What the new Real ID will & won't do, and where & how to get it
IOWA — Delayed many times over the last decade, the deadline to get the new Real ID (aka 'Gold Star license') is fast approaching. Iowans intending to fly domestically and/or access federal buildings and nuclear facilities will need to have theirs starting on May 7th, 2025.
Iowa DOT officials say Iowans have done a better job than most.
'As of last month, the national average for Real ID acceptance was around 56%,' said Toni Smith of the Iowa DOT. 'Iowans have a 74% Real ID acceptance rate.'
The idea for this extra-secure piece of identification dates all the way back to 2005 — to the 9-11 Commission. Despite that, everyone does NOT need a Real ID. Only those who:
Intend to fly domestically
Wish to enter Federal buildings and facilities (not including Federal courts)
Wish to enter nuclear facilities
Those flying internationally will still need their passport, and a passport can always be used in place of a Real ID in all situations.
Governor's math literacy bill advanced by House lawmakers
A traditional driver's license will continue to suffice for:
Driving
Voting
Purchasing alcohol, tobacco, and other age-restricted goods
Accessing hospitals
Use at the post office
Reporting to Federal court
Applying and receiving Federal benefits
To get a Real ID, go to your Iowa DOT office and bring:
One document to prove your identity and date of birth (like your birth certificate or passport)
One document to prove your Social Security number (like your Social Security card or — since it's tax season — a W-2 or 1099 that has your whole social security number on it)
Two documents to prove your physical address (utilities bills, a piece of postmarked mail, a pay stub, or a bank or credit card statement will all work)
Your current driver's license will not count as one of these forms of ID, but still bring it, you'll trade it in for your Real ID.
If the thought of bringing a bunch of extra stuff to the DOT office and sitting in line to do all this makes you feel sick, you're not alone, but don't fear, Toni Smith has a secret.
'The best route to go is to go to our website and you can schedule an appointment. You'll get in and out very quickly.'
Iowa News:
'Forgetting to Remember': Norwalk family shares Alzheimer's experience
What the new Real ID will & won't do, and where & how to get it
Governor's math literacy bill advanced by House lawmakers
Highlights from Iowa high school state wrestling tournament Wednesday
Bird flu detected in Sac County turkey flock
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump celebrates Tillis's decision to retire
President Trump on Sunday celebrated Sen. Thom Tillis's (R-N.C.) announcement that he wouldn't seek reelection next year. 'Great News!' Trump wrote on TruthSocial on Sunday evening. The North Carolina senator abruptly announced his plans earlier in the day amid a days-long spat with the president over Tillis's opposition to the GOP's massive tax and spending bill. He was one of two Republicans to vote against advancing the measure on Saturday night. He has cried foul over Medicaid cuts that he says will cost the Tar Heel State more than $30 billion, preferring the Medicaid language in the House-passed bill. This drew the ire of Trump, who responded by threatening to support a primary challenger against the two-term Senate Republican. 'Numerous people have come forward wanting to run in the Primary against 'Senator Thom' Tillis,' Trump wrote. 'I will be meeting with them over the coming weeks, looking for someone who will properly represent the Great People of North Carolina and, so importantly, the United States of America.' He also railed against Tillis on Sunday ahead of the reelection decision, labeling him a 'talker and complainer, not a doer.' Tillis said in a statement announcing his retirement that he hadn't been excited about the prospect of seeking a third term, and indicated that he is looking forward to having new-found political freedom. 'As many of my colleagues have noticed over the last year, and at times even joked about, I haven't exactly been excited about running for another term,' he said. 'That is true since the choice is between spending another six years navigating the political theatre and partisan gridlock in Washington or spending that time with the love of my life Susan, our two children, three beautiful grandchildren, and the rest of our extended family back home.' 'It's not a hard choice, and I will not be seeking re-election,' he said. 'I look forward to having the pure freedom to call the balls and strikes as I see fit and representing the great people of North Carolina to the best of my ability.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Congress should look to Tennessee as an example for Medicaid reform
As Congress wrestles with the need to trim spending, attention has turned to Medicaid, and to a lesser extent, Medicare. These are hardly new issues. Within seven years of the 1965 enactment of Medicaid, for those eligible for federal income support (largely those in poverty), and Medicare, primarily for those eligible for Social Security, Congress in 1972 turned its attention to concerns about containing costs in those programs. Tennessee has been a pioneer in managing its Medicaid costs, and Congress might benefit from the Tennessee experience with TennCare, the state's Medicaid program. About 30 years ago, Tennessee faced unsustainable annual increases in its Medicaid program. A popular Democratic governor, Ned McWherter, called the state's Medicaid program the Pac Man of the state's budget. He sought to find a way to pay for the Medicaid increases through a state income tax (Tennessee does not have one) but failed. The TennCare program was designed to address the issue by containing the rate of increase in costs. Tennessee received a waiver so that it could implement a universal and mandatory managed care program. Tennessee had no managed care in Medicaid, and a move to 100 percent managed care was projected to reduce costs by 20-25 percent on a recurring basis. Support from patient advocates was secured by agreeing that cost savings would be used to increase access to Medicaid to previously uncovered persons. The mandatory Medicaid managed care program was deemed such a success that, in 1997, Congress allowed states to implement Medicaid managed care without a waiver. Managed care introduced economic considerations into the process of medical decision-making. While the cost savings projections were pretty much on target; once those savings were fully realized, the projections recognized that the rate of cost escalation would be restored, albeit from a lower cost basis. That projection also turned out to be pretty accurate. A Republican governor, Don Sundquist, succeeded McWherter and unsuccessfully sought to implement an income tax. Another wonderful Democratic governor, Phil Bredesen, was elected to succeed Sundquist under a promise not to seek an income tax. Bredesen was determined to find a way to manage down the rate of increase of Medicaid spending. I served as his outside counsel. A reform team determined that the target for reform should focus on the concept of 'medical necessity.' That insight was informed by work I had done as part of an Institute of Medicine study group, which looked at hospital staffing in a system that had recently merged three hospitals. There were three distinct models, and no consensus about which was the 'right' one. Traditionally, the concept of 'medical necessity' was the term used to define the scope of benefits under health plans, including Medicaid. The concept assumed that there was a single correct way of practicing medicine, and that it had a justification based on scientific consensus. But the existence of clinical uncertainty called into question that traditional view. As it turned out, many alternatives were available at varying costs, and evidence of superiority of one particular approach was often lacking. Those insights led to the policy conclusion that, if a more expensive alternative were proposed, the state should not pay for that more expensive alternative unless there was good scientific evidence that it was superior and worth the additional cost. If an aspirin were adequate, it should be used instead of a more expensive prescription-based alternative. If an adequate outpatient procedure were available at lower cost, TennCare should not pay for a more expensive inpatient option. These insights resulted in a TennCare definition of 'medical necessity' that could serve as a national model at considerable (but hard to measure) cost savings. That definition has been in place for nearly 20 years and has been approved by a federal court. TennCare has kept costs manageable so that the state has been able to live within existing sources of revenue, and the state even proposed to accept financial risk if it could share in the cost savings from TennCare above a projected baseline. The TennCare definition includes the traditional requirement that a medical item or service be recommended by a treating physician (no doctor shopping) and that it be 'safe and effective.' The reasonably anticipated medical benefits must 'outweigh' the reasonably anticipated medical risks 'based on the enrollee's condition and scientifically supported evidence' to be covered under TennCare. That is, a medically based risk-benefit calculation is a requirement as part of medical decision-making. The innovative aspects have three components. First, a medical item or service must be required 'in order to diagnose or treat an enrollee's medical condition.' That circumscribes the type of item or service covered under the program. Second, the medical item or service must be the 'least costly alternative course of diagnosis or treatment.' That expressly incorporates economic factors into medical decision-making. An alternative course of diagnosis or treatment 'may include observation, lifestyle or behavioral changes, or, where appropriate, no treatment at all.' If an item or service can be safely provided in an outpatient setting at lower cost, then that is what TennCare will pay for. More expensive inpatient treatment is not 'medically necessary.' Third, the less costly alternative need only be 'adequate for the medical condition of the enrollee.' The yardstick is not the best possible standard or some comparison with private plans. The standard of 'adequacy' means that sub-standard medicine is not acceptable, but that some differences between benefits for TennCare enrollees and those on private plans are acceptable. These innovations were controversial 20 years ago, when proposed and enacted, but they have become part of the fabric of TennCare and have been in place successfully for two decades. They help shape the medical decision-making culture that costs are to be considered and that the issue is the adequacy of care not what might be available in some private plans. That type of modest stratification, by the way, is expressly endorsed in the Affordable Care Act. Section 1302(b)(5) expressly allows for supplementation by health plans beyond the essential health benefits mandated by the Affordable Care Act. In the discussions that led to these reforms, the estimated range of savings was from 1 percent to 5 percent of total Medicaid spending. In an environment in which a program entails large expenditures, even a 1 percent per year savings could be considerable. James F. Blumstein is University Distinguished Professor at Vanderbilt Law School and the director of Vanderbilt's Health Policy Center. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Pelosi's prime profits prove it's time to ban Congress' stock trading
Gee, look at that: Nancy and Paul Pelosi had yet another 'lucky' year on the stock market in 2024. What will it take for Congress to crack down on its members' insider trading? New required disclosures show the former House speaker and her hubby raked in $7.8 million to $42.5 million last year, bumping their estimated net worth to as much $413 million. (The law doesn't make them share exact numbers.) And a good chunk of that eye-popping wealth comes from their impressive stock portfolio, which is so consistently lucrative that entire social-media accounts are dedicated to tracking the Pelosis' buys and sells. Nancy maintains that she owns no stocks (it's all hubby Paul) and (says a mouthpiece) she 'has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions.' Which, even if she said that herself, under oath, leaves plenty of room for Paul to trade on the basis of inside information — whether things she learns on the job, or info fed to either of them for favors past, present or future from the ex-speaker. Certainly, Paul has made some uncannily sharp moves in the markets. In fact, his portfolio outperformed every major hedge fund last year. In July, he sold 5,000 shares of Microsoft, months before the Federal Trade Commission announced an antitrust investigation into the company. And he dumped 2,000 Visa shares months before the Justice Department sued the company for allegedly monopolizing the debit-card market. If he were an average Joe, the Securities and Exchange Commission would be picking through his records with a fine-tooth comb — because that kind of foresight reeks of insider knowledge. Fine; maybe Paul is a modern-day Nostradamus, somehow working his market magic without the least bit of impropriety. But it sure is fishy for any top official's family member to pull in millions this way, year after year after year. We doubt hard proof will ever come to light; the Pelosis are far too smart to leave a clear trail. But they're only the most notable examples of this game: Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle regularly make good money off the market; the portfolios of dozens of Democrats and Republicans in Congress beat the S&P 500 in 2024, according to watchdog Unusual Whales. Maybe they're just really good at making trades — but the simple fact is that neither the House nor Senate does anything serious to prevent such abuse of privileged information. Even if all (or the majority) don't use that knowledge, allowing them to make trades offers too many opportunities for corruption. And when they keep scoring big on market bets for decades, a la the Pelosis, it reeks. House Speaker Mike Johnson and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have both signaled they would support a ban on congressional stock trading — the kind that Nancy blocked repeatedly as speaker. Getting that passed before next year's midterms should be a priority for Republicans — clear proof that they want to clean up Congress. If a career in the House no longer makes it easy to get rich, the next potential Pelosi might just go into an entirely different line of work.
