Bill to study medically assisted death filed in North Carolina, sponsored by Triad representatives
RALEIGH, N.C. (WGHP) — A bill filed in the North Carolina House of Representatives would fund the study of medically assisted death.
HB410, titled 'Medical Aid in Dying,' was filed on Tuesday. The bill directs the North Carolina Institute of Medicine to study the impacts of legalizing medically assisted death.
'Medical aid in dying (MAID) is a recognized end-of-life (EOL) option for terminally ill, mentally competent adults who have been diagnosed with a life expectancy of less than 6 months to hasten the dying process,' the bill says.
The bill directs NCIOM to 'study the advantages and disadvantages of legalizing medical aid in dying (MAID) in North Carolina.'
Bill to raise North Carolina minimum wage filed by House Democrats
It also directs NCIOM to look at factors that impact MAID, such as:
The factors that contribute most to a person's decision to seek MAID.
The characteristics and demographic backgrounds of persons who seek MAID.
The social and emotional impacts on a person's family members when MAID is available to a person as an alternative to an extended dying process.
Which medications have been or are currently being used for MAID, and whether intravenous self-administration would be an improvement over self-ingestion through the gastrointestinal tract.
The best options for healthcare providers to opt out of participating in MAID.
Available data from the current MAID states that are reporting on conclusions arising from the legalization of MAID, particularly with respect to the effectiveness of MAID laws in providing an end-of-life option.
What end-of-life options are currently available in North Carolina and recommendations about whether MAID is an advisable additional alternative.
To what extent the absence of MAID in North Carolina and other states increases the chance that a terminally ill person will choose to commit suicide by violent or other means.'
Additionally, NCIOM would study advancements in MAID since the 'Death with Dignity Act' passed in Oregon, develop a hypothetical number of how many people may choose to use MAID based on data available from other states, and the impact on healthcare systems in states where MAID is already legal.
The NCIOM would be required to hold at least one public hearing 'to ensure the general public has an opportunity to provide the NCIOM with comments regarding the advantages and disadvantages of legalizing MAID' before submitting a report to lawmakers, which is due by April 1, 2027. The bill would appropriate $150,000 to fund this study, if passed.
MAID is legal in California, Colorado, Hawai'i, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Washington D.C. It's been legal in Oregon for the longest amount of time, since 1994.
Reps. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford), Donny Lambeth (R-Forsyth), Julia Howard (R-Davie) and Lindsey Prather (D-Buncombe) are the primary sponsors of the bill.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ohio budget moves closer to doing away with elected county coroners
Jun. 6—For now, the Ohio Senate is going along on an Ohio House plan to make county coroners appointed by county commissioners instead of being elected by county voters. But, while the Senate didn't change the House's proposal in its initial draft of the state's two-year operating budget, Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, told reporters that there's still a chance the Senate could eliminate the House's proposal when it amends the budget next week. McColley said he put a request out for those in his caucus with strong feelings on the matter to weigh in. "If members feel strongly that it should go back to the way that it is under current law, then there's a possibility to see an amendment here in the omnibus," McColley told this news outlet. "We didn't see a lot of members — we saw some — but we didn't see a lot of members asking for it to be changed back." The Senate is expected to make those amendments on Wednesday or Thursday of next week. The change could be consequential in counties where county commissioners and the coroner are different political parties. In Montgomery County, for example, the elected coroner is a Republican while Democrats hold two of the three seats on the county commission. The House's primary advocate for the change, county commissioner-turned-lawmaker Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, has framed the change as necessary to solve a scarcity issue. "It's really hard to find folks that want to serve as a coroner at all, it's even harder to find folks who are willing to be the coroner and want to run a political campaign to do so," Stewart said in April. But the proposed change is opposed by Ohio State Coroners Association, whose Executive Director David Corey told this outlet that he's still hopeful that former coroners in the Ohio Senate, like Sen. Matt Huffman, R-Tipp City, will help the Senate reverse course. "Commissioners already have the authority to appoint a physician to be coroner if no one runs," Corey said. "So they already have this authority — so why subject this as a blanket on everyone?" Corey noted that commissioners also already have the authority to contract out with different county coroner offices if there's no elected coroner and the commission cannot find an in-county physician that wants to be appointed. "We don't really know what (problem) the House is trying and the Senate are trying to fix ... other than chipping away at other elected officials," Corey said. Corey said the idea is "wrought with potential problems," and speculated that coroners appointed by commissioners might be more beholden to those officials than they are to the public. He said appointees could also be fired at will, which would make it harder for a coroner to stand up to the commission in budget negotiations or other high-stakes situations. "We just think it's a horrible precedent," Corey said. Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, whose home county of Cuyahoga is one of two counties in the state where the position is already appointed following a local vote, told this outlet that she didn't like the sound of applying the idea to every coroner in the state. "You want the coroner to feel like they can have a lot of pressure on them," Antonio said. "If they're appointed, then it's almost like they have an affiliation to the person that appointed them." She said this could lead to undue influence. "I think we, probably in the long run, would be better off continuing to have them be elected," Antonio said. ------ For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening. Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ohio budget moves closer to doing away with elected county coroners
Jun. 6—For now, the Ohio Senate is going along on an Ohio House plan to make county coroners appointed by county commissioners instead of being elected by county voters. But, while the Senate didn't change the House's proposal in its initial draft of the state's two-year operating budget, Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon, told reporters that there's still a chance the Senate could eliminate the House's proposal when it amends the budget next week. McColley said he put a request out for those in his caucus with strong feelings on the matter to weigh in. "If members feel strongly that it should go back to the way that it is under current law, then there's a possibility to see an amendment here in the omnibus," McColley told this news outlet. "We didn't see a lot of members — we saw some — but we didn't see a lot of members asking for it to be changed back." The Senate is expected to make those amendments on Wednesday or Thursday of next week. The change could be consequential in counties where county commissioners and the coroner are different political parties. In Montgomery County, for example, the elected coroner is a Republican while Democrats hold two of the three seats on the county commission. The House's primary advocate for the change, county commissioner-turned-lawmaker Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, has framed the change as necessary to solve a scarcity issue. "It's really hard to find folks that want to serve as a coroner at all, it's even harder to find folks who are willing to be the coroner and want to run a political campaign to do so," Stewart said in April. But the proposed change is opposed by Ohio State Coroners Association, whose Executive Director David Corey told this outlet that he's still hopeful that former coroners in the Ohio Senate, like Sen. Matt Huffman, R-Tipp City, will help the Senate reverse course. "Commissioners already have the authority to appoint a physician to be coroner if no one runs," Corey said. "So they already have this authority — so why subject this as a blanket on everyone?" Corey noted that commissioners also already have the authority to contract out with different county coroner offices if there's no elected coroner and the commission cannot find an in-county physician that wants to be appointed. "We don't really know what (problem) the House is trying and the Senate are trying to fix ... other than chipping away at other elected officials," Corey said. Corey said the idea is "wrought with potential problems," and speculated that coroners appointed by commissioners might be more beholden to those officials than they are to the public. He said appointees could also be fired at will, which would make it harder for a coroner to stand up to the commission in budget negotiations or other high-stakes situations. "We just think it's a horrible precedent," Corey said. Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, whose home county of Cuyahoga is one of two counties in the state where the position is already appointed following a local vote, told this outlet that she didn't like the sound of applying the idea to every coroner in the state. "You want the coroner to feel like they can have a lot of pressure on them," Antonio said. "If they're appointed, then it's almost like they have an affiliation to the person that appointed them." She said this could lead to undue influence. "I think we, probably in the long run, would be better off continuing to have them be elected," Antonio said. ------ For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening. Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
Forbes
8 hours ago
- Forbes
Republicans Like Health Savings Accounts
Should the government allow HSAs to cover gym memberships? Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are a popular and important way many people pay for medical expenses. They are also a great way to save—better, for example, than an IRA or a 401(k) plan. Because of various quirks in the law, HSAs are not available to a large number of people—including people on Medicaid or Medicare and most people who buy their own insurance in the (Obamacare) exchanges. Under the reconciliation bill just passed in the House of Representatives, more people will have access to these accounts and there will be new opportunities to use them. Currently, individuals and their employers can make tax-free deposits to HSAs, provided the individual is also covered by third-party health insurance with a high deductible. Money can accumulate and grow tax-free. After age 65, the money can be withdrawn for non-health expenses without penalty, but it is subject to normal income taxes. As of 2023, there were 37.4 million accounts with $46.4 billion in assets. Industry experts think the House bill will lead to an additional 20 million people with an HSA. Here is a summary of the hits and misses in the Republican bill, as it faces a vote by the Senate. The Good. By far the best feature of the bill is a provision making all bronze and catastrophic insurance plans offered through the (Obamacare) exchanges automatically eligible for an HSA account. This is likely the main reason why the number of HSA accounts is likely to soar. Another provision would allow the use of HSAs to pay monthly fees for direct primary care (DPC). This used to be called 'concierge care' and in the past it was available only to the rich. But the price has come way down. Atlas MD in Wichita, for example, charges $50 a month for a mother and $10 for a child. In return, the family has 24/7 access to a physician's practice that provides all primary care. Often, the family has the doctor's personal phone number. DPC has become increasingly popular, and employers often pay the monthly fee for their employees. Under current law, however, the employer cannot put funds in an HSA account, let the employee choose a DPC doctor and pay that doctor from the account. The House bill will create that opportunity. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the ten-year cost of all of the HSA changes combined is almost $44 billion. Yet the cost of the two best provisions is less than $6 billion. More on that below. The Questionable. The bill allows annual withdrawals of $500 (individuals) or $1,000 (couples) for gym memberships and other physical activities. (No sailing or golfing expenses, however.) The problem is that these are not medical expenses. If we are going to allow gym memberships, why not hundreds of other nonmedical expenses – including sailing and golfing? The CBO says the cost of this provision is $10 billion. The bill also doubles the annual HSA contribution that is allowable for individuals with incomes up to $75,000 and couples who earn up to $150,000. The problem here is that only about one in ten account holders are contributing the maximum allowable right now. At a cost of more than $8 billion this is an expensive change that will only affect a small part of the market. Instead of these questionable measures, the Senate should consider making all Obamacare silver plans (the most popular choice) automatically eligible for an HSA. Missed opportunities. While the House should be congratulated for making many desirable improvements in the HSA law, it unfortunately failed to correct a fundamental flaw: an inflexible across-the-board deductible. Common sense would suggest that different medical expenses need different deductibles. The biggest problem with chronic illness, for example, is noncompliance with a drug regimen. That is why some Medicare Advantage plans make maintenance drugs for chronic patients (such as insulin for diabetics) available for free or at very low cost. In the first Trump administration, an IRS ruling waived the deductible requirement for 14 specific services and medications that serve as treatments for such conditions as diabetes, asthma, heart disease, and depression. This was an executive branch decision to modify existing legislation, however. To make it permanent, Congress needs to codify it. Ideally, Congress should remove the deductible requirement altogether and let the role of deductibles be determined in the marketplace. One way to think about the combination of allowing gym memberships and failing to address the deductible issue is to see that the House risks being accused of creating benefits for the healthy while ignoring the sick. Another missed opportunity was the failure of House Republicans to give 80 million Medicaid enrollees access to what I will call a Roth HSA. Private companies managing Medicaid (or the state itself) should be able to make deposits to an account that would cover, say, all primary care. Enrollees could use the money for health care during an insurance year. Afterward, they could withdraw any unspent funds for any purpose. If there were no taxes or penalties on non-medical withdrawals, health care and non-health care would trade against each other on a level playing field under the tax law. People wouldn't spend a dollar on health care unless they got a dollar's worth of value. An early study by the RAND Corporation suggests that these accounts would reduce Medicaid spending by 30 percent. Aside from payments for the disabled and nursing home care, if Medicaid spending could be reduced by 30 percent, the savings would amount to almost $1 trillion over ten years. This saving would be shared by the beneficiaries and the taxpayers who fund Medicaid.
