Lawmakers move caregiver disqualifications bill forward
House Bill 131, Caregiver Background Checks, hopes to reduce the rate of abuse, neglect and exploitation of the elderly, which has risen significantly in the last four years, according to the state Health Care Authority.
"This bill, basically, puts some more (crimes) that can be disqualifying in terms of caregivers," Rep. Liz Thomson, the legislation's sponsor, told the House Judiciary Committee on Monday.
If passed, people convicted of aggravated battery of a household member, human trafficking, assault of a peace officer, identity theft, and animal cruelty would fail background checks and be unable to become caregivers. It adds to a list of other criminal convictions that disqualify applicants.
According to the HCA, there has been a 117% increase in abuse, neglect and exploitation cases among people receiving Developmental Disabilities Waiver services and a 76% increase at hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living facilities from 2020 to 2024. The HCA said New Mexico also has a less extensive list of disqualifying crimes compared to other U.S. states. This bill would bring the state more in line with other states, including Mississippi and Nevada, the HCA said.
The House Judiciary Committee moved Thomson's bill forward with a 9-0 vote late Monday.
There was little opposition to the bill. One person expressed concern about a lack of oversight in transferring responsibility from the state Department of Health to the HCA. Others raised concerns that the bill would reduce the number of applicants amid a health care provider shortage, something the HCA argues is unlikely.
Thomson, an Albuquerque Democrat, told the Journal she was unsure when the bill would get a hearing but said it was a critical piece of legislation. The session is set to wrap up on March 22.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The Latest: Texas GOP poised to approve map gerrymandered for their advantage
The first domino in a growing national redistricting battle is likely to fall Wednesday as the Republican-controlled Texas legislature is expected to pass a new congressional map creating five new winnable seats for the GOP. The vote follows prodding by President Donald Trump to stave off a midterm defeat that would deprive his party of control of the House of Representatives. Democrats who refused round-the-clock police escorts to ensure they'd provide a quorum were confined to the House floor, where they protested on a livestream. They've vowed a blue-states payback for the Texas map, with California's legislature poised to approve a retaliatory gerrymandering for the state's voters to consider in November. Evacuating for a hurricane could expose immigrants to deportation Natural disasters have long posed singular risks for people without permanent legal status. But with the arrival of peak Atlantic hurricane season, immigrants and their advocates say Trump's militaristic immigration enforcement agenda has increased the danger. Places considered neutral spaces by immigrants such as schools, hospitals and emergency management agencies are now suspect, and many local first responders now collaborate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. For people without legal documents, this can mean having to choose between physical safety and avoiding detention. The fear can extend into disaster recovery as agencies share information with deportation agents. In past disasters, the Department of Homeland Security said it would suspend immigration enforcement, but that's now unclear. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said CBP hasn't issued guidance 'because there have been no natural disasters affecting border enforcement.' Hundreds of federal health employees sign a letter protesting Kennedy's actions The employees at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other federal agencies have signed a letter charging that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has endangered their lives and the rest of the public. The two-page letter sent to Kennedy and members of Congress cites his anti-science rhetoric, denigration of federal workers, layoffs affecting public health programs and Kennedy's decision to replace members of a vaccine advisory panel with a handpicked group that includes some anti-vaccine advocates. It faults Kennedy's delayed response to an Aug. 8 shooting at the CDC's main campus in Atlanta. And it asks Kennedy to stop spreading false health information, affirm the CDC's scientific integrity, and guarantee the safety of the HHS workforce. About 400 current employees signed their names, most of them from the CDC but some from the National Institutes of Health and other health agencies. Also signing the document are some noted former CDC leaders, including former acting director Dr. Anne Schuchat.
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Pesticides test MAHA-MAGA alliance
The 'Make America Healthy Again' (MAHA) movement could be on a collision course with its Republican allies over pesticides and toxic chemicals. MAHA is strongly aligned with the Trump administration, having cheered its anti-vaccine actions and food safety reforms. In general, the movement has been deeply skeptical of Big Pharma, Big Agriculture and Big Chemical. And cracks are beginning to form. MAHA-aligned groups and influencers are particularly raising alarms about provisions in a House appropriations bill that they say will shield pesticide and chemical manufacturers from accountability — and ultimately make Americans less healthy. Meanwhile, a draft of the administration's 'MAHA report' reportedly omits any calls to prevent pesticide exposure, also disappointing advocates. 'It's obvious that there are tensions within this newfound coalition between MAHA and MAGA, and there are some big issues there,' said Mary Holland, CEO of Children's Health Defense, a group that was founded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., considered the MAHA flagbearer. Conservatives have traditionally sided with big business, supporting fewer regulations on potentially toxic substances. Kennedy and his disciples, meanwhile, espouse stricter environmental protections, while also bucking mainstream science on vaccine safety. The disparities on chemicals and pesticides within their coalition put Republicans in the middle: Do they side with big business or health concerns? On many issues, business interests appear to be winning. The New York Times reported last week, based on a draft that it obtained, that a forthcoming iteration of the Trump administration's MAHA positions does not call for new restrictions on pesticides and describes existing procedures as 'robust.' MAHA-aligned activists recoiled. 'The MAHA draft report stating that the EPA's [Environmental Protection Agency] pesticide review process is 'robust' is the biggest joke in American history. And it's not funny. It's deadly,' wrote Zen Honeycutt, founder of the activist group Moms Across America, in a post on X. Meanwhile, a Republican-authored House Appropriations bill seeks to block pesticide labels that go beyond what the EPA uses based on its current human health risk assessment. During a markup last month, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who chairs the Interior-Environment Appropriations subcommittee, said that the measure says that 'states cannot require a pesticide label that is different from the EPA label.' 'The language ensures that we do not have a patchwork of state labeling requirements. It ensures that one state is not establishing the label for the rest of the states,' Simpson said, adding that his comments were meant to be clarifying for all the 'MAHA moms that are out there that are concerned about this that have been calling.' But critics say such a move could prevent the use of updated science on pesticide labels. 'This section, section 453, would basically handcuff EPA, companies and states as well as advocates to … research that could be outdated by over 15 years,' said Geoff Horsfield, policy director at the Environmental Working Group. 'The language in here … says that EPA should only update labels according to the human health risk assessment. EPA, by law, is required to do those human health risk assessments every 15 years, but they often don't complete those in time,' Horsfield said. 'The way the law works currently is states have the power to do additional addendums, and that's where you see, say, a state requires an additional setback so that you can't spray within 250 feet of a school, or you're required to wear additional types of [personal protective equipment],' he continued. 'Those types of restrictions are usually included in a label addendum, and those types of changes and those types of tweaks would be essentially prohibited by this language.' MAHA opponents have particularly expressed concerns over the implications that barring such labeling could have on the ability to sue pesticide companies over inadequate labels. 'Having no access to courts is absolutely devastating and, in my view, unconstitutional,' said Holland, with Children's Health Defense. 'I'm very distressed by this idea that this administration might, for 2026, establish liability protection.' Democrats likewise pushed back on the provision. 'This rider would effectively gag our public health agencies, preventing them from updating labels or rules to reflect new evidence of cancer risks from pesticides,' Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said during the markup. 'This bill is a big middle finger to cancer patients.' Also causing controversy is another provision related to 'forever chemicals,' toxic substances that have been linked to illnesses including cancer and have become widespread in the environment. The measure seeks to bar the EPA from enforcing a draft report that found that food from farms contaminated with these chemicals may pose cancer risks. Lexi Hamel, a spokesperson for Simpson, said in an email that the bill 'prohibits funding from implementing, administering, or enforcing the current draft risk assessment due to the major technical flaws in the assessment.' But she said it does not block the EPA from 'continuing to work on identifying ways to clean up PFAS and keep communities safe' and that an amendment changed the bill so that it no longer blocks the agency from finalizing its findings. In a follow-up statement shared through a spokesperson, Horsfield said the provision is still a problem. 'The risk assessment will still have to be implemented and enforced,' he said. 'The draft risk assessment will need teeth … Allowing EPA to finalize the draft risk assessment, but preventing them from implementing it is an exercise in futility.' MAHA activists have slammed both provisions, saying in a letter to President Trump that GOP support for the measures is 'unconscionable.' However, Tony Lyons, president of the MAHA Action PAC, said he does not blame Republicans for pesticides in the environment. 'I don't think that this is something that comes from the GOP side. I think that this is a case of the Democratic Party looking to blame Republicans for it,' Lyons said. While the pesticide issues have generated some sparks between MAHA and MAGA, the administration has taken a number of other actions to also reduce restrictions on the chemical industry more broadly. Trump himself exempted from environmental standards more than 100 polluters, including chemical manufacturers, oil refineries, coal plants and medical device sterilizers. The EPA, meanwhile, has put chemical industry alumni in leading roles and has said it wants to loosen restrictions on emissions of various cancer-linked chemicals. Asked about Trump's move to exempt polluters from Clean Air Act rules, Holland said 'there's clearly tensions' within the GOP coalition. 'Those factions, if you will, more protective of corporate and more challenging to corporate, are both striving to get the president's ear, and I don't think they've come to a complete, sort of settlement agreement,' she said.
Axios
a day ago
- Axios
Abortion pill fight reaches pharmacy board rooms
A year after the Supreme Court preserved abortion pill access, the fight over dispensing mifepristone is shifting from courtrooms to boardrooms as anti-abortion forces press pharmacy chains not to sell the drugs. The big picture: Costco last week said it won't stock mifepristone at its more than 500 pharmacies. Conservative groups are pushing other pharmacies — including Walgreens and CVS, which offer the pills in states where abortion is legal — to follow suit. "We can effectuate real change by talking to these companies and engaging with them," said Michael Ross, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom's corporate engagement team. "Hopefully Costco will be a trendsetter." But those efforts are making retail pharmacies a new ground zero in the fight over abortion access. Costco got swift criticism from one of its home-state senators, Washington Democrat Patty Murray, for accommodating "far-right extremists" she said were whipsawing the availability of basic care. Between the lines: Pharmacy chains were destined to be involved after the Food and Drug Administration in 2023 allowed retailers to apply for certification to dispense mifepristone, which is part of a two-step protocol used to medically end a pregnancy through 10 weeks. The drug, which FDA first approved in 2000, has traditionally been dispensed at doctors' offices, hospitals or health clinics. But as states across the country restrict abortion, mifepristone prescribing via telehealth has significantly increased. State of play: Costco says it won't pursue approval to dispense mifepristone because demand for the drug is low. The company's understanding is that patients generally get the drug directly from their medical providers, it said in an email. But the decision, which reportedly came after more than a year of deliberations, is one anti-abortion groups have been pushing for. It extends beyond Costco's membership, since nonmembers can fill prescriptions at its drug counters. Last August, Alliance Defending Freedom led a coalition including thousands of Costco cardholders, financial advisers and consultants in urging the retailer not to offer mifepristone. "Costco ... needs to carefully consider the cost of alienating its diverse customers and potential customers just to boost one product in its pharmacy, which is one of its ancillary lines of business," their letter said. That pressure campaign followed New York City Comptroller Brad Lander (D) sending letters to Costco and other pharmacies, advocating that they get clearance to fill prescriptions where legal. "Making mifepristone available benefits customers and employees and increases sales, while also generating long-term shareholder value," Lander wrote to Costco last year. But abortion foes have allied with investor groups like Inspire Investing to warn Costco, Walmart, Albertsons, Kroger and other retail pharmacy operators as well as drug distributors to stay out of divisive political issues that could alienate customers and investors. "We say, OK, mifepristone may be a very small part of your sales, but look at all of the different backlash that you might be introducing, the different regulatory backlash from the Trump admin and the legal risk," Ross said. The Trump administration, Congress or the Supreme Court could still change requirements around the drug. The Supreme Court in 2024 preserved access to mifepristone, deciding that doctors who asked justices to stop the FDA's relaxation of restrictions around the drug didn't have standing, without ruling on the merits. In May, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he'd directed the FDA to "to review the latest data on mifepristone" — a move that could restrict future availability. Other large pharmacy chains like Walmart, Kroger and Albertsons have not made public decisions on mifepristone dispensing. Kroger told Axios it's still reviewing the FDA's mifepristone drug safety program and will continue to align dispensing practices with federal and state law. Walmart declined to comment, and Albertsons did not respond. The other side: Curbing mifepristone access could make it even harder for women to access safe abortions, as well as miscarriage care, for which it has an off-label use. "By refusing to offer mifepristone, Costco has chosen politics over science, fear over facts, and ideology over the rights of its customers," Mini Timmaraju, CEO of advocacy group Reproductive Freedom for All, said in a statement last Friday. What we're watching: How Walgreens and CVS respond to pressure to stop filling mifepristone prescriptions.
