jdGlvbigpeyJ1c2Ugc3RyaWN0Ijt3aW5kb3cuYWRkRXZlbnRMaXN0ZW5lcigibWVzc2FnZSIsKGZ1bmN0aW9uKGUpe2lmKHZvaWQgMCE9PWUuZGF0YVsiZGF0YXdyYXBwZXItaGVpZ2h0Il0pe3ZhciB0PWRvY3VtZW50LnF1ZXJ5U2VsZWN0b3JBbGwoImlmcmFtZSIpO2Zvcih2YXIgYSBpbiBlLmRhdGFbImRhdGF3cmFwcGVyLWhlaWdodCJdKWZvcih2YXIgcj0wO3I8dC5sZW5ndGg7cisrKXtpZih0W3JdLmNvbnRlbnRXaW5kb3c9PT1lLnNvdXJjZSl0W3JdLnN0eWxlLmhlaWdodD1lLmRhdGFbImRhdGF3cmFwcGVyLWhlaWdodCJdW2FdKyJweCJ9fX0pKX0oKTs8L3NjcmlwdD4=

    WASHINGTON —

    At the core of the government shutdown is a debate about the extension of health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, first implemented in 2021.

    The shutdown began at the start of the new fiscal year, Oct. 1. In budget negotiations, Democrats were aiming to extend the expanded subsidies, set to expire at the end of 2025, while Republicans have emphasized reopening the government before beginning health care talks.

    If these tax credits expire, it’s estimated that the more than 24 million people enrolled in marketplace plans will pay twice as much out of pocket, according to Jeanne Lambrew, director of health care reform at the Century Foundation. KFF estimated the average premium payment would increase 114% from $888 to $1,904 without expanded subsidies.

    Plus, the impacts could be felt even sooner as open enrollment is set to begin Nov. 1 for people to select health insurance coverage for 2026.

    The ACA, sometimes referred to as “Obamacare,” was designed to make health care affordable and accessible via marketplaces, Lambrew said, who also worked on drafting and implementing the ACA during the Obama administration.

    The goal of the marketplaces were to fill in the gaps, according to Lambrew. It is for people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but also for people who don’t have access to affordable insurance through their work.

    Enrollment in the ACA has increased since its passage in 2014, but really climbed in the last five years.

    From 2020 to 2025, enrollment more than doubled as a result of expanded tax credits passed in the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021, which increased the subsidies and lifted a cap that disqualified people making four times the poverty level or more from being eligible for the subsidies.

    Under 2025 guidelines for the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the federal poverty level is $15,650 for a one-person household. At 400%, it’s $62,600.

    Nearly all states saw an increase in enrollment under the ACA from 2020 to 2025, with 20 states more than doubling in enrollment.

    Six states more than tripled in the number of people enrolled under the ACA — Texas, Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Georgia and Tennessee.

    States that President Donald Trump won in the 2024 election have the majority of enrollees, according to an analysis from KFF.

    “We know that three out of four enrollees in the health insurance marketplace live in states that voted for President Trump in 2024,” Lambrew said. “So this is not a partisan issue, it’s a nationwide issue, and it affects people in different ways, but the overall effect is significant.”

    Who is impacted?

    The subsidies, also called tax credits, at the center of the shutdown are utilized by about 92% of people enrolled in marketplace plans under the ACA, according to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

    These expanded credits allow households of different sizes and income levels to be capped with maximum out-of-pocket costs.

    Once the expanded tax credits expire at the end of this year, the out-of-pocket maximums will increase across the board, and people making above four times the poverty level will become ineligible for any tax credits.

    More than 6.7% of those who were enrolled in ACA plans earned more than 400% of the federal poverty level, accounting for 1.6 million people. Once the subsidies expire, these enrollees would no longer qualify for the subsidies under the ACA.

    Also heavily impacted are people approaching retirement age. The age group with the highest enrollment in marketplace plans is ages 55 to 64, data shows.

    KFF estimated in March that about half the enrollees who would lose the tax credit upon expiration are between 50 and 64.

    As people grow closer to retirement age, they may not rely as much on employer-provided insurance before turning 65 and qualifying for Medicaid, according to Lambrew.

    How much would premiums change?

    KFF has estimated the average premium will more than double next year if the expanded subsidies were to expire.

    In addition to the potential ending of the subsidies, insurance rates are projected to rise across marketplace plans and employer-provided insurance.

    “I looked at Medicare history, employer-sponsored insurance history, marketplace history. Without a doubt, this is the highest one-year increase in premiums for people in history,” Lambrew said.

    The Get the Facts Data Team analyzed maximum out-of-pocket rate changes for benchmark plans to find how rates may change.

    A one-person household with an annual income of $25,000 — a little more than 1.5 times the federal poverty level — is estimated to go from paying a maximum $100 out of pocket annually to $1,168.

    They would pay a maximum of less than $98 a month — 10 times more than the previous payment of less than $9 a month.

    Households with an income between 100% and 150% of the federal poverty level made up the largest share of enrollees at almost 45%. Under the expanded subsidies, they aren’t required to pay anything out of pocket for benchmark plans.

    If the tax credits expire, they will pay a maximum between 2.1% and 4.19% of their income annually. At 1.5 times the federal poverty level, a one-person household would be earning $23,475 annually and may have to pay nearly $984 a year.

    The interactive below shows how the maximum out-of-pocket rates for benchmark plans may change if expanded subsidies expire for one, two and four-person households at various incomes. Estimates were calculated using maximum out-of-pocket rates from KFF published by the IRS, along with 2025 federal poverty level data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for the 48 contiguous states plus D.C.

    The tool is not intended to calculate an individual’s actual payments. Healthcare.gov and other state marketplaces are the best source for specific premium costs.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Most Americans fear rising health care costs, poll finds | Long Island Business News

    [ad_1]

    Most U.S. adults are worried about care becoming more expensive, according to a new , as they make decisions about next year’s health coverage and a keeps future health costs in limbo for millions.

    About 6 in 10 Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about their health costs going up in the next year, the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds — a worry that extends across age groups and includes people with and without .

    Many Americans have other health care anxieties, too. The poll found that about 4 in 10 Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about not being able to pay for health care or medications they need, not being able to access health care when they need it, or losing or not having health insurance.

    beneficiaries are already shopping for next year’s coverage, and open enrollment periods for many other health plans are approaching quickly in November. Federal policies have left millions of people at risk of skyrocketing health insurance premiums or of losing their health insurance altogether. The findings show that many Americans are feeling vulnerable to spiking , with some expressing concerns about whether they’ll have coverage at all.

    Latoya Wilson, an independent nurse consultant in Lafayette, Louisiana, currently uses a health insurance plan from the marketplace. But in the past two weeks, the 46-year-old has applied for more jobs than she had previously in her life, largely because she’s concerned about her premiums going up and wants the stability of employer-sponsored insurance.

    “Even before these health care cuts came into play, I was already having a significant issue getting the care that I needed this year,” she said. “Anything worse than what I already have is pretty scary.”
    Health care remains important to Americans when it’s center stage in Washington

    About 8 in 10 U.S. adults say the issue of health care is “extremely” or “very” important to them personally. That includes about 9 in 10 Democrats and three-quarters of Republicans, and it puts health care next to the economy among Americans’ top issue priorities.

    That significant attention on the issue raises the political stakes in what’s already been a crucial moment for federal health policy in the nation’s capital.

    President Donald Trump’s mega-bill passed this summer cuts more than $1 trillion from federal health care and food assistance over a decade, largely by imposing work requirements on those receiving aid and by shifting certain federal costs onto the states. Republicans say the cuts will prevent people who don’t need aid from gaming the system, but the cuts will ultimately result in millions of people losing health insurance coverage, according to projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    More urgently, a congressional deadlock over Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire this year has thrown the federal government into a shutdown that’s dragged into a fourth straight week with no end in sight. Democratic lawmakers want any funding bill they sign to extend the subsidies, which have made ACA premiums less expensive for millions of people. Republicans in Congress have expressed willingness to negotiate on the issue, but only after the government is reopened.

    In interviews, some Americans said they doubted government leaders would take the necessary action to address their concerns on health care.

    “It is the federal government’s job to provide a better way of life for its people,” said Caleb Richter, a 30-year-old certified nursing assistant in Belleville, Wisconsin, who identifies as an independent. ”Right now, it just feels like they’re not trying.”

    But the poll reveals a deep ideological divide over what the government’s role should be, with Democrats far more likely than Republicans to say it’s the federal government’s job to make sure all Americans have health coverage. About 8 in 10 Democrats say this, compared with about one-third of Republicans.
    Most US adults disapprove of Trump’s handling of health care, the poll finds

    Health care continues to be a weakness for Trump. Only about 3 in 10 U.S. adults approve of the Republican president’s handling of health care, which hasn’t changed meaningfully since September. Almost all Democrats disapprove of his approach, but so do about 8 in 10 independents and about one-third of Republicans.

    Wilson, a Democrat, said she thinks Trump should be “doing things that affect the good of the group” when it comes to health care, including catering more to working-class Americans.

    But Michelle Truszkowski, a disabled veteran in Sterling Heights, Michigan, who is politically conservative, said she appreciates how Trump is focused on cutting and abuse in the health care system.

    “I like that people who shouldn’t be getting benefits from the government are getting kicked off of them,” the 48-year-old said. “Health care is not a right. It’s a privilege.”
    Democrats trusted more than Republicans on health care, but many trust neither

    About 4 in 10 U.S. adults say they trust the Democrats to do a better job handling health care, compared with about one-quarter who trust the Republicans more. About one-quarter trust neither party, and about 1 in 10 trust both equally.

    Americans are more likely to trust their own party on health care, generally speaking, but 76% of Democrats trust their party more on health care, while only 57% of Republicans have more trust in theirs.

    Independents are especially likely to trust neither party on health care — about half of independents say this. But the remaining independents are more likely to trust the Democrats.

    Richter, in Wisconsin, said he wishes Congress would put more faith and funding into hospital staffers who know how to help patients. He said he’d be fine with paying higher taxes if it meant ensuring health care for people who need it.

    But instead of working toward solutions, he said, federal lawmakers are acting “like a bunch of high school arguing.”

    “My faith that something will get done is very, very low at this point,” Richter said. “It just feels like they don’t really care.”


    [ad_2]

    The Associated Press

    Source link

  • Can Direct Democracy Save Abortion Rights?

    [ad_1]

    In the first Presidential race since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the American electorate appeared to stake out two seemingly irreconcilable positions. Voters gave a mandate to Donald Trump, who appointed half of the conservative supermajority that abolished the constitutional right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Yet, at the same time, eight states showed majority support for constitutional amendments that codified abortion rights, including five states that went for or are leaning toward Trump. In Missouri, where abortions are completely prohibited except for health emergencies, Trump won easily, but so did an amendment enshrining reproductive rights in the state constitution. Trump is poised to win in Arizona, which has a fifteen-week ban, and where voters affirmed an amendment protecting abortion rights until fetal viability. A similar measure in Trump’s home state of Florida, Amendment 4, won a slightly larger majority than Trump himself did—and yet the measure failed, because it did not reach Florida’s sixty-per-cent threshold for passing constitutional amendments. The South Florida Sun Sentinel, reporting on a ballot initiative that received fifty-seven per cent of the vote, ran the headline “Voters Reject Florida Abortion Rights Amendment.”

    Florida, in fact, provides a vivid microcosm of large swaths of the U.S., where solid majorities back both reproductive freedom and the man who helped take it away. In Kamala Harris’s campaign against Trump, abortion rights were the Vice-President’s strongest issue. The fury and horror that many voters felt over the Dobbs decision powered the Democrats’ surprisingly robust showing in the 2022 midterms, with Harris’s command of the subject compensating for Joe Biden’s Catholic squeamishness. In March, Harris went to St. Paul, Minnesota, to visit an abortion clinic, something that no President or Vice-President had ever done before. “So everyone get ready for the language: uterus,” Harris said to reporters during the event. “That part of the body needs a lot of medical care from time to time.” Harris’s passion and candor on reproductive rights was well matched to the broad support for this year’s ballot initiatives, but it did not translate into broader support for the candidate herself. She won just forty-three per cent of the Florida vote—five points below Biden’s statewide result in 2020.

    Because Florida fell short of a supermajority on Amendment 4, the state will continue under a severe six-week ban, although it makes exceptions for patients at “a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment” and nominally permits abortions up to the fifteen-week mark in cases of rape, incest, or human trafficking. Chelsea Daniels, a family physician and abortion provider in the Miami area who campaigned on behalf of the amendment, said that exceptions in Florida law don’t do nearly enough to protect patients in dire need. Recently, one of Daniels’s patients, a rape survivor, was told by law-enforcement officers that it would take months to procure the police report she needed in order to obtain a legal abortion. Another discovered she was pregnant while undergoing treatment for cancer; the patient’s oncologist wouldn’t continue her chemotherapy regimen unless she got an abortion, but first, Daniels said, “we had to prove she met the health-exception criteria, which meant mountains of paperwork.”

    Daniels, with her clinic’s legal and oncology teams, searched for a hospital that would take on the patient’s case; as days and weeks ticked by, her pregnancy continued to progress, and the abortion care she needed became more complex. Eventually, Daniels and her colleagues located a suitable hospital, hours from the patient’s home. “This was a pregnant woman dying of cancer,” Daniels said. She went on, “No one in this state wants to touch abortion with a ten-foot pole.”

    Trump has declared that Florida’s abortion ban was “a terrible mistake,” and yet he also said that, as a Florida resident, he planned to vote against overturning it in the 2024 ballot initiative. (Trump delivered his victory speech on Wednesday morning in Palm Beach County, home to Mar-a-Lago, and where sixty-six per cent of voters approved of Amendment 4.) This self-contradictory stance is typical of Trump’s yes-but-no approach to reproductive freedom. He has called himself “very pro-choice,” but also the “most pro-life President ever.” He has suggested that he would support a federal ban on abortion around fifteen weeks, or after twenty weeks, but he has also said that he would veto such legislation. He has said that “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who seek illegal abortions, but he has also disavowed that view, and, more recently, he has maintained that his view does not actually matter. In April, when a reporter from Time magazine asked Trump whether he would be “comfortable” with states prosecuting patients for unlawful abortions, he replied, “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.” In August, when Trump was asked whether he would direct the F.D.A. to “revoke access to mifepristone”—one of the two drugs used in medication abortion—he deferred, once again, to direct democracy. “All I want to do is give everybody a vote, and the votes are taking place right now as we speak,” he said.

    In the view of our once and future President, Dobbs consecrated abortion as a states’-rights issue. “Every legal scholar, every Democrat, every Republican, liberal, conservative—they all wanted this issue to be brought back to the states where the people could vote, and that’s what happened,” he has said. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in Dobbs, claimed that the decision “allows women on both sides of the abortion issue to seek to affect the legislative process by influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, voting, and running for office.” In other words, Alito argued, overturning Roe gave women the right to choose.

    But, among the seven states that, in 2022 and 2023, affirmed abortion rights through ballot measures, some have discovered that voting on a constitutional amendment is not the same as waving a magic wand that restores abortion rights to their 1973 settings. Especially in states that placed heavy restrictions on reproductive choice after Dobbs, local officials have not necessarily shown courtly deference to the will of the people.

    Ohio is a case study. After Dobbs, a six-week abortion ban was in effect in the state for close to three months until a judge put it on temporary hold; then, in 2023, voters passed an amendment insuring the individual “right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” by a fifty-seven-per-cent majority. Ohio’s attorney general, Dave Yost, a Republican, conceded that the ballot measure rendered the state’s ban unconstitutional. But Yost maintained that the amendment should not disturb other rules on Ohio’s books which were explicitly designed to hinder access to abortion, including a twenty-four-hour minimum waiting period and a requirement of two in-person doctor’s visits, among other restrictions. Doctors would still be required to discuss alternatives to abortion, distribute “fetal development guides,” test for “cardiac activity,” perform unnecessary ultrasounds, and obtain patients’ signatures acknowledging receipt of information that “the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying has a fetal heartbeat.” Skipping one of these steps might still leave abortion providers vulnerable to felony charges, civil penalties, or loss of their license. It was only two weeks ago that a court in Ohio officially struck down the state ban in its entirety, saying it contravened the new amendment. (Yost’s office has said that it was reviewing the order and would decide within thirty days whether to appeal.)

    Erika Boothman, an ob-gyn in Columbus, told me that, one year after Ohio voted in favor of reproductive freedom, legal battles over abortion continue to create a “quagmire” for physicians in the state. “Patients don’t know what’s legal, which laws have a stay or a temporary injunction or have been overturned or aren’t being enforced, and that goes for my colleagues as well,” she said. “It’s been kind of a week-by-week thing. If you don’t follow it really closely, then you don’t know what the actual laws are at that very moment.”

    Recently, Boothman saw a patient whose water broke in her second trimester, a condition known as PPROM. Boothman’s patient “did not want to continue the pregnancy because she was at risk of infection that would threaten her uterus and her life,” Boothman said. “But the fetus still had a heartbeat, and so we had to consult our ethics and legal team to see if I was legally allowed to do a D&E” —dilation and evacuation, in which the physician uses suction and surgical instruments to empty the patient’s uterus. Boothman did ultimately receive permission to perform a D&E. “But all of us were kind of, like, ‘We hope we don’t get in trouble for this,’ ” Boothman said. “We didn’t have an expert in, you know, ‘What is abortion law in Ohio on this day in this month?’ ”

    In Kansas, as in Ohio, popular support for abortion rights cuts against the conservative politics that dominate the state. In 2022, just months after Dobbs was handed down, fifty-nine per cent of voters in Kansas rejected a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. Yet, last month, Kansas’s Republican attorney general, Kris Kobach, joined his counterparts in Idaho and Missouri in a lawsuit that would place extreme restrictions on medication abortion, which accounted for close to two-thirds of all abortions performed in the U.S. last year. The lawsuit, which was filed in Texas’s hard-right Fifth Circuit, is essentially a do-over of the challenge to the F.D.A.’s rules on mifepristone that the Supreme Court unanimously rejected last term (the Justices found that the plaintiffs, a consortium of anti-abortion physicians, lacked standing). “We’re pursuing this case to protect Kansas women,” Kobach said in a statement last month.

    The revised complaint, which uses the word “baby” fourteen times, asks that patients seeking medication abortion make three in-person visits to a provider, bar doctors from offering this care after the seven-week mark, and ban minors from accessing it altogether. A provocative component of the attorneys general’s argument is that access to mifepristone would, by reducing teen pregnancy, eventually harms states by shrinking their tax base.

    The suit also advocates for entirely eliminating telehealth abortion—which currently accounts for nearly one in five abortions nationwide—and for enforcing the nineteenth-century Comstock Act, which outlaws the mailing of abortifacients. Justice Alito and his colleague Clarence Thomas both invoked Comstock during oral arguments in the earlier, failed mifepristone case, which may have helped guide the approach of the new complaint. And now that Trump has been reëlected, he could, if he wished, simply instruct the Department of Justice to begin enforcing Comstock in order to restrict the distribution of mifepristone.

    Despite the proven efficacy and popularity of medication abortion, the manufactured controversies about its safety have led some hospitals and providers to take a stance of preëmptive caution. Recently, Boothman, the ob-gyn in Ohio, asked that mifepristone be added to the formulary at the hospital where she works. She told me that she explained to a hospital administrator that the drug, which softens and dilates the cervix, is often used after a patient suffers what is known as intrauterine fetal demise, a tragic situation in which a physician needs either to induce a stillbirth or perform a D&E. Boothman also submitted numerous articles from peer-reviewed medical journals to back up her request. But the administrator turned her down. “My hesitation here is that there are multiple layers to this pharmaceutical that sadly transcend evidence-based medicine, especially here in Ohio,” he wrote.

    “Mifepristone is safe, it decreases induction time, it makes it easier for the patient to deliver the baby and start the grieving process, it reduces the bleeding that they have afterward and any risk of complication, and we’re not allowed to use it,” Boothman said. She added, “It’s been a really bizarre last couple of years.”

    The ongoing battles in Ohio and Kansas will inevitably add notes of caution and contingency to the amendment victories in states like Missouri and Arizona. So will the conservatives’ 6–3 lock on the Supreme Court, which is guaranteed to hold under a second Trump Administration. “Even when a majority of voters passes an initiative that is supportive of abortion rights, that doesn’t mean that anti-abortion activists and political élites are ever going to leave the issue alone,” Alesha Doan, a professor at the University of Kansas who studies the intersection of gender and public policy, said. “One of the limits of the ballot initiative is that it gives a false sense of security that this right has been decided, and we can move on.”

    In a less imperfect world, the essential and long-established right to one’s own body would not have to be decided by majority vote (or, if your body is in Florida, by supermajority vote). “From an advocacy perspective, there are some states where the situation is sufficiently dire that ballot initiatives are a direct way to get people access,” Katherine Kraschel, an assistant professor of law and health sciences at Northeastern University School of Law, said. “If those initiatives are successful, people are going to receive life-saving care in those states.” At the same time, she went on, “Our Constitution should have some floor of liberties in order for all of us to be meaningfully able to participate in democracy. We should still want a federal Constitution that protects our right to reproductive autonomy.”

    It is not possible to piece together a nationwide right to abortion, state by state, through citizen-initiated ballot measures—such referendums are allowed in only twenty-six states. They are not an option for motivated voters in Georgia, for example, where, two weeks after the state implemented a near-total abortion ban, twenty-eight-year-old Amber Thurman, the mother of a six-year-old son, died of septic shock after she was made to wait twenty hours for a D&C. Nor are they available in Texas, where, according to recent reporting in ProPublica, at least two women have died as a result of the state’s ban. Texas is also the home of Amanda Zurawski and Ondrea Lintz, both of whom were denied timely abortion care after suffering PPROM, developed catastrophic infections, and, as a consequence, may never be able to have children. Zurawski appeared in an unforgettable campaign spot for Joe Biden before he dropped out of the Presidential race, and Lintz made an equally searing ad for Kamala Harris.

    In states where citizens are permitted to initiate abortion-rights referendums, their elected representatives often obstruct their efforts. In Arkansas, which has the nation’s highest maternal-mortality rate and one of its most draconian abortion bans, volunteers gathered more than a hundred thousand signatures in support of a pro-choice amendment, but the Republican secretary of state blocked it from the final ballot, citing a paperwork error. In Florida, people who provided signatures for the state’s ballot measure received visits from state police investigating spurious allegations of fraud, and local television stations were threatened with criminal prosecution for airing an ad for the amendment. And in Missouri, which is one of the states bringing the revised mifepristone lawsuit, the Republican secretary of state, Jay Ashcroft, attempted first to plant inflammatory language in the proposed Amendment 3—alleging that it would permit “dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth”—and then to unilaterally decertify it. (The state Supreme Court overruled Ashcroft on both counts.)

    Opponents of Missouri’s proposed amendment also used billboards and local radio as the vehicles for a disinformation campaign. “I drive past billboards here that say absolutely false, baffling things,” Mark Valentine, an ob-gyn in St. Louis, told me, including one alleging that Amendment 3 would strip patients of their right to sue for malpractice and one linking the ballot measure to “child gender surgery.” Another baselessly claimed that the amendment would permit abortions through the ninth month of pregnancy. The political-action committee behind at least some of the billboards, Vote No on 3, reportedly received a last-minute, one-million-dollar donation from an advocacy group linked to Leonard Leo, the co-chairman of the Federalist Society.

    Valentine is a board member of the Missouri Abortion Fund, which provides financial aid to people in need of abortion care, particularly those who are forced to travel long distances and struggle to cover the costs of transportation, lodging, child care, and lost wages. (In 2022, J. D. Vance, who is now the Vice-President–elect, said that a “federal response” was needed to block women from travelling out of state for abortions; last month, when a reporter from the Times repeatedly asked about this comment, Vance would not disavow it.) For Valentine, the referendum battle in Missouri has underscored the painfully finite resources that abortion-rights advocates have at their disposal. “The political and legal organizations have definitely had an influx of support and cash for the amendment, and the abortion funds are seeing that money dry up,” he said. “People have needed abortions this whole past year, and they will need them after the election, and they will have less and less support because abortion funds have less and less money.”

    The financial struggle that Valentine describes is not unique to Missouri. Nationwide, the flood of post-Dobbs donations to abortion funds has slowed to a trickle, even as the cost of care has increased. Both Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation, which help cover medical costs for low-income patients seeking abortions, recently announced cuts to this funding. The executive director of the Abortion Fund of Ohio recently said that the passage of the state’s abortion amendment has not attracted new donors to her organization, despite the enormous influx of patients seeking abortion care in Ohio from states with bans still in place.

    Leilah Zahedi-Spung is a maternal-fetal-medicine specialist who relocated to Denver from Chattanooga after Tennessee enacted a near-total abortion ban. “I started in January of 2023, and it was March before I saw a patient from the state of Colorado,” she told me. Most of Zahedi-Spung’s out-of-state patients are from Texas, but she has also seen patients from Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. She has even received referrals from her old practice in Tennessee, more than a thousand miles away.

    Colorado’s Amendment 79, which passed on Tuesday with more than sixty-one per cent of the vote, repeals a ban on public funds being used for abortions. Although Colorado places few restrictions on reproductive rights, “there are still a lot of people in the state who can’t get abortion care, or it’s very hard for them, because they have Medicaid,” Zahedi-Spung said. Medicaid recipients are, on average, more at risk for complications than other groups; they are also more likely to need abortion at a later stage in pregnancy, often because of the time it takes to pull together the necessary cash. “If we could cover all of our patients in Colorado through insurance, then we could focus all of our funds on people coming out of state, and become even more of a haven,” Zahedi-Spung said. “Right now, we’re just hoping that we’re not missing anyone.”

    Valentine is optimistic about what Missouri can eventually accomplish through its ballot measure, which prevailed with nearly fifty-two per cent of the vote. “In a state that leans politically the way that ours does, that outpouring of support is huge,” Valentine said. “If we can do that at the state level in Missouri, then surely there’s enough national support for protecting abortion in a much more complete way.” In the short term, though, Valentine said, “the next day, nothing will have changed. The next month, nothing will have changed, except that maybe we’ll have started a legal battle. There’s going to have to be multiple lawsuits, or maybe one very large lawsuit. I worry that people think that voting for this amendment is going to change the landscape of abortion in Missouri, and that’s unfortunately not true. We are still years out from restoring access to abortion in any meaningful way.” ♦

    [ad_2]

    Jessica Winter

    Source link

  • Safety net hospital fund shortfall widening

    Safety net hospital fund shortfall widening

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Lawmakers are seeking more support for the state’s safety net hospitals amid rising concerns about the fiscal health of a fund that helps cover medical costs for large numbers of uninsured and low-income patients.

    Hospitals and health insurers pay into the so-called safety net fund – a pool of money that helps fund care for hundreds of thousands of low-income residents who are uninsured or underinsured – with the state chipping in additional funding. But if the fund runs low, hospitals are on the hook for the shortfall.

    The fund is projected to have a shortfall of more than $220 million in the upcoming fiscal year, hospitals say, rising to the highest level in nearly two decades.

    Without additional funding, financially challenged hospitals will be forced to cover the deficit, leaving less money to provide medical care for low-income and uninsured patients, they say.

    An amendment to the Senate’s version of the $57.9 billion state budget filed by Sen. Barry Finegold, D-Andover, would require commercial health insurance companies to cover 50% of any revenue shortfalls in the safety net fund.

    “We need to do something to help our local hospitals,” Finegold said. “This is part of a long-term problem with funding for hospitals that serve the state’s most vulnerable residents. We need to fix it.”

    Many earmarks

    Finegold’s proposal is one of more than 1,000 amendments to the Senate’s budget, many of them local earmarks seeking to divert more state money to local governments, schools, cash-strapped community groups and nonprofits. Only a handful will likely make it into the Senate’s final spending package.

    The plan faces pushback from the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, which represents commercial insurers who would be impacted by the proposed changes to the hospital safety net program.

    Lora Pellegrini, the group’s president and CEO, said requiring insurers to cover the fund’s shortfalls would jeopardize negotiations between the state Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that seek to reduce assessments paid by medical insurance carriers.

    “This really came out of nowhere, and would be counterproductive to those efforts,” she said. “We have a committee process for a reason and that’s where these kinds of special interest issues should be vetted, not in the budget.”

    But the move is backed by the Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association, which says requiring insurers to cover the shortfall would help alleviate an “unmanageable financial burden” on the health care system “by broadening funding support for the program.”

    “The Health Safety Net is a vital component of Massachusetts’ healthcare infrastructure and its ability to cover the costs of care for low-income and uninsured patients,” Daniel McHale, MHP’s vice president for Healthcare Finance & Policy, said in a statement.

    “At this increasingly fragile time for the entire health care system, it is imperative that we take the steps needed to stabilize the safety net for the people and providers who rely on it each day.”

    Local hospitals affected

    The state’s safety net hospitals and community health centers – which include Lawrence Hospital, Salem Hospital, Holy Family Hospital in Methuen and Anna Jaques Hospital in Newburyport – serve a disproportionate percentage of low-income patients.

    Many are heavily dependent on Medicaid reimbursements, which are typically less than commercial insurance payouts.

    Nearly 30% of Lawrence General’s gross revenue is for care provided to Medicaid, or MassHealth, patients. The state average is 18%.

    Many community hospitals are collecting from low-paying government insurance programs, and getting below-average reimbursements from commercial insurers, advocates say.

    Lawmakers also swept money from the hospital safety net fund to help cover the costs of new Medicare savings programs that pay some or all of eligible senior citizen’s premiums and other health care costs, including prescriptions.

    Hospitals are also seeing increased demand from uninsured patients as hundreds of thousands of Medicaid recipients see their state-sponsored health care coverage dropped following the end of federal pandemic-related programs, which is driving up costs. Claims processing problems are another factor adding to hospital costs, they say.

    Those and other factors have widened the fund’s shortfall from $68 million in fiscal 2022 to more than $210 million in the previous fiscal year, according to the hospital association. Combined, the shortfall could reach $600 million for the three fiscal years, the association said.

    Biggest expense

    The House, which approved its $58.2 billion version of the state budget two weeks ago, proposed $17.3 million in state funding for the hospital safety net fund. The Senate, which begins debate on its version of the budget next week, has proposed a similar amount.

    In the current budget, the state allocated $91.4 million for the safety net fund.

    But the House budget didn’t include an amendment requiring insurers to help hospitals pay the shortfall. That means even if the Senate approves Finegold’s amendment, it would still need to be negotiated as part of the final budget before landing on Gov. Maura Healey’s desk for consideration.

    Health care coverage, in the meantime, is one of the state’s biggest expenses. Medicaid costs have doubled in the past decade and now account for nearly 40% of state spending.

    MassHealth serves more than 2 million people – roughly one-third of the state’s population – despite federal Medicaid redeterminations that have reduced its rolls over the past year.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Notable US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts | CNN

    Notable US Supreme Court Decisions Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at some of the most important cases decided by the US Supreme Court since 1789.

    1803 – Marbury v. Madison
    This decision established the system of checks and balances and the power of the Supreme Court within the federal government.

    Situation: Federalist William Marbury and many others were appointed to positions by outgoing President John Adams. The appointments were not finalized before the new Secretary of State James Madison took office, and Madison chose not to honor them. Marbury and the others invoked an Act of Congress and sued to get their appointed positions.

    The Court decided against Marbury 6-0.

    Historical significance: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “An act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” It was the first time the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law that had been passed by Congress.

    1857 – Dred Scott v. Sandford
    This decision established that slaves were not citizens of the United States and were not protected under the US Constitution.

    Situation: Dred Scott and his wife Harriet sued for their freedom in Missouri, a slave state, after having lived with their owner, an Army surgeon, in the free Territory of Wisconsin.

    The Court decided against Scott 7-2.

    Historical significance: The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise, where Congress had prohibited slavery in the territories. The Dred Scott decision was overturned later with the adoption of the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery in 1865 and the 14th Amendment in 1868, granting citizenship to all born in the United States.

    1896 – Plessy v. Ferguson
    This decision established the rule of segregation, separate but equal.

    Situation: While attempting to test the constitutionality of the Separate Car Law in Louisiana, Homer Plessy, a man of 1/8 African descent, sat in the train car for whites instead of the blacks-only train car and was arrested.

    The Court decided against Plessy 7-1.

    Historical significance: Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote, “The argument also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation and that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of the two races… if the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.” The Court gave merit to the “Jim Crow” system. Plessy was overturned by the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In January 2022 Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards granted a posthumous pardon to Homer Plessy. The pardon comes after the Louisiana Board of Pardons voted unanimously in November 2021 in favor of a pardon for Plessy, who died in his 60s in 1925.

    1954 – Brown v. Board of Education
    This decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and granted equal protection under the law.

    Situation: Segregation of the public school systems in the United States was addressed when cases in Kansas, South Carolina, Delaware and Virginia were all decided together under Brown v. Board of Education. Third-grader Linda Brown was denied admission to the white school a few blocks from her home and was forced to attend the blacks-only school a mile away.

    The Court decided in favor of Brown unanimously.

    Historical significance: Racial segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    1963 – Gideon v. Wainwright
    This decision guarantees the right to counsel.

    Situation: Clarence Earl Gideon was forced to defend himself when he requested a lawyer from a Florida court and was refused. He was convicted and sentenced to five years for breaking and entering.

    The Court decided in favor of Gideon unanimously.

    Historical significance: Ensures the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to counsel is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

    1964 – New York Times v. Sullivan
    This decision upheld the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

    Situation: The New York Times and four African-American ministers were sued for libel by Montgomery, Alabama, police commissioner L.B. Sullivan. Sullivan claimed a full-page ad in the Times discussing the arrest of Martin Luther King Jr., and his efforts toward voter registration and integration in Montgomery were defamatory against him. Alabama’s libel law did not require Sullivan to prove harm since the ad did contain factual errors. He was awarded $500,000.

    The Court decided against Sullivan unanimously.

    Historical significance: The First Amendment protects free speech and publication of all statements about public officials made without actual malice.

    1966 – Miranda v. Arizona
    The decision established the rights of suspects against self-incrimination.

    Situation: Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping after he confessed, while in police custody, without benefit of counsel or knowledge of his constitutional right to remain silent.

    The court decided in favor of Miranda 5-4.

    Historical significance: Upon arrest and/or questioning, all suspects are given some form of their constitutional rights – “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”

    1973 – Roe v. Wade
    This decision expanded privacy rights to include a woman’s right to choose pregnancy or abortion.

    Situation: “Jane Roe” (Norma McCorvey), single and living in Texas, did not want to continue her third pregnancy. Under Texas law, she could not legally obtain an abortion.

    The Court decided in favor of Roe 7-2.

    Historical significance: Abortion is legal in all 50 states. Women have the right to choose between pregnancy and abortion.

    1974 – United States v. Nixon
    This decision established that executive privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified.

    Situation: President Richard Nixon’s taped conversations from 1971 onward were the object of subpoenas by both the special prosecutor and those under indictment in the Watergate scandal. The president claimed immunity from subpoena under executive privilege.

    The Court decided against Nixon 8-0.

    Historical significance: The president is not above the law. After the Court ruled on July 24, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned on August 8.

    1978 – Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke
    This decision ruled that race cannot be the only factor in college admissions.

    Situation: Allan Bakke had twice applied for and was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. Bakke was white, male and 35 years old. He claimed under California’s affirmative action plan, minorities with lower grades and test scores were admitted to the medical school when he was not, therefore his denial of admission was based solely on race.

    The Court decided in Bakke’s favor, 5-4.

    Historical significance: Affirmative action is approved by the Court and schools may use race as an admissions factor. However, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment works both ways in the case of affirmative action; race cannot be the only factor in the admissions process.

    2012 – National Federation of Independent Business et al v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services et al

    Situation: The constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama.

    The Court voted 5-4 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act.

    Historical significance: The ruling upholds the law’s central provision – a requirement that all people have health insurance or pay a penalty.

    2013 – United States v. Windsor
    This decision ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined the term “marriage” under federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman” deprived same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law.

    Situation: Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto in 2007. Their marriage was recognized by New York state, where they lived. Upon Spyer’s death in 2009, Windsor was forced to pay $363,000 in estate taxes, because their marriage was not recognized by federal law.

    The court voted 5-4 in favor of Windsor.

    Historical significance: The court strikes down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that legally married same-sex couples are entitled to federal benefits.

    2015 – King et al, v. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al

    Situation: This case was about determining whether or not the portion of the Affordable Care Act which says subsidies would be available only to those who purchase insurance on exchanges “established by the state” referred to the individual states.

    The Court ruled 6-3 in favor of upholding the Affordable Care Act subsidies.

    Historical significance: The court rules that the Affordable Care Act federal tax credits for eligible Americans are available in all 50 states, regardless of whether the states have their own health care exchanges.

    2015 – Obergefell et al, v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al.

    Situation: Multiple lower courts had struck down state same-sex marriage bans. There were 37 states allowing gay marriage before the issue went to the Supreme Court.

    The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Obergefell et al.

    Historical significance: The court rules that states cannot ban same-sex marriage and must recognize lawful marriages performed out of state.

    2016 – Fisher v. University of Texas

    Situation: Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas after her admission application was rejected in 2008. She claimed it was because she is white and that she was being treated differently than some less-qualified minority students who were accepted. In 2013 the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts for further review.

    The Court ruled 4-3 in favor of the University of Texas. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she dealt with it in her previous job as solicitor general.

    Historical Significance: The court rules that taking race into consideration as one factor of admission is constitutional.

    2020 – Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

    Situation: Gerald Bostock filed a lawsuit against Clayton County for discrimination based on his sexual orientation after he was terminated for “conduct unbecoming of its employees,” shortly after he began participating in a gay softball league. Two other consolidated cases were also argued on the same day.

    The 6-3 opinion in favor of the plaintiff, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, states that being fired “merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Historical Significance: Federal anti-bias law now protects people who face job loss and/or discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    2022 – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

    Situation: Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, passed in 2018 and which greatly restricts abortion after 15 weeks, is blocked by two federal courts, holding that it is in direct violation of Supreme Court precedent legalizing abortion nationwide prior to viability, which can occur at around 23-24 weeks of pregnancy, and that in an “unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability.” The court said states may “regulate abortion procedures prior to viability” so long as they do not ban abortion. “The law at issue is a ban,” the court held. 

    Mississippi appeals the decision to the Supreme Court.

    The 6-3 opinion in favor of the plaintiff, written by Justice Samuel Alito states that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start…Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”

    In a joint dissenting opinion, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan heavily criticized the majority, closing: “With sorrow – for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection – we dissent.”

    Historical Significance: The ruling overturns Roe v. Wade and there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion, leaving abortion rights to be determined by states.

    1944 – Korematsu v. United States – The Court ruled Executive Order 9066, internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, is legal, 6-3 for the United States.

    1961 – Mapp v. Ohio – “Fruit of the poisonous tree,” evidence obtained through an illegal search, cannot be used at trial, 6-3 for Mapp.

    1967 – Loving v. Virginia – Prohibition against interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional, 9-0 for Loving.

    1968 – Terry v. Ohio – Stop and frisk, under certain circumstances, does not violate the Constitution. The Court upholds Terry’s conviction and rules 8-1 that it is not unconstitutional for police to stop and frisk individuals without probable cause for an arrest if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur.

    2008 – District of Columbia v. Heller – The Second Amendment does protect the individual’s right to bear arms, 5-4 for Heller.

    2010 – Citizens United v. FEC – The Court rules corporations can contribute to PACs under the First Amendment’s right to free speech, 5-4 for Citizens United.

    2023 – Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard together with Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina – Colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis in admissions. The majority opinion, written by Justice John Roberts, claims the court is not expressly overturning prior cases authorizing race-based affirmative action and suggests that how race has affected an applicant’s life can still be part of how their application is considered.

    2024 – Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, et al – The Court rules former President Donald Trump should appear on the ballot in Colorado in a decision that follows months of debate over whether Trump violated the “insurrectionist clause” included in the 14th Amendment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Marcus Button Bill to be debated during legislative session

    Marcus Button Bill to be debated during legislative session

    [ad_1]

    LAND O’ LAKES, Fla. — A 2006 Pasco County bus crash is now at the center of a bill Florida Legislators will debate in the coming weeks.

    The crash happened in September 2006, and severely injured then 16-year-old Marcus Button.

    What You Need To Know

    • 33-year-old Marcus Button was catastrophically injured in the Pasco County bus crash in 2006
    • The jury originally awarded Button $1.65 million for his medical care
    • A bill is seeking to lift Florida’s legislative cap of $200,000 which would force Pasco Schools to pay the original jury award, plus interest 
    • A similar bill for Marcus Button has been heard by legislators more than 10 times

    He was the passenger in a car when a Pasco County bus pulled out in front of them.

    Today, at 33 years old, Button suffers from a number of mental and physical disabilities, short-term memory loss and the ability to make judgements.

    He isn’t able to work, or drive, and his mother, Robin Button, says the crash changed her son’s life forever.

    “It would seem to me, at least going through what I went through, that they kind of wish he would have just died,” Button said. “I mean, I hate to say it that way because they have not done anything to help him.

    If they actually cared, why haven’t they?”

    Button is talking about a judgement against the school district in 2010 for the crash that awarded Marcus Button $1.65 million, money to go toward his lifelong medical care.

    Instead, the family attorney, Steele Olmstead, says the district only paid what they had to under Florida’s legislative cap, $163,000.

    Marcus Button suffered severe injuries in this 2016 crash in Pasco County. (Courtesy of Button family)

    Olmstead says the Pasco School District doesn’t carry private insurance for its fleet of buses, which means if there is an accident like Marcus Button’s, the school district is only legislatively responsible to pay up to a $200,000 claim.

    “I don’t understand why the legislature hasn’t brought this up,” Olmstead said. “I don’t understand why Pasco County has not decided to be responsible, or accountable for what their actions were and accept the judgment of, you know, the verdict of the jury.”

    Under the verdict, Pasco County was responsible to pay an award of $1.65 million with 6% interest.

    To date, that award totals around $3.2 million, an award that is now the subject of a bill that would lift the legislative cap for Marcus Button, forcing Pasco Schools to pay the full amount of the jury verdict.

    The bill has gone before legislators more than 10 times since 2010, and according to the family’s attorney, has never passed.

    Spectrum Bay News 9 reached out to Pasco County School District, and it said it had nothing to add as the bill is prepared for debate.

    Read the bill for Marcus Button, SB 18.

    [ad_2]

    Jason Lanning

    Source link

  • Federal judge says insurers no longer have to provide some preventive care services, including cancer and heart screenings, at no cost | CNN Politics

    Federal judge says insurers no longer have to provide some preventive care services, including cancer and heart screenings, at no cost | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge in Texas said Thursday that some Affordable Care Act mandates cannot be enforced nationwide, including those that require insurers to cover a wide array of preventive care services at no cost to the patient, including some cancer, heart and STD screenings, and tobacco programs.

    In the new ruling, US District Judge Reed O’Connor struck down the recommendations that have been issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force, which is tasked with determining some of the preventive care treatments that Obamacare requires to be covered.

    The decision applies to task force recommendations issued on or after March 23, 2010 – the day the Affordable Care Act was signed into law. While the group had recommended various preventive services prior to that date, nearly all have since been updated or expanded.

    O’Connor’s ruling comes after the judge had already said that the task force’s recommendations violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The judge also deemed unlawful the ACA requirement that insurers and employers offer plans that cover HIV-prevention measures such as PrEP for free.

    Other preventive care mandates under the ACA remain in effect.

    The full extent of the ruling’s impact and when its effects could be felt are unclear.

    It is likely the case will be appealed, and the Justice Department has the option to ask that O’Connor’s ruling be put on pause while the appeal is litigated.

    The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a CNN request for comment, nor did the US Department of Health and Human Services.

    White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre called the case “yet another attack on the Affordable Care Act” and said that DOJ and HHS were reviewing Thursday’s ruling.

    The decision, in a case brought by employers and individuals in Texas, represents the latest legal affront to the landmark 2010 health care law. It is unclear what immediate practical effect O’Connor’s new ruling will have for those with job-based and Affordable Care Act policies because insurance companies will likely continue no-cost coverage for the remainder of the contracts even though the Obamacare requirements in question have been blocked. Contracts often last one calendar year.

    O’Connor’s Thursday ruling is expected to kick off a new phase of the legal battle over Obamacare’s preventive care measures. The judge rejected other claims that the ACA’s foes brought against the law – including challenges to the entities that determine no-cost coverage mandates for vaccines, an assortment of women’s health preventive care treatments, and services for infants and children. It’s possible that the plaintiffs appeal those aspects of O’Connor’s handling of the case, which could put at risk coverage requirements for additional preventive services at no cost.

    A lawyer for the challengers did not respond to CNN’s inquiry about Thursday’s decision.

    O’Connor is a George W. Bush-appointee who sits in the Northern District of Texas and who has issued anti-Obamacare rulings in major challenges to the law in the past. An appeal of the current case would head to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, perhaps the most conservative federal appeals court in the country.

    While the case does not pose the existential threat to the Affordable Care Act that previous legal challenges did, legal experts say that O’Connor’s ruling nonetheless puts in jeopardy the access some Americans will have to a whole host of preventive treatments.

    “We lose a huge chunk of preventive services because health plans can now impose costs,” said Andrew Twinamatsiko, associate director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University. “People who are sensitive to cost will go without, mostly poor people and marginalized communities.”

    Thursday’s ruling, if left standing, could have significant consequences for Americans nationwide by limiting access to key preventive services aimed at early detection of diseases, including lung and colorectal cancer, depression and hypertension.

    Some of the US Preventive Services Task Force’s recommendations – including lung and skin cancer screenings, the use of statins to prevent cardiovascular disease and the offer of PrEP for those at high risk of HIV – were issued after the ACA’s enactment.

    Certain older recommendations have been updated with new provisions, such as screening adults ages 45 to 49 for colorectal cancer.

    “It would effectively lock in place coverage of evidence-based prevention with no cost sharing from 13 years ago,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

    Some of the cost-sharing for these preventive services can be substantial. PrEP, for instance, can cost up to $20,000 a year, plus lab and provider charges, according to Kaiser.

    In an earlier ruling, the judge upheld certain free preventive services for children, such as autism and vision screenings and well-baby visits, and for women, such as mammograms, well-woman visits and breastfeeding support programs.

    O’Connor also upheld the mandate that provides immunizations at no charge for the flu, hepatitis, measles, shingles and chickenpox.

    These services are recommended by the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

    Insurers will have to continue to cover preventive and wellness services since they are one of the Affordable Care Act’s required essential health benefits. But under O’Connor’s ruling, they could require patients to pick up part of the tab.

    Insurers’ trade associations stressed there would be no immediate disruption to coverage.

    “It is vitally important for patients to know that their care and coverage will not change because of today’s court decision,” said David Merritt, senior vice president of policy and advocacy for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. “Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies strongly encourage their members to continue to access these services to promote their continued well-being. We will continue to monitor further developments in the courts.”

    More than 150 million people with private insurance can receive preventive services without cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act, according to a 2022 report published by HHS.

    Overall, about 60% of the 173 million people enrolled in private health coverage used at least one of the ACA’s no-cost preventive services in 2018 prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, according to a recent Kaiser analysis. These include some services that will continue to be available at no charge under the judge’s ruling.

    The most commonly received preventive care includes vaccinations, not including Covid-19 vaccines, well-woman and well-child visits, and screenings for heart disease, cervical cancer, diabetes and breast cancer, according to Kaiser. The most commonly used preventive services will continue to be covered at no cost.

    Studies have shown the Obamacare mandate prompted an uptake in preventive services and narrowed care disparities in communities of color.

    “There’s plenty of evidence that people responded to this incentive and started using preventive care more often,” said Paul Shafer, assistant professor of health policy at Boston University.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • First on CNN: Biden administration to strengthen Obamacare contraceptive mandate in proposed rule | CNN Politics

    First on CNN: Biden administration to strengthen Obamacare contraceptive mandate in proposed rule | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Biden administration wants to make it easier for women to access birth control at no cost under the Affordable Care Act, reversing Trump-era rules that weakened the law’s contraceptive mandate for employer-provided health insurance plans.

    The proposed rule, unveiled Monday by the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury, would remove an exemption to the mandate that allows employers to opt out for moral convictions. It would also create an independent pathway for individuals enrolled in plans offered by employers with religious exemptions to access contraceptive services through a willing provider without charge.

    The proposed rule would leave in place the existing religious exemption for employers with objections, as well as the optional accommodation for contraceptive coverage.

    The administration crafted the proposed rule keeping in mind the concerns of employers with religious objections and the contraceptive needs of their workers, a senior HHS official told CNN.

    “We had to really think through how to do this in the right way to satisfy both sides, but we think we found that way,” the official said, stressing that there should be no effect on religiously affiliated employers.

    Students at religiously affiliated colleges would have access to the expanded accommodation, just like workers in group health plans where the employer has claimed the exemption.

    Now that the proposed rule has been announced, the public will have the opportunity to comment during the next few months. Officials expect there to be many thousands of public comments, and it will be “many months” before the rule could be finalized.

    HHS expects the proposal would affect more than 100 employers and 125,000 workers, mainly through providing the proposed independent pathway for employees to receive no-cost contraception.

    Women using that pathway would obtain their birth control from a participating provider, who would be reimbursed by an insurer on the Affordable Care Act exchanges. The insurer, in turn, would receive a credit on the user fee it pays the government.

    “If this rule is finalized, individuals who have health plans that would otherwise be subject to the ACA preventive services requirements but have not covered contraceptive services because of a moral or religious objection, and for which the sponsoring employer or college or university has not elected the optional accommodation, would now have access,” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a news release.

    How many people benefit, however, would depend on whether women and their health care providers know the independent pathway exists and whether providers and insurers are willing to set it up.

    “We’ll just have to see how widely that information is spread and in what way to providers and individuals,” said Laurie Sobel, associate director for Women’s Health Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, noting that the proposed rule would not require data collection to show the pathway’s takeup.

    But the Planned Parenthood Federation of America cheered the initiative.

    “Employers and universities should not be able to dictate personal health care decisions and impose their views on their employees or students,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, the group’s CEO. “The ACA mandates that health insurance plans cover all forms of birth control without out-of-pocket costs. Now, more than ever, we must protect this fundamental freedom.”

    The requirement to provide no-cost contraception is not in the Affordable Care Act itself. Instead, HHS under former President Barack Obama included it as one of the women’s preventive services that all private insurance plans must offer without charge.

    The mandate was controversial from the start, sparking lawsuits from religiously affiliated employers and closely held companies that said it violated their beliefs. Exemptions and accommodations have been available for such employers.

    The Trump administration, however, weakened the mandate. Under the rules issued in 2018, entities that have “sincerely held religious beliefs” against providing contraceptives are not required to do so. That provision also extends to organizations and small businesses that have objections “on the basis of moral conviction which is not based in any particular religious belief.”

    The rules also include an optional accommodation that lets objecting employers and private universities remove themselves from providing birth control coverage while still allowing their workers and dependents access to contraception. But the employer or university has to voluntarily elect the accommodation, which risks leaving many without access.

    The Trump administration changes were temporarily blocked after a Pennsylvania district court judge issued a nationwide injunction in 2019. But the following year, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration could expand exemptions for employers who have religious or moral objections to covering contraception.

    At the time, the National Women’s Law Center estimated that the ruling would impact about 64.3 million women in the United States with insurance coverage that included birth control and other preventive services without out-of-pocket costs.

    Employers are not required to notify HHS if they have a moral objection. The agency estimates about 18 employers have claimed that exemption and around 15 employees are affected.

    Still, if the rule is finalized, senior HHS officials say it is “plausible” there could be potential lawsuits brought by religiously affiliated employers – similar to what has been seen in the past.

    “There’s no new obligation on them to participate in any sort of process. This is simply an additional channel for employees in those employer health plans to receive access to contraceptive services,” another senior HHS official said.

    The contraceptive mandate has taken on increased importance now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing many states to impose severe restrictions on abortion access.

    The Biden administration in turn has focused on continuing access to birth control at no cost. The Health, Labor and Treasury department secretaries last year met with health insurers and issued guidance underscoring Obamacare’s contraceptive coverage requirements for private insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

    “Now more than ever, access to and coverage of birth control is critical as the Biden-Harris Administration works to help ensure women everywhere can get the contraception they need, when they need it, and – thanks to the ACA – with no out-of-pocket cost,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a news release.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Divided government is more productive than you think | CNN Politics

    Divided government is more productive than you think | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Now that CNN has projected Republicans will win the House of Representatives, it’s time to consider a Washington where both parties have some control.

    Despite underperforming on Election Day, the GOP gains will have a major impact on what’s accomplished in the coming two years.

    Additional climate change policy? Don’t count on it. National abortion legislation? Not a chance. Voting rights? Not likely.

    Plus, Republicans have indicated they will use any leverage they can find – including the debt ceiling – to force spending cuts.

    While you might immediately think this is all a recipe for a stalemate in Washington, I was surprised to read the argument, backed up by research, that the US government actually overperforms during periods of divided government.

    Those periods are coming more and more frequently, by the way. While there used to be relatively long periods of a decade or more during which one party controlled all of Washington, recent presidents have lost control of the House.

    Barack Obama, Donald Trump and George W. Bush each saw their party lose the House. President Joe Biden will join that club.

    The two Republicans in the ’80s and ‘90s – Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush – both had productive presidencies and never enjoyed a sympathetic congressional majority. The last president to enjoy unified government throughout his presidency was Democrat Jimmy Carter, and voters did not look very kindly on him in the final analysis.

    What’s below are excerpts from separate phone conversations conducted before the midterm election with Frances Lee and James Curry, authors of the 2020 book, “The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era.” Lee is a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University, and Curry is a political science professor at the University of Utah. What led me to them was their 2020 argument that divided government overperforms and unified government underperforms expectations.

    What should Americans know about divided government?

    LEE: It’s the normal state of affairs in our politics in the modern era. Since 1980, something like two-thirds of the time we’ve had a divided government.

    And yet you think about all the things that government has undertaken in the years since the Second World War. The role and scope of the US government is so much greater now than it was then. And a lot of that happened in divided government. Most of that has been under divided government time. …

    Unified government usually results in disappointment for the party in power, which is just exactly what we’ve seen here in (this) Congress. Democrats were unable to deliver on their bold agenda, and that’s not different than what Republicans faced when they had unified government and couldn’t pass repeal and replace of Obamacare.

    Now hold on. Republicans passed a massive tax cut bill with unified government. Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which included spending to address climate change. Those are the major accomplishments of recent years, no?

    CURRY: I think we’re making a mistake when we say that those are the three biggest things that have happened. For instance, earlier you talked about the American Rescue Plan (another Covid relief bill passed with only Democratic support) – it is not as significant as the CARES Act, which was the first major Covid relief legislation passed by Congress. It passed in March of 2020, and it passed on an overwhelming bipartisan basis.

    A lot of what was included in the American Rescue Plan were things that were initially set out under the CARES Act. Arguably the CARES Act was the single most important legislative accomplishment that we’ve had in this country in several decades.

    And there are other examples too … things like criminal justice reform that was passed with bipartisan support in 2018, and many others things that are just as significant from a public policy standpoint, including also the bipartisan infrastructure bill that Congress passed last year.

    They don’t have as much political significance, foremost because they were passed on a single-party basis. But I don’t think you can make the case that they’re necessarily more significant in terms of policy consequences for the country.

    (In a follow-up email, Curry said that Congress often flies its bipartisanship accomplishments under the radar as part of larger bills, which means they don’t get as much attention. He pointed to big-ticket items that passed quietly in 2019 as part of larger spending bills, including raising the age to buy tobacco to 21, pushing through the first major pay raise for federal employees in years and repealing unpopular Obamacare taxes. He has similar examples for each recent year. But if they are not contentious, they get less attention, he said.)

    Your argument is counter to the current narrative of American politics – that parties enact more on their own. Is that a media problem? A partisanship problem?

    LEE: I’m still blown away by how much was done on Covid. Basically the United States government spent 75% more in 2020 than it spent in 2019. All that was Covid.

    You’re talking about New Deal levels of spending and yet people just didn’t even seem to notice it because it was done on a bipartisan basis. We basically had a universal basic income in response to Covid and all the small business aid – it’s just extraordinary – and yet, it just seemed to pass people by as though nothing important occurred.

    I don’t think it’s just a media story. The media wrote stories about the Covid aid bills, but it just didn’t capture people’s attention.

    And I think that’s because it didn’t cut in favor of or against either party. When you don’t have a story that drives a partisan narrative, most people are just not that interested in it. Most people that pay attention to politics are not that interested in it. It lacks a rooting interest.

    What about the big things that need action? Immigration reform has eluded Congress for decades and climate change is an existential threat. How can divided government be preferable if Congress can’t come together to address these problems?

    CURRY: I’m not saying divided government is preferable, which I think is important. I’m just saying it doesn’t make that big a difference on a lot of these issues.

    So we’ve seen that list of issues you just mentioned – climate change, immigration, etc. These are issues that Congress has equally struggled to take big, bold action on under divided or unified government.

    On climate change, for instance, Democrats want to do big, bold things, but they aren’t able to go as far as they want to, because not only are there disagreements between the parties on how to address climate change, there are disagreements among Democrats about the best way to address climate and environmental legislation.

    On immigration, you have clear divisions across party lines, but also divisions within each party.

    LEE: Congress can pass legislation spending money or cutting taxes. The problem is it’s difficult to do things that create backlash. It’s hard to do serious climate legislation without being prepared to accept a backlash.

    Isn’t this just a structural problem then? If there was no requirement for a filibuster supermajority, couldn’t a simple majority of lawmakers be more effective?

    LEE: On the two examples that you just put forward – on immigration and climate – the filibuster has not been the obstacle to recent efforts.

    In immigration reform that Republicans attempted to do (under Trump), they couldn’t get majorities in either the House or Senate. Democrats were way short of a Senate majority when they tried to do climate legislation under Obama. They barely got out of the House.

    (Curry and Lee’s research shows the filibuster is not the primary culprit standing in the way of four out of five of the priorities that parties have failed to enact since 1985.)

    CURRY: We found a more common reason why the parties fail on the things that can be accomplished is because they are unable to unify internally about what to do. The filibuster matters, but it is far from the most significant thing.

    But certainly the legislation that passes under divided government is different than what would have passed under a unified government. The parties must compromise more. Whether the government is unified or divided matters, right?

    CURRY: It makes a difference certainly for precisely what is in these final policy bills. It certainly makes a difference for the politics of the moment. It really makes a difference for each side of the aisle in terms of being able to say, we got this much done or that much done that matches my hopes and dreams as a Democrat or a Republican.

    But it’s just sort of an overstated story that unified government means big, bold things happen and divided government means they don’t.

    Wouldn’t Washington work better if one party was more easily able to deliver on its goals when voters gave it power?

    CURRY: Whether it would be better if we had a situation like you have in more parliamentary-style governments where a party takes control, they pass what they will and stand to voters, I think it’s just in the eye of the beholder.

    On one hand, potentially, yes, because it’s very clear and clean from a party responsibility or electoral responsibility standpoint, where parties pass things and then voters can hold them accountable or not. On the other hand, then you would see more wild swings in policy from election to election.

    Does the growing number of swings in power in Congress mean American voters consciously prefer divided government?

    CURRY: I don’t think that Americans necessarily have a preference for divided government. That’s something that people sometimes say. It sounds nice.

    But the reality is that roughly since the 1980s and early 1990s, it’s been the case that electoral margins are really tight – you have relatively even numbers of Americans that prefer Democrats and Republicans. And so from election to election, based on turnout and swings back and forth, you get this constant back and forth of our electoral politics where one party is in control for two to four years and then the other party is in control.

    That’s really important because it has massive implications for our politics. If you have a political system and political dynamic like we have today, where each party thinks they can constantly win back control or lose control of the House, the Senate and the presidency, it ups the stakes for every single decision that’s going to be made.

    Everything is considered through a lens of how will this affect our partisan fortunes in the next election, and that makes things just naturally more contentious.

    Can we agree that ours is not a very effective way to govern?

    CURRY: It is certainly the case that Congress does not pass every single thing that every person wants it to. But I don’t think that is ever true of any government. Nor do I think that’s a reasonable bar to set a government against.

    The reality is Congress does a lot of stuff and does a lot more than people give it credit for, but it also fails to take action on a lot of policies. I think that’s just politics. That’s just government. It’s not just an American problem, and it’s not just a facet of our specific political system.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here’s what you can do if you lose Medicaid coverage | CNN Politics

    Here’s what you can do if you lose Medicaid coverage | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Though millions of Americans are expected to be kicked off of Medicaid in coming months, they don’t all have to be left uninsured.

    But it could take some work to regain health coverage.

    “For a lot of people, this can be a very disruptive period of time,” said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “There is a significant time and paperwork burden being placed on families – a lot of them very low income, a lot of them medically vulnerable.”

    States are now free to terminate the Medicaid coverage of residents they deem ineligible. States had been barred from involuntarily removing anyone for the past three years as part of an early congressional Covid-19 pandemic relief package, causing enrollment in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to balloon to more than 92 million people.

    Of the roughly 15 million people who could lose Medicaid coverage over the next 14 months, about 8.2 million would no longer qualify, according to a Department of Health and Human Services analysis released in August.

    Some 2.7 million of these folks would qualify for enhanced federal subsidies for Affordable Care Act policies that could bring their monthly premiums to as low as $0.

    Another 5 million are expected to secure other coverage, mainly through employers.

    Some 6.8 million people, however, will be disenrolled even though they remain eligible for Medicaid.

    Check out Obamacare policies: Folks who lose their Medicaid coverage can shop for health insurance plans on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

    Those whose annual incomes remain below 150% of the federal poverty level – $20,385 for a single person and $41,625 for a family of four in 2023 – can obtain enhanced federal assistance to lower their premiums to as little as $0 a month. That beefed-up subsidy is in place through 2025.

    Many people with higher incomes can find subsidized policies for $10 or less.

    State Medicaid agencies are tasked with easing residents’ transfer from Medicaid to the Obamacare marketplaces, but the smoothness of the process will vary greatly by state. Once someone is determined to no longer qualify for Medicaid, the agency must assess his or her eligibility for Affordable Care Act coverage and transfer the resident’s information to the exchange.

    Some states that run their own Obamacare exchanges are taking extra steps to ensure their residents remain covered. Rhode Island, for instance, is automatically enrolling certain people in marketplace coverage. It’s also paying the first two months of premiums for some residents who actively select policies.

    Those who lose Medicaid coverage and live in the 33 states covered by the federal marketplace, healthcare.gov, can apply for Affordable Care Act policies through a special enrollment period that runs through July 2024. State-based exchanges have their own deadlines, with some mirroring the federal exchange and others providing much shorter windows.

    Navigators and insurance brokers can help consumers select plans.

    Historically, very few people who lose Medicaid coverage wind up in Obamacare plans. About 4% of adults who were terminated from Medicaid enrolled in exchange policies in 2018, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

    The coverage differs too. Those that switch to the marketplace may have to find other doctors that are in their insurers’ networks and may face out-of-pocket costs.

    Consider job-based coverage: A number of people who are terminated from Medicaid may already be covered by their employers, particularly those who started new jobs during the pandemic. Others have the option of obtaining coverage through work, though it will almost certainly be more expensive than Medicaid since it will likely entail premiums, deductibles and copays.

    Workers may find they can afford coverage for themselves but not for their families. If the premiums for family policies cost more than 9.12% of household income, spouses and children may be able to get subsidized coverage on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

    Employees should contact their human resources departments to sign up. Typically, they’ll have to enroll within 60 days of losing Medicaid, but those who are terminated from the program between now and July 10 will have until early September to sign up.

    See if you or your children remain eligible for Medicaid: Millions of Americans who still qualify for Medicaid may lose coverage for procedural reasons. For example, they may have moved so they don’t receive the redetermination notices. Or they may not return the necessary paperwork to prove their eligibility.

    So it’s crucial that folks update their contact information with their state agencies and reply to the letters they receive about renewing their Medicaid eligibility.

    “When you get that packet in the mail, respond to it promptly,” Corlette said.

    Those who are dropped have 90 days to submit their renewal paperwork to their state agency, which is required to reinstate them if they are found eligible. Beyond that time period, people may reapply. In most states, your coverage can be made retroactive for up to three months if you were eligible and received Medicaid-covered services.

    Parents who no longer qualify and are terminated should check if their children remain eligible. As many as 6.7 million kids are at risk of losing Medicaid coverage, according to Georgetown’s Center for Children and Families.

    Nearly three-quarters of the children projected to be dropped will remain eligible for Medicaid or CHIP but will lose coverage mainly because of administrative issues. Black and Latino children and families are more likely to be erroneously terminated, according to the center.

    [ad_2]

    Source link