Idaho doctor, patients sue over new law halting public benefits to immigrants in US unlawfully
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — An Idaho doctor and four residents are challenging a new state law that halts some of the few public benefits available to people living in the U.S. unlawfully, including a program that provides access to life-saving HIV and AIDS medication for low income patients.
The ACLU of Idaho filed the federal lawsuit Thursday night on behalf of Dr. Abby Davids and four people with HIV who are not named because they are immigrants without lawful permanent residency.
The complaint says the new law is vague, contradicts federal law and makes it impossible for health care providers to determine exactly what kind of immigration status is excluded and how to verify that status for patients. They want a judge to grant them class-action status, expanding any ruling to other impacted people.
Dozens of patients treated by one Boise-area clinic stand to lose access to HIV and AIDS medication under the law, according to the complaint, including several cared for by Davids.
'Withdrawing HIV treatment from her patients will not only have devastating consequences on their health, it raises the public health risk of increased HIV transmission,' the ACLU wrote in the lawsuit. 'When her patients are undetectable, they cannot transmit the virus. Without HIV treatment, however, they cannot maintain an undetectable viral level and therefore are able to transmit the virus to others.'
The new Idaho law takes effect July 1, and appears to be the first limiting public health benefits since President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to enhance eligibility verification and ensure that public benefits aren't going to ineligible immigrants.
The law requires people to verify that they are legal U.S. residents to receive public benefits like communicable disease testing, vaccinations, prenatal and postnatal care for women, crisis counseling, some food assistance for children and even access to food banks or soup kitchens that rely on public funding.
Federal law generally prohibits immigrants in the U.S. illegally from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Security. But there are some exceptions for things like emergency medical care and other emergency or public health services.
Idaho's law still allows for emergency medical services. But in a June 18 letter to health care providers, Idaho Division of Public Health administrator Elke Shaw-Tulloch said HIV is a long-term condition and not an emergency — so people must verify their lawful presence in order to get benefits through the federal Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program.
The HIV patients challenging the new law include a married couple from Columbia with pending asylum applications, a man who was brought to the U.S. when he was just 4 years old and has Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status until next year, and a man from Mexico who has been living and working in Idaho since 2020.
One of the patients said she and her husband were diagnosed with HIV in 2019 and immediately started antiretroviral therapy, receiving the medications at no cost through the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program. The medication has lowered the viral load in her body enough that it is now undetectable, she wrote in a court filing, ensuring that she won't transmit the virus to others.
'My medication protected my daughter while I was pregnant because it prevented me from transmitting HIV to her during pregnancy,' she wrote.
The treatment allows her to be with her child, watching her grow, she said.
Davids has been trying for weeks to get clarity from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare about exactly what kind of verification her patients will have to show, and exactly which kinds of immigration status are considered 'lawful.' But the state has yet to provide clear direction, according to the complaint.
'I am really scared about what this means for many of our patients. Their lives will now be in jeopardy,' Davids wrote in a May 30 email to the Department of Health and Welfare.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
Challenge to panel that recommends no-cost preventive health care is rejected by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a task force that recommends preventive health care services that insurers must cover at no-cost, turning away the latest legal challenge to Obamacare to reach the high court. The opinion indicated that the panel's recommendations – including pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, a medication which vastly reduces a person's risk of getting HIV from sex or injection drug use – would remain in effect, some experts said. However, the case is being remanded to a lower court, where the recommendations could be challenged again. Though the appeal never threatened to take down the Affordable Care Act, it could have had a sweeping impact on millions of Americans and their access to preventive services. Keeping the cost of preventive care free makes it more likely that people will get screenings and other services that are aimed at detecting disease at an earlier stage. 'This is a big win for preventive services,' Andrew Twinamatsiko, a director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute. 'Over 150 million people have been able to access preventive services because of this provision. So this decision ensures that they can keep accessing those services without cost sharing, which is good for health and for minimizing death and disease.' The Supreme Court ruled that members of the panel are 'inferior' officers, meaning they do not need to be appointed by the president. The ruling confirms Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and his predecessor in the Biden administration, had the ability to name the experts who sit on the panel. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority that included both liberal and conservative justices. The 16-member US Preventive Services Task Force, made up of volunteers, has since 1984 provided recommendations to the government about preventive services – like cancer screenings and statin medications to help reduce the risk of heart disease – that can improve Americans' health. As part of the nationwide health care law enacted 15 years ago during President Barack Obama's administration, those recommendations are used to determine which services insurers must cover without charge. At issue in the case were newer recommendations the panel made after the Affordable Care Act was enacted in March 2010. Preventive services recommended before then were not at stake, nor were certain immunizations and preventive care for women and children, which are recommended by other government entities. The more recent recommendations include lung cancer screenings for certain adults, hepatitis screenings and colorectal cancer screenings for younger adults, according to a brief submitted in the case by Public Citizen and several public health groups. Physical therapy for certain older adults to help prevent falls and counseling to help pregnant women maintain healthy body weights are also among the other newer recommendations. A leading health insurance industry group said policies won't change, at least for the time being. 'With this ruling, there are no impacts to existing coverage, and we will closely monitor the ongoing legal process,' AHIP, formerly America's Health Insurance Plans, said in a statement. The Supreme Court's ruling comes at a time when Kennedy has started exerting his authority over panels that offer health care recommendations for the public. Earlier this month, he removed all 17 members of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which guides the federal government's vaccine recommendations, and then added eight new ones. The move has sparked concerns that the new panel's recommendations could be more in line with the views of Kennedy, who has a history of vaccine skepticism. 'The big takeaway here is that the Task Force's recommendations are binding, just as the ACA's drafters intended,' Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, posted on X. 'BUT the scheme is constitutional only because Sec Kennedy can exercise near-complete control over Task Force recommendations. A mixed bag!' The task force structure was challenged by a Texas business, Braidwood Management, that objected on religious grounds to covering certain preventive services, including PrEP. Braidwood argued that, under the Constitution, task force members must be appointed by the president with Senate confirmation. At the very least, the company said, Congress needed to affirmatively vest the appointment power in the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Before 2023, the task force members were appointed by the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or AHRQ, an agency that is part of HHS. The case, on appeal from the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, created an unusual political dynamic. Though initially appealed by the Biden administration, President Donald Trump's administration has defended the task force since taking power this year – despite the president's years-long campaign to repeal the 2010 health care law. On the other side of the litigation, Braidwood was represented at the Supreme Court by Jonathan Mitchell, a veteran conservative lawyer who successfully argued against an effort in Colorado to remove Trump from that state's primary ballot during last year's election. The fight over Braidwood's religious objections to PrEP were spun off into separate proceedings. The dispute at the Supreme Court focused on the Constitution's appointments clause, which establishes the president and Senate's role in appointing and confirming officials that wield significant government power. The Trump administration argued that the task force members were 'inferior officers,' because they could be removed at-will by the HHS secretary and because the department appeared to have at least some oversight of the group's recommendations. But if that's true, Mitchell pointed out, then its members needed to be appointed by the secretary of the department, not the director of a subagency. The law is unclear on who actually appoints the board noting and notes only that the AHRQ should 'convene' the group. The Department of Justice said that, through a series of other congressional actions, the secretary effectively had the power to appoint the task force since the position oversees the AHRQ director. During the course of the litigation, then-HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra 'ratified' the earlier appointments during the Biden administration, but Braidwood argued that move wasn't enough to overcome the fact that the law doesn't specifically vest the power of appointment in his office. The 5th Circuit sided with Braidwood, ruling that members of the task force are 'principal officers' who must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Kennedy v. Braidwood was the fourth major appeal to reach the Supreme Court involving Obamacare since the law was enacted during Obama's first term and became a target for conservatives. In 2021, the high court ruled that conservative states challenging a key provision of the law did not have standing to sue because they were not directly harmed. The conservative court also rejected challenges to other provisions of Obamacare in 2012 and 2015.
CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
Still Using That Cracked Spatula? These 7 Kitchen Tools Need to Go
It's easy to get attached to your go-to kitchen tools: that trusty spatula, your favorite cutting board or the whisk you've had since your first apartment. But not every kitchen essential is built to last forever. While some tools like cast-iron skillets or Dutch ovens get better with age, others wear down, lose effectiveness, or even become unsanitary no matter how well you take care of them. Over time, plastic can warp, wooden utensils can harbor bacteria, and dull blades can become dangerous. Even silicone tools, which seem indestructible, can degrade or lose their nonstick edge. If your drawers are filled with aging gadgets you haven't looked at closely in a while, it might be time for an upgrade. Swapping out worn tools not only improves safety and hygiene, it can also make cooking feel smoother and more enjoyable. Not sure where to start? Here are the kitchen items experts say you should consider replacing sooner rather than later. "Keeping your kitchen tools in good condition ensures both safety and efficiency," says Maricel Gentile, kitchen expert and founder of cooking school Maricel's Kitchen. "Plus, it's the perfect excuse to explore new gadgets, and some need replacing more often than you think." Below you'll find seven examples of kitchen tools that may have worn out their welcome in your kitchen. 1. Plastic cutting boards and utensils Plastic isn't impervious to bacteria, even if you're regularly putting it in the dishwasher. "Over time, knife marks can create deep grooves that are hard to clean and can harbor bacteria," Gentile says. "Also, plastics degrade with heat and use, releasing microplastics into the food." If you want to avoid microplastics in your food, replace your plastic cutting board of wear and tear can indicate that it's time for a change. "If your board is heavily scarred or stained, it's time to replace it," says Gentile. With other plastic tools, look for signs of discoloration, melting or warping. 2. Plastic storage containers Kitchen expert Sylvia Fountaine of Feasting at Home says to ditch plastic storage containers outright. If you're using them only to keep food in the fridge, it's probably OK, but the temptation to take storage containers from the fridge to the microwave is what makes them less than ideal. When heated, these types of containers can leach various chemicals into your food. "Opt for glass storage containers with bamboo lids," Fountaine says. Avoid putting your plastic Tupperware in the microwave.3. Graters, peelers and microplanes Metal tools with sharp edges, designed to break food down into bits like shreds and zest, don't have any of the risks associated with microplastics and are relatively easy to clean and sanitize, but can overstay their utility if you're holding on to them for too long. "These dull over time and become less effective at shredding or zesting," Gentile says. "If your grater starts to mash instead of grate, it's time for a replacement -- your recipes will thank you!" 4. Can opener Whether a handheld or electric model, your can opener is not meant for the long term for a couple of reasons. "It will get dull over time," says Mitzi Baum, CEO at Stop Foodborne Illness, just like the tools above that rely on a sharp edge or blade. But the can opener also has sanitary implications. "It is a kitchen utensil that does not get regularly cleaned or sanitized," says Baum. "If it is not washed regularly, it will have food and bacteria build up on it and could contaminate other canned foods when used to open them." A bunker can opener. Nelson Aguilar/CNET If rust has also built up on your can opener, especially the blade that may come into contact with food, it's past time to replace it. 5. Kitchen sponges If your kitchen sponge smells off, that's a good sign it's time to be replaced. JavierDoes your kitchen sponge smell? Do you think that's just how kitchen sponges always are? If so, you need to hear this. "Kitchen sponges need to be replaced regularly as sponges can support harmful bacterial growth because they are wet and sit at room temperature -- a temperature that bacteria like," Baum says. The musty smell of kitchen sponges indicates that bacteria are growing. There is a nonwaste solution: "The sponge can be included in the dishwasher as long as (it) includes a sanitizing cycle," Baum says. "If you do not have a dishwasher, replace your sponges regularly, especially when it begins to smell." 6. Wooden spoons and cutting boards If you're holding on to any wooden utensils or boards that belonged to a previous generation, don't. Wooden spoons and other utensils would seem to be heritage tools, since they're difficult to break or chip, but they're meant for a good time, not a long time. "Wooden spoons are kitchen workhorses, but they're also porous, which means they can absorb liquids, oils and odors and lead to bacterial buildup," says Debra Clark, kitchen expert and founder of Bowl Me Over. "If your wooden spoon is starting to look worn, smells funky or has deep grooves, it's time to replace it. A good rule of thumb is to replace them every year or so if they see heavy use." If your wooden spoon smells musty or looks worn, it's time to replace it.6. Nonstick pots and pans If your nonstick skillet looks anything like this, it's time to saddle yourself with a fresh pan. David Watsky/CNET The coating of nonstick pans is one of the biggest culprits when it comes to forever chemicals and microplastics. "These pans are a lifesaver for quick, low-fat cooking, but the coating doesn't last forever," Clark says. "Over time, scratches and wear can not only reduce their effectiveness but may also release tiny bits of the nonstick material into your food," she says, which is the point where you might accidentally ingest some of it and it starts to become really harmful. "If your pan is scratched, flaking or sticking more than it should, it's time to invest in a new one. Most nonstick pans last about three to five years with regular use.'' (Nontoxic, nonstick brands that utilize ceramic include Caraway and Green Pan.) 7. Silicone baking equipment Rubber and silicone, especially cheap ones, have been found to leach chemicals into food. M Kitchen/CNET Silicone is found all over the kitchen, from rubber scrapers and oven mitts to baking mats and trays. Anything that experiences high heat, however, should get tossed. "To be clear about silicone tools, I wouldn't replace them often but replace them altogether with something else like stainless or enamel bakeware," Fountaine says. "I have been reading that silicone is possibly considered 'safe,' but only up to 425 degrees Fahrenheit. There is very limited research on its safety, and other additives to the silicone could potentially leach into food," she says. "Plus It is not biodegradable or recyclable, so not very eco-friendly." Read more: Top 10 Foods Contaminated With Microplastics. Here's How to Avoid Them
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
SCOTUS upholds Obamacare free preventive care coverage
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge to a section of the Affordable Care Act that designates a federal task force to recommend which preventive services insurers must cover at no cost to patients. Why it matters: The 6-3 decision will ensure continued access to free cancer screenings, vaccines, HIV drugs and counseling for the roughly 150 million Americans with private health insurance. The court said that the Health and Human Services secretary can still remove members of the task force. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurring. "This is a critical win for prevention," Michael Ruppal, executive director of The AIDS Institute, said in a statement. Context: The case stems from a 2020 lawsuit against the federal government filed by two Christian-owned companies. They argued that the task force recommendation requiring them to cover free HIV prevention drugs in their employer-sponsored health plans was unconstitutional because task force members are not confirmed by the Senate. The Trump administration defended the structure of the task force, echoing the Biden administration arguments that it's constitutionally sound because the health secretary can remove members at will and decide when insurers have to cover recommendations. Justices agreed that task force members are accountable to the HHS secretary. "In short, through the power to remove and replace Task Force members at will, the Secretary can exert significant control over the Task Force—including by blocking recommendations he does not agree with," Kavanaugh wrote in the opinion. The other side: Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — the court's most conservative members — maintained that the task force members were not appointed in accordance with the Constitution. What to watch: The decision gives HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the opportunity to make big changes to the preventive service task force's membership and the services it endorses. He's already done something similar with the panel that advises CDC on immunization recommendations, removing all 17 of its members and replacing them with handpicked successors. "The potential for politicization and the rejection of scientific consensus under this administration pose an ongoing threat to the very services this ruling just preserved," Elizabeth Taylor, executive director of the National Health Law Program, said in a statement. Congress is also debating cuts to Medicaid, which could erode access to preventive care for millions of Americans.
