Category: health care

  • Finland – 25,000 health care workers from six hospital districts represented by the Finnish Union of Practical Nurses (SuPer) and the Union of Health and Social Care Professionals (TEHY) are all set to go on strike starting on April 1. Unions are demanding immediate staff recruitments to solve an acute staff shortage in the social and healthcare services (Sote) sector, and a 3.6% increase on top of the annual pay raise over the next five years. On March 30, A national mediator presented a proposed settlement but it was rejected by unions who declared that the settlement did not address workers’ primary concern of staffing shortages. If the union’s demands are not met after two weeks of striking, 15,000 more health workers from other seven hospital districts also will join the strike.

    The post 25,000 Finnish Health Workers Set To Begin Strike On April 1 appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Nothing shows the abject failure of the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris administration like the continuing toll of covid-19 deaths in this country. A pledge to end the covid pandemic was a centerpiece of their 2020 campaign. They promised to improve upon Donald Trump’s disastrous handling of the crisis which resulted in the deaths of 385,000 people in 2020. Biden and Harris had 446,000 covid deaths as of their first anniversary in office. The total covid death toll is expected to reach 1 million by the end of March 2022. Now an Omicron subvariant, known as B.A.2, is becoming the dominant variant. The U.S. usually follows Europe in its covid rates, and on that basis scientists are predicting a new wave in the next two to three weeks.

    The post The Ongoing Covid Disaster appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with THE CITY. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

    This story contains descriptions of mental illness and self-harm.

    Moshe was in the hospital for the fourth time, and his mother, Rae, was desperate.

    It was the spring of 2021. Moshe was 12 years old, and he’d been admitted to a psychiatric unit for children at South Oaks Hospital, not far from his home on the North Shore of Long Island.

    In itself, the hospitalization wasn’t a surprise. Moshe had tried to hang himself when he was 9 years old. Since then, he’d picked up a long list of mental health diagnoses, including ADHD, anxiety, major depressive disorder and a condition called oppositional defiant disorder. He’d been on and off an even longer list of medications, some of which just made his symptoms worse.

    If you or someone you know needs help, here are a few resources:

    Moshe spent a lot of time feeling sad and worthless. Other times, his mood would swing to explosive and angry, with outbursts that Rae said grew increasingly scary as he got older and bigger. (Both Rae and Moshe are being identified by their middle names to protect their privacy.) Rae had spent years fighting for mental health services that were infuriatingly hard to get, though the family had good insurance.

    In 2020, a few months into New York’s COVID-19 shutdowns, Moshe had landed in the hospital after threatening to kill himself and Rae. This time around, in 2021, he’d punched through a glass window and wouldn’t stop banging his head against a wall.

    Almost as soon as Moshe arrived at South Oaks Hospital, his treatment team said he needed more help than they could offer. The best option, the doctors told Rae, was a mental health hospital operated by New York state called Sagamore Children’s Psychiatric Center.

    Unlike private hospitals, where clinicians say the length of a standard psychiatric stay has shrunk in recent decades to not much more than a week, New York’s state-run hospitals are designed to provide longer-term, high-level care to people who are experiencing a mental health crisis. Sagamore, the doctors said, was Moshe’s best hope of ending what had become a brutal cycle of mental health crises, emergency room visits and hospital stays.

    There was just one big problem: He would have to wait for weeks, maybe months, to get a bed.

    Under a “Transformation Plan” launched in 2014 by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the state of New York has cut nearly a third of state psychiatric hospital beds reserved for children. Cuomo’s plan shifted the savings into community-based and outpatient mental health programs that were supposed to prevent kids from needing to be hospitalized in the first place.

    But eight years later, children like Moshe who are experiencing mental health emergencies find it harder to get hospital care when they need it, an investigation by THE CITY and ProPublica has found. It’s a problem that predated the COVID-19 pandemic but has only gotten worse as demand for mental health care has increased.

    There is no evidence that the Cuomo administration’s plan has achieved its goal of reducing overreliance on hospitals.

    In the first five years after the Transformation Plan’s launch, the number of mental health emergency room visits by young people on New York’s Medicaid program — the public health insurance plan that covers more than 7 million lower-income state residents — shot up by nearly 25%. The rate at which Medicaid-enrolled kids were admitted to psychiatric hospitals essentially remained flat over the same period.

    The numbers remain high because kids still can’t get into community-based mental health programs before they end up in crisis, said Gail Nayowith, who was appointed by Cuomo to New York state’s Medicaid Redesign Team in 2011 but resigned after seven years in frustration over Cuomo’s failure to adequately invest in mental health care for kids.

    “There’s no accountability, no funding for basic services,” Nayowith said.

    Sagamore Children’s Psychiatric Center on Long Island, where doctors recommended Moshe receive care.

    Children enrolled in Medicaid depend almost entirely on outpatient clinics that face chronic shortages and turnover of staff. Kids with private insurance plans fare just as badly or worse, as families often can’t find available providers in their networks at all.

    Since the start of the pandemic, the demand for services has spiked, and the lines have only gotten longer. Intensive outpatient mental health programs, which provide full-day treatment to children at imminent risk of ending up in a hospital, have dozens of young people waiting for slots. Kids in crisis often have nowhere to go but emergency rooms, which are sometimes so crowded that families wait days just for an evaluation.

    “The promise was ‘We’re going to pour all this money into the community and we won’t need these beds anymore,’” said Gina Corona, a social worker who has worked at Hutchings Psychiatric Center — a state-run hospital in Syracuse — for 16 years. “Unfortunately, our community resources are not meeting the needs.”

    Never miss the most important reporting from ProPublica’s newsroom. Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.

    Even among the state hospital beds that officially remain open, many sit empty for months on end, Corona said, due to a staffing shortage that started before the pandemic but then grew worse.

    At Hutchings, the state permanently shut down seven beds in 2015, bringing the official count of available beds to 23. Before the pandemic, staffing shortages meant that just 19 of those beds were in use, Corona said. Over the last several months, that number has dropped to just five usable beds — as 20 or more children urgently wait for admission at any given time.

    Inevitably, Corona says, some of those kids get sent home before they’re stable, only to end up back in emergency rooms — or worse.

    On Long Island, Moshe spent more than two months at South Oaks Hospital, alongside other kids in crisis in a unit designed for stays of no more than a week or two. It’s a situation that can cause patients to regress, doctors say. By the time Moshe was admitted to Sagamore, he’d been punched in the head and kicked in the groin by other kids in the unit, and he’d been restrained multiple times by hospital staff — both physically and with the use of injected medications.

    “It was hell,” Rae said. “Like I was living in The Twilight Zone.”

    ‘I Would Never Be Normal’

    Moshe’s bedroom on Long Island. A poster of aircraft encouraged him to build things, a favorite pastime.

    Rae knew something was wrong when Moshe was still little. His speech was delayed and, well into elementary school, he’d have wild tantrums, sometimes screaming and hitting his head for more than an hour.

    Rae had worked as a behavioral therapist before Moshe’s older sister was born. She tried every intervention she knew, carefully tracking Moshe’s behaviors and his responses to different stimuli. But when she brought her concerns to his pediatrician and teachers, they seemed to dismiss her as overreacting, she said.

    Moshe “had amazing qualities,” Rae said. He was kind to other kids and protective of his dog. Teachers liked him. He built elaborate sculptures out of toys and stuff he’d find in the backyard. But by third grade, he still wasn’t learning to read. “He’s noticing this gap between himself and the other kids,” Rae said. “The divide is just getting wider and wider, and he can’t do anything about it.”

    In childhood pictures, Moshe is a bright-eyed kid with a mischievous smile, like he’s about to pull a really hilarious prank. He has a thing for costumes. Sometimes he’s a pirate. Other times he’s Batman or a dinosaur. He looks tiny for his age until the pictures reach 9 years old, when he started taking psychiatric medication that made him gain a lot of weight. “That was really hard on his self-esteem,” Rae said. Around that time, his eyes start looking different too. They’re duller, and he doesn’t look at the camera anymore. He’s rarely smiling.

    It was multiplication and division that made everything come crashing down, Rae said. Suddenly, Moshe wasn’t just slow at reading; he was bad at math, too. Rae was sure that Moshe was dyslexic — a diagnosis that would later be confirmed by a neuropsychologist, along with dyscalculia and dysgraphia, learning disabilities that can make math and writing hard. But Moshe just felt like there was something wrong with him, he said. Other kids made fun of him, and he felt like an outsider in his own family. Moshe’s dad is a scientist, and his older sister learned to read when she was 3. ​​

    “I was depressed because I was different,” Moshe said. “I thought I would never be the same as other kids. I would never be normal and I would always fail, so there was no point to learning.”

    A desk drawer in Moshe’s bedroom includes a geometric ruler. He struggled with math in school. A Rubik’s cube belonging to Moshe, alongside his bike. He loves and has mastered the puzzles.

    Moshe started disengaging from school, putting his head down on his desk during classes. At home, he said he didn’t want to be alive anymore.

    What Rae didn’t know was that, as Moshe’s problems were growing, New York state was rolling out a massive health care reform that would, within a few years, collide with her son’s life.

    When Cuomo first took office as the governor of New York in 2011 — not long before Moshe’s third birthday — he inherited a public health care system that was notorious for achieving mediocre outcomes at fantastically high costs: In the year before Cuomo was first elected governor, New York ranked second-highest in the nation for per-enrollee Medicaid spending, but 21st for overall health system quality and dead last for avoidable hospitalizations.

    In his first year in office, Cuomo rolled out a series of sweeping reforms to New York’s public health care system, including an overhaul of the state’s Medicaid program. Under his leadership, he promised, New York would rein in spending while simultaneously improving care and getting better results for patients.

    State-run psychiatric hospitals were an obvious target for cuts. When Cuomo took office, the state was spending more than $1,400 for each day a child stayed in a state-run psychiatric hospital.

    New York was “overly reliant on extended inpatient hospitalization for those with serious mental illness,” Cuomo’s Office of Mental Health wrote in 2013. The system was bad for patients, who would be better off receiving care in their communities.

    In July 2013, when Moshe was 5 years old, Cuomo announced a plan to shut down nine of New York’s 24 psychiatric hospitals to free up funds for outpatient care. The proposal met with vociferous pushback — including from families on Long Island, who said their kids needed the beds at Sagamore.

    The 2014 Transformation Plan emerged as a compromise: Instead of closing entire hospitals, the state Office of Mental Health would shut down psychiatric beds that had remained empty for 90 days. For each closed bed, the state would be required to reinvest no less than $110,000 annually into outpatient and community-based mental health programs.

    Between 2014 and 2021, OMH closed more than 660 beds in state hospitals for adults, reducing the total number to just over 2,200 as of December, the last month for which data is available. The kids’ system saw its official bed count fall by 32%, from 460 to 314. The biggest reduction took place at the New York City Children’s Center, where the bed total was cut nearly in half — down to 92 in 2021. Currently, because of staff shortages, far fewer beds are open and usable, according to the Public Employees Federation, which represents close to half of OMH employees.

    Then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo speaks about New York’s health care system on July 30, 2018. (Kevin Coughlin/State of New York via Flickr)

    OMH declined an interview request, but in response to detailed questions, spokesperson James Plastiras said in a written statement that the Transformation Plan “significantly increased access to mental health care for New Yorkers.” Plastiras wrote that the closed beds are more than offset by new services in the community, adding that the agency now serves 200,000 more people than it did in 2014.

    As of December, the state had accumulated close to $83 million in annual reinvestment funds from closed state-run hospital beds. The money has gone to long-term housing programs for adults with mental illnesses who would otherwise be homeless and a package of community-based services for children, as well as clinic expansions and crisis intervention teams. Nearly 30% of the savings from closed hospital beds is reinvested into services for children and adolescents, OMH said.

    Plastiras also noted that health care staff shortages are a national problem. “Unfortunately, OMH is not immune,” he wrote. To help address the shortages, OMH has increased salaries for nurses and other direct care staff, rolled out recruitment campaigns and agreed to temporarily pay a higher overtime rate to critical staff.

    In response to a request for comment from Cuomo, Rich Azzopardi, a spokesperson for the former governor, wrote, “Institutionalization was never a one size fits all approach and many experts were clear that an investment in wraparound and supportive services will reach more people in need with the resources that were available.”

    ‘You Have to Fight Tooth and Nail’

    By the time Moshe was in third grade and saying that he wanted to die, Rae was frantically searching for some kind of intervention that would help him. It was something she was well-positioned to do compared to many parents. The family had health insurance through Moshe’s dad’s job. Rae is meticulous and dogged by nature, and as a stay-at-home parent she had the time and capacity to spend what would add up, over the next few years, to hundreds of hours searching for mental health services, calling providers, navigating waitlists and arguing with insurance representatives. “You have to fight tooth and nail for everything,” she said. “This was literally a full-time job.”

    Rae convinced Moshe’s school district to pay for a full neuropsychological evaluation, but there was a six-month waitlist to get the testing done. After several weeks of phone calls, she managed to find a therapist who worked with kids of Moshe’s age and accepted her family’s insurance plan. “That was a victory,” she said. But when the therapist suggested that Moshe might need to see a doctor who could prescribe him medication, Rae discovered that all of the psychiatrists listed by her insurance company either had left the plan or weren’t accepting new patients.

    As she met other parents of children with mental health issues, Rae learned that none of what she was experiencing was unusual. If Moshe had had a physical illness, she doubted it would have been so hard to get appropriate treatment.

    Documents pile up at Rae’s home, many of them medical records of Moshe’s treatment. “This was literally a full-time job,” she said.

    It didn’t help that Rae often felt like Moshe’s providers were judging her. As the mother of a child with behavior problems, “you are constantly being criticized,” she said. “I’m too clinical. I’m not emotional enough. My house is too structured. It isn’t structured enough. Don’t use reflective listening, but do use reflective listening. It is excruciating to have every decision you make Monday morning quarterbacked.”

    Mental health care operates with a level of dysfunction that would never be tolerated for kids with physical health problems, said Dr. Jennifer Havens, chair of the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at NYU Langone Health and director of child and adolescent behavioral health at NYC Health + Hospitals. In many ways, the problems come down to money. Mental health providers and advocates argue that reimbursement rates for outpatient services are much too low. Many independent therapists and psychiatrists don’t accept insurance at all, only working with families who can pay out of pocket. At outpatient clinics — where children on Medicaid get the majority of their treatment — pay is typically low, turnover is high and kids often see brand-new social workers who are still logging the hours they need to become licensed, according to clinic providers.

    “Clinics are staffed by very junior people,” Havens said. “Once you get better, you go somewhere you can make more money.”

    In her proposed budget for the coming fiscal year, which starts on April 1, New York’s current governor, Kathy Hochul, is asking state legislators for an increase in Medicaid reimbursement rates for outpatient mental health clinics and nonstate hospital beds, a cost-of-living adjustment for programs overseen by OMH, and a significant bump in spending on children’s mental health. The state Assembly’s proposed budget bill also includes a $53 million increase in funding for OMH services for kids.

    Hochul has also proposed a plan to reinstate 200 state hospital psychiatric beds — which would replace about 25% of the total adult and kids’ beds cut under the Transformation Plan — though it’s not clear whether any of those would be for children and adolescents. In all, the governor’s proposed budget would increase OMH funding by $730 million, bringing the total to nearly $4.7 billion.

    “Providing the best possible services and treatment options for New York’s children and families are among OMH’s highest priorities,” Plastiras wrote.

    If the proposed increases make it into the final budget deal, it will be “a great, incredibly welcome start,” said Lauri Cole, the executive director of the New York State Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, which represents more than 100 community-based agencies. But it would take years of increased investment to dig the mental health system out of the hole created by chronic underfunding and staffing shortages, Cole said. “This lessens the pain, but it does not take it away.”

    Havens said the problem with mental health care is not just how much insurance plans pay; it’s also what they do and don’t pay for. In the world of physical health, pediatricians offer preventive services as a matter of course. There are no equivalents in the mental health system because providers can’t bill Medicaid and insurance companies for them.

    An effective mental health system, Havens said, would screen kids while they are young and treat them early. And it would allow providers to work with entire families. There are good, clinically proven models that bring case management and intensive therapy into families’ homes, Havens said. But they can’t be done by a clinic that relies on insurance reimbursements.

    “The worst part is we actually know what to do,” Havens said. “We know what works. We just can’t do it.”

    A Mental Health Emergency

    Rae shows a picture of Moshe on her cell phone posing with a LEGO project.

    For Rae, the questions are torture: What if Moshe’s learning disabilities had been diagnosed earlier? If she had fought harder or found help sooner, would things have turned out differently?

    When Moshe was in third grade, Rae’s search for services that could help him led her to a nurse practitioner who was willing to evaluate him for psychiatric medication. She gave him a prescription for paroxetine, widely known by its brand name Paxil, an antidepressant that can increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children. A few months later, Moshe came to Rae in tears. He had tried to hang himself, he said, but it hurt too much, and he got scared and stopped. “He was 9 years old,” Rae says. “We were stunned. Horrified.”

    Rae and her husband packed Moshe into the family’s Toyota and drove him to the psychiatric emergency room at Long Island’s Stony Brook University Hospital, where a doctor instructed them to discontinue the Paxil. For a time, Moshe stopped saying he didn’t want to be alive, but his mood and behavior became more volatile.

    Moshe’s temper tantrums had never gone away. As he got bigger, they grew into fits of rage that he seemed completely unable to control. He’d break things and throw furniture. In the car, he’d explode over the smallest frustrations, like not being able to buy candy or a smoothie, Rae said. “He’s yelling, screaming, throwing things at my head. I’m starting to get bruises. Things are getting bad.”

    Between ages 9 and 12, Moshe ended up in psychiatric emergency rooms nine times. Sometimes Rae was able to drive him herself; other times, she had to call 911 and ask for a police car or ambulance. He was hospitalized twice, each time for about a week. He came home calmer, Rae said, but the respites didn’t last long.

    Then the pandemic came, and everything got worse. Rae and her husband both have medical conditions that make them vulnerable to COVID-19, so Rae tried to enforce strict social distancing. To Moshe, the house felt like a cage. The things he looked forward to — hanging out with friends, Boy Scout trips — disappeared. He already felt like a failure at school, and he gave up hope when classes went online.

    With Moshe trapped at home, his anger narrowed in on Rae. He’d block her path and try to intimidate her physically, raising his fists and yelling insults and curses. She locked herself in her room during his episodes. He’d pound on the door for hours. Afterwards, when the rage passed, he’d often feel terrible, Rae said. Then he’d bang his head on the wall and say he was going to kill himself.

    Moshe’s bedroom, left. His parents replaced the door with a curtain in order to keep him safe.

    In the fall of 2020, soon after Moshe started seventh grade, Rae realized that he had been stealing money from her purse. He’d spent most of it on Nerf guns, but he’d also bought a pellet gun and knives.

    That was when Rae realized that the situation had spun out of her control. “I just couldn’t anymore,” she said. “I can’t keep him safe. I can’t keep the family safe. I decided, ‘My kid needs serious help. I’m not going to push this under the rug, I’m going to get him the help he needs.’”

    The idea of shutting down psychiatric hospital beds in favor of outpatient care is not new. In the early 1960s, more than half a million people were living in state-run mental asylums across the country, many of which were rife with abuse and neglect. When President John F. Kennedy signed the Community Mental Health Act in 1963, he made federal seed money available to open community-based mental health clinics that would, he said, allow people with mental illnesses to return to “a useful place in society.” Over time, the plan was, federal funds would be replaced by an influx of state and local investment.

    That influx never came. In the following decades, hundreds of thousands of people were released from state asylums, while the number of state-run psychiatric beds across the country dropped by more than 90%. Meanwhile, federal funds for community clinics dried up, eventually replaced by a mental health block grant that states could spend how they chose.

    With limited access to outpatient treatment, hundreds of thousands of people with mental health problems ended up in what are sometimes called systems of last resort. As of 2018, according to the federal government, 140,000 people with serious mental illnesses in the United States were homeless, and another 392,000 were in jails and prisons.

    Critics charge that Cuomo’s Transformation Plan represents a spectacular failure to learn from history. At a February press conference with New York City Mayor Eric Adams — held in response to a high-profile incident in which a homeless man with a history of schizophrenia was charged with shoving a woman in front of a train — Hochul announced an initiative to increase psychiatric hospital beds for adults. “For too long our mental health care system suffered from disinvestment,” she said. “We see New Yorkers clearly suffering in plain sight.”

    Mental health services for kids tend to receive less attention than those for adults, in part because the system’s failures aren’t nearly as visible on the streets. But young people who don’t get the mental health care they need are often shunted into last-resort systems of their own — especially low-income kids and kids of color, said Jeremy Kohomban, the president and CEO of the nonprofit social service agency The Children’s Village. “They often get booted down to foster care or juvenile justice. Or maybe they just end up on the street and get lost there,” he said.

    The idea that Moshe could slide from the mental health system to jail or prison terrifies Rae. “I don’t know if my son will stay out of the justice system,” she said. “It’s certainly not hard to imagine. He’s already done things that could land him in jail.”

    That’s why, back in the spring of 2021, Rae agreed that Moshe should stay at South Oaks Hospital until a state hospital bed opened up. No one could tell her how long it would take. Before the pandemic, it was common for children to spend two months waiting for an admission to Sagamore, said Dr. Youssef Hassoun, the medical director at South Oaks Hospital. By mid-2020, in a couple of cases, that wait time stretched as long as six months, due to staff shortages and COVID-19 quarantines at Sagamore, he said.

    Once a hospital applies for a child to be transferred, the state will often ask for more information and documentation, delaying the application for weeks at a time, Hassoun said. If there’s any disruption in care — say, the child needs to leave the psychiatric unit for treatment in a medical bed for a few days — the process starts all over again. “It’s ridiculous,” Hassoun said, adding that the delays effectively limit the number of kids that state hospitals are pressured to accept.

    Hassoun did not comment on Moshe’s or any other child’s individual case. But generally, he said, the delays can be damaging to patients. Part of the reason for a transfer to Sagamore is that kids can progress toward stability. They start in a unit for patients who are acutely ill, then graduate through units that are increasingly less restrictive.

    At South Oaks Hospital, on the other hand, patients remain in the most restrictive possible setting, constantly interacting with other kids who are at the height of their own crises. The result is they sometimes get worse instead of better, Hassoun said. “It can be a source of destabilization and disappointment and acting out.” For some kids, that’s when you see an increase in incidents like fights and restraints. “The fact that you don’t know whether it’s going to be three weeks or three months, that’s very frustrating,” Hassoun said.

    South Oaks Hospital on Long Island, where Moshe stayed while waiting for a bed to open at Sagamore

    As far as Rae can tell, Moshe’s first serious altercation at South Oaks Hospital started over a tub of cream cheese. No one witnessed the beginning, but by the end, Moshe had been punched in the head and kicked multiple times in the groin, according to an email from OMH to a lawyer representing South Oaks Hospital. A nurse wrote in Moshe’s medical records that he had been writhing on the floor in pain.

    In the weeks that followed, Rae received calls about one incident or another every couple of days. Often, Moshe would instigate a verbal argument, according to hospital notes, and another child on the unit would retaliate physically. He was kicked and slapped. A staff member found him sobbing because, Moshe said, a patient had threatened to slit his throat. Kids dumped water and orange juice on him. Four times, during or after an incident, hospital staff injected him with an antipsychotic medication known under the brand name Thorazine to calm him down. Once, Moshe received the injection and was also placed in a four-point restraint, with his arms and legs immobilized, for 30 minutes, hospital records show.

    “It was very scary,” Moshe said. “It feels like your body’s out of it and your emotions are gone, like you’re a zombie. It’s very, very bad.”

    Northwell Health, which owns South Oaks Hospital, said it seeks to use restraints as little as possible and “takes considerable care to enforce policies and practices that are the least restrictive to patients in order to promote a safe environment for patients, staff and others in the facility.”

    For Rae, it felt like a nightmare. “I have been fighting to keep my child safe for his entire life,” she said. “Now I’m putting him somewhere he’s not safe, a place that’s causing him more trauma. And I have no choice. This is the only way to get him to a place where he can get the help he needs.”

    At first, Moshe cried when a social worker told him about the plan to transfer him to Sagamore. He missed his mom and dad and wanted to go home. But as time passed, he stopped caring about the destination — he just wanted to get out of South Oaks Hospital. He’d been admitted on March 21, a week before his 13th birthday. Three and a half weeks later, on April 14, Rae told a social worker that Moshe was 11th on the waitlist for Sagamore. By the end of that month, he’d made it to number eight. Two more weeks, and he was number three.

    When Moshe finally made it to Sagamore — after nine weeks at South Oaks Hospital — his treatment team decided he needed a longer-term program. He applied and was eventually accepted to a residential school in upstate New York for kids with mental health problems, paid for by his home school district. After eight months at Sagamore, he left for the school. In all, he spent close to a year of his life in psychiatric hospitals — much of it just waiting for the next placement. “It’s really sad to be in the hospital for that long,” Moshe said.

    Moshe’s chair at his family’s dinner table, empty while he receives treatment. “I’m going to try my best and put in the work to get better so I can come home,” he said.

    Rae said she has high hopes for the residential school, and for Moshe. When she thinks about what she wants for her kids, she refers back to a Hebrew phrase, tikkun olam, that’s often interpreted as an injunction to do good deeds — to take one’s part in repairing the world. “I wanted to raise them to be productive members of society,” she said. “To have a job and be independent. To contribute, even if in a small way.”

    Moshe likes his new school too. “I’m going to try my best and put in the work to get better so I can come home,” he said. He hopes that telling his story will help other kids who need mental health care.

    Reach Abigail Kramer via email at akramer@thecity.nyc.

    If you or someone you know needs help, here are a few resources:

    This post was originally published on Articles and Investigations – ProPublica.

  • COVID cases are rising throughout Europe and Asia, leading some experts in the United States to wonder whether another wave is around the corner. Caseloads have been low in all 50 states following the Omicron spike in late 2021 and earlier this year, leading to a broad relaxation of mask mandates and a decrease in remote work options throughout the country. Nearly all Republicans in Congress, and many conservative Democrats, are pushing for a repeal of the continuing federal mask mandate on planes and public transportation.

    The spike in cases overseas is being driven by a subvariant of Omicron, known as BA.2. Early evidence suggests it may be even more transmissible than the initial variant, which caused record surges around the world. There’s also cause for cautious optimism, however, as it appears that immunity caused by the first variant extends to the new subvariant. Between vaccinations and boosters, and so-called “natural immunity” from a previous infection, the United States may have a wall of protection to prevent caseloads — and, more importantly, hospitalizations and deaths — from spiking in the coming months.

    Anthony Fauci, the federal government’s point person on COVID, said on March 20 that he expected a rise in cases, even if it doesn’t amount to another full-blown wave. Fauci estimated that the new subvariant accounts for about 25 to 30 percent of new cases.

    If the worst is avoided in the United States, it will not be because state and federal officials have taken measures to prepare for the next wave. To the contrary, Congress recently failed to include additional pandemic funding in its annual massive spending bill. The result could be disastrous, especially for poor people and those without insurance. As Republicans, conservative Democrats and even some public health officials insist on putting the pandemic behind us and getting back to “normal,” it’s not at all clear that the country — or the world — is through with COVID.

    Even at the current levels, the push from some to adopt a new normal of living with COVID often ignores the risks to immunocompromised people and those who aren’t eligible for the vaccine. Millions of people who may not fit the CDC’s definition of immunocompromised are living with chronic illness, disabilities, or other health concerns that put them at a heightened risk. If aspects of the pandemic like regular remote work and telehealth become less common, these are the communities most likely to be left behind — even under what some mainstream pundits are considering a best-case scenario.

    And maintaining the current levels of community spread could be elusive. President Joe Biden’s plans at the federal level have largely been hampered by Congress, which has reverted from a brief period where it actually addressed public needs back to an anti-public health posture. Early rounds of pandemic relief were passed with so-called deficit spending, but Republicans began insisting that Democrats find a way to “pay for” the programs — Washington, D.C.-speak for increasing taxes or finding another source of revenue. Biden had initially asked Congress for $22 billion in new pandemic funding, which lawmakers then cut to $15 billion, with Republicans and some conservative Democrats insisting on the spending offsets. The floated compromise was that new revenue would come from states that had already received pandemic funding, prompting a rebellion from a handful of House Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi then pulled the new COVID money from the bill, prompting fear from the White House that Congress would fail to pass the needed funding altogether.

    Without the additional spending, numerous federal projects are at risk on a rolling basis over the next several months. The government will soon be forced to cut shipments of monoclonal antibodies by 30 percent as soon as next week. In April, the administration will end a program that reimbursed providers for testing, tracing and treating uninsured patients. As a result, people without insurance are facing a looming catastrophe if they contract COVID or need an additional booster shot. Fears of unknown medical bills could also prevent uninsured people from seeking preemptive care or treatment, potentially further exacerbating community spread.

    The disasters don’t stop there. Support for domestic testing manufacturers will run out by June. A senior administration official told reporters that without more funding, the federal government “will lack the funding needed to accelerate research and development of next-generation vaccines that provide broader and more durable protection, including a vaccine that protects against a range of variants.” The administration had planned to make second booster shots available to the public at large in the fall if experts deemed it scientifically necessary, but that’s at risk now as well.

    Taken together, this means the United States isn’t prepared to deal with future COVID variants, an entirely different pandemic, or even the existing levels of spread currently in the country. Although cases have dramatically dropped off since the height of the Omicron spike, the U.S. is still registering almost 30,000 cases a day on average, and roughly 830 deaths.

    As The Atlantic’s Ed Yong argues, existing U.S. pandemic measures were “already insufficient” to the task at hand. “These measures needed to be strengthened, not weakened even further,” Yong writes. “Abandoning them assumes that the U.S. will not need to respond to another large COVID surge, when such events are likely, in no small part because of the country’s earlier failures. And even if no such surge materializes, another infectious threat inevitably will.” He adds that the United States is now “sprinting” towards the next pandemic.

    Instead of creating the kind of robust, lasting institutions and programs that could respond to the country’s current as well as short-term and long-term needs, Congress is burying its head in the sand. Cutting funding for COVID measures now is the very definition of penny wise, pound foolish. Or, to use a medical aphorism, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Instead of taking this period of relatively low levels of community spread to shore up our collective defenses, Congress is rolling the dice, betting that the worst of the pandemic is behind us.

    This should be a time to reflect on the enormous success that COVID vaccine developments represent: success paid for directly, and backstopped, by public money. If there is a lesson to be taken from March 2020 until now, it’s that the U.S. federal government is actually capable of making people’s lives better if it allocates the necessary resources to do so. In a more just world, the vaccines themselves would be owned by the public and distributed globally, not just because it’s the right thing to do, but also because it’s in our own collective self-interest to deprive the virus of communities to spread and mutate. That’s not the world we live in, but it would be a mistake not to embrace the successes we’ve seen over the last two years, even if they need to be reframed away from the logic of public-private partnerships.

    The pandemic has shown that public spending at the federal level can produce enormous public benefits. Unfortunately, Congress seems to have reverted back to an austerity-based, deficit hawk mindset. That’s not a surprise, but it does mean that public health in this country is at risk over the next several months, let alone the next several decades.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • It seems that every day there is a new article or study showing how psychedelics can be beneficial in treating the effects of psychological suffering. Now, state and local governments have passed laws decriminalizing or regulating the use of psychedelics. The battle to make these substances available to the public has been one hundreds of physicians and activists have had put forward, fighting the conservatism and insatiable thirst for profit of the healthcare system. Although the acceptance of psychedelics is a step forward, unfortunately the tendency is for these new treatments to be assimilated by the current health system that considers mental illness an individual issue and that considers health care in general as just another avenue to maximize profit.

    The post A Radical Approach To Psychedelics And Mental Health appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Rep. Cori Bush speaks at a House Judiciary Committee hearing at the U.S. Capitol on October 21, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Democrats in the House Oversight Committee have scheduled the first hearing to consider Medicare for All since the onset of the pandemic, as progressive lawmakers wage a new push for the proposal.

    Oversight Committee Chair Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-New York) and Rep. Cori Bush (D-Missouri) will lead the hearing, scheduled for Tuesday, March 22, to consider proposals for universal health care and to assess the ways that the U.S.’s primarily private health care system is affecting people without insurance.

    The hearing will also feature Representatives Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-New York), Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts), as well as testimony from big names in the Medicare for All sphere, like activist Ady Barkan and economics professor Jeffrey Sachs, among others.

    “We deserve a health care system that prioritizes people over profits, humanity over greed, and compassion over exploitation,” Bush wrote on Thursday. “That’s why we’re holding our first Medicare for All hearing since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This policy will save lives.”

    This is the latest move in progressive lawmakers’ recent push to revive the campaign for Medicare for All, which has been relatively dormant in Congress for several years; the last time Democrats held a hearing on the subject was 2019.

    In the hearing, lawmakers will cover Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s (D-Washington) Medicare for All Act, which would establish a single-payer health care system and which recently surpassed a record 120 cosponsors. Democrats will also discuss inequities faced by non-white people, people with disabilities and LGBTQ people, who are disproportionately underinsured or uninsured.

    “As chairwoman of the Oversight Committee,” Maloney told The Nation, “I am holding this hearing to examine how the gaps in our current system threaten the health of the most vulnerable among us and how Congress can ensure that every person in this country has access to high-quality health care — no matter who they are.”

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) recently announced that he is planning to reintroduce his Medicare for All legislation; the last time he did so was in 2019.

    “In the midst of the current set of horrors — war, oligarchy, pandemics, inflation, climate change, etc. — we must continue the fight to establish healthcare as a human right, not a privilege,” Sanders wrote. The Vermont lawmaker also recently called for all medical debt to be abolished.

    The hearing comes during a pandemic that has exposed major cracks in the U.S. health care system. In the early months of the pandemic, an estimated 7.7 million people lost health care coverage after losing their jobs, leaving them in the lurch as COVID-19 swept the U.S., the only wealthy country in the world that doesn’t have universal health care.

    As the pandemic continues, disparities in pandemic-related health outcomes have become even more clear. A survey last year found that about 1 in every 3 COVID deaths and 40 percent of cases are linked to a lack of health insurance. Another study found that for every 10 percent increase in a county’s rate of uninsured people, the county experienced 70 percent more COVID infections and 50 percent more deaths.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Since the start of the pandemic, Medicaid, the federal and state program to provide health insurance to low income Americans, has been far more generous than in the past. Enrollment is higher than ever, at 77.8 million.

    This isn’t because of some nationwide change of heart in state governments; it’s because states were paid to stop cutting people from their Medicaid rolls. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, the first coronavirus relief bill passed in March 2020, states received a 6.2 percent boost in federal Medicaid funding in exchange for halting disenrollments.

    The usual process of conducting “redeterminations,” in which states redetermine whether a beneficiary’s income levels or other factors still qualify them for Medicaid, has been paused for almost two years.

    The post The Coming Medicaid Purge appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Man in hospital bed in Rio Grande Valley

    A federal health agency tasked with covering Covid-19 testing and treatment for uninsured Americans officially stopped accepting claims on Wednesday because it is out of funding, a shortfall caused by congressional lawmakers’ failure to approve new coronavirus aid.

    Martin Kramer, a spokesperson for the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), said in a statement Tuesday that “the lack of funding for Covid-19 needs is having real consequences.”

    “We have begun an orderly shutdown of the program,” Kramer said, referring to the HRSA Covid-19 Uninsured Program, which has been reimbursing providers for coronavirus care for the uninsured since the early stages of the pandemic.

    Nearly 10% of U.S. residents — around 31 million people — don’t have any form of health insurance, according to federal estimates.

    The HRSA has also warned in recent days that without a quick infusion of federal funds, it will have to stop accepting coronavirus vaccine reimbursement claims on April 5.

    “Federal coverage for Covid-19 treatment and testing for the uninsured ends today. Coverage for vaccine administration for the uninsured ends in about two weeks,” Adam Gaffney, a critical care doctor at the Cambridge Health Alliance, lamented on Twitter. “The rationing of Covid-care by ability to pay begins.”

    The Biden White House has asked for more than $20 billion to purchase fresh supplies of masks, therapeutics, tests, and vaccines and to keep key pandemic response programs running, but Republican lawmakers have questioned the need for additional Covid-19 money and insisted that any funding be repurposed from existing state programs — a non-starter for Democratic lawmakers who warn their states would be hurt by such a scheme.

    Disagreements over funding sources ultimately led the Democratic leadership to pull around $16 billion in coronavirus aid from a recent omnibus spending package that contained $782 billion for the U.S. military — $29 billion more than President Joe Biden originally requested.

    White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain insisted Tuesday that the Biden administration is not “turning the page” on the coronavirus pandemic, which is still killing more than 1,000 people per day in the U.S. on average.

    “We are keeping businesses and schools open — and reducing hospital and ICU cases — by making vaccines, boosters, treatments, and tests widely available,” Klain said. “And we will continue to do so as long as Congress funds this work.”

    But with dozens of Republicans refusing to support new relief funding, there does not appear to be a path forward for a standalone coronavirus measure in the evenly divided Senate.

    “We don’t need Covid funding,” Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-Iowa.) told The Atlantic, expressing a view common among GOP lawmakers. “Most people would say we’re done. We have more issues with inflation than Covid right now.”

    Vox’s Dylan Matthews wrote Tuesday that if the congressional stalemate over Covid-19 funding persists, “the federal effort to halt the virus could effectively be over, even though the pandemic itself clearly isn’t.”

    “That would be a disaster,” Matthews added.

    According to a February Covid-19 funding table obtained by Politico, more than $45 billion of the $47.8 billion that Congress approved for testing and mitigation in the American Rescue Plan is currently “obligated or being executed,” $2.6 billion is already allocated, and “none remains available for new initiatives.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On Tuesday, after a year and a half of negotiations over an intellectual property waiver for Covid-related products, the United States, European Union, India and South Africa reportedly reached agreement on a temporary waiver of patent rules for Covid vaccines. Global health activists, however, are slamming the tentative deal as not only insufficient, but a potential setback, because it excludes tests and treatments, includes a carveout for China, and introduces new barriers for the production of generic treatments that could have implications far beyond the Covid crisis.

    The post New “Compromise” On IP Waiver For Covid Vaccines Is Worse Than No Deal, Activists Say appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The CPC’s new list of executive order recommendations is broad in scope, aiming to address a variety of pressing issues including sky-high drug prices, the worsening climate emergency, the coronavirus pandemic, mounting student loan debt, and a rigged tax system—priorities that Biden vowed to tackle on the campaign trail in 2020.

    While Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the CPC chair, has said she would prefer ambitious legislation such as the Build Back Better package to more limited executive orders, that bill is dead in the Senate due to opposition from Republicans and corporate-backed Democrats such as Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), leaving the president with few other options to advance his popular agenda.

    The post Progressives Hand Biden List Of 55 Executive Actions appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Sen. Mitt Romney speaks during a roundtable discussion with Republican senators and economists about the Democrat's social policy spending bill on Capitol Hill on November 30, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    With experts warning that a new Covid-19 surge in the U.S. may be imminent as an Omicron subvariant spreads in Europe and Asia, congressional leaders are making little progress toward a deal to approve funding needed for the continuation of key pandemic response programs — including free vaccines and therapeutics for the uninsured.

    Hampered by obstruction from Republican lawmakers who have questioned the need for any new coronavirus funding, Democratic leaders are scrambling to find a path forward for a roughly $16 billion aid package that was yanked from an omnibus spending measure last week.

    The same omnibus spending bill provided $29 billion more for the Pentagon than President Joe Biden requested.

    The Covid funding was removed after rank-and-file Democrats learned that the aid package was financed by repurposing previously approved pandemic money from states — a scheme, advocated by GOP lawmakers, that some feared would undermine local public health initiatives.

    On Friday, the House is set to leave for recess without any coronavirus funding agreement in sight. The Department of Health and Human Services is completely out of coronavirus response money, and the White House is warning that “critical” testing, vaccine, and treatment efforts will be halted in the coming weeks without an infusion of funds.

    “Without additional resources from Congress, the results are dire,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said during a press briefing last week. “Just to give you some specifics: In March, testing capacity would — will — decline… In April, free testing and treatments for tens of millions of Americans without health insurance will end. In May, America’s supply of monoclonal antibodies will run out.”

    In a Twitter post on Thursday, the advocacy group Public Citizen called such a scenario “horrifying.”

    “A program that pays to test, treat, and vaccinate uninsured people for Covid will end next month without funding,” the group wrote. “We’re running out of money to fight Covid, but critical aid is stalled in Congress. We can’t let this happen.”

    “Without funding,” Public Citizen added, “we won’t have the resources to expand global vaccination that decreases risk of new variants, keeps cases low, and saves lives.”

    In an interview on Thursday, Dr. Anthony Fauci — the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — said the U.S. could soon see an increase in coronavirus cases and noted that, without new funding from Congress, “a lot” of programs aimed at fighting the pandemic “are going to stop.”

    “It really will be a very serious situation,” Fauci said. “It just is almost unconscionable.”

    Dr. Ashish Jha, the incoming White House Covid-19 response coordinator, similarly cautioned Thursday that “we are very likely to see more surges of infections.”

    “As much as I wish otherwise,” Jha wrote on Twitter, “the pandemic is not over.”

    Overall, Covid-19 cases in the U.S. have been declining in recent weeks, though more than 1,200 Americans are still dying each day on average from the virus.

    The rapid spread of the BA.2 subvariant, which is highly transmissible, is fueling concerns of another coronavirus wave in the U.S., particularly given that the country has been relaxing public health restrictions over the past several months.

    Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows BA.2… has been tripling in prevalence every two weeks,” ABC News reported Thursday. “As of the week ending March 11, BA.2 makes up 23.1% of all Covid cases in the U.S. compared to 7.1% of all cases the week ending Feb. 26, according to the CDC.”

    The White House has requested more than $20 billion in funding to sustain pandemic response programs, but Republican and Democratic lawmakers last week could only agree to provide $15.6 billion in the omnibus package — and only after accepting the GOP push to take the money from states.

    Now, Democratic leaders are attempting to move ahead with the coronavirus aid package as a standalone measure, an approach that appears doomed to fail given that 36 Senate Republicans have said they feel “it is not yet clear why additional funding is needed.” Psaki told reporters earlier this week that a number of Republicans aren’t returning the White House’s phone calls about the necessity of Covid-19 funding.

    Dr. Michael Mina, a former Harvard University epidemiologist, said Thursday that “to think we’re at a stage to stop appropriating funds and advocating for pandemic preparedness” is “one of the worst decisions that our government could make.”

    In remarks to the press on Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said of the Covid-19 funding: “We’re just going to have to pass it, and we’ll pass it when we have the votes to pass it.”

    “In order to have bipartisan votes, we want it to be paid for, and that’s what we’re doing,” she added.

    The Washington Post’s Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent argued in a column Thursday that Republicans won’t hesitate to lay blame for any new Covid-19 surge at the feet of Democrats, even as the GOP undermines efforts to secure new relief funding that would be used to prevent a wave of infections.

    “Democrats have seemed generally skittish about really going hard at Republicans for their role in actively sabotaging our recovery from Covid,” the pair wrote. “Republicans, for their part, don’t seem all that worried about the politics of a new surge… They’ve trained their supporters to stop caring about the pandemic much at all, no matter how many people in their communities get sick and die.”

    “Right now, only one party has any interest in fighting the pandemic,” Waldman and Sargent continued. “Democrats need to figure out how to rebut political attacks that make protecting public health harder, and how to make Republicans pay a political price for not caring about our national recovery at best and sabotaging it at worst.”

  • Women participating in post-partum training

    Sacramento, California — This was supposed to be the year that low-income Californians could hire a doula to guide them through pregnancy and advocate for them in the hospital.

    But the new benefit for people enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid health insurance program, has been delayed twice as the state and doulas — nonmedical workers who help parents before, during, and after birth — haggle over how much they should get paid.

    The state initially proposed a flat rate of $450 per birth, covering all prenatal and postnatal visits, on-call time during the pregnancy, and labor and delivery — which often lasts 12 or more hours.

    Doulas say that amount is too low, and far less than their clients would pay out-of-pocket. It’s also below what doulas receive from Medicaid programs in most other states that offer the benefit.

    The only state that pays less is Oregon, where doulas receive up to $350 per birth. The reimbursement rates of other states that offer doula services through Medicaid are usually between $770 and $900. When Rhode Island implements its benefit in July, it will be the highest-paying state, offering doulas up to $1,500.

    In most states that offer a doula benefit, the rate Medicaid programs pay is a maximum, which doulas receive if the patient attends every prenatal and postnatal visit. Unlike obstetricians, who see many patients in a day, most doulas accept only a few clients a month.

    “We’re talking six to nine months of face time, screen time, texting time, research, resources, and dollars. $450? That’s wild,” said Chantel Runnels, a doula in Riverside County, California, who usually charges clients about $1,000.

    “It feels limiting,” Runnels said. “Like there is no value on our time.”

    Doulas do not deliver babies. They provide resources to navigate the health care system, information on sleep or nutrition, and postpartum coaching and lactation support. They also support mothers during birth to make sure their wishes are being respected by the hospital.

    Doulas are unregulated, and most of their work is for patients who pay out-of-pocket. Most private insurance does not cover doulas, said Cassondra Marshall, an assistant professor at the University of California-Berkeley School of Public Health who has conducted research on doulas in the Bay Area. Tricare, the health insurance program for active-duty members of the military, began covering doulas this year, paying them about $970 for labor support and six visits.

    The structure of California’s benefit is still being determined. Doulas and the state aren’t in sync on credentialing and training — in addition to pay, said Anthony Cava, a spokesperson for the California Department of Health Care Services, which administers Medi-Cal. Doulas also told the state they want to bill separately for labor and prenatal and postnatal visits, instead of receiving a bundled flat rate.

    The state “recognizes rates must be adequate” to attract enough providers and reduce health disparities, Cava said in a statement. “We are considering input received from the doula stakeholders, and are also reviewing other states’ doula programs and their payment structures and associated rates for similar services,” Cava said.

    Cava said the state’s $450 proposal was modeled after the rates in other states, including Oregon, which was one of the first states to include doula benefits in its Medicaid package, in 2014.

    But Oregon’s $350 maximum payment is too low to attract enough doulas, said Amy Chen, a senior attorney with the National Health Law Program who studies doula Medicaid benefits across states. “One of the big challenges is that the reimbursement rate is so low that doulas just can’t do it,” Chen said.

    From 2018 through 2021, Oregon paid for doulas in 310 births, about 0.39% of the births to Medicaid enrollees during that period, according to state officials.

    It’s a “lower uptake” than the state had hoped for, Oregon Health Authority spokesperson Aria Seligmann said in a statement. We’re “currently reevaluating the reimbursement rate to ensure doulas’ services are appropriately valued,” Seligmann said.

    Doulas in Oregon must spend about 100 hours learning how to charge Medicaid and must upgrade their software, phones, and medical record systems to comply with privacy laws — all on their own dime, said Raeben Nolan, vice president of the Oregon Doula Association. “Very few people are willing to go through the hoops,” Nolan said.

    Five Medicaid programs offer a doula benefit, and six more (including California’s) are implementing one soon.

    Offering a doula benefit in Medi-Cal is one of the as-yet-unfulfilled promises of the “Momnibus” Act that was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year. Lawmakers and advocates hope that by providing doulas to the state’s poorest and most vulnerable women, California will help address racial disparities, improve birth outcomes, and diversify and expand its health care workforce. The benefit was originally supposed to kick in Jan. 1 but is now slated to start in January 2023 — if doulas and the state can come to an agreement.

    California is embarking on a massive transformation of its Medicaid program that will expand benefits beyond health care and into the realm of social services. As part of this transformation, the state plans to bring several types of nontraditional health care workers into the Medi-Cal workforce, including promotores, peer mental health counselors, and doulas.

    The maternal mortality rate is rising nationally, and the rate for Black mothers is nearly three times that of white mothers. Studies have associated doula care with a range of better birth outcomes, such as lower rates of cesarean sections, fewer babies with low birth weights, and more breastfeeding.

    Since 2019, at least 10 pilot programs around California have provided doula services to Black parents or Medi-Cal enrollees, funded by a mix of public funds, grants, and private insurance. The services were free to patients, and participating doulas were paid a maximum of $1,000 per birth in Riverside County to $3,000 in Alameda County.

    TaNefer Camara is a maternal health strategist in Oakland, where she charges $3,000 for doula work. She became a doula to help other women of color but said she couldn’t take on many Medi-Cal patients at what she called the “laughable” rate of $450. “You don’t need to go into poverty to try and fix a situation such as maternal health care,” she said.

    Marshall, of UC-Berkeley, found that doulas who were paid a flat rate for all their services often had to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. “The flat rate lump sums aren’t nearly enough for all that they’re doing,” Marshall said.

    Minnesota has been offering a doula benefit since 2014. But the state found that a maximum reimbursement rate of $411 was too low, and the legislature increased it in 2019 to $770.

    California’s proposed rate is off base, said Ashley Kidd-Tatge, a doula and the doula coordinator at Everyday Miracles, a nonprofit organization that matches Medicaid beneficiaries with doulas in the Twin Cities. Most doulas in her area charge non-Medicaid patients $800 to $1,500 per birth.

    “$450 is incredibly low,” Kidd-Tatge said. “I don’t know too many folks, even in the Twin Cities, who would entertain that rate.”

    This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

    KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The United States has all but declared the COVID-19 pandemic over and done with. The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) advised 230 million Americans, 70 percent of the population, to no longer wear masks in most cases, including indoors. Restaurants, shopping malls, movie theatres, and grocery stores have dropped mask and physical distancing requirements. Even school districts have gone mask-optional since the end of February. This is despite more than 55,000 Americans contracting the disease and nearly 2,000 dying from it and the complications it causes every day through early March.

    The post America’s New Dystopian Normal appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • This story was originally published by The 19th on March 7, 2022. It is shared here with permission under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license.

    Florida’s legislature passed a bill that would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Idaho’s Senate approved a bill to block the procedure after six weeks, modeled after Texas’ law. Georgia’s Senate advanced legislation that prohibits using telemedicine for abortion medication. And in Kentucky, the state House voted to pass new restrictions on abortion providers that, if enacted, could effectively shut down clinics in the state. 

    Legislatures around the country are voting on a variety of abortion restrictions, many of them not in line with the protections that have existed since Roe v. Wade was decided 49 years ago. They’re doing so with an eye on the Supreme Court, set to rule in a case that is widely expected to give more power to states to add limits to the availability of abortion. The bills vary, with differences in the time limits and measures they address. It is part of an effort to ensure that states have laws on the books that restrict abortion in as many ways as possible—so that they are prepared no matter what ruling comes down, likely this summer.

    The bills vary, with differences in the time limits and measures they address. It is part of an effort to ensure that states have laws on the books that restrict abortion in as many ways as possible—so that they are prepared no matter what ruling comes down, likely this summer.

    “States are really thinking seriously about ‘What do we want to have in effect this summer?’ and ‘What do we really need?’” said Katie Glenn, government affairs counsel for Americans United for Life, a lobbying organization that opposes abortion. “You’re seeing more divergent bills.”

    The divergence in part reflects state differences in terms of what restrictions are politically feasible. But it is also a product of the uncertainty around how the court will rule in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, a case examining whether Mississippi can ban abortions after 15 weeks. Some legal observers and state lawmakers expect the court to allow 15-week abortion bans, but not total prohibitions. Others are expecting total bans will be allowed and preparing accordingly. Lawmakers are pushing other kinds of restrictions, too—on where and how abortions are performed, for instance—setting the stage to winnow access, no matter what the Supreme Court says.

    “You see states announcing their intention to pass restrictive laws and maybe go further in banning abortion,” said Rachel Rebouche, the interim dean of Temple University’s Beasley School of Law and an expert in reproductive health law. “States are really—for political reasons and probably also reasons grounded in sincerely held beliefs—trying to stake a claim.”

    Many Republican state legislators are working with an eye to November’s midterms, or even upcoming party primaries. They want to pass those laws now, so that they can spend the fall campaigning for reelection, rather than in the legislature. Glenn of Americans United for Life also said the restrictions give conservative lawmakers something to run on as they try to appeal to a base that strongly opposes abortion.  

    “They’re always thinking about enacting good policy and keeping an eye on knowing they’re going to be running for office. We see different things in election years and non-election years,” Glenn said.

    Many also don’t want to wait for the Supreme Court to act, said Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University who focuses on reproductive health policy.

    Differences in state law and state constitutions may limit how far some individual legislatures can go. But the uncertainty hasn’t stopped bills from moving through.

    “I’m sure it’s to make clear to the base where the appetites are. But it also has a practical effect. It may be the case you will shut down abortion down in March,” Murray said. “If you’re a true believer, that would be the obvious thing to do.”

    Often new restrictions are quickly challenged by providers and blocked by courts. In many states, it’s unclear what immediate effect the laws have and what would happen to them if Roe is overturned or weakened. State attorneys general may have to go back to the courts and ask that unenforced laws be activated. And differences in state law and state constitutions may limit how far some individual legislatures can go. 

    But the uncertainty hasn’t stopped bills from moving through.

    Beyond Florida, whose bill would take effect July 1, West Virginia and Arizona are both pushing 15-week abortion bans through the legislature. Both of those bills have been heard so far by one legislative chamber, and appear on track to pass and then take effect this summer, though they may be quickly blocked. 

    Some of the states passing new legislation also have stricter abortion limits that have been previously blocked by courts. Currently, 16 states either have abortion bans on the books that predate Roe v. Wade or have passed legislation that could ban the procedure if Roe v. Wade is overturned—a so-called “trigger law.” Five, including West Virginia, have amended their constitutions to clarify that they do not specifically protect abortion rights. Kentucky voters will consider such an amendment this November, and Kansans will vote on one in August

    Some states are moving to enact trigger bans before the Supreme Court rules. Wyoming’s House of Representatives passed its own trigger bill Wednesday. Abortion rights organizers in Ohio expect the legislature to act on similar legislation this session. 

    And some are targeting medication abortion, a two-pill regimen that can be used to terminate a first-trimester pregnancy and is now the most common method used in the United States. Part of its rising popularity is due to a spring 2020 move from the federal Food & Drug Administration, which allowed it to be delivered by telemedicine. The pregnant person consults with a health care provider over the phone or the internet, and pills are mailed to them. If clinics close, more people could turn to medication abortion, especially if they do not have to travel to a health care facility.

    Currently, 16 states either have abortion bans on the books that predate Roe v. Wade or have passed legislation that could ban the procedure if Roe v. Wade is overturned—a so-called “trigger law.”

    Coming into this year, 19 states already had laws prohibiting virtual care for medication abortion. South Dakota’s legislature has just passed a bill that would do the same—codifying an executive order previously introduced by Gov. Kristi Noem—but the bill will not take effect until a federal court reverses a decision blocking Noem’s previous order. Georgia’s Senate has approved a similar bill to prohibit telemedicine for medication abortion that has yet to be voted on by the state House. 

    “All the stuff on telemedicine and medication abortion is basically to to get out in front of Dobbs, in case the court leaves any daylight for the prospect of abortion,” Murray said. “Telemedicine would be the obvious place where demand would be shifted if clinics close. I think that’s why you’re seeing a lot of interesting in limiting medication abortion.”

    Kentucky’s new bill also would impose new limits on medication abortion. But the part with the most potential impact would require abortion clinics to dispose of fetal tissue in a manner that providers say would be too expensive for them to sustain and would force them to shut down. Since access is already precarious—only two clinics provide abortions in the entire state—this could effectively end abortion access in the state even before the Dobbs ruling. 

    Because Kentucky’s Supreme Court has previously interpreted its constitution as guaranteeing the right to an abortion, a legal challenge could be successful if the new abortion bill, House Bill 3, is passed, said Tamarra Wieder, Kentucky state director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Indiana and Kentucky. But between the impending Dobbs ruling and the state’s proposed constitutional amendment, it’s unclear what protections will remain. And once clinics are forced to shut down, it is often difficult to reopen. 

    While many states introduced Texas-inspired abortion bans at the beginning of the year, few have moved. Texas enforces its bans via civil lawsuits, empowering private citizens to sue anyone who has helped “aid or abet” the provision of an abortion after six weeks. Lawmakers in Oklahoma and Idaho are so far the only ones to have even given their Texas-style bans a hearing, let alone a vote.  Florida was among the first states to see such a bill endorsed, before its legislative leadership opted for a 15-week ban instead. 

    For some lawmakers, it’s a source of tension: whether to wait on the high court, or act now and pass restrictions that may or may not withstand scrutiny.

    “I think we should wait and see what the ruling is. I think this is a little bit too quick,” said Jim Patrick, a Republican state senator in Idaho, during the chamber’s debate of their abortion restriction, which passed Thursday.

    Polling suggests that majorities across all political parties disapprove of the Texas law’s reliance on civil lawsuits to enforce an abortion ban. And in many states, lawmakers are counting on a ruling that does not need to rely on private lawsuits, an enforcement mechanism that was designed to evade being stopped by courts.  

    “You don’t need to pass new laws if you have old laws that aren’t enforced.”

    Katie Glenn, government affairs counsel for Americans United for Life, referring to previously blocked restrictions on abortion access

    “Even in Texas, that is not a forever solution,” Glenn said. “I think it’s seen as kind of a temporary tool. There are other states that are like, ‘Let’s wait and see what happens. We’ll maybe have a better law [already] on the books.’”

    Americans United for Life is currently working to identify laws that were previously passed and then blocked by the courts but that could be newly enforced after the court’s ruling, which is expected to come down this summer. Those could include near or total bans, or limitations that make it harder for clinics to provide abortions. The organization is also consulting with Republican attorneys general across the country about how to respond if Roe is overturned or weakened. 

    “That’s one of the things we’re looking at closely. You don’t need to pass new laws if you have old laws that aren’t enforced,” Glenn said. “They may need updates, but that’s a good starting point.”

    Depending on how the court rules, any opening for abortion rights could result in years of litigation, as providers try to figure out what services remain protected. The “devil is in the details,” Murray said.

    Currently, abortion clinics too are consulting with lawyers to see if and how they may be able to challenge any new abortion restrictions that take effect this summer or later. But the reigning uncertainty over how the court will rule means it’s not clear what claims clinics will have to file suit.

    “We’ve been talking with our lawyers about what different strategies might be depending on the decision,” said Jen Moore Conrow, who heads Preterm, an Ohio-based abortion clinic. “We can scenario plan all we want and we won’t know until the decision.” 

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • International comparisons to U.S. health outcomes make clear that GDP (Gross Domestic Product) cannot reliably suggest a healthcare system’s quality. Defined by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as “a monetary measure of the value of final goods and services,” GDP tells us nothing about the efficiency of health services or the accessibility of critical medical care such as vaccination, hospitalization and basic health exams – all important determinants of a healthcare system’s adaptability when emergencies put pressure on our health infrastructure.
    This is particularly true in the case of Cuba.

    The post What The U.S. Can Learn From Cuba’s Coronavirus Response appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On Friday starting at 6pm EST, experts will be breaking down the overcomplicated system we have now. Saturday’s stream kicks off at 12pm EST by exploring the shortcomings of healthcare in America. Sunday’s inspiring finale at 12pm EST will cover the path to a national single-payer system. Peppered throughout the panel discussions will be calls to action, exciting announcements, cameos from well-known Medicare For All supporters and live music from some of our friends.

    The post National Single Payer Summit, Fri. March 11 – Sun. March 13 appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The House of Representatives late Wednesday approved a $1.5 trillion government spending package that includes $782 billion in U.S. military funding, the largest portion of the must-pass omnibus legislation. The votes came after a long day of jostling behind the scenes as rank-and-file Democrats expressed outrage over how $15 billion in coronavirus aid was funded in the bipartisan measure: Namely, by repurposing money set aside for states in an earlier relief package.

    The post After Yanking Covid Relief, House Approves Package With $782 Billion For US Military appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • This story originally appeared in Truthout on March 10, 2022. It is shared here with permission.

    A Republican lawmaker in Missouri wants to forbid the transfer and prescription of abortion medications in the state, and to place severe penalties on anyone who helps another person use such drugs, even in cases where the pregnancy isn’t viable and could result in serious complications or death.

    Under Seitz’s bill, individuals who provide someone with abortion medication to terminate an ectopic pregnancy could be charged with a class A felony, including doctors or other medical personnel.

    Republican state Rep. Brian Seitz’s bill, HB 2810, would make it a felony offense to transport or make available “abortion-inducing devices or drugs” in the state. Under his proposal, anyone found guilty of doing so would be guilty of a class B felony, which would result in a prison sentence of five to 15 years.

    Because of the way the bill is written, it would actually impose greater penalties on individuals who help people with ectopic pregnancies get abortion-inducing medication. Ectopic pregnancies happen when a fertilized egg implants outside of a person’s uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tubes, and are almost universally non-viable as well as life-threatening.

    “An ectopic pregnancy can cause your fallopian tube to burst open. Without treatment, the ruptured tube can lead to life-threatening bleeding,” the MAYO Clinic states on its website.

    Under Seitz’s bill, individuals who provide someone with abortion medication to terminate an ectopic pregnancy could be charged with a class A felony, including doctors or other medical personnel. Individuals who are convicted of class A felonies face a minimum of 10 years in prison, and can even be sentenced to a lifetime behind bars.

    Seitz has promoted harsher sentences for individuals who help others access abortion procedures. In a debate on his bill, the Republican lawmaker said that he believes the penalties laid out in his proposal were not “strict enough.” When asked if he backed the death penalty for those providing abortion drugs, Seitz answered, “we’ll have to look at that in other legislation.”

    There is currently a slew of anti-abortion measures being considered by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature—including an amendment that is attached to many bills that would allow individuals to sue others who help facilitate abortions for Missouri residents, even if those abortions take place out of state. Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman’s (R) proposal would let people sue everyone from the doctor to the staffer scheduling the appointment.

    Olivia Cappello, the press officer for state media campaigns at Planned Parenthood, has described Coleman’s proposal as “wild” and “bonkers.”

    Copyright © Truthout.org. Reprinted with permission.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Pat O’Shane told a packed-out International Women’s Day celebration in Cairns about her lifetime of defiance against racism and authorities. Alex Bainbridge reports.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Just as New York case rates drop and officials roll back health requirements for schools and businesses, another coronavirus variant is showing signs of derailing the state’s recovery from the winter COVID surge.

    Known as BA.2, this virus is an offshoot, or sublineage, of the omicron variant that just swept through New York State. It’s like a kid sister, and some experts even call it “Omicron 2.” But it spreads about 30% faster than its sibling — BA.1 — and is just as severe, according to the World Health Organization.

    The post An Omicron ‘Subvariant’ Is Doubling In NY, Just As Mandates Lift appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Chairman Ron Johnson arrives for a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing in Dirksen Building on December 16, 2020.

    Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) suggested in an interview on Monday that if Republicans win control of Congress and the White House in 2024, they will work to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — a move they’ve attempted dozens of times without success.

    The law is popular throughout the U.S. and is viewed favorably by a majority of Johnson’s constituents in Wisconsin. But Johnson’s comments on Monday seemed to imply that Republicans would continue trying to undermine or repeal the law should they regain power in Washington.

    During a podcast interview with Breitbart, Johnson said that if Republicans won in 2024, it would allow them to “actually make good on what we established as our priorities.”

    “If we were going to repeal and replace Obamacare — I still think we need to fix our health-care system — we need to have the plan ahead of time so that once we get in office, we can implement it immediately, not knock around like we did last time and fail,” Johnson said, referencing the last time Republicans took control of both houses of Congress.

    For now, Johnson added, the GOP’s goal will be blocking President Joe Biden’s agenda if they win the 2022 midterms later this year.

    Johnson, who is seen as one of the most vulnerable incumbent senators running for re-election in this year’s midterm races, was immediately criticized for his statement.

    “Voters are learning exactly what Republicans will do with a Senate majority, in their own words: raise taxes on seniors and working families, end Medicare and Social Security — and once again try to spike the cost of health care while ripping away coverage protections from Americans with pre-existing conditions,” a statement from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee read.

    Later on Monday, Johnson attempted to walk back his statements on repealing the ACA, saying that he was only using the GOP’s 2017 attempt to repeal the law as an “example” of how Republicans failed in the past, and how they should change their strategies in the future.

    “I was not suggesting repealing and replacing Obamacare should be one of [the] priorities” for Republicans, he said. “Even when we tried and failed, I consistently said our effort should focus on repairing the damage done by Obamacare and transitioning to a health system that works.”

    Although Johnson claimed that criticisms of his original comments were “false attacks” against him, he did not say if he supported keeping the law in place.

    However, Johnson has been an ardent opponent of the ACA, and has voted consistently to repeal it at almost every possible opportunity. Even after Republicans moved on from attempts to repeal the ACA in 2017, the Wisconsin senator still insisted that the party should continue efforts to scrap the law.

    In addition to speaking out against the law more generally, Johnson has also voiced opposition to popular aspects of the law. He has proposed eliminating restrictions that prevent companies from using pre-existing conditions as a pretext to deny patients care, for example.

    Even though many election experts believe this year will result in huge wins for Republicans, Johnson faces difficult chances at reelection. A recent Marquette University Law School poll shows that only 33 percent of Wisconsin residents approve of the Republican senator, while 45 percent disapprove.

    It’s likely that much of this disapproval is the result of Johnson’s comments throughout the coronavirus pandemic, as the lawmaker falsely claimed that vaccines were harming athletes and peddled unproven treatments for COVID while deriding prevention methods against the virus that actually worked. Johnson has also reneged on a promise to adhere to self-imposed term limits. After promising voters that he would only serve two terms in office, Johnson announced earlier this year that he would be running for a third term.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • UN News

    Shocking abuses against indigenous Papuans have been taking place in Indonesia, say United Nations-appointed human rights experts who cite child killings, disappearances, torture and enforced mass displacement.

    “Between April and November 2021, we have received allegations indicating several instances of extrajudicial killings, including of young children, enforced disappearance, torture and inhuman treatment and the forced displacement of at least 5000 indigenous Papuans by security forces,” the three independent experts said in a statement.

    Special Rapporteurs Francisco Cali Tzay,  who protects rights of indigenous peoples,  Morris Tidball-Binz, who monitors extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, and Cecilia Jimenez-Damary,  covering human rights of Internally Displaced Persons, called for urgent humanitarian access to the region and urged the Indonesian government to conduct full and independent investigations into the abuses.

    They said that since the escalation of violence in December 2018, the overall number of displaced has grown by 60,000 to 100,000 people.

    “The majority of IDPs [internally displaced persons] in West Papua have not returned to their homes due to the heavy security force presence and ongoing armed clashes in the conflict areas,” the UN experts explained.

    Meanwhile, some IDPs have been living in temporary shelters or stay with relatives.

    “Thousands of displaced villagers have fled to the forests where they are exposed to the harsh climate in the highlands without access to food, healthcare, and education facilities,” the Special Rapporteurs said.

    Relief agencies have limited access
    Apart from ad hoc aid deliveries, humanitarian relief agencies have had limited or no access to the IDPs, they said.

    “We are particularly disturbed by reports that humanitarian aid to displaced Papuans is being obstructed by the authorities”.

    Moreover, severe malnutrition has been reported in some areas with lack of access to adequate and timely food and health services.

    “In several incidents, church workers have been prevented by security forces from visiting villages where IDPs are seeking shelter,” the UN experts said.

    They stressed that “unrestricted humanitarian access should be provided immediately to all areas where indigenous Papuans are currently located after being internally displaced.

    “Durable solutions must be sought.”

    ‘Tip of the iceberg’
    On a dozen occasions, the experts have written to the Indonesian government about numerous alleged incidents since late 2018.

    “These cases may represent the tip of the iceberg given that access to the region is severely restricted making it difficult to monitor events on the ground,” they warned.

    Meanwhile, the security situation in Highlands Papua had dramatically deteriorated since the 26 April 2021 killing of a high-ranking military officer by the West Papua National Liberation Army in West Papua.

    The experts pointed to the shooting of two children, aged two and six, on October 26, shot to death by stray bullets in their own homes, during a firefight. The two-year-old later died.

    End violations
    “Urgent action is needed to end ongoing human rights violations against indigenous Papuans,” the experts said, advocating for independent monitors and journalists to be allowed access to the region.

    They outlined steps that include ensuring all alleged violations receive thorough, “prompt and impartial investigations”.

    “Investigations must be aimed at ensuring those responsible, including superior officers where relevant, are brought to justice. Crucially lessons must be learned to prevent future violations,” the Rapporteurs concluded.

    Special Rapporteurs and independent experts are appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a specific human rights theme or a country situation.

    The positions are honorary and the experts are not paid for their work.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • In his State of the Union address tonight, 1 Mar 2022, Joe Biden stayed consistent with his campaign pledge to bury universal healthcare, throwing 30 million uninsured Americans under the bus along with at least 40 million under-insured.

    In tonight’s speech Biden used the simplest of expedients: silence. Amid all the easy applause lines, the leader of the world’s wealthiest nation whispered not a word about healthcare as a human right…

    The post Biden’s Silence Throws 30 Million Uninsured Americans Under The Bus appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Nikki Greenaway is a New Orleans-based family nurse practitioner, trained doula, and international board-certified lactation consultant who started a practice, Bloom Maternal Health, after her own experience with postpartum depression. She provides care for new moms through postpartum home visits to homeless shelters in under-resourced communities. The practice has since expanded to Texas as well. Greenaway, who is Black, seeks to address the maternal mortality crisis by providing community-oriented care for her patients and empowering young parents to advocate for themselves in an often hostile health care system.

    The post How Community Care Can Address The South’s Maternal Mortality Crisis appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Patient in hospital bed, hooked up to IV drip, hiding face with arm and holding cell phone

    Nearly a quarter of millennials and Gen Zers — essentially, all adults born during or after the early 1980s — have had a difficult time making housing payments as a result of medical debt, according to a HealthCare.com poll published earlier this month.

    Twenty-three percent of millennials (broadly defined as those born between the early 1980s and the mid 1990s) said that they’ve had to skip rent or mortgage payments because of medical debts, along with 25 percent of Gen Zers (those born from the mid 1990s through the early 2010s).

    Medical debts aren’t just a problem for people who are uninsured, either — 45 percent of millennials said that their health insurance didn’t fully cover services they received, resulting in debt. More than two-thirds of Gen Zers (68 percent) said that they also have substantial medical debt as a result of being underinsured.

    Medical debt makes it difficult for younger Americans to use their credit, the survey revealed. Thirty-seven percent of Gen Zers said debts from medical expenses negatively affected their credit scores, along with more than one in two millennials (52 percent).

    Jeff Smedsrud, co-founder of HealthCare.com, noted that people facing medical debts should be vigilant when it comes to having their benefits explained to them.

    “Folks should understand their Explanation of Benefits and get everyone – bill collectors, insurance firms, and your doctor – on the same page,” Smedsrud said in an email to Truthout. “Double-check your statement for accuracy and remember you may be able to negotiate a discount.”

    Nurses’ unions across the country have pointed out that the U.S.’s for-profit health care system is the root of the crisis, which has devastated both patients and health care workers, particularly over the course of the pandemic.

    “Nurses will tell you we are failing because we have let the interests of corporations and our hospital employers dictate our country’s response to this virus. Their goal is profit, not saving lives,” said National Nurses United President Zenei Triunfo-Cortez earlier this year.

    The results from the HealthCare.com poll mirror the results of a survey published in December, which highlights how the medical debt crisis is actually getting worse. In a Gallup and West Health poll, around 30 percent of Americans said that they have skipped getting health care when it was needed because they couldn’t afford the costs — a figure that is up from 18 percent when the same question was asked in February 2021.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Every now and then, federal officials admit some truths that are inconvenient to the corporations that own the government — and this latest admission is pretty explicit: Scrapping corporate health care and creating a government-sponsored medical system would boost the economy, help workers, and increase longevity.

    Those are just some of the findings from the Republican-led Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in a new report that implicitly tells lawmakers just how the existing corporate-run health care system is immiserating millions of Americans — and how a Medicare for All-style system could quickly fix the catastrophe.

    The post The Government Just Admitted An Inconvenient Truth appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human Services, testifies during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on June 9, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

    Rejecting pressure to terminate the program in its entirety, the Biden administration on Thursday announced it is redesigning a Trump-era experiment that physicians and progressive lawmakers have criticized as a scheme to fully privatize Medicare.

    Instead of ending what’s known as the Direct Contracting model, which the Trump administration officially launched in 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) gave the program a new name: ACO REACH, which stands for Accountable Care Organization Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health.

    In addition to the name change and fresh veneer — a step in line with the healthcare industry’s call for a “rebranding” — CMS said the program will now span four years instead of eight and will include requirements aimed at ensuring “transparency” and “equity.”

    The changes are slated to take effect on January 1, 2023.

    Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a doctor-led group that has spearheaded the opposition to Direct Contracting, was far from satisfied with the Biden administration’s changes, which the organization argued are more cosmetic than substantive.

    “ACO REACH is Direct Contracting in disguise,” said Dr. Susan Rogers, an internal medicine physician and president of PNHP. “This new model doubles down on Direct Contracting’s fatal flaws, inserting a profit-seeking middleman between beneficiaries and their providers.”

    Under Direct Contracting, so-called Direct Contracting Entities (DCEs) were paid monthly by CMS to cover a specified portion of a patient’s medical care. DCEs — the majority of which are currently controlled by investors, not healthcare providers — are allowed to pocket funds they didn’t spend on care.

    In a statement, PNHP — which has implored the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to fully halt the program — outlined how the revamped pilot “perpetuates the dangerous flaws” of the Trump administration’s Direct Contracting experiment:

    • First, like the DC model, ACO REACH will pay middlemen a flat fee to “manage” seniors’ health, allowing them to keep 40% of what they don’t spend on care as profit and overhead.
    • Next, Traditional Medicare beneficiaries will still be automatically enrolled into ACO REACH entities without their full understanding or consent, and once enrolled cannot opt out of an ACO REACH entity unless they change primary care providers.
    • Like DCEs, the ACO REACH program has virtually no limits on what type of company can participate; entities can be owned by commercial insurers, private equity investors, and other profit-seeking firms, including current Direct Contracting entities.
    • The new program increases provider governance from 25% to 75% (with loopholes built into the application process), but ACO REACH entities are ultimately accountable to investors.

    “You can’t slap a band-aid on a tumor and call it cured,” said Rogers. “Direct Contracting — and now ACO REACH — threatens the health of beneficiaries and the future of Traditional Medicare. As physicians committed to the health of our patients, we urge HHS to abandon this rebranding effort and focus the agency’s efforts towards strengthening and protecting Traditional Medicare.”

    CMS unveiled its raft of changes to the Medicare experiment just over a week after a coalition of industry groups — including active participants in the Direct Contracting program — requested that the Biden administration “fix” the model instead of ending it.

    The industry organizations suggested that “a rebranding and name change would… help communicate how this model is part of the evolution to accountable care.”

    CMS is headed by Elizabeth Fowler, who has previously worked at Johnson & Johnson and WellPoint, Inc. — now known as Anthem, one of the largest private health insurance companies in the United States.

    While CMS said Thursday that it took into account “feedback received from participants and stakeholders,” the new ACO REACH program is more in line with industry demands than those of physicians, grassroots advocacy groups, and progressive lawmakers.

    “Changing the name doesn’t change the fact that the Direct Contracting program is backdoor privatization of Medicare,” Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, said in a statement. “This dangerous experiment must be stopped before it further harms the health of vulnerable seniors, eats into the Medicare Trust Fund, and destroys traditional Medicare.”

    “DCEs and their investors — which include private equity firms — are focused on generating profits,” added Lawson. “They are incentivized to deny and delay care as much as possible. There are no changes that can address that fundamental flaw at the heart of the program. President Biden must protect older adults and people with disabilities by ending the direct contracting program immediately.”

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who earlier this month led more than 50 House Democrats in urging Biden to cut off the program, said Thursday that she will “continue to fight tooth and nail against any and all efforts to privatize Medicare.”

    “Trump-era Direct Contracting is a major threat to Medicare coverage, hidden in bureaucracy,” said Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “While I’m glad to see the administration taking steps to redesign this flawed program, I am disappointed that these changes will not be enacted for 10 months and that there are no limits on how many seniors are funneled into this experimental model. More needs to be done.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Physicians and progressive advocates on Tuesday urged the Department of Health and Human Services to reject an industry appeal to tweak and rebrand—not end altogether—a Medicare privatization scheme known as Direct Contracting, which the Trump administration launched in 2020.

    Members of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), which represents 24,000 doctors and other health professionals, has been working for months to bring lawmakers’ attention to the DC program and pressure the Biden administration to terminate it while it’s still in an experimental phase.

    The post Physicians Slam Industry Push To ‘Fix’—Not End—Medicare Privatization Scheme appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra answers questions at a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on September 30, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Physicians and progressive advocates on Tuesday urged the Department of Health and Human Services to reject an industry appeal to tweak and rebrand — not end altogether — a Medicare privatization scheme known as Direct Contracting, which the Trump administration launched in 2020.

    Members of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), which represents 24,000 doctors and other health professionals, has been working for months to bring lawmakers’ attention to the DC program and pressure the Biden administration to terminate it while it’s still in an experimental phase.

    As a result of PNHP’s efforts, dozens of Democrats — including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — have spoken out against the DC pilot, opposition that appears to have caught the notice of healthcare industry groups that stand to benefit from the program.

    In a letter sent earlier this week, more than 220 healthcare organizations — including active participants in the DC program known as Direct Contracting Entities (DCEs) — implored HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra “to not cancel” the privatization scheme and dismissed recent criticism of the experiment as “misleading and flat out false.”

    “Fix, don’t end, the Direct Contracting Model,” reads the letter. “For example, you can limit participation to certain types of DCEs, such as provider-led DCEs, and place additional guardrails and add more beneficiary protections. A rebranding and name change would also help communicate how this model is part of the evolution to accountable care.”

    But PNHP countered in a letter of its own on Tuesday that such “superficial tweaks and cosmetic changes will not alter DC’s fundamental flaws.”

    The industry coalition’s proposal to increase provider control over DCEs — the majority of which are currently controlled by investors — would do little to alter the DC program’s core imperatives, PHNP president Dr. Susan Rogers argued in the new letter to Becerra.

    “Even with more provider governance, DCEs are ultimately accountable to investors, which include private equity firms and commercial insurers active in [Medicare Advantage],” Rogers wrote. “Investors want a return on their investment, creating a dangerous incentive for DCEs to both maximize revenues through upcoding, and minimize medical expenditures by restricting patient care.”

    As for the industry recommendation of additional “guardrails” for the DC program, Rogers wrote, “Our experience from Medicare’s other managed care experiment, Medicare Advantage, shows that when regulators install new guardrails that threaten profits, the industry will simply build a bigger truck to run them over.”

    “The DCE industry represents its own interests and that of its investors, and does not speak for physicians,” Rogers continued. “As physicians, we urge you to end the dangerous DC program and work tirelessly to strengthen and protect Traditional Medicare, both for today and for generations to come.”

    The Trump administration quietly announced the DC pilot in April 2019 despite internal legal concerns about the program, under which the federal government pays DCEs to cover a specified portion of a patient’s medical care.

    DCEs are allowed to keep as profit the funding they don’t spend on care, a set-up that critics say incentivizes DCEs to skimp on patients.

    “Direct contracting is nothing more than privatizing Medicare,” Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works, said in a statement Tuesday. “It inserts a corporate bureaucrat between a patient and their doctor in order to deny care and make Wall Street money. The Biden administration must completely eliminate Direct Contracting — nothing less than that is acceptable.”

    The DC experiment, which the Biden administration has thus far refused to cancel, was developed by Adam Boehler, who served as director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) during Donald Trump’s presidency.

    Prior to his tenure at CMMI, Boehler was the CEO of Landmark Health, a venture capital-backed startup that was selected in late 2020 to participate in the DC pilot.

    CMMI is currently headed by Elizabeth Fowler, the former vice president of public policy and external affairs for WellPoint, Inc. — a firm that later became Anthem, one of the largest for-profit insurance companies in the U.S. and a major player in the Medicare Advantage industry.

    “We can’t afford even more for-profit middlemen getting between America’s seniors and the care they need, especially seniors that chose to avoid Medicare Advantage for a variety of reasons,” argued Eagan Kemp, a health policy advocate for Public Citizen. “HHS should be working to strengthen Medicare, not pushing seniors into an untested program where for-profit companies can benefit by denying care. There are much more savings to be had by cracking down on Medicare Advantage than through pushing seniors into Direct Contracting.”

    Advocates and healthcare professionals fear that if the DC program is allowed to run its course, traditional Medicare could be fully privatized by the end of the decade — without the consent of patients or a vote in Congress.

    “Direct Contracting Entities and their Wall Street investors hoped they could fly under the radar of seniors, healthcare advocates, and members of Congress,” Rogers said in a statement Tuesday. “Now that HHS is feeling pressure to end this backdoor privatization of Medicare, the industry thinks they can save it with minor tweaks and cosmetic fixes. But we won’t back down until Direct Contracting is shut down, for good.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • African countries continually find themselves at the back of the vaccine queue, but two developments could begin to change this narrative. Last week, researchers at a company in South Africa said that they have nearly completed the process of reproducing Moderna’s mRNA vaccine against COVID-19. Working with the WHO’s technology-transfer hub, the researchers at Afrigen Biologics and Vaccines in Cape Town made very small quantities of vaccine, based on Moderna’s data, but without the company’s involvement. The WHO advised them to copy Moderna’s vaccine in part because the company, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has said it will not enforce its COVID-19 patents during the pandemic.

    The post Africa Is Bringing Vaccine Manufacturing Home appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.