Bill expanding access to hyperbaric oxygen therapy for Missouri veterans heads to governor
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways
State Sen. Rick Brattin of Harrisonville speaks riding a May 2024 debate (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent).
Missouri lawmakers passed a bill Monday evening to establish a fund to pay for hyperbaric oxygen therapy for veterans with a traumatic brain injury and facing post-traumatic stress disorder to help prevent suicide and opioid addiction.
With a unanimous 33-0 vote, Missouri senators sent the bill to the governor for his approval.
'It was remarkable to hear the testimonials,' said state Sen. Rick Brattin, a Republican from Harrisonville, during the Monday Senate debate. 'And we just want to set this up to where veterans don't have to go broke to receive a treatment that virtually has zero side effects and only true benefit.'
The House passed the bill, which was sponsored by state Rep. Chris Brown, a Republican from Kansas City, in April with a 156 to 1 vote. Brattin sponsored a companion bill in the Senate.
'The bottom line is, there are too many veterans that are taking their lives,' Brown said during the House debate in April. 'They don't see a way out. They can't deal with it. And I think the oxygen therapy certainly will help and maybe even is the answer.'
According to the Mayo Clinic, the goal of hyperbaric oxygen therapy is to get more oxygen to tissues damaged by disease, injury or other factors. Patients enter a hyperbaric oxygen therapy chamber, where the air pressure is increased up to three times higher than normal air pressure. The lungs can gather much more oxygen than would be possible breathing pure oxygen at normal air pressure.
The bill directs the Missouri Veterans Commission to compile an annual report with data about the treatment of hyperbaric oxygen therapy and its effectiveness.
On Monday, Brattin said he and other senators were moved to hear how the treatment offers veterans an alternative to a 'giant bag full of prescription drugs that they have to remain on.'
'That's what we've seen with these veteran treatments,' Brattin said. 'It's just basically prescribing a whole bunch of these drugs that have massive side effects and get that veteran potentially addicted or hooked on to these to remain a functioning member of society.'
Dale Lutzen, a retired senior master sergeant from the U.S. Air Force and a legislative advocate for the non-profit TreatNOW, was among those who testified about the treatment during a committee hearing in January. Lutzen said that veterans with traumatic brain injuries or PTSD are typically given prescription drugs that treat symptoms but don't cure the brain injury.
'As an alternative to drugs, hyperbaric oxygen therapy stimulates brain wound healing and it can reverse soft tissue and neurocognitive damage,' Lutzen said. 'This treatment allows patients to experience recovery of cognitive and neurological functioning without surgery or drugs.'
Despite numerous studies that prove its efficacy, he said the treatment is not on Medicare's approved list and is therefore not covered.
'At its most basic level, (the legislation) gives veterans, who have been diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury or PTSD, the right to receive the treatment as prescribed by a doctor,' he said.
Lutzen has been pushing for the last four years to get the fund established, he said. Last year, the bill passed in the House but stalled in the Senate.
According to the bill's fiscal analysis, the cost of reimbursing hyperbaric facilities for the necessary treatments could exceed $5 million annually. The funds will come from 'any appropriations, gifts, bequests, or public or private donations,' the bill states.
State Sen. Stephen Webber, a Democrat from Columbia, attempted to offer an amendment directing the state to conduct a study on using psilocybin — also known as 'magic mushrooms' — to treat depression, substance use or as part end-of-life care among veterans.
The provision comes from a bill Webber sponsored and one that's been filed for the last three years. In 2023, the House voted overwhelmingly in support of the idea but it never made its way to the Senate for a full vote. This year, Webber's bill passed out of the Senate Families, Seniors and Health Committee.
However, it was quickly blocked by Republican state Sen. Mike Moon of Ash Grove who said he would rather the bill 'go through without any potentially risky amendments that would compromise the effort.'
Seeing the possibility that Moon might 'talk on it for a while,' Webber said he'd withdraw his amendment and asked to speak with Moon directly about supporting the psilocybin bill.
Webber added that like Brattin, he was moved by the testimony he heard about the oxygen treatment.
'When you find something like that and there's something that provides relief for some people,' Webber said, 'then it would be a shame not to try to expand access to it.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 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
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
New state laws aim to clarify abortion bans. Doctors say it's not so simple.
Almost three years after the fall of Roe v. Wade made way for near-total abortion bans, state lawmakers are weighing whether to offer more specific guidance about when doctors can perform abortions in a medical crisis. Texas, Kentucky and Tennessee all passed laws this year ostensibly clarifying the scope of its abortion bans, a reaction to climbing sepsis rates and harrowing stories of patients who have suffered or died preventable deaths. Since June 2022, lawmakers in at least nine states have introduced such bills. But doctors, attorneys and policy experts say that the laws being enacted will not solve the problems health providers have been forced to navigate since the end of Roe: The risk of being punished has deterred physicians, hospitals and health systems from providing consistent care, even when it is needed. 'The problem with these clarifying laws is they don't expand access under the law, they don't change the definitions, and they don't remove the legislative interference in the practice of medicine,' said Molly Meegan, chief legal officer and general counsel to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In Texas, a bill that awaits Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's signature ostensibly clarifies when the state's near-total abortion ban allows for the procedure, saying explicitly that physicians do not need to wait until a patient is in imminent danger of dying to perform an abortion. The bill also requires training for doctors and lawyers on the state's abortion law. But lawmakers have made clear that the bill, crafted in consultation with Texas-based health professionals and abortion opponents, does not introduce new exceptions; Texas' ban does not allow for abortions in cases of rape, incest or fatal fetal anomaly. And if enacted, it would codify a Texas Supreme Court decision that found that the state's ban still applied even in cases with complications that could threaten a pregnant person's health.. Such was the case for Dallas woman Kate Cox, who experienced amniotic fluid leaking and cramping — which create the risk of bacterial infection — after discovering a likely-fatal fetal anomaly in her pregnancy. Some former abortion patients whose lives were endangered because of delayed or denied care, including several who challenged the Texas abortion ban, said they fear Senate Bill 31 may not address situations like theirs. Amanda Zurawski, who sued the state after being denied an abortion when experiencing a life-threatening condition called preterm premature rupture of membrane, said at a legislative hearing on the bill that it likely doesn't provide the clarity she would have needed. 'It is unclear whether SB 31 would have prevented my trauma and preserved my fertility had it existed in 2022, and I find that problematic,' Zurawski said. She only received care after she developed sepsis. Clarification bills can have mixed support in legislatures. Local physicians might back tweaks to exemption language if they see it as potentially lifesaving for their patients. Some anti-abortion advocates might also favor changes if the legislation can address certain medical emergencies that they believe fall outside of a state's ban, such as ectopic pregnancies or preterm premature rupture of membranes. But not all anti-abortion advocates or Republican lawmakers within these statehouses support even a small clarification. 'I think in all these cases, lawmakers are being pulled in different directions by these different constituencies,' said Mary Ziegler, an abortion law historian at the University of California, Davis. 'The bills themselves are kind of muddy, because they're trying to be different things to different people.' The end result are clarification laws that remain unclear to physicians and their employing hospitals and health systems, who can still face high penalties for violating an abortion ban. 'When the law isn't clear, physicians don't intervene,' Ziegler said. 'You're not going to be willing to gamble your liberty and your medical license on an uncertain interpretation of the law.' In Kentucky, doctors vocally opposed a Republican-backed bill that supporters said would help health professionals understand when they can provide abortions. Like in Texas, the state's ban only allows abortion when it is necessary to save a pregnant person's life. The clarification bill listed specific conditions that would qualify for an exception to the ban — such as sepsis, hemorrhage or ectopic pregnancy — despite concern from doctors that a delineated list wouldn't be able to predict every possible situation where an abortion might save someone's life. Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed the bill in March, calling gaps in the law 'literally a matter of life and death.' The state's legislature, where the GOP holds a supermajority, voted days later to override him. 'It's hard to create this laundry list of, 'This is OK, this is not OK,' because unfortunately, medicine is something with a bunch of gray areas,' said Dr. Caitlin Thomas, an OB-GYN in Louisville. In Georgia — where pregnant, brain-dead woman Adriana Smith remains on life-support until she can give birth later this summer, and where the death of Amber Thurman was attributed to the confusion created by the state's abortion ban — some lawmakers have asked physicians whether a clarification might allow doctors to provide abortions when the pregnancy threatens a patient's life, possibly by listing specific conditions that qualify for an exception. 'We encouraged them not to, and said that would not be helpful,' said Dr. Neesha Verma, an Atlanta-based OB-GYN. 'The more and more prescriptive you make these laws, the less space there is for clinical judgment.' Following a case filed by seven Tennessee patients who had been denied abortions under the state's ban, lawmakers in that state passed a law this year meant to clarify that, under the state's ban, abortions could be performed in cases of preterm prelabor rupture of membrane or severe preeclampsia, but that the exception did not include mental health emergencies. Mental health conditions including substance use disorder, depression and confirmed or probably suicide are the largest single cause of pregnancy-related deaths in the state, according to a 2022 report. The interest in clarifying bans — including from some lawmakers who oppose abortion — 'is a response to where we know the public is and the fact that we know the public is generally supportive of abortion access and also has been presented with these terrible preventable cases since Dobbs,' said Kimya Forouzan, who tracks state policy for the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit abortion research organization. That ambiguity was on display in a Texas case last year. A state judge held that the state's abortion law exception permitted Cox to have an abortion when her doctors discovered the anomaly in her pregnancy. But the state's attorney general, Ken Paxton, swiftly intervened, threatening legal action against any health care provider that performed an abortion on Cox. Cox ultimately left the state to terminate her pregnancy. Michele Goodwin, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine and author of 'Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood,' said state officials can do more to ensure health providers know their legal rights. 'It would be credible for states' attorneys generals and the prosecutors who are conservative to immediately issue statements of clarity, saying that they are opposed to these kinds of conditions, that they will not prosecute,' she said. The post New state laws aim to clarify abortion bans. Doctors say it's not so simple. appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
Yahoo
2 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.
