Decades of inaction have wrought R.I.'s primary care crisis. We must address it right now, then nurse the state back to health.
Yet, as a state, we have not properly maintained the health of our primary care environment, nor have we responded to the signs of its disintegration.
Now we must respond to a full-blown crisis.
Just as a person who suffers a heart attack receives emergency care and then is often advised to adopt lifestyle changes to restore their health, our state must deal with this crisis with emergency measures, as well as with medium- and long-term efforts to sustain and strengthen primary care.
Get Rhode Island News Alerts
Sign up to get breaking news and interesting stories from Rhode Island in your inbox each weekday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
While our
Advertisement
One root cause is clear:
Advertisement
Senator Sosnowski has advocated for improved and equitable insurance payments to hospitals and providers for years. We must address reimbursement rates as an immediate step to maintain our current providers and recruit more to practice primary care here. That effort must include a
Related
:
Another immediate need is addressing the extra stressors on our primary care providers. Senator DiMario has focused on better supporting the incredibly under-resourced mental health system that would help PCPs and patients alike. We must also demand that insurers reduce the needless administrative burdens they place on primary care providers, and increase patients' access to specialists to decrease time demands on PCPs. The R.I. Senate has focused on resolving these issues, and we currently have many bills under consideration to accomplish those goals.
Rhode Island must also make a concerted effort to encourage medical students to specialize in primary care, and to choose Rhode Island when they graduate. Senator Lauria has introduced bills that focus on those goals. One would fund
Related
:
Advertisement
As we work to improve our primary care workforce, we must also build in a mechanism for accountability to consistently meet the health care needs of our communities. We need specific targets, action plans, and ongoing monitoring to first ensure every Rhode Islander has access to a primary care provider, and then to take earlier corrective action in the future, so we do not face this crisis again.
We are all members of the Senate's commission exploring the education and retention of primary care providers in Rhode Island, whose charge, in part, is to consider the possibility of establishing a
Our current primary care crisis is the product of decades of inaction. We urge our colleagues across state government to work collaboratively right now, and in the future, to nurse it back to health.
Senators Pamela J. Lauria (D-Dist. 32, Barrington, Bristol, East Providence), V. Susan Sosnowski (D-Dist. 37, South Kingstown) and Alana M. DiMario (D-Dist. 26, Narragansett, North Kingstown, New Shoreham) are members of a Senate commission studying the education and retention of primary care physicians and the feasibility of establishing a medical school at URI.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
4 ways Trump's ‘one big beautiful bill' would undermine access to Obamacare
Major changes could be in store for the more than 24 million people with health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, including how and when they can enroll, the paperwork required, and, crucially, the premiums they pay. A driver behind these changes is the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' the name given to spending and tax legislation designed to advance the policy agenda of President Donald Trump. It passed the House on May 22 and is pending in the Senate. The changes also would come from regulations the Trump administration proposed in March and the potential expiration of larger premium subsidies put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Millions of people might drop or lose coverage by 2034 as a result, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Combined, the moves by Trump and his allies could 'devastate access' to ACA plans, said Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the O'Neill Institute, a health policy research group at Georgetown University. States that run their own Obamacare marketplaces and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners have also raised concerns about added costs and reduced access. But House Republicans and some conservative think tanks say the ACA needs revamping to rein in fraud, part of which they pin on certain Biden administration changes the measures would undo. Senate Republicans must now weigh whether to include the House's proposals in their own bill, with the aim of getting it through the chamber by July 4. Here are four key ways Trump's policies could undermine Obamacare enrollment and coverage. The House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which runs more than 1,000 pages, would create paperwork requirements that could delay access to tax credits for some enrollees, potentially raising the cost of their insurance. More than 90% of ACA enrollees receive tax credits to defray monthly premiums for their coverage. There are two key provisions for them to watch. One would end automatic reenrollment for most ACA policyholders each year. More than 10 million people were automatically reenrolled in their coverage for the 2025 plan year, with their eligibility for tax credits confirmed via a system that allows ACA marketplaces to check government or other data sources. The House bill would instead require every new or returning policyholder each year to provide information on income, household size, immigration status, and other factors, starting in 2028. If they don't, they won't get a premium tax credit, which could put the price of coverage out of reach. Louisiana Legislature targets out-of-state doctors who provide abortion pills 'Everyone who wants to either purchase or renew a marketplace plan will have to come with a shoebox filled with documents, scan in and upload them or mail them in, and sit and wait while someone reviews and confirms them,' said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. She and other policy experts fear that many consumers will become uninsured because they don't understand the requirements or find them burdensome. If too many young and healthy people, for example, decide it's not worth the hassle, that could leave more older and sicker people for ACA insurers to cover — potentially raising premiums for everyone. But supporters of the House bill say the current approach needs changing because it is vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse. 'This would ensure that enrollees need to return to the exchange to update their information and obtain an updated eligibility determination for a subsidy — best protecting the public against excess subsidies paid to insurers that can never be recovered,' the conservative Paragon Institute wrote in an April letter to top Department of Health and Human Services officials. Today, people who experience life changes — losing a job, getting married or divorced, or having a baby, for instance — are considered provisionally eligible for tax credits to reduce their premiums if they sign up or change their ACA plans. That means they would be eligible to receive these subsidies for at least 90 days while their applications are checked against government data or other sources, or marketplaces follow up with requests for additional information. The House bill would end that, requiring documentation before receiving tax credits. That could create particular hardship for new parents, who can't confirm that babies are eligible for premium subsidies until they receive Social Security numbers weeks after they're born. Policy experts following the debate 'did not expect the end to provisional eligibility,' Corlette said. 'I don't know what the reaction in the Senate will be, as I'm not sure everyone understands the full implications of these provisions because they are so new.' It can take up to six weeks for the Social Security Administration to process a number for a newborn, and an additional two weeks for parents to get the card, according to a white paper that analyzed provisions of the House bill and was co-authored by Jason Levitis, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, and Christen Linke Young, a visiting fellow with Brookings' Center on Health Policy. Without a Social Security number, any application to add a newborn to an ACA policy would automatically generate a hold on premium tax credits for that family, they wrote — increasing their out-of-pocket costs, at least temporarily. 'It puts consumers on the hook for any delays the marketplace is taking,' while the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the ACA marketplaces, 'is cutting staff and adding a lot more paperwork to burden the staff they have,' Levitis said. Provisions in the House bill that would require ACA enrollees to provide information each year that they reenroll — or when seeking to add or change a policy due to a life circumstance — would increase the number of people without health insurance by 700,000 in 2034, according to the latest CBO estimate. The House bill would turn into law a Trump proposal to shorten the ACA open enrollment period. The start date would continue to be Nov. 1. But the window would be shortened by about a month, with an end date of Dec. 15. This affects people in states that use the federal marketplace as well as the 19 states and the District of Columbia that run their own, most of which offer open enrollment into at least mid-January. Also, as soon as the end of this year, a special enrollment period the Biden administration created would be done away with. It allowed people with lower incomes — those who earn up to 1.5 times the 2024 federal poverty level, or about $38,730 for a family of three — to sign up anytime during the year. Critics, including the Paragon Institute, argue that this enrollment opening led to fraud, partly blaming it for a steep increase last year in instances of insurance agents seeking commissions by enrolling or switching consumers into plans without their consent, or fudging their incomes to qualify them for tax credits so large they paid no monthly premiums at all. But supporters — including some states that run their own ACA exchange — say there are other ways to address fraud. 'We anticipate that much of the improper activity can be prevented by security and integrity upgrades to the federal marketplace, which we understand the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is implementing,' the National Association of Insurance Commissioners wrote in a May 29 letter to congressional leaders. The reason? Enhanced tax credits created during the pandemic expire at the end of the year. The House bill doesn't extend them. Those more generous payments are credited with helping double ACA enrollment since 2020. The CBO estimates that extending the subsidies would cost $335 billion over 10 years. The House bill instead funds an extension of Trump's tax cuts, which largely benefit wealthier families. If the enhanced credits are allowed to expire, not only would premium subsidies be smaller for many people, but there would also be an abrupt eligibility cutoff — an income cliff — for households above four times the federal poverty rate, or about $103,280 for a family of three for this plan year. Taking into account the smaller subsidies and the cliff, KFF estimates a national average premium increase of 75% for enrollees if the enhanced subsidies expire. The CBO expects that about 4.2 million more people will be uninsured in 2034 as a result. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF and subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
A trip to Brazil showed me how Tennessee can invest in reproductive health care
In May, I had the incredible opportunity to travel to Brazil with a group of state lawmakers from across the country to learn how another nation — one with different geography but similar struggles — approaches reproductive healthcare and maternal justice. This trip, organized by the State Innovation Exchange and the Women's Equality Center, was deeply personal for me. As a Black woman, a mother and a state senator from Tennessee — a state that has turned its back on reproductive freedom — I carry this work in my bones. More: Tennessee's London Lamar brings child care, political representation and her son to Senate In many ways, Brazil mirrors modern America: a country where abortion is restricted, yet people are still fighting every day to protect their rights. But Brazil, even under a ban, still provides exceptions in cases of rape, incest and fetal anomalies. Tennessee? None of that. The only time you can legally access abortion care in our state is if you're about to die. Full stop. But the biggest difference? Brazil invests in public healthcare. They have a national system that provides contraception, maternal care and support — even for women navigating pregnancies under incredibly difficult circumstances. Meanwhile, in Tennessee, we haven't just banned abortion. We've slashed funding for family planning clinics, refused to expand Medicaid and passed law after law aimed at controlling women, not caring for them. During our visit, we sat down with doctors, nurses, nonprofit leaders and community organizers. We heard directly from women — especially Black and Indigenous women — who are fighting to survive a healthcare system stacked against them. While there, I couldn't help but think of my sisters back in Memphis. Because the truth is, whether you're in Brazil or the American South, Black women are dying at alarming rates from preventable pregnancy complications. That's not just a policy failure — it's a moral one. But what I saw in Brazil wasn't just struggle — it was resistance. More: Tennessee bill to make abortion pill providers liable for 'wrongful death' goes to Senate Women organizing. Healthcare workers standing up for their patients. Communities pushing back against disinformation and political control. It reminded me that this fight for reproductive justice is global — and that we are not alone. What stuck with me most was the strength and dignity of the women we met. They're not asking for pity. They're demanding a system that respects their lives, their choices and their families. And that's exactly what we need to be creating here in Tennessee. We need to build a system that works for the people, not against them. That means fighting to restore access to abortion care, expanding Medicaid, funding maternal health services and writing policies that protect — not punish — those who need care the most. This trip lit a deeper fire in me. Because while I'm proud to represent Memphis, I refuse to accept that this is the best we can do. Black women, poor women, rural families — our people — deserve better than a state government and healthcare system that treats them as an afterthought. Reproductive healthcare is a human right. Period. And we shouldn't have to cross oceans to be reminded of that. More: Amid high maternal mortality rates, Tennessee has stopped releasing quarterly reports. Health officials won't say why I came back from Brazil even more committed to the fight here in Tennessee. This work isn't just about politics — it's about survival. And I won't stop until our state honors the dignity, autonomy, and humanity of every single person it serves. State Sen. London Lamar represents Memphis and parts of Shelby County in the Tennessee Senate. She also serves as chairwoman of the Senate Democratic Caucus. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Tennessee can learn a lot from women's healthcare in Brazil | Opinion
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
NC doctors, legislators, and cancer survivors push for prostate cancer screening money
New Bern Alderman Victor Taylor speaks about his prostate cancer treatment at a news conference on a proposal to establish a statewide screening program for uninsured and underinsured men. (Photo: Lynn Bonner/NC Newsline) Offering prostate cancer screening to men who are uninsured or underinsured will save lives, legislators, doctors, advocates, and cancer survivors said at a news conference Tuesday. 'Prostate cancer is one of the most curable cancers if it is detected early,' said Rep. Rodney Pierce (D-Halifax), the bill's lead sponsor. But, too many North Carolinians are diagnosed too late. 'This legislation is about saving lives, about a higher quality of life, and giving our fathers, uncles, brothers, nephews and sons the fighting chance they deserve,' he said. House bill 128 would appropriate $2 million to establish a prostate cancer screening program modeled after the state's breast and cervical cancer screening program. Money for prostate screening is not in the House or Senate budget proposals, but Pierce hopes it will be funded. Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the state, according to the UNC Men's Health Program. The issue has gained increased attention in the last few weeks after former President Joe Biden was diagnosed with 'a more aggressive form' of prostate cancer. Men in North Carolina are diagnosed with prostate cancer at higher rates than men nationally, according to the National Cancer Institute, and North Carolina's mortality rate is higher, at 20.2 per 100,000 men. Black men are more likely to develop prostate cancer and more likely to die from it, according to the American Cancer Society. Legislators at the Tuesday news conference made direct appeals to Black men to be screened. A blood test is used to screen for and monitor prostate cancer. Rep. Abe Jones (D-Wake) said he's tested twice a year because his father had prostate cancer. 'It is a sneaky, nasty, tricky disease,' Jones said. 'It's ugly and it kills Black men at a higher rate.' 'It doesn't give you a warning, it just comes on you,' Jones said. 'I just encourage all my brothers out there to please get tested.' New Bern Alderman Victor Taylor, a prostate cancer survivor, said the screening bill would help men in rural areas. It's vital for men to talk about prostate cancer, he said. 'It's so important to talk, talk, talk and share,' he said. 'You don't know how many lives you've saved by talking and sharing.' The bill proposes free or low-cost testing for uninsured or underinsured men ages 40 to 70 who have a family history of prostate cancer. Men without a family history would be eligible for screening at ages 50 to 70. Recommendations for screening have a cloudy history. In 2012, the US Preventative Service Task Force, a group of independent experts, recommended against routine screening. The recommendation changed in 2018, with the group suggesting men 55- to 69-years old talk with their doctors about regular screening. The task force is in the process of updating its recommendation. Dr. Dan George, a member of the Duke Cancer Institute who specializes in prostate cancers, said there's a concern that prostate cancer is going under-treated. 'It's so vitally important for people to recognize that knowledge is power,' George said. 'Understanding your cancer status is an opportunity for you to prevent a leading cause of death in this state.' Rural residents would benefit from routine testing that residents with access to medical specialists can more easily obtain, he said. Former state Sen. Eddie Goodall, a Union County Republican, talked about his prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Goodall said he was diagnosed in 2005, just as his first term in the legislature was beginning. 'I was excited about being a freshman senator and being able to change the world,' Goodall said. Instead, he received a diagnosis that he kept secret from his mother because he didn't want her to worry about another son dying. Goodall said that five years before he was diagnosed, his brother died of cancer. Goodall said he talked and compared notes with another former senator who was diagnosed with prostate cancer at about the same time. Goodall decided against surgery. The cancer spread to his bones. Goodall said he started hormone therapy in 2018 and was told he had 18 months to two years to live. 'But it's been seven years, and I'm still here. So I'm very grateful for that.'
