Delaware House Rep. Stell Parker Selby submits letter of resignation, citing health reasons
House Speaker Melissa Minor-Brown confirmed on June 24 that she had received Selby's letter of resignation.
Selby, who represents residents from the Milton and Lewes area, officially took her oath of office in March for her second term after being unable to be sworn in on the first day of legislative session due to 'a medical event,' according to a previous statement.
Parker Selby had been notably absent from Legislative Hall this session after suffering from an apparent stroke, sparking a debate among fellow lawmakers, according to reporting from Spotlight Delaware
Parker Selby wrote in her letter of resignation that, while she is 'proud of the strides' she has made following her medical event, she also recognized she 'can no longer serve [her] district with the full energy, presence and focus it rightfully deserves.'
In other news: Needed housing for young adults leaving foster care or without homes opens in Sussex County
'This district is my home. It raised me, shaped me and gave me every opportunity to serve,' she wrote. 'For decades, I showed up, spoke out and stood up for the values we share and the voices that too often go unheard,' she wrote.
'This community has always been a part of me, and I've done my best to reflect its strength and spirit in everything I do. And while recent conversations have turned away from the substance of that work, I will not. I am stepping down not because of noise or pressure, but because I care too deeply about this community to offer anything less than my full capacity.'
While Minor-Brown recognized 'this was not an easy decision' for the lawmaker and her loved ones to make, she hoped Delawareans would take time to acknowledge her story – a story 'of a true trailblazer.'
'There aren't many people around who have lived in the Lewes and Milton community without Stell's presence,' Minor-Brown said. 'Her deep, personal connection to her home was cultivated through her lifelong commitment to helping those around her.'
'That's what made her such an effective advocate and trusted voice for the people of the 20th District. She's touched so many lives over the years, and I know the thousands of people she's served in her time feel as proud of her as we do.'
Olivia Montes covers state government and community impact for Delaware Online/The News Journal. If you have a tip or a story idea, reach out to her at omontes@delawareonline.com.
This article originally appeared on Delaware News Journal: Delaware House Representative Stell Parker Selby resigns from office
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
HHS pilot program raises Democratic concerns over Medicare red tape
House Democrats are sounding the alarm and demanding more information about a new Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) demonstration they say will increase red tape by adding prior authorization requirements in Medicare. Led by Reps. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) and Ami Bera (D-Calif.), a group of 17 Democrats questioned why HHS would want to test adding prior authorization requirements in traditional Medicare when the Trump administration is touting efforts to reduce the practice in Medicare Advantage (MA). Traditional Medicare has rarely required prior authorization, but private MA plans have come under fire for relying on the controversial practice as a tool to increase profits. 'The Trump Administration publicly recognized the harm of prior authorization…And yet, not a week after these statements, CMS put forward a new proposal to increase the utilization of prior authorization in a type of health coverage that had seldom used the tactic before, replacing doctor's medical knowledge with an algorithm designed to maximize care denial in order to increase profits,' the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz. The lawmakers are concerned about a new CMS pilot program to test a model targeting 'wasteful, inappropriate services in Original Medicare.' Under the model, CMS will partner with private companies, including some of the Medicare Advantage plans that are under fire for using prior authorization to deny a clinician's request to provide care. The model will require prior authorization for a list of outpatient procedures that the agency has flagged as vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse, or inappropriate use. Participants will be rewarded based on the 'effectiveness of their technology solutions' for reducing spending on medically unnecessary or non-covered services. The lawmakers said they were concerned about creating perverse incentives that reward the companies that deny the most care. 'Prior authorization has long been abused, and it is bad for patients and providers,' the lawmakers wrote. An analysis of 2023 HHS data from KFF found about 81 percent of denials were partially or fully overturned after being appealed. 'The use of prior authorization in Medicare Advantage shows us that, in practice, [the demonstration] will likely limit beneficiaries' access to care, increase burden on our already overburdened health care work force, and create perverse incentives to put profit over patients,' the letter stated. The letter asked CMS for details on the pilot's scope, implementation plan and safeguards for beneficiaries. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is touting voluntary pledges they have received from the health insurance industry to streamline and reform the prior authorization process for MA plans. Lawmakers said the move shows the administration recognizes the harms of prior authorization. 'There's violence in the streets over these issues,' Oz said during an event announcing the industry pledges.
Newsweek
a day ago
- Newsweek
Medicare Update: Lawmakers Sound Alarm About Major Change to Program
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. More than a dozen House Democrats pressed Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Mehmet Oz in a letter last week over CMS's announced plans to expand prior authorization requirements to traditional Medicare through a pilot program. The new model incorporates artificial intelligence to help make decisions and is being tested in six states beginning in January. "Let's call it what it is: profit-driven healthcare," a financial expert told Newsweek, "And profit motive and patient care mix about as well as oil and water. Lawmakers are sounding the alarm, because this directly affects many of their constituents." Why It Matters The pushback highlights a growing partisan debate over how to reduce Medicare spending without restricting beneficiaries' access to care. It also underscores tensions between the Biden-era expansion of oversight and the Trump administration's stated aim to cut waste while modernizing CMS operations. House Democrats argued the new prior authorization pilot would create administrative burdens for providers and patients, while some Senate Republicans believe the Medicare reforms are necessary for rooting out fraud and overpayments. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) speaks at a news conference after a meeting with the House Democratic Caucus at the U.S. Capitol Building on September 19, 2023 in Washington, DC. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) speaks at a news conference after a meeting with the House Democratic Caucus at the U.S. Capitol Building on September 19, 2023 in Washington, To Know More than a dozen House Democrats, led by Democratic Representatives Suzan DelBene of Washington and Ami Bera of California, sent a letter to CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz on Thursday, requesting information and urging cancellation of a planned prior authorization pilot for traditional Medicare. The lawmakers wrote that "traditional Medicare has rarely required prior authorization," and said that, while prior authorization is "often described as a cost-containment strategy, in practice it increases provider burden, takes time away from patients, limits patients' access to life-saving care, and creates unnecessary administrative burden." The letter asked CMS for details on the pilot's scope, implementation plan and safeguards for beneficiaries. "Prior authorization is often seen as a roadblock to timely, even life-saving care—replacing the doctor's judgment with an algorithm," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "Let's call it what it is: profit-driven healthcare. And profit motive and patient care mix about as well as oil and water. Lawmakers are sounding the alarm, because this directly affects many of their constituents." CMS has planned to roll out the prior authorization program in six states starting in January. The Trump administration previously announced a voluntary pledge from major insurers to simplify prior authorization in Medicare Advantage. Lawmakers said that prior voluntary pledges showed public recognition of the harms of prior authorization, and they urged CMS to reconsider extending similar rules to traditional Medicare. Separately, Senate Republicans discussed broader Medicare changes as part of proposals to reduce waste, fraud and abuse and to modernize CMS operations. Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina said lawmakers were examining CMS contracting practices, duplicate payments and upcoding as potential savings sources, according to The Hill. The Hill also reported that legislation from Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy and Democratic Senator of Oregon Jeff Merkley to reduce Medicare Advantage overpayments had bipartisan interest and might be folded into larger budget measures considered by Senate Republicans. Idaho Republican Senator Mike Crapo said his committee was "evaluating" Cassidy's proposal. Newsweek reached out to CMS for comment via email. What People Are Saying Lawmakers wrote in their letter to CMS administrator, Dr. Mehmet Oz: "Prior authorization has long been abused, and it is bad for patients and providers. The American Medical Association notes, 'Among America's physicians, more than nine in 10 surveyed say that prior authorization has a negative impact on patient clinical outcomes." We urge you to put patients and providers first by cancelling the WISeR model and exploring other ways to limit fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare program." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "Will the letter change things? I doubt it. They'll probably get an answer, but expect the same vague, carefully worded response. The current administration is clear on its intent: privatize more of Medicare and crack down on what they label "waste, fraud, and abuse." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "Few Americans would be in disagreement that services like Medicare and Medicaid should have strong oversight to ensure funding is being properly used, but the concern with the WISeR model being employed is the use of prior authorization for some Medicare services. Medicare Advantage has a history of requiring prior authorization, and while not all uses have been a source of criticism, it is viewed by some beneficiaries as one of several reasons why Advantage has garnered more negative reactions in recent years." What Happens Next CMS faced requests from House Democrats to provide documentation and to cancel the planned prior authorization pilot. Lawmakers in the Senate continue to debate broader Medicare reforms, and committee deliberations could determine whether proposals addressing Medicare Advantage payments or CMS operational changes move into larger legislative packages. "For the time being, the model isn't nationwide and will be piloted in select states," Beene said. "It's difficult to say if this will eventually be implemented nationwide and will largely depend on how this pilot program goes."
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
Daylight saving time: Will this be the last time we ‘fall back?'
(NEXSTAR) — It can be hard to imagine the dark, cold nights of November when you're in the throes of August, but believe it or not, we're not far from those drearier days. That means we're also not far from the biannual tradition you either appreciate, despise, or otherwise forget about: the changing of the clocks for daylight saving time. You don't have to rush to check your calendar; we're several weeks from November 2. But not long ago, it seemed the U.S. may have been gearing up to treat it like any other Sunday. Within the last several months, bills to 'lock the clocks' have been introduced, a Senate committee hearing has been held, and even President Donald Trump has weighed in on the discussions. Nonetheless, introduced bills have stalled, no more hearings have been held, and the need to set your clocks (in most states) back an hour remains. 'Tariff rebates' proposed: How would they work? So what does the future of the biannual changing of the clocks look like for the U.S.? So far, a lot like its past. More than a century ago, the U.S. temporarily observed permanent daylight saving time — setting the clocks forward an hour without setting them back a few months later — during World War I. It lasted roughly a year and returned during World War II. That then set off decades of states and cities deciding what time to observe without much guidance. There was a brief reprieve from the chaos when Congress passed the Uniform Time Act in 1966, formalizing when the country was on daylight saving time and standard time. A few years later, we tried permanent daylight saving time during an energy crisis, only for it to lose favor and be ditched. Since the mid-1970s, we've changed our clocks twice annually. Most recent efforts targeting the practice — primarily led by Congressmen from Florida — have focused on putting the country back on permanent daylight saving time, a move many health experts disagree with. As in years past, the Senate and House bills to do as such have received bipartisan support and been passed off to committees, only to stall out. What would change if daylight saving time became permanent? The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation did hold a hearing in April that examined 'the various issues around whether the country should continue 'springing forward' and 'falling back' each year with time.' Witnesses who support permanent daylight saving time and an alternative, permanent standard time, shared their opinions, and the bill advanced out of committee. It still needs a revote in the Senate, a spokesperson told Nexstar. 'Americans are sick and tired of changing their clocks twice a year — it's an unnecessary, decades-old practice that's more of an annoyance to families than a benefit to them,' Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) previously said while introducing his Sunshine Protection Act alongside Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL) introduced companion legislation in the House. 'President Trump and the American people are on board with locking the lock, and now it's time we pass the Sunshine Protection Act to make Daylight Saving Time permanent.' 'It's clear that Americans want to do away with changing their clocks twice a year, and my bill will end this outdated practice,' Rep Buchanan said in a statement to Nexstar. 'We've had very promising conversations with House leadership, Energy and Commerce committee members and the Trump team about holding hearings and acting on my bill this Congress. It's clear that public support and political headwinds are on our side, and I look forward to my bill becoming law.' Some states, meanwhile, have taken it upon themselves to enact legislation that would put them on permanent daylight saving time — in most cases, however, they need Congress's approval. Only two states observe year-round standard time, an option afforded them by Congress' 1966 Uniform Time Act. States cannot opt for permanent daylight saving time. In most cases, the states standing on that side of the clock have introduced or passed measures calling on Congress to enact permanent daylight saving time or outlining conditions in which the state would observe daylight saving time permanently, typically based on actions by Congress or neighboring states. Why experts say keeping standard time is 'undeniably' better for us A House bill to give states the power to observe daylight saving time all year has been introduced and referred to committee. Multiple other states, however, have seen legislation introduced during their current legislative sessions to observe permanent standard time or exempt it from daylight saving time. Such bills in Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia have failed to pass already this year. Legislation to observe permanent daylight saving time in Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia was also unable to pass. Some states have not considered clock-locking legislation, either this year or in recent history. That includes Michigan, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. In the last five years, no related proposals have been brought forth in the District of Columbia or Rhode Island.
