Category: health care

  • Women participating in post-partum training

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

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

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

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

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

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

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

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

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

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

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

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

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Copyright © Truthout.org. Reprinted with permission.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

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

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • UN News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “Durable solutions must be sought.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

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

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

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

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

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

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Medical billing statement with stethoscope

    The email arrived in Elliot Malin’s inbox from his cousin’s mom.

    “Scott needs a kidney,” the subject line read.

    The message matter-of-factly described Scott’s situation: At 28 years old, Scott Kline was in end-stage renal failure. He wasn’t on dialysis yet. But he probably should have been.

    His mom was reaching out to as many people as she could, asking them to be screened as a potential donation match.

    “Thank you for considering it, but please don’t feel any pressure to do it,” she wrote. “Sorry I have to share this burden, but the best potential match is family.”

    Malin didn’t need to be pressured. For him, the decision was easy.

    “There was no other thought besides trying to help Scott,” Malin later said.

    He clicked on a link in the email to begin the screening process.

    If he turned out to be a match, Malin knew the surgery could put his health at risk. The recovery would be physically painful. What he didn’t anticipate was that it would put his finances in jeopardy. That just as he would have to trust the skilled hands of the surgeon to make sure the operation went well, he’d have to trust in the expertise of billing coders and financial coordinators to navigate the increasingly complex system that covers the costs of transplant surgeries.

    Living organ donors are never supposed to receive a bill for care related to a transplant surgery. The recipient’s insurance covers all of those costs. This rule is key to a system built on encouraging such a selfless act. And for most uninsured patients in end-stage kidney failure, Medicare would pick up the tab. But in Malin’s case, he would end up facing a $13,000 billing mistake and the threat of having his bill sent to collections.

    Donors like Malin play a critical role in the nation’s transplant system. According to data from the United Network for Organ Sharing, in the last three years more than 30% of kidney donations came from living donors. Neither UNOS nor other national advocacy organizations track how often billing problems like those encountered by Malin occur. But advocates say they do happen and can deter donors from coming forward.

    “Living donors should not be receiving any bills at all whatsoever regarding any part of the living donation process,” said Morgan Reid, director of transplant policy and strategy for the National Kidney Foundation.

    Malin and Kline describe themselves as cousins, but their blood relationship is distant. Their great-grandfathers were brothers, making them third cousins. Still, they’re the same age and grew up as friends, sometimes traveling and spending holidays together. Kline attended Malin’s wedding in 2019.

    Exactly what went wrong with Kline’s kidneys is a mystery. In the summer of 2020 he had just moved to Fort Worth, Texas, for work. He went in for routine blood work to monitor a medication he was taking. When the results came in, the doctor called to ask if he was on dialysis.

    “You’re in end-stage renal failure,” the doctor told him.

    “Oh, no I’m not,” Kline responded.

    The bloodwork wasn’t wrong. He had just 17% kidney function. Thus began his search for a new organ. Kline was told his wait for a kidney could be three to five years if a friend or family member didn’t step forward. In February 2021, Kline and his family began reaching out to everyone they knew. Volunteers signed up for medical screening, but insurance would only pay to test one at a time. Waiting for one potential donor to be ruled out before testing another drew out an already lengthy process.

    Four months after Malin signed up to be screened, he got final confirmation he was a match.

    By June, the two cousins were deep in the byzantine organ transplant bureaucracy: screeners, financial counselors, doctors, specialists, laboratories and, the most difficult, insurance companies.

    “The amount of hoops you have to jump through to do this is pretty extraordinary,” Malin said, describing rounds of medical tests, mountains of paperwork and preauthorizations for procedures. A multidisciplinary team of professionals assembled to assist the two patients through the process.

    “The hospital was amazing on trying to make everything as easy as possible,” he said of the team.

    Malin said they gave him one assurance: He wouldn’t have to contend with any bills or be responsible for a dime of the surgery’s estimated $160,000 cost. The team had received preauthorization from Kline’s insurance plan, which would pick up all of Malin’s medical costs.

    That assurance, however well-intentioned, fell flat.

    In July, Malin traveled from his home in Reno, Nevada, to Fort Worth, where the cousins underwent the transplant surgery at Baylor Scott & White All Saints Medical Center. The surgery was successful.

    Malin spent three days in the hospital recovering, Kline a day or two longer — a painful experience made bearable by their companionship.

    “We would do our little walks around the hospital floor,” Kline said. “We would be suffering together. It was really nice to have that. Usually you’re there alone, especially during COVID.”

    By early August, Malin was back in Reno to finish recuperating. The next week, he started law school. Life was getting back to normal.

    When the first bill arrived, it was more annoying than stressful. It totalled just $19.15 for blood work done before the surgery. The hospital said it would take care of it, Malin said. Then he got a notice that an old insurance plan he was no longer a member of had been billed $934 for lab work. Again, he notified the hospital.

    In late September, Malin got a bill for a stomach-dropping amount: $13,064. While he was startled by the cost, it didn’t worry him too much. He knew Kline’s insurance was responsible for paying it. He notified the hospital and forgot about it.

    A month later, a second notice arrived. Then, on Dec. 6, Malin received a document that scared him.

    “Final Notice! Your account is now considered delinquent,” the notice read. If he didn’t take action, the billing company warned, it would attempt “further collection activity.”

    The bill was from NorthStar Anesthesia, a firm that provides anesthesia services to hospitals across the country, including Baylor Scott & White All Saints.

    Now, Malin wasn’t only irritated that the bills just kept coming, he was worried about his credit.

    “I did call them and kind of chewed them out a little bit,” Malin said. “I walked through what this was for, that it was a kidney donation and I’m not the responsible party.”

    Malin complained on Twitter about the aggressive billing practice, eliciting an array of responses, from jokes about asking for his kidney back to outrage that he’d be in this position after such a gift.

    After he called the billing company and the hospital, there was nothing else he could do.

    “I’m just waiting to see if I go to collections or not,” Malin told ProPublica two weeks later.

    He did his best to leave Kline out of it entirely.

    “He’s had a lot on his plate,” Malin said of his cousin. “His recovery has been harder than mine. He’s the one accepting the organ, so he’ll be on immunosuppressants the rest of his life. Because of COVID, he’s largely stuck indoors. I don’t tell him a lot of it. I don’t want to stress him out.”

    Still, it troubled Kline that Malin was facing such problems.

    “At the end of the day, I want everything to go as smoothly as possible for Elliot,” Kline said. “He was doing me an unbelievable kindness. I owe my life to him.”

    Malin heard nothing until Jan. 19, one day after ProPublica reached out to NorthStar for comment.

    “The CFO of NorthStar just called me and told me she’s taken care of the bill,” Malin texted a reporter.

    The next day, the company emailed Malin, confirming he would not be responsible for the bill, that he was never sent to collections and that his credit wouldn’t be affected.

    “On behalf of NorthStar, I apologize for causing any confusion or concern for you regarding this matter and assure you that it has been resolved,” wrote Kate Stets, the company’s chief financial officer.

    She said that after his call on Dec. 7, the bill had been rerouted to “the correct parties,” but that the company had failed to communicate that to him. The letter explained that NorthStar had received incorrect insurance information at the time of the surgery. (A spokesperson later said NorthStar received no insurance information at the time of the surgery.) In such cases, bills are automatically sent to the patient.

    The company has since adjusted its policy to prevent that from happening in future transplant cases, Stets wrote.

    “To be clear, it is not NorthStar’s policy to bill transplant donors for bills related to their donation surgeries,” Stets wrote. “We recognize the well-established public policy standard and practice that transplant donors should not be billed for such services — that we and the nation’s health care system have a responsibility to foster and encourage such acts of selflessness and generosity.”

    In a statement, a NorthStar spokesperson said no other organ donors owe “out of pocket payments.”

    “NorthStar did not hear from Baylor on this matter previously and was first notified of the billing error on December 7, 2021 after insurance information was not provided to NorthStar by the transplant center at the point of care,” a spokesperson said. “NorthStar resolved the error immediately and closed the account that same day, prior to any inquiry from ProPublica.”

    Both Malin and Kline commended the team at Baylor Scott & White All Saints that guided them through the process. The hospital, however, declined to grant an interview to ProPublica about what went wrong with the billing.

    A spokesperson provided a short statement: “We are pleased this has been resolved for our patient by NorthStar. Although billing can be complicated, these occurrences are rare. We have also been in touch with the patient and we don’t have anything further to report.”

    Financing such surgeries is so complex that transplant centers employ coordinators to help both patients with the process.

    “I tell donors, I can’t guarantee you won’t get a bill, but if you do, call me,” said Deidra Simano, president of the Transplant Financial Coordinators Association.

    In one case, after trying everything to get a provider to bill the proper insurance, Simano resorted to paying a patient’s $200 bill with the transplant center’s credit card.

    “That’s what we had to do to make it go away,” she said.

    Malin said he feels fortunate to be equipped to fight the billing issues. He worries about others with fewer means facing a similar situation, recognizing it could be a barrier to those selfless enough to donate an organ.

    “It sucks but I wouldn’t have changed any of it,” he said. “I like my cousin. I want him to be healthy.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Pramila Jayapal speaks as members of Congress share their recollections on the first anniversary of the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2022, in the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, D.C.

    A bill that would establish Medicare for All in the U.S. has reached 120 sponsors, Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) announced on Sunday.

    “We’ve officially got a record 120 co-sponsors on my Medicare for All Act!” said Jayapal, who introduced the legislation. “Thrilled to welcome Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Florida) to our fight to ensure health care as a human right!”

    Signing on to the bill as a cosponsor is one of Cherfilus-McCormick’s first acts since being sworn in as a member of Congress in mid-January. Last week, Representatives Donald Norcross (D-New Jersey) and Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) also became cosponsors of the bill; original cosponsors include progressive “squad” members like Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota).

    The Medicare for All Act of 2021, or H.R. 1976, would establish a single-payer healthcare system in the U.S. Under the bill, health care claims would be paid by the government and all U.S. residents would be able to access health care without having to pay out of pocket for most services.

    Jayapal’s bill would establish a more generous plan than in countries like Canada, where the single-payer health care system doesn’t cover vital services like vision, dental or prescriptions. H.R. 1976 includes those benefits as well as long-term nursing and rehabilitative services.

    For years, Medicare for All has been a rallying cry for progressives across the country, popularized by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) during his 2016 presidential run. Some experts have pointed out that the original idea behind the Medicare program was for all residents to have access to health care, not just a few.

    “We mean a complete transformation of our health care system and we mean a system where there are no private insurance companies that provide these core benefits,” Jayapal said when she introduced the bill last March. “We mean universal care, everybody in, nobody out.”

    Though the bill is unlikely to pass Congress, the record number of cosponsors suggests that pushes for Medicare for All are gaining momentum as progressives in the House are growing in number.

    When Jayapal originally introduced the bill, it had only 112 cosponsors; when she introduced it in the last Congress, it only had 106 original cosponsors. In 2019, Sanders introduced a Medicare for All bill in the Senate with 14 cosponsors. He has not reintroduced the bill in this Congress.

    “In my view, the current debate over Medicare for All really has nothing to do with health care. It’s all about greed and profiteering. It is about whether we maintain a dysfunctional system which allows the top five health insurance companies to make over $20 billion in profits last year,” Sanders said in 2019. These profits have only multiplied since the start of the pandemic.

    Polling has found that a majority of Americans favor proposals for Medicare for All. But while the idea has gained some steam in Congress over the past years, it still faces fierce opposition from lobbyists and the lawmakers they solicit.

    Private health insurers are making record profits while insuring fewer people; reports have found that the U.S.’s health expenditures are the highest among member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), while the U.S.’s health care system ranks last on measures like access, efficiency, equity and health outcomes. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies are hugely reliant on profits generated by U.S. citizens, and a report last year found that prices for top prescription drugs are as much as 10 times higher in the U.S. than they are in other countries.

    Lobbyists, looking to maintain these profits, play a huge role in the legislative equation – according to Politico, the health care industry lobby has created an “army” to fight Medicare for All in Congress, developing cozy relationships with Democrats and Republicans alike. Last year, health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists maxed out their donations to Democrats as they were crafting the Build Back Better Act, which included proposals that took aim at sky-high prescription drug prices.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • This story originally appeared in Dissent on Oct. 13, 2021, and is shared with permission via the Progressive International’s Wire.

    Crystal, an abortion acompañante from Mexico, has a green bandana attached to her backpack that signals her involvement in the marea verde, the “green wave” of reproductive rights activism gaining momentum throughout Latin America. In her bag she carries pamphlets from the Tijuana Safe Abortion Network and Las Bloodys, the feminist collective she helped found. Designed to fold up into a neat rectangle that slips discreetly into a back pocket, the pamphlets provide details for how to self-administer an abortion safely, avoiding legal and medical risks.

    Crystal clarified that aborto libre didn’t just mean free of charge; it also means free as in liberated, free from stigma, free from medicalized control and legal restrictions, free for pregnant people to make the best decision for themselves.

    On Sept. 7, Mexico’s Supreme Court decriminalized abortion, which until last month was illegal in the state of Baja California, where Crystal lives, and in much of the rest of the country. The recent ruling will eventually allow increased access to abortion care and free the women imprisoned under prior laws, often just for being suspected of intentionally terminating a pregnancy. But it will take some time for the ruling to take effect throughout Mexico’s 32 states, especially the 17 that have constitutional amendments that declare that life starts at conception. And though the ruling protects abortion-seekers from being prosecuted, it does not guarantee universal access. While the reproductive rights movement in Mexico has been waiting for this decision for a long time, “nothing much will change for us,” Crystal told me after the news broke. “Legalization has never been our end goal.”

    “Our work won’t stop until abortion is free,” she continued. “Queremos el aborto libre.” Crystal clarified that aborto libre didn’t just mean free of charge; it also means free as in liberated, free from stigma, free from medicalized control and legal restrictions, free for pregnant people to make the best decision for themselves. In the years leading up to the September decision, collectives of acompañantes like Las Bloodys, Las Confidentas, and Las Libres provided emotional, logistical, and even medical support to people seeking abortions. This informal network is redefining the struggle for reproductive justice.

    The acompañantes movement in Mexico can teach US activists about grassroots mobilizing where restricted access is the norm.

    While abortion was being decriminalized in Mexico, advocates north of the border were dealing with devastating setbacks: Texas’s Senate Bill 8, which severely restricts abortion access in the state, and the Supreme Court’s announcement that it would hear arguments on Mississippi’s ban on abortion after fifteen weeks of pregnancy—a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. In this difficult moment, the acompañantes movement in Mexico can teach US activists about grassroots mobilizing where restricted access is the norm. Their flexible and holistic model of abortion care anticipates the limits of state health services and the formal medical establishment. Now is the time to revive cross-border solidarity networks and deepen a transnational reproductive justice movement that centers bodily autonomy and diverse, dignified options for pregnant people.

    Snacks and Slippers for All

    Before the September ruling, acompañantes often worked at the margins of the law to bridge the gaps in Mexico’s uneven landscape of reproductive rights. With support from Mexico’s feminist and reproductive rights organizations, they connected people to formal medical and legal resources and funded travel to Mexico City and the other few places where abortion was legal. While acompañantes helped bring people to clinics, they found that many preferred instead to self-administer abortions using misoprostol, or “miso,” an ulcer drug and effective abortifacient that is available over the counter in Mexico. While data is hard to come by, an estimated 30% of abortions in Mexico are induced using miso. One of the many roles of the acompañante, then, is to help minimize the risks involved in self-managed abortions.

    An in-clinic surgical procedure costs around $200 USD; anesthesia costs extra. For an additional $100, you can get snacks, slippers, and a private room to recuperate in. For someone earning Mexico’s minimum wage of $7 a day, these are unaffordable luxuries.

    Many collectives encourage people to get ultrasounds at clinics and send the results to allied medical professionals to confirm the success of a self-administered abortion. Most collectives also recommend taking miso orally instead of vaginally, to reduce the possibility of an unsympathetic medical provider finding residual evidence. Without physical proof or a confession, people can claim that a planned abortion was a spontaneously occurring miscarriage.

    While the recent Supreme Court ruling reduces the legal risks that acompañantes and abortion-seekers face, it doesn’t mean an end to the work of grassroots feminist collectives. Even if there were a legal guarantee of free abortion care, “we still see an important role for acompañantes,” Natalia, a member of Las Confidentas, said. “Our ultimate goal is destigmatization and the abolition of obstetric violence. Even when this is achieved, people will likely still want people to accompany them, to make sure they’re receiving the kind of emotional support that even the fanciest clinics may not be able to provide.”

    Some of the “fancy” clinics—the private practices in Mexico City that offer legal abortions until the twelfth week of pregnancy—have tiered packages of care. An in-clinic surgical procedure costs around $200 USD; anesthesia costs extra. For an additional $100, you can get snacks, slippers, and a private room to recuperate in. For someone earning Mexico’s minimum wage of $7 a day, these are unaffordable luxuries. “We’re working to bring about a world where everyone can have snacks and slippers with their abortion,” Marina, another member of Las Confidentas, remarked.

    Acompañantes often host people at their homes to provide a safe place for self-administering abortion pills. “For zero pesos you can come to my house, and I’ll make sure you’re comfortable, that you have snacks, a hot water bottle, and Netflix,” Marina laughed. Then she grew more serious: “It’s ridiculous. How is it that only the rich have access to this kind of support?”

    Beyond Roe

    Before the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, the US abortion landscape looked more like Mexico’s before Sept. 7: while there was no guaranteed access, a robust activist network helped to provide abortion care. Several acompañantes mentioned taking inspiration from underground movements and feminist networks in the United States. Marina referred to the Jane Collective, a group of activists in Chicago with an anonymous hotline that connected pregnant people to abortion services and trained non-medical professionals to perform them. Silvia, an acompañante from Mexicali, recalled receiving training in the 1970s through a binational solidarity network that taught activists from both sides of the border to perform surgical abortions, a method that’s become less common with the advent and availability of abortion medications.

    Especially for women of color and people in low-income and conservative areas, legalization never meant the end of grassroots organizing and mobilizing efforts, largely because Roe never delivered the universal aborto libre that people sometimes think it did.

    While many of these underground transnational solidarity groups disappeared after Roe, there are still networks of activists supporting abortion access in the United States by connecting people to resources and diverse types of care. Especially for women of color and people in low-income and conservative areas, legalization never meant the end of grassroots organizing and mobilizing efforts, largely because Roe never delivered the universal aborto libre that people sometimes think it did.

    Organizations headed by Black and brown activists, like the Georgia-based SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, have worked to broaden how US reproductive rights advocates conceive of the struggle for bodily autonomy and the right to choose. In Reproductive Justice: An Introduction, scholar-activists Rickie Solinger and Loretta Ross explain “reproductive justice” as the recognition of the “human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities.” Mexican abortion activists and prominent reproductive rights organizations also embrace the language of reproductive justice. Nonprofits like GIRE draw connections to the struggles of domestic workers and frame reproductive justice as a call for more robust social and economic rights, including increased access to parental leave and other forms of support for people who choose to be parents.

    Through trainings and advocacy, SisterSong and other activist organizations foster informal networks of volunteers to support pregnant people economically, logistically, and emotionally. Growing numbers of radical and full-spectrum doula collectives of non-medically trained care workers are finding ways to assist people through all potential stages of a pregnancy—pre-conception, birth, abortion, post-partum, and beyond. In California, New York, Kentucky, Texas, and other states, these groups are bringing attention to the racial and economic disparities in reproductive care.

    Accompanied Self-Managed Abortions

    Misoprostol has been used as an abortifacient since the 1980s. The most common medical abortion regimen today is a combination of misoprostol with mifepristone, or “mife,” as the acompañantes refer to it. Mife/miso is 98% effective before 60 days of gestation, while miso alone in the first gestational phase is less effective, with a 75 to 85% chance of terminating a pregnancy. Acompañantes prefer to use the combination, but mife is not available over the counter, so most acompañantes provide abortion-seekers with only miso.

    In 2015, a woman in Indiana was charged with fetal homicide for taking abortion-inducing drugs; 28 states have fetal homicide laws like Indiana’s.

    While self-induced abortions have become safer in the decades since abortifacients first came on the market, the legal risks have remained in place. In both Mexico and the United States, people have been prosecuted for performing at-home abortions without prescriptions. In 2015, a woman in Indiana was charged with fetal homicide for taking abortion-inducing drugs; 28 states have fetal homicide laws like Indiana’s. In Mexico, people even suspected of seeking abortions could get up to six years of jail time. According to figures from GIRE, there have been around 500 abortion criminal investigations per year since 2015. Ninety-eight of these cases resulted in convictions. With Mexico’s Supreme Court ruling in September, being suspected of having an abortion will no longer be criminalized in this way.

    Advocates for self-managed care on both sides of the border want legislation that allows people to choose the abortion procedure that best suits them. In the meantime, global nonprofits such as Women Help Women provide resources with detailed instructions for how to safely self-administer an abortion anywhere in the world.

    Illegal Doesn’t Have to Mean Unsafe

    Reproductive rights activists often emphasize the lengths that people will go to when they’ve decided to terminate a pregnancy, and the deaths caused when services aren’t legal. The Roe ruling in 1973 was followed by a rapid drop in maternal deaths, showing how important legalization is to increasing access to safe care. But these narratives can also reinforce a stigma against self-managed care and minimize the financial, emotional, and other forms of support a pregnant person might need. Advocates for radical abortion care make the case that not all illegal self-managed abortions are inherently unsafe—and that they can expand access dramatically. The importance of centering care on the pregnant person’s needs and preferences over the authority of a doctor or the government is one of the many important lessons that can be learned from the work of Mexican activists.

    The importance of centering care on the pregnant person’s needs and preferences over the authority of a doctor or the government is one of the many important lessons that can be learned from the work of Mexican activists.

    Crystal is emboldened by Mexico’s Supreme Court decision but also wants the global reproductive justice movement to think beyond legal barriers and battles. “The legal struggle is an important one, but it’s not the only pathway to attaining el aborto libre,” she said. The news from Texas confirmed Crystal’s belief that more radical visions of reproductive justice are needed. “I’m working toward a world where we all possess the herbal and medical knowledge to handle a pregnancy how we want to and access the resources that we alone know we need,” she said.

    My message to reproductive activists in the United States is not to let legal battles get in the way of imagining alternative ways of caring for each other and ourselves. Women have always found a way and we will continue to. Decriminalized, legalized, it doesn’t matter. We’re here for you, we’ll send you pills in the mail, we’ll walk you through our tactics. Whatever you need.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren talks with reporters as she makes her way to the Senate floor for a vote in Washington, D.C., on June 22, 2021.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday joined physicians and dozens of her House Democratic colleagues in urging the Biden administration to immediately halt Medicare Direct Contracting, a Trump-era pilot that could result in complete privatization of the cherished public healthcare program by decade’s end.

    “It is completely baffling to me that the Biden administration wants to give the same bad actors in Medicare Advantage free rein in traditional Medicare,” Warren (D-Mass.) said during a hearing held by the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth.

    “My view is that President Biden should not permit Medicare to be handed over to corporate profiteers,” Warren added. “Doing so is going to increase costs and put more strain on the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. The Biden administration should shut down the Direct Contracting model.”

    The Direct Contracting (DC) pilot was first publicly announced by the Trump administration in 2019 and launched with little notice in the final months of the former president’s tenure. The program is administered through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Innovation Center, an agency that the Affordable Care Act empowered to experiment with alternatives to traditional Medicare’s payment model, which directly reimburses healthcare providers.

    The DC pilot, by contrast, inserts private middlemen called Direct Contracting Entities (DCEs) between patients and providers, allowing insurance giants and Wall Street-backed startups to keep as profit the public funding that they don’t spend on care.

    A majority of the 53 current DCEs — which are paid monthly by the federal government to cover a specified portion of a patient’s medical care — are investor-owned. Unlike Medicare Advantage, which Medicare patients choose voluntarily, the DC pilot automatically assigns seniors to DCEs, often without their knowledge or consent.

    “Wall Street is not racing to buy up clinics because they want to expand coordinated care models and limit profits,” Warren argued Wednesday. “Private equity and insurance companies want the eye-popping profits that are possible when the federal government lets them pocket whatever it is they can avoid spending on seniors and people with disabilities who need healthcare.”

    “The number of corporate vultures hoping to feed on Medicare continues to grow,” said Warren, the first Democratic senator to publicly criticize the Biden administration for letting the DC pilot proceed. “This invites fiscal disaster, and I hope this administration will reverse this decision.”

    Among the witnesses who testified at Wednesday’s hearing was Dr. Susan Rogers, president of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), an advocacy group that has been leading the opposition to the DC pilot and urging the Biden administration to stop the experiment in its tracks.

    During her testimony, Rogers noted that “DCEs may spend as little as 60% of their Medicare payments on patient care, keeping the other 40% as profit and overhead.”

    “Medicare was designed as a lifeline for America’s seniors and those with disabilities, not a playground for Wall Street investors,” Rogers said. “If middlemen in healthcare actually saved money and improved outcomes, the U.S. wouldn’t have the most expensive and ineffective healthcare system in the world. We don’t need to put seniors through another failed experiment to prove this.”

    Despite mounting pressure from advocacy groups and members of Congress — including more than 50 House Democrats led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) — the Biden administration has not yet provided any signal that it intends to stop the DC pilot.

    As Buzzfeed reported last week, the administration’s “current plan is to run the program through the end of Biden’s term, potentially allowing a future president to expand its scope and further erode Medicare, the pillar of public healthcare in America.”

    While the Biden administration paused the most extreme form of Direct Contracting — known as the Geographic (GEO) Model — last March, it has let the rest of the pilot program move forward as planned despite internal questions over its legality.

    One unnamed Senate Democratic aide told Buzzfeed that “because companies had already spent a substantial amount of money preparing for the program, his administration would have faced fierce industry backlash if they shut it down.”

    In her opening statement at Wednesday’s hearing, Warren argued that the federal government needs “to make changes to Medicare.”

    “But not the cuts and privatization that my Republican colleagues have sought in past efforts to so-called ‘reform’ Medicare. No,” Warren continued. “Instead of undermining the system and the benefits that we deliver, we need to crack down on greedy drug manufacturers, on private insurers, and on private equity firms.”

    “The Medicare system is hemorrhaging money on scams and frauds,” said the Massachusetts Democrat. “It is critical that we stop the flow, and, if we do, the system will have more than enough money to operate at its current level and increase coverage.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • When mothers with low incomes received just over $300 in monthly cash assistance during the first year of their children’s lives, their infants’ brains displayed more high-frequency brain waves when they reached 12 months old, a major new study by a team of investigators from six U.S. universities and released this week by the National Academy of Sciences shows. These types of brain waves are associated with higher language and cognitive scores and better social and emotional skills in children as they grow older.

    The post Cash Assistance Boosted Infants’ Brain Development, Study Shows appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Last year’s longest-running strike came to an end in early January when nurses at St. Vincent Hospital in Worcester, Massachusetts, overwhelmingly voted to ratify their new contract and return to work. Seven hundred nurses had walked out over dangerous staffing conditions last March—ten months ago. (See previous Labor Notes coverage from last April and August.) In a year of health care workers organizing amid Covid surges and staffing shortages, St. Vincent nurses stood out for their willingness to strike indefinitely and for the discipline the strikers showed.

    The post Striking Massachusetts Nurses Outwait Corporate Giant Tenet appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • A year after Joe Biden’s inauguration, things seem bleak. Despite the existence of life-saving vaccines, tests and masks, on January 21, more than 3,000 people were reported to have died of Covid-19, and the last time daily deaths were below 1,000 was in August. There is a better way, and it was proposed by then-candidate Joe Biden in 2020. As part of the Biden-Harris plan to tackle Covid-19, the campaign proposed the creation of a 100,000-strong U.S. Public Health Jobs Corps. In the words of the campaign, such a force would ensure “contact tracing reaches every single community in America” and that corps members “should come from the communities they serve.” Such a force was never created and, in the meantime, public health departments have struggled to deal with the increasing workload, with staff quickly burning out.

    The post Where Is The 100,000-Strong Public Health Corps Biden Promised Us? appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Oxfam’s latest report on global inequality has highlighted some alarming statistics on how wealth distribution has worsened during the pandemic. While the wealth of the world’s 10 richest men doubled since the pandemic began, the incomes of 99% of humanity became worse off because of COVID-19. What are the solutions to this crisis?

    The post How Can We Solve Inequality? appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • There is a long international history of student strikes. The recent student movements in Chile, Brazil, and elsewhere can offer ideas and inspiration to the thousands of K-12 students organizing school walkouts to demand remote learning and other safety protocols during the current Covid wave.

    The post What Student Activists Walking Out Over Covid Safety Can Learn From Student Movements Around The World appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • It is no news that transnational corporations have effectively infiltrated institutions such as the United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Still, according to a new report published by the People’s Working Group on Multistakeholderism (PWGM), their influence has now edged towards a breaking point. The Transnational Institute (TNI), the People’s Health Movement (PHM), Public Services International (PSI), and other organizations members of the working group have warned that surpassing this point will make it even more difficult to reclaim power from corporations, and that will have an effect on all aspects of people’s lives.

    The post Corporate Takeover Of Multilateralism Deals More Blows To Right To Health appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • In the last 10 days, 7.6 million new COVID-19 cases have been detected in the United States. Before mid-December, that’s the time period for which the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would have required Americans to quarantine once they test positive for COVID-19 – a practice intended to limit the spread of the highly contagious virus.

    However, a sudden policy change on December 27 halved that time, with Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of Biden’s coronavirus response team, telling CNN that “We want to get people back to their jobs, particularly those with essential jobs, to keep our society running smoothly.”

    The post Bereft Of Paid Sick Leave, Millions Of Ill Americans Are Forced To Work With Covid-19 – Report appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.