Children in Tennessee will go hungry if state does not renew Summer EBT program
The state must decide by Saturday, Feb. 15, whether to continue to distribute federal food assistance to relieve child hunger during the summer. The clock is ticking.
The federal program provides nutrition assistance to low-income kids during the summer months when school is out, and they don't have access to free or below-cost school meals.
Research over decades has shown that child hunger increases during school vacations. In what is supposed to be a carefree time of play, poor children suffer the pangs of chronic hunger. Inadequate diet impacts their ability to focus and succeed when they return to school, with lifelong effects on their health and well-being.
During the pandemic, the federal government provided financial assistance via electronic benefits transfer ('EBT') cards to millions of families across the nation, dramatically reducing hunger.
EBT cards are debit cards which enabled families to buy food for their children when schools were closed and they lacked access to school meals. The program ended with the pandemic, but educators, pediatricians and child nutrition experts convinced Congress that the need continues whenever schools are closed.
Last year, with strong bipartisan support, Congress established the Summer EBT program. For children to receive Summer EBT assistance, their state must opt to administer the program. The federal government covers the entire cost of the children's food, and the state and federal governments split the administrative cost.
We can be proud that the Volunteer State was among the first states in our region to offer to administer Summer EBT when the program began last summer.
The program is a lifeline at a time when inflation in food prices makes it impossible for too many families to provide adequate nutrition for their children.
The Tennessee Department of Human Services worked hard to create the administrative infrastructure to distribute the cards. Approximately 700,000 Tennessee children received nutrition assistance, and more than $80 million in federal funds flowed into the state's economy.
Tennessee did such a good job that it inspired our neighbors, including Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, North Carolina and Virginia, to implement Summer EBT beginning in 2025.
Unfortunately, the need for summer nutrition assistance for Tennessee' low-income children will continue in the coming year and beyond.
The deadline is looming, and so far, Tennessee has declined to renew its commitment to distribute Summer EBT. If we fail to do so, hundreds of thousands of children will experience hunger this summer, millions in federal aid will go unused, and the state and families will be the poorer for it.
A recent poll shows that 86% of Tennesseans of all persuasions want our kids to get the benefit of this important federal program, which alleviates hunger at minimal cost to the state. It's a common sense response to a serious problem. It is also the right thing to do. And, as Dr. King reminds us, the time is always right to do the right thing.
The Right Rev. Brian L. Cole serves as the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of East Tennessee (The Episcopal Church).
The Rev. Dr. Kevin L. Strickland serves as the Bishop of the Southeastern Synod (AL, GA, MS, TN) for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Tennessee children will go hungry without Summer EBT program | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
9 hours ago
- UPI
RFK Jr.'s plan to overhaul 'vaccine court' system would see opposition
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been a critic of the vaccine court, calling it 'biased' against compensating people, slow and unfair. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo Aug. 18 (UPI) -- For almost 40 years, people who suspect they've been harmed by a vaccine have been able to turn to a little-known system called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program -- often simply called the vaccine court. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been a critic of the vaccine court, calling it "biased" against compensating people, slow and unfair. He has said that he wants to "revolutionize" or "fix" this system. I'm a scholar of law, health and medicine. I investigated the history, politics and debates about the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in my book Vaccine Court: The Law and Politics of Injury. Although vaccines are extensively tested and monitored, and are both overwhelmingly safe for the vast majority of people and extremely cost-effective, some people will experience a harmful reaction to a vaccine. The vaccine court establishes a way to figure out who those people are and to provide justice to them. Having studied the vaccine court for 15 years, I agree that it could use some fixing. But changing it dramatically will be difficult and potentially damaging to public health. Deciphering vaccine injuries The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is essentially a process that enables doctors, lawyers, patients, parents and government officials to determine who deserves compensation for a legitimate vaccine injury. It was established in 1986 by an act of Congress to solve a specific social problem: possible vaccine injuries to children from the whole-cell pertussis vaccine. That vaccine, which was discontinued in the United States in the 1990s, could cause alarming side effects like prolonged crying and convulsions. Parents sued vaccine manufacturers, and some stopped producing vaccines. Congress was worried that lawsuits would collapse the country's vaccine supply, allowing diseases to make a comeback. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 created the vaccine court process and shielded vaccine manufacturers from these lawsuits. Here's how it works: A person who feels they have experienced a vaccine-related injury files a claim to be heard by a legal official called a special master in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The Health and Human Services secretary is named as the defendant and is represented by Department of Justice attorneys. Doctors who work for HHS evaluate the medical records and make a recommendation about whether they think the vaccine caused the person's medical problem. Some agreed-upon vaccine injuries are listed for automatic compensation, while other outcomes that are scientifically contested go through a hearing to determine if the vaccine caused the problem. Awards come from a trust fund, built up through a 75-cent excise tax on each dose of covered vaccine sold. Petitioners' attorneys who specialize in vaccine injury claims are paid by the trust fund, whether they win or lose. Some updates needed Much has changed in the decades since Congress wrote the law, but Congress has not enacted updates to keep up. For instance, the law supplies only eight special masters to hear all the cases, but the caseload has risen dramatically as more vaccines have been covered by the law. It set a damages cap of $250,000 in 1986, but did not account for inflation. The statute of limitations for an injury is three years, but in my research, I found many people file too late and miss their chance. When the law was written, it only covered vaccines recommended for children. In 2023, the program expanded to include vaccines for pregnant women. Vaccines just for adults, like shingles, are not covered. COVID-19 vaccine claims go to another system for emergency countermeasures vaccines that has been widely criticized. These vaccines could be added to the program, as lawyers who bring claims there have advocated. These reform ideas are "friendly amendments" with bipartisan support. Kennedy has mentioned some of them, too. A complex system is hard to revolutionize Kennedy hasn't publicly stated enough details about his plan for the vaccine court to reveal the changes he intends to make. The first and least disruptive course of action would be to ask Congress to pass the bipartisan reforms noted above. But some of his comments suggest he may seek to dismantle it, not fix it. None of his options are straightforward, however, and consequences are hard to predict. Straight up changing the vaccine court's structure would probably be the most difficult path. It requires Congress to amend the 1986 law that set it up and President Donald Trump to sign the legislation. Passing the bill to dismantle it requires the same process. Either direction involves all the difficulties of getting a contentious bill through Congress. Even the "friendly amendments" are hard -- a 2021 bill to fix the vaccine court was introduced but failed to advance. However, there are several less direct possibilities. Adding autism to the injuries list Kennedy has long supported discredited claims about harms from vaccines, but the vaccine court has been a bulwark against claims that lack mainstream scientific support. For example, the vaccine court held a yearslong court process from 2002 to 2010 and found that autism was not a vaccine injury. The autism trials drew on 50 expert reports, 939 medical articles and 28 experts testifying on the record. The special masters deciding the cases found that none of the causation hypotheses put forward to connect autism and vaccines were reliable as medical or scientific theories. Much of Kennedy's ire is directed at the special masters, who he claims "prioritize the solvency" of the system "over their duty to compensate victims." But the special masters do not work for him. Rather, they are appointed by a majority of the judges in the Court of Federal Claims for four-year terms -- and those judges themselves have 15-year terms. Kennedy cannot legally remove any of them in the middle of their service to install new judges who share his views. Given that, he may seek to put conditions like autism on the list of presumed vaccine injuries, in effect overturning the special masters' decisions. Revising the list of recognized injuries to add ones without medical evidence is within Kennedy's powers, but it would still be difficult. It requires a long administrative process with feedback from an advisory committee and the public. Such revisions have historically been controversial, and are usually linked to major scientific reviews of their validity. Public health and medical groups are already mobilized against Kennedy's vaccine policy moves. If he failed to follow legally required procedures while adding new injuries to the list, he could be sued to stop the changes. Targeting vaccine manufacturers Kennedy could also lean on his newly reconstituted Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to withdraw recommendations for certain vaccines, which would also remove them from eligibility in the vaccine compensation court. Lawsuits against manufacturers could then go straight to regular courts. On Thursday, the Department of Health and Human Services may have taken a step in this direction by announcing the revival of a childhood vaccine safety task force in response to a lawsuit by anti-vaccine activists. Kennedy has also supported legislation that would allow claims currently heard in vaccine court to go to regular courts. These drastic reforms could essentially dismantle the vaccine court. People claiming vaccine injuries could hope to win damages through personal injury lawsuits in the civil justice system instead of vaccine court, perhaps by convincing a jury or getting a settlement. These types of settlements were what prompted the creation of the vaccine court in the first place. But these lawsuits could be hard to win. There is a higher bar for scientific evidence in regular courts than in vaccine court, and plaintiffs would have to sue large corporations rather than file a government claim. Raising the idea of reforming the vaccine court has provoked strong reactions across the many groups with a stake in the program. It is a complex system with multiple constituents, and Kennedy's approaches so far pull in different directions. The push to revolutionize it will test the strength of its complex design, but the vaccine court may yet hold up. Anna Kirkland is a professor of women's and gender studies a the University of Michigan. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary ae solely those of the author.
Bloomberg
11 hours ago
- Bloomberg
How the Moms and Dads of Patients Won Sarepta's Drug a Reprieve
By and Robert Langreth Save The parents leaped into action as soon as health officials asked Sarepta Therapeutics Inc. to stop selling an expensive gene therapy used to treat a rare muscle disease that affects boys and young men. Some traveled to Washington to meet with members of Congress. Others reached out to White House contacts. Still others wrote letters to the Food and Drug Administration directly. They demanded the FDA restore access to the drug Elevidys for Duchenne muscular dystrophy — even though a big trial failed to prove it slowed the disease's progression. In fact, for some, the treatment appeared to be deadly.
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
Obamacare faces a subsidy cliff — don't bail it out without reform
The controversy over the 2010 Affordable Care Act dominated Barack Obama's presidency. The implementation of ObamaCare caused health insurance premiums to soar and nearly collapsed the market entirely. The Biden administration responded by flooding the system with expanded federal subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. To stop premiums for older workers with pre-existing conditions from suddenly leaping by $10,000, Republicans will need to extend part of this additional funding. But in return, they should insist on reforms to allow healthy Americans to purchase better value insurance with their own money. The Affordable Care Act required health insurers to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions at the same price as enrollees who signed up before they got sick. As a result, premiums more than doubled, millions of healthy enrollees dropped coverage and many insurers abandoned the market. The Affordable Care Act kept the individual health insurance market from falling apart completely by providing subsidies to low-income enrollees. But individuals earning more than $62,600 in 2025 would have faced full premiums without any assistance. Those unsubsidized enrollees felt the full pain of the Affordable Care Act's premium hikes. The legislation allows insurers to charge older enrollees up to three times what they do the youngest, and so unsubsidized premiums for near-retirees can be huge. This year, the benchmark unsubsidized premium for a 61-year-old individual in Washington, D.C., is $15,402 per year. Rather than fix ObamaCare's structure, the newly-elected Democratic Congress in 2021 threw money at the problem with the American Rescue Plan Act. By expanding eligibility for subsidies to higher earners, the act reduced the cost of health insurance for a 61-year-old earning $70,000 from $15,402 to $5,950 — with federal taxpayers covering the difference. That legislation also expanded the generosity of subsidies for lower earners. Those earning $22,000, who would have contributed $756 to the cost of insurance under the original Affordable Care Act, would get it entirely paid for by the federal government. This approach has been hugely expensive. In May 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that subsidies for the Affordable Care Act would cost $67 billion in 2024. Last June, following a renewal of the American Rescue Plan Act's increased subsidies, the Congressional Budget Office's revised cost estimate for 2024 surged to $129 billion. A recent Paragon Institute report found that this leap in cost owed much to a surge in enrollment among those who received coverage free of charge. Paragon estimated that such enrollees accounted for nearly half of new enrollment, and that 5 million people may have misreported their income to claim free coverage, costing taxpayers an additional $20 billion. Insurers eagerly welcomed the influx of new healthy enrollees, who had not deemed it worth purchasing insurance from the individual market until the federal government paid the entire price. Such newcomers proved enormously lucrative, as they used less medical care than existing enrollees but generated the same revenue. Democrats, who received twice as much in campaign contributions as Republicans from Blue Cross Blue Shield in 2024, eagerly boasted about reducing the number of uninsured Americans, with little concern for the cost. The expiry of the American Rescue Plan Act subsidies is now looming again, set to expire at the end of 2025. It will be up to a Republican president and Republican-led Congress to find a way forward. Fiscal conservatives have little appetite to pay for renewing all the expanded ObamaCare subsidies. But nor will they feel comfortable letting the American Rescue Plan Act's enhanced subsidies expire entirely, as this would result in a $10,000-per-year premium hike on thousands of middle-income near-retirees. Congress should focus on targeted support by eliminating the cap on eligibility for the Affordable Care Act's original subsidies, which limit premiums at 9.5 percent of income, to avoid a sudden benefit cliff for those with incomes just above $62,600. But they should also let other expansions of subsidies expire. In return, Republicans should insist that Americans be allowed to obtain discounted premiums if they purchase insurance before they get sick. In 2017, President Trump allowed Americans to do this by purchasing short-term insurance. However, in 2024, the Biden administration limited the duration of these plans to four months. This came following pressure from big insurers, who claimed that allowing the expansion of such plans would prevent them from cross-subsidizing enrollees with pre-existing conditions by overcharging those who signed up while healthy. In reality, the restriction of these affordable plans has served mostly to inflate insurers' profits. Healthy enrollees remain able to purchase short-term plans afresh every few months; it is only those who subsequently become sick who are deprived of coverage. Regulatory protections for the long-term coverage of enrollees in non-ObamaCare plans should be strengthened; not weakened. Furthermore, with the extension of the American Rescue Plan Act's premium cap, federal subsidies taxpayers directly subsidize most enrollees. It is therefore unnecessary to also prohibit healthy enrollees from obtaining insurance plans which offer long-term coverage at good value for their money.
