Legislation to create paid family and medical leave in Pennsylvania is getting bipartisan support.

House Bill 200 has 58 cosponsors, including three Republicans. It's in the Labor and Industry Committee.

The nonprofit Maternity Care Coalition is among those pushing for passage.

Sara Jann Heinze, the coalition's senior director of policy and advocacy, said the bill would allow families some financial support during childbirth and major illnesses. She added that for new parents and babies, paid leave could cut hospital readmissions in half.

"But the bill covers family and medical leave, so it's a really great and expansive benefit," she said. "So individuals who have a baby, adopt a baby, who are sick themselves or need to care for a loved one, people experiencing domestic violence. It's a really comprehensive program."

House Bill 200 is an update of past legislative attempts known as the Family Care Act, to fund paid leave through employer and employee contributions. Thirteen states have similar programs.

Heinze noted many new mothers return to work even before their six-week checkup because of financial strain, some within ten days.

Heinze said paid family and medical leave has been found to significantly reduce perinatal depression, the most common pregnancy-related complication. Untreated, it can have long-term health effects on both parent and child.

"One in eight folks who are pregnant will experience perinatal depression," she said. "Access to paid leave can reduce the likelihood that you will experience perinatal depression by almost 28%. And this is really critical, too, because perinatal depression is challenging for the individual who has it."

Heinze said some Pennsylvania employers offer paid leave programs, but access is unequal.

"What we see is a concentration of women of color working for organizations or companies that don't offer paid family leave," she said. "So, it's upside down. The people who are most likely to experience adverse birth outcomes are least likely to have access to this program."

While large corporations use paid leave to attract talent, Heinze said, small businesses struggle to offer it, which puts them at a disadvantage in hiring.

To pay for the priorities of President Donald Trump's administration, like mass deportations and tax cuts, Republicans in Congress are considering cuts to a host of programs supporting people living paycheck to paycheck.

Potential cuts include $880 billion to Medicaid over the next decade.

Adam Fox, deputy director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, said 1.2 million Coloradans rely on Medicaid, including pregnant mothers, people with disabilities, working families and nearly six in 10 people in nursing facilities.

"It provides coverage to so many in our communities, it is really the foundational block in our health care and health coverage systems," Fox pointed out. "If Medicaid gets cut, it puts the entire health care system at risk."

Republicans have said cuts to Medicaid could be made without reducing benefits by overhauling and improving the program, which, according to analysis by Reuters, serves 35 million Americans in states President Donald Trump won in the 2024 election. In a recent survey, seven in 10 Trump voters said cutting Medicaid is unacceptable.

Colorado faces a $1.2 billion budget deficit, largely due to the state's tax code under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR. Fox acknowledged in many ways, the state's hands will be tied if Congress cuts Medicaid funding.

"Colorado cannot raise revenue, because of TABOR, to make up the difference," Fox noted. "Any cuts at the federal level will mean that Colorado has to reduce benefits, or strip people of coverage."

America's for-profit health system costs more than twice as much as other wealthy nations per capita. Fox argued what is needed is a health system covering every American and controlling costs. Compared to all other current health programs, Fox stressed Medicaid is the most efficient at meeting those goals.

"What we probably should be focusing on is really expanding Medicaid to everyone -- who is not eligible for Medicare, at least -- rather than cutting the program," Fox urged.

Wildfires are creeping closer and closer to health care facilities in California, including hospitals and nursing homes, according to a new study.

Researchers with the nonprofit Direct Relief looked at 23 years worth of data and found the distance between wildfire and the facilities is decreasing by an average of 628 feet per year.

Andrew Schroeder, vice president for research and analysis at Direct Relief and the study's coauthor, said they are seeing a steady pattern of increasing proximity.

"That raises a lot of policy issues," Schroeder pointed out. "A lot of pragmatic issues about how we operate the health care system in California, how we choose to locate health facilities and what it means to operate a truly resilient health care system."

The data also show the number of inpatient beds and acute care facilities within five miles of a wildfire zone is increasing, as development increases on and near dry hillsides in the urban-wildland interface.

Neil Singh Bedi, research scientist with CrisisReady, a collaboration between Direct Relief and the Harvard Data Science Initiative, said long-term care facilities like nursing homes are most vulnerable.

"This might mean that we need to invest more resources for those facilities to be able to evacuate more safely," Singh Bedi suggested. "Or better filtration systems, if wildfires are going to be closer to those facilities."

The Direct Relief report is the second in a three-part series. The first examined the medical implications of the state's power outages on people who rely on electricity to run lifesaving machines and refrigerate medicines. The next report will look at how medically vulnerable people in Mariposa County communicate during wildfire emergencies.

Rural communities in Missouri are bracing for a tough reality as they plan ahead for the possibility of federal cuts to programs such as Medicaid.

The poverty rate in rural Missouri stands at more than 16%, compared with a little more than 11% in urban regions of the state.

Bryan Stallings, co-founder and CEO of the rural charity Elevate Branson, said they don't get their resources directly from federal funding, but primarily from donations. However, he warned that his nonprofit will feel the ripple effects of these cuts as donors who are directly impacted will be forced to give less.

"You end up having to reduce staff - and with these cuts, you're going to see the demand go up," he said. "So, here you're going to have this big gap in staffing to be able to serve the increased need."

In Missouri, one in five children faces hunger, and in Branson, the poverty rate tops 22%. Stallings said his nonprofit serves 4,000 to 5,000 people each year.

Support includes Medicaid-funded mental-health counseling, food, clothing, housing and even assistance with obtaining birth certificates or Social Security cards. Stallings noted that transportation is a major barrier for rural residents seeking these types of services - and when one-stop charities such as his lose resources, the entire community feels the impact.

"Rural communities have very little resources for transportation," he said, "which means individuals who are in that underserved population, they really need to be able to access services all in one location."

He said the local economy in Taney County is affected by Branson being a tourist destination, with a high number of residents who work in low-wage, service-industry jobs. The county's median income is about 17% less than that of the state as a whole.


get more stories like this via email