Cancer is a leading cause of death for firefighters: What are Utah lawmakers doing about it?
A bill to set up cancer screenings for firefighters across the state passed through the House last week and on Tuesday passed through Senate committee.
HB65, sponsored by Rep. Casey Snider, R-Paradise, would expand the list of presumptive cancers for firefighters and also set up a plan to provide cancer screenings and treatment for them. Snider said that if this bill passes the legislature, it will create the most robust firefighter cancer program in the country.
'I think this is one of the most impactful and meaningful bills we'll pass this year,' said Rep. Daniel Thatcher, R-West Valley City.
The idea for this bill started based off evidence that there is a higher prevalence of cancer in firefighters compared to the general population.
'Many of us who have been in this space for any period of time know individuals who have succumbed to this disease as a function of their career,' Snider said.
Snider used to be a firefighter in Cache County and shared that in 2015, two of his leaders, Travis Peterson and Steve McBride, died from cancer.
'There are certain cancers we can actually refer to colloquially as firefighter cancers, just because they're so rare in the general population, but so prevalent amongst first responders, firefighters in particular,' said Tony Allred, Salt Lake City Fire Department's division chief for fire prevention.
Last year, the state sent six senior firefighters to a cancer screening center in Arizona, where they found that five of the six had cancer. One of these five firefighters was Jeremy Craft, the chief of Lehi's fire department.
Craft was diagnosed with renal and prostate cancer and has had his prostate and right kidney removed. He is also currently going through hormone therapy because the cancer spread to his lymphatic system.
'Had this program been in place a year earlier, we would have found this cancer much sooner, I could've kept my prostate and kept me from going through all of this,' Craft said.
Across the country, 60% of line of duty deaths for firefighters are from occupational cancers, according to Jack Tidrow, president of the Professional Firefighters of Utah.
Allred said that these cancers are caused by carcinogens, substances that can cause cancer, that firefighters come in contact with regularly when putting out fires. These come from materials that are in homes, in cars and other areas where firefighters work; they can be plastics, fuels, benzenes and vapors.
'Unfortunately, even the products that are personal protective equipment that we rely on to protect us from the immediate danger, the fire, when exposed to heat breakdown, and even they become absorbent, carcinogenic material. And so we're fighting it on all fronts, both from what we inhale, what we absorb through our skin,' Allred said.
In 2015, a bill passed to set four presumptive cancers for firefighters. Now the list is being expanded to 15. Presumptive cancers are conditions that are presumed to have been caused by one's occupation.
The cancers on the expanded list are:
Bladder
Brain
Colorectal
Esophageal
Kidney
Leukemias
Lung
Lymphomas
Melanomas
Mesotheliomas
Oropharynx ovarian
Prostate
Testicular
Thyroid
'The cancers that are added to this list, are added because there is scientific proof and consensus that these particular cancers come as a result of fighting fire, as a result of protecting our communities,' Snider said.
The second part of the bill creates a plan to establish a protocol for screening and ultimately treating cancer in firefighters. Under HB65, the Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health would perform regular cancer screenings for firefighters in Utah.
'Early detection means early treatment, which should be a better outcome,' Tidrow said.
For the first three years, the cancer screenings would be paid for by the state. After the first three years of the program, the fire departments themselves will cover the cost of the screenings for their employees.
Shelby Willis, the deputy chief at Ogden's fire department, used to work in Florida as a firefighter. During her time in Florida, her department provided a cancer screening with her annual physical, where she discovered she had thyroid cancer. Thanks to the screening, she was able to catch it early and had her thyroid removed without needing chemotherapy or radiation.
'This bill really is just about doing what is best for the folks who protect our communities,' Snider said.
Tidrow said he doesn't think there is any reason for people to oppose this bill.
'These turn out to be work related injuries, and we just wanted to make sure that our people are cared for as if they would have gotten any other workplace injury,' Allred said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
New Legislation aims to clarify workplace rules for medical marijuana use in PA
HARRISBURG, Pa. (WTAJ) — Pennsylvania lawmakers are taking steps to eliminate confusion over medical marijuana use in the workplace with new legislation aimed at protecting both employees and employers. In a co-sponsorship memo released this week, Rep. Napoleon Nelson and another House member announced plans to introduce a bill that would provide clearer rules for how employers handle medical marijuana under state law. The bill is a companion to Senate Bill 1290 from a previous session, which was supported by a bipartisan group of state senators. Though medical marijuana has been legal in Pennsylvania since 2016 under Act 16, it remains illegal at the federal level. That disconnect has left employers without federal guidance on how to treat workers who are certified medical marijuana patients. The proposed legislation would define key terms related to medical marijuana use and provide consistent guidelines for workplace drug testing. It would also clarify when job applicants or employees must disclose medical marijuana use, particularly for safety-sensitive positions, and how such use affects unemployment and workers' compensation eligibility. Importantly, the bill does not change the current legal protection that prevents employers from firing or refusing to hire someone solely for being a medical marijuana patient. Instead, lawmakers say the goal is to remove ambiguity and ensure fair treatment on both sides. Supporters hope the legislation will give Pennsylvania businesses and workers confidence and structure as they navigate medical marijuana policy in the workplace. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
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
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
House GOP advances Marjorie Taylor Greene's transphobic bill banning gender-affirming care for trans youth
In another attack on transgender youth and their families, House Republicans on Tuesday advanced a bill that would make it a federal crime to provide gender-affirming health care to minors, targeting doctors, parents, and providers with prison time for following medically recognized standards of care. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. The bill, H.R. 3492, known as the 'Protect Children's Innocence Act,' was introduced by far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and backed by more than 40 Republican lawmakers. It passed the House Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote and now heads to the full House of Representatives. If enacted, the bill would criminalize puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries, which are already rare for transgender people under 18, even when supported by families and recommended by their doctors. Related: Trump signs executive order banning federal support of gender-affirming care for anyone under 19 'This is just another attempt by extremist Republican politicians to further their anti-transgender agenda,' said gay California U.S. Rep. Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus. 'It is outrageous that House Judiciary Committee Republicans just voted to advance a bill that would throw parents and doctors in jail for providing medically necessary care to young trans people.' The bill labels gender-affirming medical care as 'genital mutilation' and 'chemical castration,' while excluding gender dysphoria from the definition of legitimate health conditions. Yet the legislation carves out specific exemptions for surgeries on intersex infants, many of which are non-consensual and medically unnecessary — a practice widely condemned by human rights groups. David Stacy, vice president of government affairs at the Human Rights Campaign, said the bill is not about protecting children but about weaponizing transgender people to score political points. Related: Utah Republicans ignore study supporting gender-affirming care for trans youth. It's research they demanded 'Deeply personal health care decisions belong between families and their doctors, not politicians,' Stacy told The Advocate in a statement. 'No one should need Marjorie Taylor Greene's permission to get the best practice, medically necessary care that their family needs. This bill is not about public health—it's about emboldening discrimination and using the transgender community as a weapon to divide the country and try to obscure failings of the Trump administration and their enablers in Congress.' Under the bill's sweeping provisions, even helping a trans teenager cross state lines or access telehealth services for care could result in a decade-long prison sentence. The law would not apply to cisgender youth seeking similar interventions, such as breast reduction, puberty suppression for precocious puberty, or other medically approved procedures. Related: What to expect in this week's landmark gender-affirming care U.S. Supreme Court case The legislation arrives at a volatile moment for transgender rights. In January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order banning gender-affirming care for young people, but federal courts have intervened and put that order on hold. However, as soon as Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, a case challenging Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Advocates warn that a ruling upholding the law could create a legal precedent for sweeping national restrictions on trans health care, effectively turning cases like Greene's bill from political stunts into enforceable federal doctrine. Legal scholars and public health experts have warned that such a ruling would be devastating. Writing in The Advocate, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health professor Harry Barbee called U.S. v. Skrmetti a 'public health disaster' that could codify discrimination and strip life-saving care from some of the country's most vulnerable youth. Research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other institutions shows that gender-affirming care significantly reduces rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide among trans adolescents. Related: Doctors warn of 'terrifying' effects as Trump creates snitch line to report gender-affirming care patients Medical organizations representing over 1.3 million doctors, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the Endocrine Society, continue to endorse gender-affirming care as evidence-based and medically necessary. They have denounced efforts like Greene's bill as politically motivated and dangerous.
