HARTFORD, Conn. - The Supreme Court decision upholding federal subsidies for the Affordable Care Act has major implications for consumers, according to local advocates.

Frances Padilla, president of the Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut, applauded the logic behind the ruling and also the impact it will have on local pocketbooks. Health-insurance rates in the state already are among the highest in the nation, she said, adding that for local consumers who access health care on a regular basis, a negative ruling could have meant the difference between paying their mortgage and affording health coverage.

"A decision by the Supreme Court in the other direction would have made insurance costs in Connecticut even higher," she said. "Surely it could have meant thousands of dollars for individual consumers."

By a 6-3 vote, the high court affirmed an Internal Revenue Service ruling that determined that subsidies should be available not just in states that set up their own exchanges but also available through the federal government's exchange.

GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was among those opposed to the decision; he labeled the ruling an "out-of-control act of judicial tyranny."

Padilla said the issue of access to health care never really was in play in the case before the Supreme Court in states such as Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, because each has set up a state exchange. She said the bigger sigh of relief on that score is being felt in Northern New England.

"But (for) states like New Hampshire and Maine, where their residents benefit from the federal subsidies," she said, "the good news is that their residents, who are in fact benefiting, are going to be able to continue to benefit."

Padilla said the ruling is on the right side of history and sends a clear message that the United States won't return to a day where people won't have access to health insurance because they can't afford it.

The high court's decision is online at supremecourt.gov.


get more stories like this via email

Colorado now has 21 health providers treating patients regardless of their ability to pay, after Denver's Uptown Community Health Center won designation as a federally qualified health center look-alike organization.

Cherise Callighan, CEO of the Uptown Community Health Center, explained the look-alike designation means Uptown will not receive Health Center Program grant funding. She said all community health centers offer physical, dental and behavioral health, as part of their mission to deliver whole health integrated care.

"You can come in, you can get fluoride for your two-year-old, you can see a psychologist for whatever behavioral health needs you have, and you can see a physician or a nurse practitioner in order to take care of your diabetes," Callighan outlined. "It's a one-stop shop."

Colorado Community Health Centers care for 867,000 patients at more than 250 sites across the state and provide a range of primary care services in underserved areas. Uptown offers family medicine, internal medicine and OB/GYN services on a sliding fee scale based on a patient's ability to pay.

Callighan pointed out Uptown can expand access to care for Denver's most vulnerable residents because they now qualify for cost-based Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement. She added Community Health Centers help lower overall health care costs by ensuring patients receive preventive care and access to medicine.

People who do not have access tend to put off care, get sicker, and often end up in the emergency room.

"Getting them access to education on how to take care of their diabetes, their hypertension, their high cholesterol," Callighan emphasized. "Doing all that education up front with our providers and our nurses and our social workers decreases the cost of care because it keeps them out of the hospital."

Callighan added Uptown aims to continue the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth ministry, which opened its first clinic to take care of the poor and vulnerable in the 19th century.

"To be able to provide health care to any person that walks through the doors," Callighan underscored. "If you needed health care, you got health care. If you could pay something, that was great. If you could pay nothing, that was fine too. And we're continuing that mission going forward."


get more stories like this via email

A bill which would have given pesticide companies legal immunity from health problems caused by their products did not make it through the legislature this year in Iowa.

A recent poll from the Iowa Association for Justice found 89% of Iowans oppose giving pesticide companies legal immunity, including 87% of Republicans.

Jennifer Breon, Iowa organizer for the group Food and water Watch, said the issue is about human health, which most Iowa lawmakers understand.

"Our legislators are Iowans as well," Breon pointed out. "Some of them are farmers. Some of them have probably used these products over the years and have family members who might have cancer or other health issues. And they have to wonder, you know, what's causing this?"

Registration records show the pharmaceutical company Bayer has four lobbyists in Iowa alone, a state where several companies often pool resources to hire just one.

More than 30 groups representing Iowans wrote a letter to House leaders calling on lawmakers to oppose the so-called "Cancer Gag Act."

Breon noted putting it on hold, at least for this year, had broad public support even outside the Statehouse in Des Moines.

"If you've seen the advertising all around Iowa on billboards and social media, this bill is backed by the industry and by Bayer in particular," Breon added.

While there is some debate about which pesticides are carcinogenic, it has been well documented they run off into groundwater. Iowa has the second-highest cancer rate in the nation and new cases are growing more quickly than in any other state.

By Anna Gustafson for the Pennsylvania Independent.
Broadcast version by Danielle Smith for Keystone State News Connection reporting for the Pennsylvania Independent-Public News Service Collaboration

Cindy Stewart worked for 54 years before retiring. Now, instead of enjoying retired life, the Allentown resident is worried about her Social Security benefits as the Trump administration plans thousands of job cuts and office closures at the Social Security Administration.

“I feel it’s something that I’m deserving of because I’ve paid 54 years and worked hard, and I really, truly count on it,” Stewart said. “And the way they talk, it’s going to be wiped away. They’re going to make it look like it’s not doing as well as it is, and they’re going to break it. It’s very upsetting. I think everybody’s so upset and frustrated, because what can we do?”

Stewart was one of nearly 500 people who crowded into the cavernous Cathedral Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem on March 20 for an event billed as a “People’s Town Hall.” Organized by a number of Democratic organizations, including the Pennsylvania Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee, the event was part of a national effort to host town halls in competitive congressional districts where constituents could air their anger, frustration and sadness over the plans and actions of the Trump administration, including possible cuts to Medicaid and worries about Social Security checks continuing to arrive.

Organizers invited U.S. Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, a Republican who defeated Democratic incumbent Susan Wild in the November election, to the town hall held in Mackenzie’s 7th Congressional District, but he did not attend. Instead, Mackenzie hosted his own telephone town hall at the same time. Wild, who served three terms in the House, attended the event.

The town hall drew a standing-room only crowd. In front of a group of federal, state and local Democratic lawmakers and officials, the crowd shared a long list of concerns about the Trump administration. Many of those who spoke became emotional during the evening, wiping away tears as they described the harm Medicaid cuts would pose and anger over members of the Trump administration criticizing the Social Security program, which serves approximately 69 million Americans, the majority of whom are retirees. 

“I can’t express how upsetting it is because we don’t know what’s going to happen,” said Darlene Horwath, who traveled from Kutztown to attend the town hall. “We depend on Social Security somewhat, and with the economy tanking also, are we going to be out in the street? What’s going to happen when everything’s gone? Because that’s what the direction is.”

Colleen and Russ Sutton, who are retired nurses from Bethlehem, also shared their worries about what will happen to Social Security and Medicare under Trump. 

“I’m concerned about Social Security and Medicare,” Russ Sutton said. “I mean, we’re both on it, and it affects us. I’m concerned about it, and it’s not an entitlement when you pay into it. So I’m tired of hearing the word ‘entitlement,’ because it isn’t. It’s like you buy insurance, you pay for it, and this is insurance that you paid for all your life.”

While the White House has insisted that cuts to Social Security, including eliminating thousands of jobs at the Social Security Administration and shuttering Social Security offices, won’t affect Social Security benefits, retirees at the town hall said they fear otherwise. 

“There’s no other recourse for us to do. I mean, the food banks and the services that are state-provided are at their limit,” Horwath said. 

Attendees said they hope Mackenzie hears his constituents’ concerns about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs that have been cut or are facing cuts. Sitting near an empty chair with a name card on it that read “Rep. Ryan Mackenzie,” attendees criticized the congressman’s decision not to attend the town hall.

“He won’t show up,” Colleen Sutton said. “That’s one of the reasons why there are other Democratic leaders here to answer questions for us.”

Wild also criticized Mackenzie’s absence. 

“In my first term, by the end of March, we had done three town halls, live ones, one of them in the reddest, reddest part of our district,” Wild said. “It was not a fun experience for me. It was a packed house, lots of people who definitely did not vote for me, but I sat there for two hours and I answered questions.”

Mackenzie’s office did not respond to the Pennsylvania Independent’s request for comment. During his phone town hall, Mackenzie addressed concerns about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, according to reporting by Lehigh Valley Live. 

“No changes should be occurring for Social Security or Medicare,” Mackenzie was quoted as saying. “Those are for seniors. And we want to make sure that we protect those benefits … [and] support making sure that the traditional Medicaid population, those vulnerable individuals, children, low-income seniors, individuals with disabilities, we want to make sure that the care is protected for them as well.”

In order to pay for President Donald Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy and the mass deportation of immigrants, the Republican-majority House in February passed a budget resolution that calls for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and a $2 trillion reduction in federal spending over the next 10 years. The resolution also instructs the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which oversees the Medicaid and Medicare programs, to cut at least $880 billion from its budget. Mackenzie and every other House Republican from Pennsylvania voted for that resolution.

In interviews with the Pennsylvania Independent, parents in the commonwealth said carving hundreds of millions of dollars from Medicaid would be devastating for children with disabilities and would end in people dying from a lack of affordable health care services.

Michelle Ritter, who provides mental health care services to children at a local clinic, said during the town hall that Medicaid cuts would be disastrous for the families she serves. She noted that the parents she works with, many of whom work more than one job to make ends meet, rely on programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, for mental health services for their children and food during the summer months when children are not in school.

“The world is scary when you can work so hard, and it is still too expensive to live,” Ritter said. 


Anna Gustafson wrote this article for the Pennsylvania Independent.


get more stories like this via email