DES MOINES, Iowa - The holidays are a time of celebrating, and often that includes the consumption of alcohol, but those who don't enjoy it in moderation are not only affecting themselves but also putting a big burden on society.

According to prevention consultant Julie Hibben at the Iowa Department of Health, binge drinking has many adverse consequences, including immediate health difficulties.

"Then there's also some chronic conditions that can happen to folks if they've been binge drinking for a period of time," she pointed out. "Also, there are justice issues that happen when people are binge drinking, as well as productivity when it comes to work. So there are a lot of issues that we need to look at, when it comes to addressing binge drinking in our state."

According to the CDC, the yearly total cost in Iowa from excessive alcohol consumption is nearly $2 billion.

Hibben said rankings show that Iowa is among the states with the highest rates of binge drinking and underage drinking in the country. Part of the effort to change that is focused on the 23 Iowa counties where the problem is the worst, with the aim of shifting societal norms.

"Alcohol use is a very normal part of many of our communities in Iowa, and so we want people to realize that alcohol use can be done responsibly, but binge drinking can be very problematic," she said.

Nationally, the cost of excessive alcohol consumption is estimated at more than $200 billion, and Dr. Robert Brewer, alcohol program leader at the CDC, said it is a major public health issue.

"We're talking about costs at the state level that are of the same order of magnitude as the cost of smoking, and in many states, the same order of magnitude of the cost of Medicaid. This is a huge burden for society," Brewer declared.

Binge drinking is defined as consuming five or more drinks on one occasion for men, or four or more drinks for women.

The CDC report is at bit.ly/1dHPBmd. Iowa drinking details are at bit.ly/1fT7Cy3.




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.

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 once the bill is passed, the state can build on it by allowing people to earn additional time off, at least up to 40 hours. It stems from the pandemic, when people had to isolate for up to five days if they contracted COVID-19, which could burn through their allotted sick time.


get more stories like this via email