BOISE, Idaho – The scars of war might be deeper for soldiers who come from poorer areas of the country, according to a new study.
Francis Shen of the University of Minnesota and Douglas Kriner from the University of Boston looked at more than 500,000 American combat casualties since World War II, and found a growing trend of unequal health services for soldiers after they come home.
Shen says many veterans who return to lower-income communities struggle to find mental health services.
"A good proportion of them don't have the benefit of some of those structures,” he points out. “It makes reintegration more difficult, it makes recovery from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) more difficult, it might lead to an increase in other sorts of challenges such as addiction. And that can be cumulative."
The study, "Invisible Inequality: The Two Americas of Military Sacrifice," found communities with lower incomes have higher casualty rates.
Veterans Affairs has one medical center in Boise and eight community-based outpatient clinics across Idaho.
Shen says more people from low-income communities see the armed forces as a career path because other career and educational paths aren't affordable options.
"Where it's hitting hardest are those, I would say, the lower-middle class or the working class,” he points out. “Individuals who see opportunity – good opportunity – in the military, and we're all for that, but then who might not have some of the service provisions at the end that we think they ought to."
Shen adds politicians from the major parties rarely talk about this reality, even though income inequality and national security are two of the biggest issues of this election.
"Sometimes we get a comment that says, 'Oh we don't talk about it because everybody knows it – it's a rich man's war, poor man's fight, we've known that forever,'” he relates.
“Well, it turns out that about half of Americans think that there is shared sacrifice right now. And they're wrong about that, but that's what they think. And it's probably understandable why they think that, because no one ever mentions it on either side of the aisle."
Shen thinks talking about this trend could give pause to the next president before she or he decides to put boots on the ground.
get more stories like this via email
Access to reduced-price medication is a necessity for many rural Missourians with low income.
Rep. Cindy O'Laughlin, R-Shelbina, the Senate Floor Leader, said Big Pharma is trying to confuse legislators with unrelated hot-button topics such as abortion access and illegal immigration in a last-ditch effort to stop the state from joining a program to force drugmakers to sell medicines at a discount.
"Appealing to nuclear topics, which really do not apply in this situation, is a disingenuous way to try to defeat a bill that is actually good for Missouri," O'Laughlin asserted.
O'Laughlin pointed out the program is transparent, and uses the tax money saved to help low-income families deal with chronic conditions such as diabetes.
The drugmakers object to the government forcing them to give significant discounts, arguing hospitals' and for-profit pharmacies' bottom lines, particularly those owned by pharmacy benefits managers, are being exploited. Nationally, 46% of contract pharmacy agreements involve pharmacies linked to the three largest benefits managers.
Rep. Tara Peters, R-Rolla, introduced the 340B contract pharmacy access billand said the lobbying is absurd.
"Federally, 340B program does not allow for abortion drugs," Peters stressed. "Why would any legislation that we're trying to pass in the state allow for that? I mean, the thought of that even being in existence is absolutely ludicrous."
The Missouri Senate passed the bill 27-3 on Monday and it now goes to the House.
get more stories like this via email
Alabama is running out of time to tackle Medicaid expansion this legislative session.
More than 230 people gathered earlier this month with the group Alabama Arise, urging state lawmakers to prioritize the issue. Their message: Access to health care isn't just a matter of policy, it can be a matter of life and death.
Debbie Smith, Cover Alabama campaign director for Alabama Arise, said as the session winds down, the group will continue to echo the call for increased access to health coverage. She thinks it would not only save lives but revitalize communities across the state.
"Over 80% of our rural hospitals are operating in the red," Smith pointed out. "Not a great stat. About 19 rural hospitals are at immediate risk of closure, and those are the lifeblood of those communities. They're on life support."
Smith emphasized hospitals at financial risk also put their workforce at risk. Those who are against Medicaid expansion believe it is ultimately unaffordable for the state. However, Smith argued it could save the state nearly $400 million over the next six years. According to the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama, those savings would be enough to cover the cost.
The council's study also showed Medicaid expansion would generate nearly $2 billion of economic growth. Beyond economic benefits, Smith pointed to the stark disparities in maternal and infant mortality rates in Alabama.
She stressed Medicaid expansion would do more than provide health care coverage during pregnancy or postpartum, it is about ensuring comprehensive coverage.
"We've been lucky enough to expand Medicaid coverage up to 12 months postpartum but we still need to figure out how to cover people before they even get pregnant," Smith asserted. "It's really important for people to have health coverage so they can address any kind of issues they might have, like if they have diabetes or high blood pressure that might affect their pregnancy in the future."
With limited time left in the legislative session, she noted one option could be Gov. Kay Ivey's executive authority to enact Medicaid expansion. Smith added using the power could be the simplest path forward, backed by the promise of additional funding from the American Rescue Plan.
Disclosure: Alabama Arise contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Health Issues, and Poverty Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
A Connecticut bill would expand the state's paid sick leave law.
The initial 2011 law requires 40 hours of paid sick leave for workers at employers with 50 businesses or more. The new bill covers all workers regardless of their employer's size.
Janée Woods Weber, executive director of the nonprofit She Leads Justice, said the legislation can benefit workers without access to paid sick leave.
"These are people for whom taking a few hours off when their child has a cold or perhaps they need to take themselves to a doctor's appointment are the kinds of challenges that many of us don't worry about, those of us who do have access to paid sick days," Woods Weber explained.
Small businesses were concerned about how the change could affect them. To address worries, the bill has a three-year implementation cycle giving them time to adapt. It also creates a task force studying the feasibility of providing tax credits to businesses with the smallest workforces. The bill passed the House and awaits a vote in the Senate.
An estimated 11% of workers are eligible for paid sick leave under the current criteria. Though expanding the law has taken over a decade, Woods Weber argued it has always been necessary.
"Nobody should be forced to make what is often times a very difficult and sometimes impossible choice between their livelihood," Woods Weber emphasized. "Getting a paycheck and getting to take paid time off to take care of themselves or a loved one if they get sick."
She added that once the bill is passed, the state can build off it by allowing people to earn more than 40 hours of paid sick time. Woods Weber said the isolation requirements during the pandemic forced anyone who got COVID-19 to use their allotted sick time all at once for isolation.
get more stories like this via email