Bill would have New Mexico join interstate compact to ease doctor shortage
NEW MEXICO (KRQE) – Whether it's struggling to find a doctor or having to wait months to see one, lawmakers are considering a handful of bills aiming to ease the healthcare professional shortage in New Mexico.
Story continues below
DWI Scandal: Another BCSO deputy placed on leave in connection to DWI dismissals
Entertainment: Visit these 10 iconic film locations in New Mexico
Events: What's happening around New Mexico March 14-20
'We have lost 8.5% percent of our doctors in the last four years and as a result, it is common and not unusual for people when they need to see a doctor, to be told they need to wait six months,' said Rep. Marian Matthews (D-Albuquerque).
After a high-profile bill aiming to lower insurance caps to bring more doctors to New Mexico failed to move forward in the Roundhouse, another bill aimed at addressing the state's doctor shortage is in the spotlight on Monday. Following its unanimous passage in the house, on Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee discussed House Bill 243.
If passed, New Mexico would join an interstate compact, making it easier for doctors licensed in other states to get licensed in New Mexico to treat patients here, even via telehealth. One committee member shared the story of how it would help her friend who has a son with a rare form of cancer.
'The only way that he could contact a doctor, well let's be honest, it was part of a compact or he has to drive to Texas,' said Sen. Micaelita Debbie O'Malley (D-Albuquerque). 'That's very difficult on his family. It's costly and it's stressful. So, I would hope that there's something we could do.'
43 states and the District of Columbia are part of this compact. The committee had a long list of amendments, most of which seemed okay to the compact representative except for at least two. One of those is the committee's wish to amend the provision in the bill saying the compact commission would develop rules. 'This is the language that says any rule we make as a compact has the force of law in your state,' said Sen. Katy Duhigg (D-Albuquerque), who brought many of the requested amendments forward.
The other requested amendment the compact commission representative said might be an issue was the line in the bill that grants employees of the interstate commission immunity from lawsuits.
'The purpose of that is to make sure that those state employees or medicine within the State of New Mexico or any other of the member states who are acting in good faith, will have qualified immunity from lawsuits unless they are violating the good faith requirement or acting in a malicious or intentional way to hurt someone,' said Rick Masters, general counsel for the interstate licensing compact commission. 'To eliminate immunity for anybody who is working as an agent or employee for the state of New Mexico would be, first of all, exposing those people but I'm thinking that would also be the case with the rest of the commission if some licensee decides to file some lawsuit because they claim their license wasn't properly handled.'
The committee ran out of time and rolled the bill, meaning the possible amendments will be discussed further before any action. The Senate also has its own version of this bill, SB 46, which is still making its way through the Roundhouse.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Yahoo
Trump's judicial nominees are key to the far right's crusade against our courts
Less than 200 days into Trump 2.0, amid an unrelenting wave of scandals, it's easy to forget his first term. But we are still feeling its shockwaves every day through the lasting impact of his judicial appointments. We're reminded again this week of the importance of judges with the Senate Judiciary Committee's consideration of Trump's first group of judicial nominees in this second term. Talk about the Trump administration's unprecedented assault on our fundamental freedoms has revolved around the breathtaking corruption and flouting of our law being committed in plain sight, including fancy dinners for foreign interests who buy Trump's cryptocurrency, a $400 million flying bribe from Qatar, and abusive immigration enforcement tactics that include snatching a college student off the street with no due process. But the people who are likely to have the most lasting impact on our lives and future are those Trump has nominated to serve lifetime appointments on the federal bench. If confirmed, these nominees would be expected to not only look the other way as the building blocks of America's democracy are gutted, but to pave the way for Trump's radical agenda — gutting reproductive freedoms and allowing the administration to take health care away from millions. This isn't hyperbole. Just look at the records of the first slate he nominated. Many of them have histories of defending anti-choice legislation and other radical policies championed by Trump and his MAGA allies in Congress. Whitney Hermandorfer, Trump's nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, has a history of arguing for extreme positions in court, including defending abortion bans that even lack exceptions for rape and incest. Josh Divine, Trump's nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and the Western District of Missouri, is Missouri's Solicitor General and has tried to undo the FDA's approval of mifepristone and neutralize the results of Missouri's voter-approved Amendment 3, which overturned the state's abortion ban. New reporting also revealed that in a 2010 opinion piece, Divine called for literacy tests for voters despite the racially discriminatory practice being banned in the 1960s. Some of the nominees in this first slate have also supported Trump's attack on birthright citizenship, which has been widely viewed as unconstitutional. And in true loyalist fashion, one worked to defend Trump by seeking to interfere in New York's attempt to hold Trump accountable for state crimes. To understand the current environment we must remember how we got here. The far-right's weaponization of the judiciary started long before Trump took office and paved the way for him to install 234 lifetime appointees to the federal courts, including one-third of the Supreme Court, during his first term. The results have been catastrophic. The Supreme Court has stripped away women's rights and emboldened Trump to evade accountability. In the lower courts, judges dangerously distort legal standards to arrive at certain policy outcomes while others repeatedly appeared to put personal loyalty to Trump above the rule of law. This is what the far-right wants: a judiciary that functions as another arm of the MAGA movement. And Trump's allies have promised that his second-term nominees will be even more extreme than the first. Given what we are seeing out of the administration, there is no acceptable reason for Senate Democrats to assist their Republican colleagues in pushing through Trump's judicial nominees. The desire for compromise is human and, in many cases, necessary. But this is not the time to capitulate. Anyone who believes in our democracy cannot just cast a vote and hope for the best. Doing so would lend a dangerous legitimacy to the corrosive behavior of the administration and its supporters when it comes to the rule of law. Recently, some Senate Democrats have voiced regret for supporting Trump's cabinet nominees, including those who were seen as mainstream picks before going full MAGA once confirmed. Senators should not set themselves up for the same feelings of shame in voting for those who Trump nominates for lifetime appointments. We at Demand Justice will be tracking every vote, and calling attention to every nominee set to bolster far-right interests from the bench. America deserves better than judges gutting healthcare, endangering our kids' schools, and rolling back our rights. America deserves better than judges serving the whims of the President. There is far too much at stake to support this administration's crusade to endlessly expand its own power and assert it over the courts.
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Yahoo
Oregon bill would reduce administrative burden for patients seeking physician assisted suicide
A doctor holds a hospital patient's hand. (Getty Images) Terminally ill people who want their doctors' help in dying could do so twice as quickly under an Oregon bill that would cut the waiting period between asking for a lethal dose of medication from 15 days to seven. Oregon is one of 11 states and Washington, D.C., that allow terminally ill individuals to choose to end their lives by asking a physician for a lethal dose of medication. Only adults who are given six months to live and who can effectively communicate for themselves can elect for physician-assisted suicide. In 2023, the state removed a residency requirement, enabling people from other states to travel to Oregon to die. Patients must make two oral requests to their physician for the medication, each separated by at least 15 days. But Senate Bill 1003, as amended, would change the law and reduce that time frame from 15 days to seven days. The bill would allow electronic transmission of prescriptions and filings, and it would require hospices and health care facilities disclose their physician-assisted suicide policy before a patient is admitted and publish the policy on their websites. The bill would also broaden who can prescribe lethal drugs by replacing 'attending physician' and 'consulting physician' in the law with 'attending practitioner' and 'consulting practitioner' while retaining the requirement that they are licensed physicians in Oregon. The bill is sponsored by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill received a public hearing Monday afternoon in the Senate Committee on Rules, with dozens of individuals testifying and submitting letters mostly in opposition. It has yet to receive a vote by either chamber. The state's policy, called the 'Death by Dignity Act,' was created through a 1994 citizens initiative that passed with 51% of the vote. A lawsuit paused the act from taking effect for three years, but in 1997 that injunction was lifted and an attempt to repeal the act in a citizens initiative failed the same year. In 2024, 607 people received prescriptions for lethal doses of medications, according to the Oregon Health Authority. Most patients receiving medications were 65 or older and white. The most common diagnosis was cancer, followed by neurological disease and heart disease. Most individuals, including mental health providers and Christian medical groups, testified in opposition to the bill, saying it would undermine the time needed for patients to process their diagnosis, disregard alternative health solutions and ignore mental health concerns. The committee received 429 letters in opposition to the bill and only 12 letters in support. Rep. E. Werner Reschke, R-Malin, said it 'creates a culture of death over that of life.' But a few proponents, such as Portland resident Thomas Ngo, said it would make the process smoother and less of an administrative burden for patients enduring terminal illness and pain. Ngo said his mother used the Death with Dignity Act to die after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. 'Her passing was peaceful and on her teams,' Ngo told the committee. Ngo's father's partner died of the same disease but could not opt for physician-assisted suicide because they were at a religiously-affiliated health care provider. Oregon health care providers are not obligated to participate in the Death by Dignity Act, and many religiously affiliated hospitals do not participate. The bill will be scheduled for a work session for a later date where the committee can decide to hold the bill — killing it for the remainder of the session — or advance the bill to the Senate floor for a vote. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans plan hearing on Biden's perceived cognitive decline
Senate Republicans have announced plans to launch their own probe into former President Joe Biden over his cognitive abilities while in office, claiming they want to investigate who was running the country during what they call Biden's decline. Republican Sens. Eric Schmitt and John Cornyn will co-chair a first-of-its-kind Senate Judiciary Committee hearing next month on the subject, which they say was covered up by members of the media. The focus echoes President Donald Trump's oft-repeated claims about Biden's mental fitness while president and criticism of Biden's use of autopen, a mechanical device to automatically add a signature to a document that's been utilized by several past presidents, including Trump in his first term. "We need to get past the failures of the media, which were legend as you pointed out, or the political issue of 'were you for Biden or against Biden?' This is about a constitutional crisis, where we basically have a mentally incompetent president who's not in charge," Cornyn said Thursday on Fox News' "The Will Cain Show." MORE: Biden, on 'The View,' takes blame for Trump's win and rejects reports of cognitive decline "The question is: Who is in charge? Whose finger is on the nuclear button or has the nuclear codes? Who can declare war? How do we defend the nation when we have basically an absent president? And those are constitutional issues we need to address and correct," Cornyn said. On Friday, after delivering his first public remarks since his office announced he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer, Biden responded to reporters who asked him about Democrats who say he shouldn't have run again. "Why didn't they run against me then? Because I'd have beaten them," Biden said, adding that he has no regrets. Biden denied any accusations of mental decline, saying that he's proud of his record as president. News of the upcoming hearing comes after Cornyn penned a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi last week, urging the Justice Department to investigate whether the Biden administration was being lawful in how they presented his cognitive condition to the country. He asked that the Justice Department open a probe into "any potential violations of federal law surrounding the representations made to the American people about the health and wellbeing" of Biden. "Congress' responsibility is actually bigger than just that. It is to provide oversight and to make sure that there's more transparency for future presidents so we understand how this happened and how can we prevent it from happening again," Cornyn said on Fox News. Cornyn, in his letter, cited the May 18 report from Biden's representatives that announced he had been diagnosed with late-stage aggressive prostate cancer. MORE: Why Biden may not have known about his 'aggressive' prostate cancer until recently Other Republicans have also been calling for answers about Biden's health during the course of his presidency. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday that former first lady Jill Biden should testify in front of Congress over the alleged "cover-up" of Biden's health. "I think, frankly, the former first lady should certainly speak up about what she saw in regards to her husband and when she saw it and what she knew," Leavitt said. "I think anybody looking at the videos and photo evidence of Joe Biden with your own eyes and a little bit of common sense can see, this was a clear coverup, and Jill Biden was certainly complicit in that cover-up. There's documentation and video evidence of her clearly trying to shield her husband away from the cameras," she claimed. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, a Republican, recently called for a number of high-ranking Biden White House staffers to do transcribed interviews surrounding the topic of Biden's alleged decline. Comer, speaking to Fox News' Sean Hannity on Wednesday, also suggested he might subpoena both Joe and Jill Biden, as well as former White House chief of staff Ron Klain, during the House's investigation of the former president's health and examination of his use of an autopen to sign legislation and executive orders. Comer also recently requested that Biden's White House physician, Kevin O'Connor, appear for a transcribed interview as part of the investigation. The calls for the probes into Biden come after the release of "Original Sin" by CNN host Jake Tapper and Axios reporter Alex Thompson, which made claims about "the Bidens' capacity for denial and the lengths they would go to avoid transparency about health issues." In response to the book's release, a Biden spokesman said "there is nothing in this book that shows Joe Biden failed to do his job, as the authors have alleged, nor did they prove their allegation that there was a cover up or conspiracy." "Nowhere do they show that our national security was threatened or where the President wasn't otherwise engaged in the important matters of the Presidency," the spokesperson said in a statement to ABC News. "In fact, Joe Biden was an effective President who led our country with empathy and skill." Top Democrats have largely avoided defending Biden as new details surrounding the former president's health and alleged cover-up have emerged in recent weeks. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, when asked by CNN host Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday whether Democrats can be trusted as new details are emerging, circumvented commenting directly on the former president's condition. "What I can say is that we're not looking back, we're gonna continue to look forward because at this moment, we've got real problems that need to be addressed on behalf of the American people, including the Republican effort to snatch away health care, to snatch away food assistance and hurt veterans," Jeffries said. During a recent press conference, Jeffries also accused Republicans of "peddling conspiracy theories" intended to make the country look "backward at a time when they are actually taking health care away from the American people." "No, as House Democrats, we are going to look forward," Jeffries added. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has also dodged any questions about Biden's health, responding to CNN's Kasie Hunt earlier this month by saying, "Kasie, we're looking forward." But other Democrats, such as Rep. Ro Khanna -- who defended Biden's mental and physical fitness during the 2024 campaign -- admitted he was wrong, but said there wasn't a cover-up of ahead of the election. "I don't think it was a cover-up ... but I do think that the advisers and people close to Joe Biden owe an explanation … What I don't think the Democratic Party can do is just say, 'Let's talk about the future. Let's move past this,'" Khanna told ABC News' "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl last Sunday. Senate Republicans plan hearing on Biden's perceived cognitive decline originally appeared on
