Category: health care

  • More than 4,000 nurses from Stanford health care are on strike in Palo Alto on Monday.

    Nurses from Stanford Hospital went on strike at 6:45 a.m. and nurses from Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital in Palo Alto went to the picket line at 7 a.m.

    The nurses say they are serious and united as they negotiate with Stanford Hospital and Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital for better pay, better staffing and more mental health support.

    The post Thousands Of Bay Area Nurses Go On Strike Over Pay, Bonuses And Mental Health Services appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Senator Bernie Sanders has announced that he is going to introduce his Medicare for All bill in the Senate—and hold a hearing.  This is most welcome news. As Bernie campaigned for the presidency, he elevated national single payer health care, an improved Medicare for All, into the public spotlight and onto the nation’s agenda. His advocacy for Medicare for All informed millions and lifted spirits building hope that a universal single payer plan is possible in the US. He has not done that well at writing legislation.  His most recent bill, the Medicare for All Act of 2019 (S. 1129), falls short of essential single payer principles and lets stand billions in profits that will undermine care and steal public funds.

    The post Hey, Bernie, Make It A Real Single Payer Bill…No Profits appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The COVID-19 pandemic forced public attention somewhere it doesn’t often go: nursing homes. Since March 2020, more than 200,000 deaths from COVID-19 have been reported among residents and staff of long-term care facilities across the country. While congregate living spaces are inherently dangerous in a pandemic — especially ones full of medically vulnerable people — COVID’s spread through these homes was intensified by preexisting problems like understaffed facilities and overworked, underpaid employees.

    In some cases, this spurred action. Linking poor patient care to facilities’ spending priorities, New York State passed April 2021 legislation requiring nursing homes to spend at least 70 percent of their revenue on direct patient care (including 40 percent on patient-facing staffing), and banning them from paying out more than 5 percent in profits to owners and shareholders. Instead, the facilities must turn over to the state any surplus beyond 5 percent, which will be redistributed back to high-performing nursing homes. The law also addresses understaffing concerns by requiring facilities to provide at least 3.5 hours of direct nursing care to each resident each day.

    “The goal is here to not only protect people in nursing homes but to dissuade bad actors from coming into this business,” Sen. Gustavo Rivera, New York Senate health committee chair, said in a statement.

    But just before the law was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, a collection of 239 nursing homes filed a federal lawsuit aiming to block the law, calling it unconstitutional for New York to “confiscate” their excess profits. Notably, much of the complaint outlines how the law — if it had been in effect in 2019 — would have diminished the plaintiffs’ profits by a total of $824 million.

    After the lawsuit was filed, Gov. Kathy Hochul repeatedly delayed the law’s implementation, citing the pandemic and nursing homes’ ongoing staffing problems. But in April, she allowed the law to go into effect.

    Now it is up to the state of New York to enforce the law — and the court to decide whether it is constitutional.

    Strapped for Cash While Turning Huge Profits

    It is clear that many nursing homes fail to provide the level of care patients deserve. But there is a central disagreement over the cause of the problem. Nursing homes routinely say they are barely staying afloat and unable to afford sufficient staff. In a 2020 survey, 55 percent of nursing homes claimed they are operating at a loss and 72 percent said they could not make it another year at their current rate.

    In fact, one of the main goals of the powerful nursing home lobby is to increase federal Medicaid and Medicare payments, which make up the bulk of nursing home revenue. (In a recent quarter, 68 percent of nursing home revenue came from Medicaid, which pays a per diem for long-term residents. Another 10.9 percent came from Medicare, which is paid out at a higher rate for patients receiving higher-level, shorter-term care after a hospital stay.)

    But advocates say nursing homes are skimping on critical services in order to make massive profits for owners and investors. And they have new ammunition in the form of the recent lawsuit.

    Departing from the usual claims of barely scraping by, the 239 named plaintiffs allege in the lawsuit that a profit cap would remove hundreds of millions in profits. Advocates like the LongTerm Care Community Coalition (LTCCC) say these claims only prove these facilities have been making money all along — the funds just haven’t been reinvested into patient care.

    “It was shocking,” said LTCCC Executive Director Richard Mollot. “To actually divulge how much money they’re making, above a fairly nominal requirement, was really shocking to me.”

    Using the 2019 profits reported in the lawsuit, LTCCC calculated that the facilities could have used those profits to pay annual salaries and benefits for an additional 5,600 full-time registered nurses.

    So are nursing homes reaping profits or struggling to provide basic care? Their financial structures lie at the heart of this discrepancy. Over the past two decades, many nursing homes throughout the country have restructured their businesses by splitting their operations and real estate into separate LLCs. This allows them to shield their valuable real estate assets from financial threats like patient lawsuits.

    Many go a step further and spin off into multiple sub-companies, called “related parties,” that bill each other for services, often at high rates. Around the country, nearly three-quarters of nursing homes do business with related parties. Many nursing homes are owned by publicly traded corporations (although this is banned in New York) or private equity firms. Private equity investment in nursing homes jumped from $5 billion in 2000 to more than $100 billion in 2018; currently, 5 percent of nursing homes are owned by private equity firms. However, “Roughly 70 percent of the nation’s 15,400 nursing homes are for-profit,” as Maureen Tkacik points out in The American Prospect.

    “​​Sometimes, investors would buy a nursing home from an operator only to lease back the building and charge the operator hefty management and consulting fees,” The New York Times found in a 2020 investigation of private equity-owned nursing homes. “Investors also pushed nursing homes to buy ambulance transports, drugs, ventilators and other products or services at above-market rates from other companies they owned.”

    For example, a 2018 Kaiser Health News investigation found that Allenbrooke Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Memphis, Tennessee, reported a $2 million deficit and was often short of basic supplies like diapers and sheets. Meanwhile, the facility was paying out millions to other companies owned by the two Long Island men who owned Allenbrooke and 32 other nursing homes.

    And Brooklyn-based Joseph Schwartz grew Skyline Healthcare, his nursing home empire, from six facilities to more than 100 between 2015 and 2017. No oversight bodies intervened as he continued purchasing new homes, even as his facilities received complaints of neglect and mismanagement, drew fines, and some even lost Medicare and Medicaid certification. Today, he faces a host of charges and lawsuits; among them, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge alleges Schwartz lied on Medicaid reports in order to siphon $3 million to other companies he owns.

    A 2020 analysis found that nursing homes purchased by private equity firms had 10 percent higher short-term mortality, which the authors equated to 21,000 lives lost over a 10-year period. Spending at these facilities was also 19 percent higher than similar nursing homes.

    An attorney specializing in nursing home finances told California Sunday that this financial structure allows nursing homes to make plenty of profits, but then “to go to the state legislature, to Senate sub-hearings, and say, ‘I have all these nursing homes, and they barely break even. We need more Medicare money. More Medicaid. We need bigger reimbursements. You guys are killing us!”

    The American Prospect dug into the facilities that joined the New York lawsuit, finding that 8 of the 40 most profitable ones on the list are co-owned by members of a single family, and that 25 others are owned by their “business partners or closest associates.” Many of the most profitable facilities in the lawsuit are similarly owned by extremely wealthy, often interconnected individuals.

    In fact, around the country, a relatively small network of individuals and families own massive nursing home empires. “In New York, it’s almost like, frankly, like a mafioso, with these family groups that are somehow related,” said Mollot.

    Some of the facilities joining the lawsuit have been identified by the state as Special Focus Facilities, meaning they have a history of serious quality issues. And seven were among the 11 sued by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York in June 2021, for allegedly overbilling Medicare between 2010 and 2019. According to that lawsuit, the nursing homes “systematically kept patients at the facilities longer than necessary” and “systematically put patients on higher levels of rehabilitation therapy than necessary based on their actual clinical needs.”

    The Pandemic Shed Light on Longstanding Problems

    The New York law that recently went into effect was included as part of last year’s state budget, amid outrage over the Cuomo administration’s mishandling of COVID-19 in nursing homes.

    In March 2020, as New York became the epicenter of the pandemic, the state required nursing homes to admit sick people from hospitals. Soon after, then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo bowed to industry lobbyists and inserted a special protection into the 2020 state budget, shielding nursing homes, hospitals and health care providers from COVID-related lawsuits.

    What’s more, multiple audits show that Cuomo’s Department of Health undercounted the state’s total nursing home COVID death toll, by not counting 4,100 nursing home residents who died outside their facilities in hospitals.

    “Instead of providing accurate and reliable information during a public health emergency, the Department conformed its presentation to the Executive’s narrative, often presenting data in a manner that misled the public,” State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said in a March 2022 audit.

    Over the ensuing two years, the pandemic has forced a closer look at nursing homes in New York. Legislators repealed the special liability protections in March 2021, unleashing a flood of dozens of lawsuits from families seeking to hold nursing homes accountable for their loved ones’ COVID-19 deaths before the two-year statute of limitations expires. Although it was initially unclear whether the liability repeal would be retroactive, a Supreme Court judge in Buffalo recently allowed a suit to move forward on behalf of a woman who died in a nursing home in April 2020.

    There has also been renewed concern over the nursing home staffing crisis. Currently, only Washington, D.C. requires nursing homes to provide 4.1 hours of direct nursing care each day, in line with minimum standards recommended in a 2001 report by the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The Biden administration recently proposed a set of nursing home reforms, including instituting a federal minimum staffing requirement (which would be set by CMS following a new research study) for all nursing homes that receive federal funding.

    The nursing home industry is pushing back against Biden’s proposal, just as it pushed back against New York’s newly mandated 3.5 hours of direct nursing care a day. The industry claims staffing minimums are impossible to meet because the workforce simply does not exist. “New York does not have enough qualified workers to meet the mandate and it fails to provide enough funding to pay for the costs of the mandate,” the New York State Health Facilities Association said in a statement regarding New York’s bill.

    But advocates say, if anything, New York’s law does not go far enough, and that understaffing stems from low salaries, poor working conditions, burnout and a lack of dignity on the job. National turnover rates for nursing home staff are around 100 percent, meaning that about as many people leave in a given year as are employed at a facility.

    “If you’re not meeting 3.5 hours, I don’t see how you’re not neglecting your residents,” said Mollot, noting that the originally introduced version of the legislation required 4.1 direct care hours per day. “Essentially, if you’re not providing 4.1 hours of direct care time, to me, that’s fraud in one of two ways: Either you’re not providing the care that residents need, or you’re retaining residents who don’t need to be in a nursing home. Because if they need to be in a nursing home, they need 4.1 hours… It’s not a warehouse.”

    Meanwhile, two other states recently joined New York as the first states attempting to improve nursing home quality by preventing owners from siphoning off profits. In Massachusetts, a new rule instituted by the governor requires nursing homes to spend 75 percent of revenue on resident care, and a recent New Jersey law requires 90 percent.

    “If they’re not able to pull so much money away from care and spend it on staffing and actual services, it should make a big difference,” Charlene Harrington, an expert in nursing home reimbursement and regulation, told Fortune, referring to the three state rules capping profits. “I would expect the quality of care would improve substantially.”

    “I think that people really saw what was going on, and how much of it wasn’t a standalone issue, because of the pandemic,” said Mollot, of the bills seeking to limit profits and improve care. “The residents are dying. I don’t care if you’re 90 or 100 or older. You don’t deserve to suffocate to death, in pain, because no one’s caring for you, because they were sloppy in their care.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Since the pandemic began, the United States has spent 7.5 times more money on nuclear weapons than on global vaccine donations. Stated another way, the money put towards global vaccine donations has amounted to just 13% of the money put toward nuclear weapons. The comparison shows that, even during a shared international crisis, in which an outbreak anywhere threatens people everywhere, the U.S. political apparatus is far more willing to fund instruments of death than vaccines that protect life.

    The post The U.S. Spent 7.5 Times More On Nuclear Weapons Than Global Vaccine Donations appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

    On Thursday, ProPublica added staff COVID-19 vaccination data to the Nursing Home Inspect project.

    The virus has killed more than 150,000 nursing home residents and staff since the beginning of the pandemic. Experts say that staff vaccination is a key part of protecting residents from outbreaks in their homes, but thousands of workers remain unvaccinated despite a federal COVID-19 vaccination mandate for health care employees. Some of those unvaccinated workers are claiming medical exemptions, which doctors say should be rare.

    Nursing Home Inspect already lets the public, researchers and reporters search deficiency reports and other data across more than 15,000 nursing homes in the United States. Now, users can quickly compare staff COVID-19 vaccination and booster rates across states and between nursing homes.

    Each state page allows users to sort homes by vaccination rate, making it easy to identify homes in your state with very low or very high vaccination rates. For each nursing home, a chart allows users to see how the home compares with both state and national averages.

    Additionally, we have removed the COVID-19 case and death count data from the database because the figures were reported cumulatively and do not provide an accurate picture of recent outbreaks.

    If you write a story using this new information, or you come across bugs or problems, please let us know!

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

  • The Biden administration aims to revise a controversial rule, crafted under former President Donald Trump, that would have allowed doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other workers in the medical field to refuse service to individuals if they claimed that serving them would conflict with their religious beliefs.

    The “conscience rule,” which was announced in 2018 by the Trump administration and finalized in 2019, has never been enforced; federal judges blocked its implementation, noting that it could have profound and disturbing repercussions for many groups of people. Still, President Joe Biden’s plan to reverse the rule is significant, as it will ensure that such restrictions won’t be imposed in the near future, rendering the policy moot and unenforceable regardless of its judicial outcomes.

    Politico was the first to report on the rule’s reversal, stating on Tuesday that a spokesperson from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had told them that the change was coming soon.

    “HHS has made clear through the unified regulatory agenda that we are in the rulemaking process,” that spokesperson told the publication.

    Changes to the rule could happen as soon as the end of this month, they added.

    The rule, had it been enforced, would have granted a wide range of workers in the health field the ability to deny care to customers or patients for myriad reasons, including bigoted ones, so long as they cited a religious or moral justification for their discrimination.

    The Trump administration claimed the rule was necessary to ensure that such workers wouldn’t be “bullied out” of their professions for discriminating against people or refusing to provide certain types of care.

    The rule could have allowed pharmacists to deny the filling of prescriptions to customers seeking certain types of birth control, for example. It also could have granted doctors and nurses the ability to turn away patients seeking abortions, STI or HIV services, or gender-affirming care, all on the basis of their religious beliefs. Critics also contended that the Trump-era rule would have allowed doctors to turn LGBTQ patients away from their doors altogether.

    The decision to rescind the rule comes as many GOP-led state governments aim to restrict health care choices, particularly abortion.

    “As state politicians continue to strip people of their sexual and reproductive rights and freedoms, it’s imperative that the Biden-Harris administration revoke this discriminatory policy and help ensure people can access the health care and information they need when they need it,” said Jacqueline Ayers, the senior vice president of policy, organizing and campaigns for Planned Parenthood. “We look forward to seeing the details of the new rule and are excited about this step forward.”

  • By law, people in prison have a right to get the health care they need. In the late 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court decision Estelle v Gamble set the standard for medical rights of prisoners. But prison authorities are being criminally negligent in not providing adequate health care to incarcerated people.

    As the jailed population ages, 40% have chronic health conditions. The cost of providing health care has skyrocketed and local, state and federal governments have contracted with for-profit prison health care companies as a way of tightening their budgets. 

    Private companies give a per diem rate for basic and specialty care – which would be lower if services were publicly provided. The negotiated per diem rate creates a huge profit incentive.

    The post Gross Negligence In For-Profit Prison Health Care appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • An anti-abortion group that masquerades as progressive in an attempt to gain a following in liberal cities suddenly surged into mainstream news headlines this spring after the Washington Metro Police Department recovered five fetuses from the apartment of anti-abortion activist Lauren Handy.

    Handy is a member of the group “Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising” (PAAU), which announced its formation in September 2021. The group claims to be “pro-BIPOC” and “pro-LGBTQ,” but in practice, the group’s actions align with a violent, right-wing anti-abortion tradition.

    After a few months of invading clinics and harassing patients at clinic entrances on the East Coast and West Coast with little press coverage, PAAU received national attention in late March after the fetuses were found at Handy’s apartment. Handy was one of nine anti-abortion activists who were charged on March 30 with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, for an incident in October 2020 wherein the activists chained themselves to the entrance of a D.C. abortion clinic. The police investigated Handy’s apartment after receiving a tip about potential biohazard materials being stored there, according to their statement.

    At a press conference to address the findings, PAAU appeared alongside Randall Terry, the founder of the notorious anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. Operation Rescue has been linked to the murder of abortion providers such as George Tiller. Terry called on “cowardly Christians” to act against what he described as the “violence” of abortion. Terry is one of many non-progressive allies that PAAU has aligned with in its short existence.

    Before this gruesome and shocking story made headlines, we were well-aware of Lauren Handy and PAAU. We’re members of NYC for Abortion Rights, a group of socialist feminist organizers who are building a grassroots movement for free abortion on demand. As a part of that work, we regularly defend clinics in our area from a range of anti-abortion groups, most recently PAAU. PAAU’s leadership reflexively claims to be “atheist” and liberal,” and they employ terminology like “Abortion Industrial Complex” and “Big Abortion.” They use the language of abolition and social justice to talk about abortion, casting fetuses as “the unborn,” which they frame as a marginalized group. Unlike many other anti-abortion organizations, PAAU is only active in liberal cities and states, where counterprotests against abortion are more likely to take place. These are also the cities and states that might be safe havens for abortion access if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

    Shortly before news broke of Handy’s arrest, we encountered PAAU outside Manhattan’s Planned Parenthood on Bleecker Street. Members were beating on bucket drums and chanting, “We are clinic invaders and yours is next!”

    Terrisa Bukovinac (left), is the founder and executive director of Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising. The group claims to be “pro-BIPOC” and “pro-LGBTQ,” but in practice, the group’s actions align with a violent, right-wing, anti-abortion tradition.
    Terrisa Bukovinac (left), is the founder and executive director of Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising. The group claims to be “pro-BIPOC” and “pro-LGBTQ,” but in practice, the group’s actions align with a violent, right-wing, anti-abortion tradition.

    When we talk about PAAU and similar threats with other New Yorkers, we hear the same refrain: “Wow, I didn’t know this happened in New York.” There’s a great deal of complacency — an assumption that abortion rights in liberal cities like New York City will forever be enshrined in law, and that the threat to reproductive justice and autonomy only exists in red states. What this complacency fails to take into account is that the “pro-life” movement is extensive and well-funded. Many of its activists are perfectly fine with breaking the law and risking arrest in order to prevent pregnant people from accessing safe abortions; they have the infrastructure, funding and organization to take those risks, and face little consequences from law enforcement.

    Those who are somewhat acquainted with the history of abortion in the U.S. will recall the bad old days of the 1980s and ‘90s, when opponents of abortion access would attempt to physically storm clinics to prevent patients from entering — and clinic defenders would link arms to stop them (not to mention the murder and stalking of abortion doctors and the bombing of clinics). The passage of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) act in 1994, which made it a felony to obstruct the entrance of a medical clinic or impede its operations, put a temporary damper on this type of aggression. But it’s coming back.

    Some might imagine the police will protect abortion seekers. However, trusting in the New York City Police Department to enforce abortion rights is a losing strategy. We have never once seen cops help patients enter the clinic safely or even enforce the FACE Act as anti-abortion activists congregate right in front of the clinic doors. In fact, when asked why they aren’t enforcing the FACE Act, police often say they don’t know what it is. We have often witnessed police simply escorting the anti-abortion activists as they lead their march to harass patients.

    PAAU isn’t the only anti-abortion organization active in major cities. Love Life is a far right evangelical organization dedicated primarily to overthrowing reproductive rights. Founded in North Carolina by the sons of Flip Benham — a notorious anti-abortion figure with a record of stalking abortion doctors — the well-funded nonprofit has opened offices in New York City, specifically with the view of combating what it describes as “the abortion capital of the world.”

    Here’s what members of Love Life said to their viewers on a livestream from outside Manhattan’s Bleecker Street Planned Parenthood: “People ask us, ‘why don’t you stay in church and pray?’ Because we are called as Christians to go to where the heart of the evil is — where abortion takes place.”

    Love Life has repeatedly conducted “sidewalk counseling,” or harassment of abortion patients, outside the Bleecker Street Planned Parenthood.

    These types of actions are not simply led by a marginal fringe. The Archdiocese of New York has organized “prayer walks” to abortion clinics and sidewalk counseling for the past several years. These are often led by Father Fidelis Moscinski. Moscinski is a leading figure in a national network of “Red Rose Rescuers” — a campaign of clinic invasion where participants trespass into abortion clinics, harass abortion patients, and refuse to leave.

    Moscinski has been arrested in several cities doing this — though not in New York, yet. In a recent video, Moscinski and a fellow anti-abortion activist reminisced fondly about the days when activists would chain themselves to clinic entrances — and urged viewers to consider risking arrest to participate in Red Rose Rescues. They call this “civil disobedience.”

    Two summers ago, NYC for Abortion Rights members literally linked arms with Planned Parenthood volunteers outside the Bleecker Street clinic as members of an anti-abortion group attempted to storm the doors. “I’ve been doing this for thirty years,” one of the volunteers said. “This hasn’t happened since the ‘90s.” PAAU has been replicating these tactics, engaging in “Pink Rose Rescues” in many cities.

    If Roe falls — which seems increasingly likely — we can’t just blithely assume that reproductive rights will be unassailable in cities like New York City. The anti-abortion movement has established a presence here too. We need to be prepared for the anti-abortion movement to escalate the tactics it is engaging in already — bussing and flying demonstrators here to harass patients and blockade clinic entrances. Instead of 50 anti-abortion activists outside the clinic, we need to be prepared for there to be hundreds of them.

    Though there is limited research on the topic, evidence suggests that clinic harassment is harmful for patients and providers alike. A 2013 study published in the journal Contraception found that for patients who had a more difficult time deciding to get an abortion, encountering protesters was especially upsetting. As clinic harassment has ramped up post-Trump, a more recent study conducted with Louisiana abortion patients found that anti-abortion protesters often physically block clinic access and cause anxiety, though they have a minimal effect on the decision to get an abortion by patients who’ve decided to undergo the procedure.

    For providers, clinic harassment taxes already limited resources to protect patients and employees from aggressive anti-abortion protesters. Clinics often need to hire security and engage with local police departments, which can stress both patients and providers. In the same 2013 study, researchers surveyed a sample of clinics across the U.S. and found that 83 percent of clinics that reported the presence of protesters reported that their staff have to regularly comfort patients who encounter protesters, and the remaining 17 percent occasionally provide comfort to patients who’ve encountered protesters. This emotional labor from clinic staff puts further strain on already taxed clinic resources. According to a 2020 report by Abortion Care Network, the number of independent abortion clinics in the U.S. has decreased by 34 percent since 2012. Nikki Madsen, the executive director of Abortion Care Network, partially attributed clinic closures to the increasing cost of maintaining security to protect the clinic from protesters and the difficulty in hiring clinic staff due to safety concerns.

    As the fight against abortion access has gained strength in the courts and state legislatures, it has intensified on the ground. According to the National Abortion Federation’s Violence and Disruption Statistics for 2020, abortion providers reported an escalation of aggressive behavior from protesters. In 2020, providers reported 115,517 picketing incidents, which was down from 2019’s record 123,228 reported incidents. As anti-abortion extremists succeed in banning abortion in conservative states, we are concerned they will take their fight to abortion safe havens on the coasts. Those of us working to protect abortion access in our liberal states must be prepared to counter these extremists effectively.

    There is certainly debate about to what extent street-based clinic defense is useful, even among supporters of abortion rights. However, in our work, these tactics have proven to be essential. We impede the anti-abortion demonstrators as they march, delaying them from reaching the clinic; we disrupt the livestreaming in front of the clinic that many organizations depend on to build their base. But most importantly, we resist anti-abortion activists’ attempts to shame and intimidate abortion patients through symbolically claiming the streets as well as the bodies of pregnant people. Directly resisting them shows that we will not surrender our bodily autonomy so easily.

    Insisting that abortion is a solely medical issue with no political valence, insisting that it can be solely defended by the courts and upheld by law enforcement, and insisting that the anti-abortion movement will be content with overturning Roe and leaving abortion up to the states are all losing tactics. People in blue states who are interested in preserving reproductive rights must build a grassroots movement to defend them. The anti-abortion movement already knows that ground-level action works; it’s time we learned it too.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on April 14, 2022. It is shared here with permission under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

    After Florida’s GOP governor on Thursday signed a 15-week abortion ban inspired by a contested Mississippi law that could soon reverse Roe v. Wade, pro-choice advocates warned of impacts across the region, given that the Sunshine State has long been “an oasis of reproductive care in the South.”

    The Center for Reproductive Rights—which is helping challenge the Mississippi law—similarly pointed out that “Florida has been a critical haven for abortion access in the South, and this ban will decimate abortion access for Floridians and the entire region.”

    With Gov. Ron DeSantis’ support, Florida’s law is set to take effect this summer. His signature came after Republican state legislators in Kentucky on Wednesday overrode their Democratic governor’s veto of a similar bill and GOP Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt on Tuesday signed a near-total abortion ban.

    In a tweet about the recent developments, the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute said the latest state-level bans “not only violate the rights and autonomy of people seeking essential care, but will devastate abortion access across large parts of the nation.”

    The Center for Reproductive Rights—which is helping challenge the Mississippi law—similarly pointed out that “Florida has been a critical haven for abortion access in the South, and this ban will decimate abortion access for Floridians and the entire region.”

    Florida “allows abortions up to 24 weeks, the limit defined in the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade,” HuffPost explained as the measure moved through the Legislature earlier this year. “For hundreds of miles, other states have much more restrictive policies—if you headed west from Florida, you’d have to go all the way through the deep South and Texas to New Mexico to find a similar level of reproductive care and accessibility.”

    As HuffPost reported:

    The legislation is modeled directly after the 15-week abortion ban in Mississippi that was debated in front of the Supreme Court last month in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Mississippi law threatens to move the federal gestational limit allowed in Roe from 24 weeks to 15 weeks. Mississippi has also asked the conservative Supreme Court majority to overturn Roe altogether. Although the decision in the case is not expected until June, many experts and advocates believe that Roe will either be gutted or overturned.

    The Florida ban would go into effect on July 1, 2022, likely weeks or even days after the Supreme Court rules in that case.

    Highlighting that Florida joins not only Kentucky but also Arizona in recently banning abortions after 15 weeks, NARAL Pro-Choice America president Mini Timmaraju noted Thursday that “this is a shameless step towards what could be a terrifying new future for reproductive freedom in the country.”

    “Anti-choice politicians across the United States, emboldened by the Supreme Court’s anti-choice supermajority, are clamoring at the opportunity to enact abortion bans like Mississippi’s,” she added. “No matter what kind of ban, let’s be clear: They are all meant to take away people’s freedom to make their own decisions about pregnancy and parenthood and impose one-size-fits-all restrictions.”

    Laura Goodhue, executive director of Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, was similarly critical, charging that “by signing this cruel piece of legislation, Gov. Ron DeSantis has taken away Floridians’ freedom to control their own bodies.”

    “The so-called ‘Free State of Florida’ will never be truly free so long as politicians like DeSantis are able to impose their beliefs on the rest of us,” she said. “This is a full-scale assault on patients and their healthcare providers.”

    Some critics emphasized that Florida’s looming law—which has no exceptions for rape or incest and limits abortions to protect the life and health of the pregnant person—will disproportionately impact marginalized communities.

    As Kara Gross, legislative director and senior policy counsel at the ACLU of Florida, put it: “Gov. DeSantis and the Florida Legislature’s shameful abortion ban would push abortion care out of reach for countless Floridians.”

    “It is not always possible for people to obtain an abortion within the arbitrary timeframe provided in this bill, even if they’ve been trying to get one for weeks,” she pointed out. “There are already so many barriers to abortion care, especially for young people, those with fewer resources, and those who live in rural areas.”

    “Make no mistake: If this abortion ban goes into effect, it would have devastating consequences for pregnant people, especially those who are not able to afford to travel out of state in search of the essential healthcare they need,” Gross said, vowing that her group “will take swift legal action to protect Floridians’ rights and defend against this cruel attack on our bodily autonomy.”

    State legislation resembling Mississippi’s 15-week ban as well as a Texas measure that empowers anti-choice vigilantes to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion after six weeks—before many people know they are pregnant—has bolstered calls for Congress to codify Roe into federal law.

    The Women’s Health Protection Act would do just that. Although all but one Democrat in the US House of Representatives passed the bill shortly after the Texas law took effect last year, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) in February joined with the upper chamber’s Republicans to block it.

    The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights tweeted Thursday that “restrictive abortion laws are yet another way in which healthcare access is denied to those who face systemic oppression in this country—and that is why we urgently need the Women’s Health Protection Act.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

    Every year, thousands of Americans facing liver failure try to get new organs. Many of these are successful. But some experiences with the liver transplant process go wrong. The chances of success often depend on which hospital replaces your liver, according to data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients.

    Problems with liver transplants can occur before a transplant, during surgery or after the procedure. Medical experts said that issues might stem from failing to document that a donor’s blood type is compatible with the recipient or medical errors during surgery. There is also evidence that a disproportionate number of people of color do not get the help they need. We hope this questionnaire can help us make a more complete list of when, how and why problems occur.

    We want to speak with patients who have faced adverse outcomes, as well as family members who lost loved ones to the medical process. We also want to speak with medical providers or regulators familiar with the process to better understand how it works.

    Will you help ProPublica reporter Max Blau learn about the liver transplant process? If you have insights that could help guide our reporting, please fill out our brief questionnaire below.

    OUR COMMITMENT TO YOUR PRIVACY: We appreciate you sharing your story, and we take your privacy seriously. We are gathering these stories for the purposes of our reporting, and we will not publish your name or information without your consent.

    We are the only ones reading what you submit. If you would prefer to use an encrypted app, see our advice at propublica.org/tips. You can message Max Blau on Signal at 224-436-2120 or max.blau@propublica.org.

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

  • 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.

    Mental health programs for children and adolescents will get a major infusion of funds in New York state’s new $220 billion budget, which passed Saturday after contentious negotiations over criminal justice issues.

    Legislators approved significant reimbursement rate increases for community-based mental health programs, as well as bonuses for frontline workers. The budget also includes $10 million to address staffing and capacity shortages at state-run psychiatric hospitals, though it does not earmark funds to reopen beds that were shut down under a “Transformation Plan” rolled out by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo. A measure proposed by the state Senate that would have committed New York to restore 200 state-run beds died in budget negotiations.

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

    As THE CITY and ProPublica reported in March, New York has closed nearly a third of state-run psychiatric hospital beds for kids since 2014. Children in mental health crisis sometimes wait months for admission to the remaining beds, our investigation found.

    “Governor Hochul has made addressing mental health issues a major priority for her administration,” wrote Jim Urso, a spokesperson for the governor, in an emailed statement. “With this level of meaningful and targeted investment, we can get those struggling with mental health issues the help they need.”

    Some lawmakers say the investments do not go far enough. “Kids are languishing in emergency rooms or in acute care hospitals, waiting for the state beds,” said Assemblymember Aileen Gunther, who chairs the state Assembly’s mental health committee.

    “We were flush with money this year,” Gunther continued. “We spent it on ‘Let’s give some money to the Buffalo Bills stadium before we make sure that every child has access to mental health care.’”

    In all, the new state budget for the fiscal year through March 31, 2023, allocates $4.7 billion in operating funds to the state Office of Mental Health — a bump of nearly $800 million from the previous fiscal year. Funding will go up for a wide range of programs that serve children and adolescents, including residential treatment programs, crisis intervention teams for kids experiencing mental health emergencies, programs that bring mental health care into kids’ homes and a statewide initiative to integrate mental health providers into pediatricians’ offices.

    The new money is intended to fill deep holes. In February, Gov. Kathy Hochul echoed what mental health care providers and advocates have contended for years: “For too long our mental health care system suffered from disinvestment,” she said.

    As a result, mental health programs face chronic staff shortages, and children often sit on long waitlists for basic treatment — a problem that started before the COVID-19 pandemic but only grew worse as demand for kids’ mental health care spiked, our investigation found.

    In a major shift, the budget makes hundreds of thousands of kids newly eligible for services like in-home therapy and planned respite care. These programs have historically been available only to low-income children on Medicaid, but will now be expanded to the nearly 390,000 kids on Child Health Plus, which covers children and adolescents whose family incomes are too high for Medicaid or who aren’t eligible for Medicaid because of their immigration status.

    In theory, the expansion of eligibility is a big win for kids, said Alice Bufkin, the associate executive director for policy and advocacy at the advocacy group Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York. But nonprofit mental health providers have struggled to serve the children who were already eligible, and they’ll need a lot more financial help to hire staff and serve additional kids, Bufkin said.

    “We are at such a deficit in terms of capacity after years of underinvestment in the mental health system. We absolutely want to work with state leaders to build on these new investments and to recognize that there is a lot of work to be done to make sure kids can actually access the services they need,” Bufkin said.

    “We’re on Life Support, and We Need to Be Resuscitated”

    Like other health care providers, mental health programs in New York have faced critical shortages of staff during the pandemic. As THE CITY and ProPublica reported, state-run psychiatric hospitals are so short on nurses and social workers that many beds sit empty for months, even as acutely ill kids wait to get in.

    Meanwhile, outpatient and community-based mental health programs — which struggled to stay fully staffed even before the pandemic — have seen an exodus of employees in the past two years. “We’re on life support, and we need to be resuscitated,” said Harvey Rosenthal, the CEO of the New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, at a New York State Assembly hearing on the mental health workforce in November.

    That’s in large part because public and nonprofit providers can’t pay competitive salaries to clinical and other frontline staff, providers say. For many positions, community-based mental health organizations say they’re competing for employees with — and losing out to — fast food restaurants and retail outlets.

    The new state budget attempts to stanch the bleeding, in part by doling out one-time bonuses to frontline health care workers, including mental health providers. Hochul proposed these spending measures as part of her plan to increase the size of the state’s health care workforce by 20% over five years.

    “So to stop the hemorrhaging of health care workers,” Hochul said in her budget deal announcement Thursday, state officials need to stop talking about how “we owe them a debt of gratitude and pay them some of that debt. That means dedicating in this budget $1.2 billion for frontline health care worker bonuses.”

    The budget also includes a measure, long sought by mental health agencies and advocates, that will provide a 5.4% cost-of-living adjustment in payments to service-providing agencies licensed by the state, including mental health and addiction programs. Under New York law, agencies that provide such services under contract with the state are supposed to receive a COLA every year, tied to inflation. However, the state budget has deferred the COLA nearly every year since the law was enacted in 2006 — a fact that has infuriated mental health advocates.

    “For every year of his tenure, former Governor Cuomo robbed State-contracted human services workers of their mandated statutory COLA, depriving these workers of over $700 million in raises, and balancing the budget on the backs of low-wage workers and nonprofit community organizations,” the Human Services Council, which represents dozens of New York City nonprofits, wrote in January.

    In response to a request for comment from Cuomo, Rich Azzopardi, a spokesperson for the former governor, sent the following statement: “Every budget is defined by the revenue you have and — if you intend to be fiscally responsible — reasonable growth that can account for future economic downturns and avoid fiscal cliffs. We never had bags of money from the federal government that enabled billions upon billions in new spending in an election year budget. I wonder what will happen once the Washington gravy train dries up?”

    In her January budget proposal, Hochul said that the 5.4% COLA, which is primarily intended for employee recruitment and retention, would provide “immediate fiscal relief” to mental health providers, “enabling them to offer more competitive wages to their staff.”

    Advocates say that the COLA and workforce bonuses are a great start, but it remains to be seen how big a dent they will make in the workforce crisis. “I know of an agency that has 270 job openings,” said Andrea Smyth, the president of the New York State Coalition for Children’s Behavior Health. “Right now, they post them and they get no one to apply. Does this amount of money get 270 people to apply — or does it get 15? That’s undetermined.”

    Smyth added, “That said, this is more than we’ve gotten in decades.”

    Some of the funding increases in the budget were made possible by an influx of federal COVID-19 relief money. An additional $111 million came from a financial maneuver that advocates say Cuomo could have made use of but didn’t. Under its Medicaid contracts, the state can claw back money from managed care insurance plans that fail to meet minimum spending requirements on mental health and addiction treatment for Medicaid recipients. In this year’s budget, the state will use two years’ worth of recouped money to fund increased reimbursement rates for mental health and addiction treatment clinics.

    Advocates for community-based mental health providers hope the recouped funds signal an intention by the Hochul administration to increase oversight of managed care plans that participate in New York’s Medicaid program. “The state needs to step up surveillance, monitoring and enforcement of all the provisions that are in place to protect Medicaid beneficiaries and to guarantee access to care,” said Lauri Cole, executive director of the New York State Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, which represents more than 100 mental health agencies.

    “It’s about oversight of benefits that save people’s lives,” Cole added. “There should be nothing complicated about that.”

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

  • Policymakers should look for any tool that can help restrain inflationary pressures without causing significant collateral damage. One such tool could be investments in child care and elder care. By subsidizing families’ use of child care and elder care and providing direct investments to providers, such investments could boost future labor supply by allowing working-age parents and children who want to look for paid employment to do so while remaining confident their family members are receiving care. Further, these investments can help dampen inflationary pressures—that rising wages could in theory contribute to—even well before they fully take effect.

    The post Child care and elder care investments are a tool for reducing inflationary expectations without pain appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Washington, D.C., resident Michael Tyree wasn’t sure about getting the coronavirus vaccine at first.

    “I thought about it for a little over a month,” said the 70-year-old retiree, who relies on Medicaid for health care.

    But his sister insisted that he get vaccinated before visiting her. So he walked into a CVS for his shot last year.

    Many of his fellow Medicaid patients are still on the fence. People insured by Medicaid — the joint federal-state program that provides health care coverage to more than 78 million people with low incomes or disabilities — are less likely to be vaccinated against the coronavirus than those with private insurance, according to a report by the National Academy of State Health Policy.

    Though complete national data is scarce, California reported last month that 57% of Medicaid recipients in the state had gotten at least one dose of the vaccine, compared to 84% of all residents. Other states have reported similar gaps.

    Most Medicaid enrollees are people of color, and the pandemic hit some of those communities hardest. It has also taken a particular toll on people with disabilities, who are eligible for Medicaid. But along with common reasons for vaccine hesitancy — such as lack of trust in government or the health care system — Medicaid patients may also have more difficulty taking time away from low-paying jobs to get a shot, experts say.
    “It’s very important that we are making sure that vaccines are available to all populations of people,” said Dr. Michelle Fiscus, a public health consultant with NASHP who helped author the report, “especially those who have already experienced disproportionate burdens from COVID-19.”

    The report recommended that state Medicaid programs improve their data systems so that they know how many of their patients have received coronavirus vaccines. It also recommended they pay doctors for their time counseling patients on vaccination, even if the patients don’t end up accepting the shot. The Biden administration moved in December to require states to cover this type of counseling for children’s coronavirus vaccines. Doctors have pushed the administration to do the same for adults.

    “That is a disincentive to health care providers to take the time to have that talk if they can’t be paid for that time,” Fiscus said. “So it’s really important that medical providers be appropriately compensated.”

    The pandemic has highlighted states’ poor record in inoculating Medicaid patients against preventable disease. Adults insured by Medicaid are less likely than those with private insurance to have gotten all commonly recommended vaccines, such as influenza and tetanus, said a March report from the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

    But state Medicaid agencies have a lot on their plate besides vaccinations: The Biden administration is expected to end the public health emergency for the coronavirus in coming months, and that would also mean an end to the mandate that states keep current Medicaid patients on their rolls. Agencies will have to reevaluate recipients’ eligibility when that happens; millions of people may lose their Medicaid coverage.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Common Dreams Logo

    This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on April 5, 2022. It is shared here with permission under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.

    Reproductive rights advocates on Tuesday braced for Kevin Stitt, Oklahoma’s Republican governor, to sign what’s been described as a “worse than Texas” abortion ban that would make performing the medical procedure at any stage of pregnancy a felony punishable by up to a decade in prison.

    “Nearly half of the patients Oklahoma providers are currently seeing are medical refugees from Texas,” the groups added. “Now, Oklahomans could face a future where they would have no place left in their state to go to seek this basic healthcare.”

    The New York Times reports the GOP-controlled Oklahoma House of Representatives voted 70-14 to approve Senate Bill 612, which would imprison healthcare providers who perform abortions at any time “except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency” for 10 years or fine them $100,000. The measure, which was passed by the state Senate last year, heads to the desk of Stitt, who has pledged to sign “every piece of pro-life legislation” he receives.

    “If allowed to take effect, SB 612 would be devastating for both Oklahomans and Texans who continue to seek care in Oklahoma,” reproductive rights groups including the ACLU of Oklahoma and Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice said in a statement.

    “Nearly half of the patients Oklahoma providers are currently seeing are medical refugees from Texas,” the groups added. “Now, Oklahomans could face a future where they would have no place left in their state to go to seek this basic healthcare.”

    SB 612 has been compared to SB 8, the Texas law banning abortion after around six weeks of pregnancy and incentivizing private citizens with a $10,000 reward plus legal fees for successfully suing abortion providers or anyone who “aids or abets” the procedure. The law allows no exceptions in cases of rape or incest.

    However, critics say the Oklahoma bill is even more severe than the Texas ban.

    “We are actually going to be worse than Texas because this bill would prohibit abortion access as soon, at conception, whereas Texas allows for a six-week abortion ban,” Tamya Cox-Toure, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, told KTUL.

    Cox-Toure said that “Oklahoma providers were seeing an increase of almost 2,500%” in people seeking abortions “because of Texas patients coming to Oklahoma for care.”

    Myfy Jensen-Fellows of the Trust Women Foundation told KTUL that SB 612 “will make it difficult not only for people in Oklahoma, not only people in Kansas and Texas, but the entire region.”

    SB 612 is one of numerous state-level attacks on reproductive rights, and comes as the constitutional right to abortion established nearly half a century ago in Roe v. Wade is imperiled by the United States Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority.

    State-level abortion bans like SB 12 have spurred calls for the US Senate to pass the House-approved Women’s Health Protection Act, which would codify the right to abortion nationwide.

    Responding to the Oklahoma bill, Planned Parenthood Action tweeted, “These extremist politicians are willing to turn their own constituents into medical refugees.”

    “Abortion is healthcare,” the group added. “And we’ll keep fighting for your care, no matter what.”

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Demonstrators’ signs read: “Expose & shut down the abortion industrial complex now,” “Bans off our bodies,” “Liberal atheist against abortion,” “Keep our clinics,” “Let their hearts beat,” and “Just overturn Roe already, you cowards.”

    When conservative legal provocateur Jonathan Mitchell published his 2018 law review article laying the groundwork for Texas to ban most abortions, some of the ideas he outlined were so far-fetched that they read more like thought experiments than legitimate legal theories. One was that state legislatures could give private individuals, rather than government agencies, the right to enforce abortion restrictions and other controversial statutes – a “bounty hunter”-type mechanism he claimed could make such laws all but impossible to challenge through the usual legal processes.

    Another of Mitchell’s theories was even more radical: that courts don’t have the power to strike down old laws they think are unconstitutional – for example, Texas statutes first enacted in the 1850s that made it a crime to help “procure” an abortion or furnish “the means” for it. Judges can only stop those laws from being enforced, he claimed. Unless legislators actually repeal them, America’s old laws never really die; instead, they linger in a kind of limbo, automatically springing back to life if a future court issues a new, contrary ruling. They can even be enforced retroactively, he argued. 

    At first, Mitchell’s ideas generated little attention outside conservative circles, where some of his own ideological allies were incredulous at the notion that overturned laws might rise from the grave like zombies and be used retroactively to lay waste to the foundations of contemporary American society in a legal version of “The Walking Dead.” The University of Chicago’s Richard Epstein, Mitchell’s former teacher and one of the most eminent legal scholars on the right, told a Federalist Society panel in 2018, “Jonathan always puts the fear of God in me, because God forbid he should be right on this particular question.” Epstein added, “I think most people would say that this is an enormously dangerous-type situation.” 

    Undeterred, Mitchell worked with the Texas legislature to enshrine his theories in Texas Senate Bill 8, also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act. The measure not only bans abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy, but it also takes the extraordinary step of giving private citizens the right to sue anyone who helps someone obtain one. 

    Now, seven months after Texas’ law became the most restrictive abortion statute to take effect in the U.S. in almost 50 years, the real-world impact of Mitchell’s ideas is becoming much clearer – as well as more urgent. Even as the effort to empower vigilante citizens alarmed legal experts across the ideological spectrum, an additional and relatively unreported aspect of the law has far greater implications beyond the elimination of abortion. Most legal experts and lawmakers still haven’t understood the full scope of Mitchell’s vision for remaking American law, but as reporting from Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting shows, it’s already being adopted by legislative leaders and being tested in court. 

    In a series of legal proceedings, threatening letters, press releases and social media posts, Mitchell and his allies are arguing that the 1850s statutes that made it a crime to help someone get an abortion in the state – the laws overturned by Roe v. Wade in 1973 – were never actually repealed and thus are still in force. And they claim that grassroots abortion funds, which raise money to help Texas patients pay for the procedure, are breaking those old laws and should be prosecuted. Ditto for ordinary citizens who’ve donated to one of those groups.  


    Last month, Republican state Rep. Briscoe Cain, a lawyer and joint author of the House version of SB 8, showed just how far anti-abortion lawmakers are willing to push the idea that helping someone in the state pay for an abortion is a crime. Cain issued cease-and-desist letters to abortion funds across Texas, claiming that they are “criminal organizations” under the pre-Roe statutes and that their employees face two to five years behind bars for breaking those laws. He sent a similar letter to Citigroup, demanding that the banking giant rescind its new policy of paying for its Texas employees to travel for abortion care outside the state and warning that it will face prosecution if it continues to cover abortions in-state under its employee insurance plan. 

    Cain himself doesn’t have the authority to bring criminal charges, but he claims local prosecutors do. In a press release, he said he plans to push for legislation allowing them to prosecute these cases even outside their own jurisdiction. Meanwhile, saber-rattling is itself a core element of Mitchell’s legal strategy. In his law review paper, he notes that “the mere threat of future prosecution” could be enough to “induce substantial if not total compliance” with pre-Roe laws.

    Some of the most powerful conservative groups in the country have joined Mitchell’s cause, including the America First Legal Foundation, which helped defend the Texas law before the Supreme Court last fall and is now also targeting abortion funds. The new foundation was created by former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows; Stephen Miller, the architect of former President Donald Trump’s family separation immigration policy; and other members of Trump’s inner circle to “oppose the radical left’s anti-jobs, anti-freedom, anti-faith, anti-borders, anti-police, and anti-American crusade,” according to its mission statement. In a press release, Miller’s description of why America First Legal has gotten involved echoes the “tough-on-crime” language that the Trump administration made a hallmark of its often-authoritarian policies: “We will maintain the rule of law,” Miller is quoted as saying.

    Mitchell’s ideas could have vast repercussions for more than reproductive rights, legal experts warn. The notion that old laws don’t go away and can be resuscitated is “awfully curious in a country where old law legalized segregation, slavery, sexual abuse and rape of wives,” said Michele Goodwin, a legal scholar at the University of California, Irvine, who focuses on issues at the intersection of gender and race. Many of these old laws, she pointed out, “subordinated people who were not White males.” If Mitchell and his allies were to succeed, she said, the result would be to resurrect a version of the country as it existed 200 years ago, when “White men controlled every branch of government in every state.” 

    Mitchell declined requests to be interviewed on the record for this article. But he has made it clear that he also wants to roll back decades of progress for LGBTQ rights. Over the past several years, when he wasn’t litigating abortion cases, he was filing lawsuits aimed at undermining same-sex marriage and affirming the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people in housing and the workplace. Mitchell’s culture-war campaigns converged in an amicus brief he wrote in the Mississippi abortion case that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide by this summer. His ominous warning: “Lawrence and Obergefell,” the Supreme Court cases that legalized sodomy and same-sex marriage, respectively, “are as lawless as Roe.”

    The Genesis of Texas’ Heartbeat Act

    Mitchell honed his ideas in some of the most elite institutions in the country. After clerking for late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, he taught at the University of Chicago and Stanford University law schools, served as the Texas solicitor general and volunteered on the Trump transition team, reviewing future executive orders. 

    Just when he seemed likely to win a more permanent role under Trump – heading the Administrative Conference of the United States, a little-known federal agency that issues recommendations on how the government can work more efficiently – his nomination was scuttled because of his role in coordinating a sprawling, multistate attack on public-sector unions. The lawsuits filed in California, New York, Minnesota and other states were funded by a shadowy litigation finance group based in Chicago that wasn’t disclosing its backers. “If he is a clandestine operative of the same powerful ultraconservative special interests out to cripple unions, he is not fit to serve in this post,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., told The New York Times.

    In an illustration, Jonathan Mitchell stands behind a lectern facing two Supreme Court justices.
    A courtroom illustration shows Jonathan Mitchell arguing in front of the Supreme Court in 2014, when he was Texas’ solicitor general. Credit: Illustration by Art Lien

    By then, Mitchell’s law review article, which was in prepublication review and bears the wonky title “The Writ-of-Erasure Fallacy,” was already making waves. Written in 2016 and published two years later, it was based on his experiences representing the state of Texas in court, where he saw how the legislature often enacted statutes that were easily blocked – including laws that sought to ban abortion. One of Mitchell’s goals, he has said, was to prod anti-abortion lawmakers out of their “learned helplessness” by empowering them with clever strategies that would make their ideas harder to defeat in court. 

    That’s where the “bounty hunter” idea came in. 

    Geoffrey Stone, former dean at the University of Chicago law school who taught Mitchell two decades ago, nodded to the “brilliance” of the idea but condemned it as “totally obscene.” The brilliant part, Stone said, is that in order to block a law in court, you typically have to sue a government official. But if only private individuals are empowered to enforce a law, there is no government official to sue – and opponents of the law are left with their hands effectively tied. The ultimate goal, Mitchell acknowledged in his paper, was to develop laws that could circumvent judicial review. But the real-world impact, Stone and other legal scholars have suggested, is that even a blatantly unconstitutional law opposed by the vast majority of citizens and courts would still be allowed to take effect.  

    Mitchell then made another argument that struck at the foundations of American law. He contended that court rulings – even those issued by the U.S. Supreme Court – are far less sweeping than mainstream legal experts believe. According to his “Writ-of-Erasure Fallacy” theory, courts don’t have the power to broadly “strike down” or “erase” laws they think are unconstitutional. Even more radical, he claimed that a law could be enforced retroactively against people who violated the statute during the time period when it had been blocked.  

    Stone took issue with the entire premise of Mitchell’s theory during a recent Federalist Society event at the University of Chicago. The law professor – who was a Supreme Court clerk when Roe was handed down – said in an interview that his former student’s strategy “simply fails to understand the critical legal concept of precedent” that “our whole legal system is based on.”

    Jennifer Ecklund, an attorney who represents the abortion funds targeted by Mitchell, found the retroactivity idea especially troubling. It “undermines the entirety of our system of constitutional justice. And that’s not hyperbole,” she said. “For this theory to take hold and become commonplace would be a complete undoing of constitutional jurisprudence in the 20th century.”

    Legal historian Mary Ziegler, author of “Abortion and the Law in America,” pointed to how retroactivity might be used if a conservative state passed a law that criminalized sodomy and the Supreme Court upheld that new law, overturning its 2003 decision that made such sexual acts legal. “Then, in theory, that criminal sodomy law could apply not only against people who committed sodomy … after the new Supreme Court decision, it would, in theory, apply before, too,” she said.

    Protesters carry a variety of homemade signs supporting abortion rights.
    Protesters gather for the Women’s March and Rally for Abortion Justice at the State Capitol in Austin, Texas, in October. Credit: Sergio Flores/Associated Press

    But there was one audience that was extremely receptive to Mitchell’s legal theories: anti-abortion lawmakers and activists in Texas. Starting in 2019, Mitchell and his allies worked with more than 40 communities to pass local ordinances that created “sanctuary cities for the unborn.” Those ordinances not only banned abortion outright, but also declared it to be “murder.”

    Then, working with Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes, Mitchell embedded his ideas last year into SB 8, a variation on the “heartbeat bills” that had passed in about a dozen other states, only to be blocked by court after court for flouting Roe. 
    Like those other bills, the Texas version banned abortion after fetal cardiac activity could be detected in an ultrasound, around six weeks’ gestation. But as Mitchell had predicted, the law’s “bounty hunter” mechanism – giving private citizens the right to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion for $10,000 per violation plus legal fees – made it extremely difficult for abortion rights groups to challenge the law in court, especially in those packed with conservative judges who shared his anti-abortion views.

    But providing a way to help the Texas law withstand a court challenge was only part of Mitchell’s plan. A second goal was to explicitly revive the 1850s laws that had once made abortion a crime in the state. To that end, Mitchell and his allies inserted another provision that was almost entirely overlooked amid the firestorm over the new statute: a legislative finding that the pre-Roe laws in Texas had never been repealed. 

    Then they went to work.

    Using Pre-Roe Laws to Go After Abortion Funders 

    The Heartbeat Act isn’t the only recent Texas law that seeks to criminalize abortion, nor is it the most draconian. For example, a so-called trigger law, also enacted in Texas last year, would outlaw abortion completely and automatically if Roe is overturned; doctors who violate the ban would face up to $100,000 in fines or life in prison. 

    The earliest that statute could take effect is this summer, when the Supreme Court is set to rule on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case out of Mississippi. In the interim, Mitchell and his allies, impatient to halt as many abortions as possible as soon as possible, have turned to the 1850s statutes and the writ-of-erasure language in SB 8 to try to accomplish the same thing by targeting groups that help patients pay for abortions. 

    References to criminalization started cropping up in court proceedings even before the heartbeat law went into effect in September. In one hearing last summer in a lawsuit involving the Austin-based Lilith abortion fund, Mitchell told a Texas judge that such grassroots groups are “criminal organizations” that are “committing crimes under state law,” even if they’re not being punished for their crimes right now. 

    In a major ratcheting up of their campaign this winter, Mitchell and five law firms filed petitions demanding the right to take depositions from leaders of the Texas Equal Access Fund and Lilith Fund for allegedly violating the heartbeat law. But the press releases cited the pre-Roe criminal statutes. Kamyon Conner, executive director of the Texas Equal Access Fund, said she was at a retreat with fellow reproductive justice activists when she learned about the attempts to force her to turn over information about employees and donors. “The people in the room saw my expression change and they were like, ‘What’s wrong?’ ” 

    For Conner, the tactic felt like an attempt to scare and shame her. Far from being intimidated, however, she and her fellow abortion fund activists decided to fight back, filing lawsuits in mid-March against America First Legal, the Thomas More Society law firm – another conservative group in the case – and two Texas women represented by Mitchell. The suits ask courts in Texas; Washington, D.C.; and Illinois – where the Thomas More firm is based – to declare the heartbeat law unconstitutional. 

    Thus far, donors haven’t been intimidated. Conner said the Texas Equal Access Fund has seen an uptick in what she called “rage donations,” though some check-writers are taking the precaution of blacking out their identifying information. The Lilith Fund has seen a tripling of its budget since last year – enough to begin covering the entire cost of abortions for people who need them. 

    Meanwhile, anti-abortion activists and lawmakers have started taking the writ-of-erasure criminalization language nationwide. In July, the National Association of Christian Lawmakers unanimously adopted a model bill that features, verbatim, the heartbeat law’s finding that the state “never repealed” its pre-Roe criminal laws. Lawmakers in at least one state with a pre-Roe statute still on the books, Arizona, have introduced legislation with this language.

    Mitchell’s ideas about reviving these pre-Roe criminal statutes could become all the more relevant if Roe is overturned. In the meantime, by challenging the right of grassroots groups and private donors to help pay for abortions, he and his allies have opened a new front in the battle over access that is likely to spread well beyond Texas. Abortion funds see this as a sign of their growing significance in a landscape where access to the procedure depends on having the means to pay for it. 

    “I think it is very telling that the (anti-abortion activists) have caught on to us and understand us as a threat, because we are,” said Amanda Beatriz Williams, the Lilith Fund’s executive director. “We are a threat to them. We are a threat to their movement.” 

    Students and staff at UC Berkeley’s Human Rights Center and Investigative Reporting Program contributed additional reporting: Gisela Pérez de Acha, Brian Nguyen, Emma MacPhee, Leah Roemer, Taylor Graham, Alex Harvey, Eleonora Bianchi, Eliza Partika, Elizabeth Moss, Anabel Sosa, Rhia Mehta, Brittany Zendejas and Sophie Hoblit. Reveal fellow Grace Oldham also contributed reporting.

    This story was edited by Nina Martin and copy edited by Nikki Frick.

    Amy Littlefield can be reached at alittlefield@revealnews.org. Follow her on Twitter: @amylittlefield

    Mastermind of the Texas ‘Heartbeat’ Statute Has a Radical Mission to Reshape American Law is a story from Reveal. Reveal is a registered trademark of The Center for Investigative Reporting and is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Mainstream healthcare is historically a twisted, uneven, financially debilitating, and constrictive path forcing incomplete ideals that do not always consider the person as a whole or the health of that individual in their totality. Specialties compartmentalize the body, concentrating on stabilizing a part without the care to follow through to care for the complete person’s needs. To often forgotten, emotional, and spiritual healing is often completely disregarded and not seen as necessary for a truly holistic recovery. The fact is today’s westernized approach of and on “holistic” healthcare is the colonizing of and plundering from many different cultures, fragmented, incomplete.

    The post Decolonizing The Healthcare System appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Released four days before the State of the Union, the new CDC measures and the narrative they created let President Biden claim victory over the virus via sleight of hand: a switch from standard reporting of community transmissions to measures of risk based largely on contentious hospital-based metrics. The previous guidelines called anything over 50 cases per 100,000 people “substantial or high.” Now, they say 200 cases per 100,000 is “low” as long as hospitalizations are also low.

    The resulting shift from a red map to a green one reflected no real reduction in transmission risk. It was a resort to rhetoric: an effort to craft a success story that would explain away hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths and the continued threat the virus poses.

    The post The CDC Is Beholden To Corporations And Lost Our Trust. We Need To Start Our Own appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • We have long advocated for single-payer national health insurance. By eliminating private insurers and simplifying how providers are paid, single-payer would free up hundreds of billions of dollars now squandered annually on insurance-related bureaucracy. The savings would make it feasible to cover the uninsured and to eliminate the cost barriers that keep even insured patients from getting the care they need. And it would free patients and doctors from the narrow provider networks and other bureaucratic constraints imposed by insurance middlemen. We still urgently need this reform. However, the accelerating corporate transformation of US health care delivery complicates this vision. In the past, most doctors were self-employed, free-standing hospitals were the norm, and for-profit ownership of facilities was the exception. Single-payer proposals hence envisioned payment flowing from a universal, tax-funded insurer (like traditional Medicare) to independent clinicians, individual hospitals, and other locally controlled, nonprofit providers. This was usually the state of play when national health insurance (NHI) was achieved in other nations, such as Canada in the 1960s and ’70s—the model for single-payer reform in the United States.

    The post Medicare For All Is Not Enough appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Health workers in major public hospitals in Haiti have reasserted their intention to continue striking on 28 March, citing lack of action by the Ministry of Health (MoH) on their earlier demands. Nurses, physicians, lab workers and other health professionals at the Haitian State University Hospital and Justinien Hospital among other places, began to strike near the end of February. They intend to continue the action until demands are met.

    The workers are asking for salary adjustments, improvements to working conditions, and payment of arrears in the form of debit cards, but remain dissatisfied by the approach taken by the Ministry since they first stopped working. While emergency care services have remained operational throughout the duration of the strike, delivery of other forms of care has significantly slowed down, increasing pressure on the MoH.

    The post Deterioration Of Rights Sparks Month-Long Actions Among Health Workers appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • 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.”