Governor signs 'Vermonters Feeding Vermonters' grant program
MONTPELIER, Vt. (ABC22/FOX44) – Vermont farmers and hungry Vermonters will soon have an easier time finding each other.
Governor Phil Scott signed House Bill 167 (H. 167) on Tuesday, a bill that provides state support for the Vermonters Feeding Vermonters program of the Vermont Foodbank, a food bank that buys directly from local farmers by agreeing to a set price, quantity, and delivery schedule before the growing season.
Read the full text of the bill hereDownload
The bill says in part: 'Food insecurity in Vermont, and across the country, has increased in recent years after a decrease during the COVID-19 pandemic… for local food purchased from Vermont farms, every dollar spent contributes an additional $0.60 to the local economy.'
Vermont Foodbank shows off new renovations
The Vermonters Feeding Vermonters program bought over 5.7 million pounds of food from 299 Vermont farms in 2025. In addition to providing annual grants to the program, the bill also allows subgrants to community partners who buy directly from smaller local farms and farm stands.
The bill also requires an annual administrative report to the legislature in March. It will come into effect July 1.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Minnesota state workers say they're ready to strike over return-to-office — and other labor news
Members of the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees picket in St. Paul on Wednesday, June 4. (Photo by Izzy Wagener/Minnesota Reformer) Take a seat in the Break Room, our weekly round-up of labor news in Minnesota and beyond. This week: State workers say they're strike ready; Job Corps students face homelessness; Minnesota surpasses 3 million jobs in 2024; and doctors and nurses picket across the state. State employees picketing outside negotiations between Minnesota budget officials and their union on Wednesday said they were absolutely willing to strike over Gov. Tim Walz's part-time return-to-office order that took effect this week. 'One-hundred percent I would. We can't just roll over here,' said Erin Malone, an auditor for the Department of Revenue, at a demonstration in St. Paul with more than 50 workers and supporters on Wednesday. The two unions representing nearly 40,000 state workers — the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — are also fuming over the state's health care proposals they estimate will raise many workers' costs by thousands of dollars a year. The administration says rising health care costs leave them no choice. The soonest state employees could strike is in late summer, once contracts expire on June 30, they complete 45 days of mediation and then provide 10 days notice. The union explained those details in a FAQ for their members posted late last month in another sign that negotiations are headed toward a volatile impasse. State employees haven't gone on strike since walking off the job for two weeks 2001, but MAPE President Megan Dayton says she's never seen her members so fired up by Walz's unilateral decision to force workers back to the office. Hundreds of workers showed up to multiple demonstrations organized by the union over two days this week. Under Walz's order, state employees must work in the office at least 50% of the time unless they live more than 50 miles away or receive an exemption. Walz argues the policy will improve collaboration, mentorship and workplace culture, with the added benefit of bringing bodies and dollars back to a forsaken downtown St. Paul. The policy officially began June 1, but some agencies have delayed implementation as they make space for employees to return. After the COVID-19 shifted office jobs to workers' homes, state agencies began downsizing their office footprint in anticipation of permanent remote work. The Department of Revenue, for example, reduced its leased office space by 35% since 2021, saving $2.45 million annually. Many workers argue they're more productive at home and complain that the order adds to their costs in parking and gas. Some also question the motive, suspecting Walz could be distancing himself from public unions ahead of another run for governor — or trying to nudge workers off the payroll as the state stares down fiscal uncertainty. The state has also proposed changing contract language to make it easier to lay off workers in the event of 'fiscal exigencies' such as federal funding cuts, as well as epidemics, natural disasters and national security emergencies. 'I think it's political posturing,' said Christine Retkwa, a data analyst at the Department of Human Services. 'It can't be collaboration if we've been more productive… It's not to save costs.' Walz's relationship with public sector unions, which have historically been an important political ally, have soured rapidly since he announced the policy in March without consulting the unions. The union compared Walz to Elon Musk, and Walz did not invite anyone from the union to attend his State of the State Address. Tens of thousands of students at Job Corps centers across the country are facing homelessness after the Trump administration's Labor Department announced it will eliminate the vocational training program for low-income teenagers and young adults. 'You don't hit the ground running, you just hit the ground period. Straight homeless – nothing. Just straight into the ground,' Tyrone Bills, one of more than 150 students at the Hubert H. Humphrey Job Corps Center in St. Paul, told Fox 9. Last Friday, the Labor Department gave students a week's notice to move out and abandon their free training to fill jobs in manufacturing, construction, law enforcement, health care and other high-growth industries. The department later extended the deadline, and then a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from killing the program. By then, many students had already moved out. Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, once an advocate for Job Corps, justified eliminating the $1.7 billion program because of 'serious incidents' as well as high costs and low student graduation rates. Just 38% of students graduate, with an average cost of more than $80,000 a year, according to the agency. The National Job Corps Association disputed these figures, saying graduation rates before COVID-19 have historically been above 60% while the cost is less than $50,000 per enrollee. Minnesota continued to have one of the country's strongest labor markets in 2024, adding 40,000 non-farm jobs to push the state above 3 million jobs for the first time, according to the second annual State of Working Minnesota report from the labor-backed think tank North Star Policy Action. In the Midwest, Minnesota has the highest median wages, the highest share of workers in unions and the highest rate of health insurance coverage. The state also has the lowest unemployment rate for Black residents in the region and the lowest fatal injury rate on the job. Wage inequality also declined, while union membership increased by nearly 7% (although this can fluctuate from year to year due to imprecise data, and the general trend has been down for unions.) Support for unions is near historic highs, and that's helped nearly triple the number of union elections over the past five years, according to the report. It wasn't all good news: unemployment ticked up while the median wage moved down from $26.43 to $25.52 in an unusual break from a nearly exclusive upward trend. There is also cause for concern, according to report author Aaron Rosenthal, given federal Republicans' drive to reduce spending on health insurance for the working poor to offset some of the costs of tax cuts largely benefitting the wealthy. Working families are increasingly reliant on health insurance through Medical Assistance, the state's version of Medicaid. The number of people insured through Medical Assistance in families with at least one full-time worker increased 165% over the past 15 years. In rural areas, roughly 18% of adults and 37% of children are insured through Medical Assistance, compared to 15% of adults and 30% of children in the Twin Cities metro area. National jobs data released on Friday showed hiring has slowed as Trump's trade war and federal cuts have put employers on edge, with nearly all of the 139,000 job gains for the month being concentrated in health care and hospitality. The federal government lost 22,000 jobs. In a first for Minnesota, newly unionized doctors, physician assistants and nurse practitioners picketed outside several Allina clinics on Tuesday as negotiations stalled over a first labor contract. (It was an informational picket and not a strike.) Frustrated with what they describe as factory-style health care, the clinicians voted by a wide margin to unionize with Doctors Council SEIU in October 2023, forming the nation's largest private-sector doctors union with more than 600 members across 60 Allina clinics in Minnesota and Wisconsin. But since then, union leaders say they've made little progress toward finalizing a first labor contract covering wages, benefits and working conditions — despite meeting with hospital leaders nearly 40 times. 'We're not seeing Allina come to the table with meaningful proposals,' said Dr. Chris Antolak, a family physician, outside Allina's clinic in Coon Rapids. Unionized nurses also took to the picket lines outside 11 hospitals in the Twin Cities and two in Duluth in their push for greater staffing levels to protect themselves from workplace violence and improve patient care. The Minnesota Nurses Association is negotiating contracts covering roughly 15,000 nurses at seven of the state's largest health systems. Contracts expired on May 31 at St. Luke's and Essentia in Duluth and will expire at the end of this month at Twin Cities hospitals run by Allina, Children's, M Health Fairview, HealthPartners and North Memorial. Union president Chris Rubesch has said a strike is on the table.
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Health insurers seeking steep rate increases
Gov. Maura Healey, too, linked the merged market proposal to broader economic concerns. Advertisement 'Health care costs, as reflected in the proposed rates filed by health insurers, are simply unsustainable. I directed our Insurance Commissioner to closely scrutinize these filings as part of the rate review process,' Healey said in a statement to the News Service. 'What is clear is that we all must do much more to lower the cost of health care in this state.' Eight major health insurance providers late last month submitted the proposed rates they want to charge next year in the merged market, which combines under one umbrella individual insurance and small group insurance for businesses with no more than 50 eligible employees. The new annual weighted average base rates would all increase by varying amounts, with Fallon Community Health Plan's 9.9 percent the lowest and Boston Medical Center Health Plan's 16.2 percent the highest, according to DOI data. Advertisement Taken together, the proposals reflect an average increase of 13.4 percent affecting more than 720,000 renewing members, a sizable jump over the 8.36 percent growth regulators approved last year and the 4.8 percent growth in 2024. Eileen McAnenny, president of the Employer Coalition on Health, said those hikes would be 'very difficult for small businesses to absorb,' especially as employers navigate high costs for energy and unemployment insurance as well as the prospect of tariffs. 'Those rate increases are alarming when considered in the context that Massachusetts already has the second-highest health insurance premiums in the nation,' she said. 'But unfortunately, I don't think it's surprising given that we set a cost growth benchmark each year that providers and drug companies blow through without consequence, and that we keep providing supplemental payments to providers and expecting nothing in return — no improved efficiency, no transparency.' Retailers Association of Massachusetts President Jon Hurst said the 'vast majority' of his group's 4,000 members would be affected by increases in the merged market premium rates. 'The average small business in the retail, small restaurant world has sales today equal to pre-COVID. Their sales are flat, but their costs are through the roof, primarily health insurance,' Hurst said. 'We've seen, over the last five years, an increasing number of dark storefronts. It's still continuing long past COVID because of these cost increases, and health insurance premiums are by far the biggest nut.' DOI will review each of the eight rate filings individually, and the department can reject proposals if it finds that the increases are 'not reasonable in relation to health plan benefits, or if they are excessive or inadequate or use rating factors that are discriminatory or not actuarially sound,' the department wrote in an advisory. Advertisement Last year, several carriers DOI plans a virtual public hearing on June 17, where insurance carriers will present their proposals and others are invited to offer testimony, ahead of a final decision expected in August. 'We're going to tell them it's unaffordable, reject them. They can reject them,' Hurst said. 'Maybe the insurers need to go back to the drawing board and reopen these contract negotiations with hospitals and pharma companies.' The vast majority of the merged market rate increases would be driven by increasing medical and pharmacy claims, according to data insurers submitted to the state, with administrative costs, taxes and fees accounting for less than one-tenth of the total average hike. Individual and small group health plans are required to spend 88 percent of premium dollars on health care services instead of administrative or other costs. Insurers have long contended their hands are tied by high provider and prescription drug prices. Lora Pellegrini, president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans group that represents insurers, said carriers 'are frustrated, too.' 'Premiums reflect those underlying health care costs. We have seen rate demands from providers in the high double digits. We have one provider who's asked for a 70 percent increase in their rate. Plans can only do so much,' Pellegrini said. 'The power of providers who have only gotten bigger and bigger with consolidation make it very hard for health plans to negotiate a robust deal, because consumers want these hospital systems in their networks.' Advertisement Pellegrini pointed to financial headaches at MassHealth and the Group Insurance Commission, the latter of which needed 'Private-sector health plans have those same challenges,' she said. Margins for private health insurers have been steadily declining. After peaking at 2.8 percent in 2020, the median private health insurer total margin dropped into the red in 2023 and fell again to -1.06 percent in 2024, according to data MAHP shared with the News Service. Financial strain is rampant across the health care landscape. Total health care spending per capita in Massachusetts The Division of Insurance has already flexed new authority to scrutinize health care costs. A market oversight law Healey signed in January tasked the office's regulators with determining whether proposed rates are 'excessive' by considering 'affordability for consumers and purchasers of health insurance products.' On March 12, the division 'We are actively looking at other actions we can take to contain these health costs,' Healey said. 'Everyone has a role to play – insurers, hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry – and everyone will need to step up to make Massachusetts a more affordable place to live and do business.' Advertisement Healey and the Legislature last term agreed on a hospital oversight and market review law and a measure intended to rein in prescription drug costs. While implementation of those laws unfolds, policymakers are weighing additional action to address what Asked how confident she is that Beacon Hill Democrats can navigate the thicket of competing interests to achieve additional reforms, McAnenny replied simply, 'I hold out hope.'
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr.'s policies will make America's maternal mortality rates worse
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists rightly criticized Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s announcement at the end of last month that his department will no longer recommend the Covid vaccine for pregnant women. Covid was the leading cause of maternal mortality in 2021, and the ACOG correctly pointed out that the vaccine is safe and that it provides needed protection for expectant mothers and their unborn children. The decision by Kennedy's agency to delete the recommendation that pregnant women be vaccinated against a virus that was recently the leading cause of maternal death should prompt us to ask: Where are pregnant women in Kennedy's 'Make America Healthy Again' plan? As a maternal health physician, public health expert and equity leader, I'm as unhappy as ACOG is with the specific decision the HHS has made to stop recommending the Covid vaccine for my pregnant patients. Contracting Covid during pregnancy increases the risk of complications, including death. But I'm even more outraged and alarmed by something else HHS has done on Kennedy's watch: omit maternal mortality review committees (MMRCs) and perinatal quality collaboratives (PQCs) from the new structure of HHS. Maternal mortality review committees show us what is killing mothers and how we can stop it. Perinatal quality collaboratives give us the tools to act. They help hospitals and providers implement lifesaving solutions. These programs are not bureaucratic add-ons, but the main reason our nation has made progress in reducing maternal deaths. And yet, in a new proposed budget, programs run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as the pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system, maternal mortality review committees and perinatal quality collaboratives are conspicuously missing. Together, these programs have led to measurable improvements in maternal outcomes across the country. From 2021 to 2023, the U.S. saw statistically significant decreases in maternal mortality. That's not a coincidence — it's the result of a national, coordinated strategy rooted in evidence and accountability. The removal of this infrastructure is more than a policy shift — it's a dismantling of the very system that allowed us to fight back against a maternal health crisis. And the stakes are especially high for Black women and rural mothers, who face the greatest disparities in maternal outcomes. Without MMRCs, we lose the ability to track those disparities. Without PQCs, we lose the mechanism to fix them. In smaller hospitals, especially, quality improvement isn't a given — it's something PQCs make possible by helping teams implement patient safety bundles that might otherwise remain unused. Forty-six states and six U.S. territories have MMRCs supported by a CDC grant. This funding provides support to perform case reviews of maternal deaths, while the CDC provides the infrastructure, including a database that allows the results of such reviews to be aggregated. Data from MMRCs in 38 states in 2020, for example, showed that the leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths was mental health conditions, inclusive of suicide and accidental overdose, and 84% of those deaths were deemed preventable. Those findings gave rise to federal programs such as the maternal mental health hotline which, I'm thankful, will continue to be supported in the proposed HHS budget. The CDC also provides funding to support 36 state-based PQCs. This is an example of how the programs work together: In Louisiana, our maternal mortality review identified obstetric hemorrhage as our leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths in 2018. As a result, the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative (LaPQC) through the reducing maternal morbidity initiative and the safe births initiative worked to implement the AIM obstetric hemorrhage patient safety bundle. As a result, Louisiana mothers experiencing hemorrhage saw a 39% decrease in severe maternal morbidity (SMM), with a 58% decrease among Black women. These aren't anecdotes. They are blueprints for saving lives. Like the decision to stop recommending the Covid vaccine, if the decision to remove these programs from the budget stands, we will reverse course. The U.S. already has the highest maternal mortality rate among high-income countries. Removing these programs is likely to make the national crisis worse. We cannot allow that. My message to policymakers is simple: You can't 'Make America Healthy Again' if you ignore the risks of pregnancy and childbirth. Reinvest in the programs that are working. Fund the programs that show us why mothers are dying and what to do to keep more mothers alive. Preserve the public health infrastructure that has already started to move the needle in the right direction. If we as a country fail to act, then more mothers will die — and the tragic part is, we'll know we had the tools to prevent it. This article was originally published on
