logo
Governor, advocates talk next steps after bills aimed at doctor shortage fail

Governor, advocates talk next steps after bills aimed at doctor shortage fail

Yahoo28-03-2025

Dr. Angelina Villas-Adams wants to "stop the bleed."
And by that Villas-Adams, a gastroenterologist and president of the New Mexico Medical Society, means she wants to halt the flow of New Mexico medical providers to other states.
"We need a fix for our state and for our patients … and we need a fix for the medical community, so that physicians and providers and clinicians can have a safe space to practice medicine," Villas-Adams said in an interview.
That fix didn't come during this year's legislative session. Though lawmakers repeatedly framed New Mexico's shortage of medical providers as a priority, the Legislature failed to pass most of its major health care workforce reforms, including an overhaul of the medical malpractice system and interstate compacts to ease the arrival of practitioners.
The health care worker shortage has grown so dire, in fact, that it created common ground among the Legislature's Republican leadership and Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. In comments following the conclusion of the session, both urged more work on the issue.
In a letter to the governor, all six Republican legislative leaders called for "an immediate special session" to address "the inability of New Mexicans to receive health care due to the lack of medical professionals," in addition to the state's violent crime problem.
'I don't disagree with the Republican caucus's sentiment on malpractice and on our doctor shortage. It is real,' Lujan Grisham said during a news conference Saturday.
There is always next year — though passing nonbudget-related bills during the 30-day budget session in 2026 will require special permission from the governor.
But Villas-Adams argued the issue has to be addressed — and soon.
"We don't have two years," she said. "People are having delayed diagnosis. People are going to die or are dying because they aren't getting access to care."
This year's legislative session didn't move the needle on New Mexico's health care worker shortage, said Troy Clark, president and CEO of the New Mexico Hospital Association.
"Where it leaves us today is, unfortunately, the same place we've been," he said in an interview.
There's no "silver bullet" for the state's health care system, Clark said, there are simply "many, many, many things that need to be done."
First on the list to recruit and retain doctors, he added, is addressing medical malpractice.
There were several bills introduced this year to tackle that issue, the biggest being Senate Bill 176. Backed by nonpartisan think tank Think New Mexico, the proposal would have capped attorneys' fees at a quarter of settlement money or a third of jury award; created a reimbursement system to cover injured patients' medical expenses as they're incurred; and siphoned off 75% of any punitive damages to fund a 'patient safety improvement fund.'
It inspired much discussion, with the New Mexico Medical Society and physicians arguing SB 176's changes were essential to lower medical malpractice insurance premiums. Others spoke out against the bill, arguing for methods of retaining providers that don't take away from injured patients or the attorneys that represent them.
SB 176 didn't get its first committee vote until March 14 — about a week before the end of the session — and it failed to advance from there.
Think New Mexico also backed nine bills to add New Mexico to interstate compacts for various health care providers, which proponents argued would ease the process for providers to move to and practice in the state. All of them failed to make it across the finish line.
But that's not to say lawmakers did nothing for health care policy during the session.
"This Legislature this session did a lot of work to help incentivize more access to health care," House Speaker Javier Martínez, D-Albuquerque, said during an end-of-session news conference.
This year's much-disputed tax package, House Bill 14, includes a gross receipts tax deduction for health care practitioners.
And, the Legislature passed House Bill 586, which increases state oversight of hospital mergers and acquisitions. The bill's sponsor, House Majority Leader Reena Szczepanski, argued HB 586 would maintain health care access and affordability as New Mexico grapples with a particularly high rate of hospitals owned by private equity firms.
"The more that private equity firms take over our health care facilities, particularly those in rural New Mexico, they are known for siphoning off profits and literally bankrupting these institutions," Martínez said. "And it is a real shame — it is a damn shame — that that is happening."
So what now?
'I do think our medical [provider] shortage is a crisis," Lujan Grisham said on the final day of the session. "People die when they can't get access to health care. People die when they can't get a cancer diagnosis on time. People die when they can't get the right therapies. These are real issues in New Mexico.'
She scolded lawmakers for blocking "any meaningful work" on medical malpractice reform and reiterated her commitment to keeping providers in New Mexico, noting her confidence that legislators will make investments in meaningful policy changes.
Lujan Grisham promised to keep working on the issue.
'We could have done much more here," she said. "We fought and got some, but we didn't get all the resources we asked for to make sure that, while we negotiate a path on malpractice, that I could keep doctors here and recruit more of them.'
Republican leaders are also ready to keep working, writing in their letter to Lujan Grisham, "We stand ready to work with our Democrat colleagues and your office in adopting effective answers to both our violent crime and health care crises."
Senate Majority Leader Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, said finding a solution will require cooperation and compromise from all parties involved — though there is momentum, especially from Lujan Grisham, to keep those conversations going.
"If there's things that we can do and make it better, I think we're open to that," Wirth said during the end-of-session news conference. "But again, we need to do that with the time to get it right."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senators grill NIH director in budget hearing: 4 takeaways
Senators grill NIH director in budget hearing: 4 takeaways

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Senators grill NIH director in budget hearing: 4 takeaways

National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya faced questions from senators during an Appropriations subcommittee hearing Tuesday, as the federal government agency has taken hits to its staffing levels and grant-making ability since under President Trump. Senators focused on the Trump administration's requested 2026 budget, which calls for cutting NIH's funding by $18 billion from 2025 levels. That roughly 40 percent reduction means 1,800 fewer new grants would be awarded and funded through the NIH and would impact many current grants, according to STAT. The budget also details Trump administration plans to restructure the agency and consolidate its 27 institutes into eight. Congress has the final say on how federal dollars are allocated, so the final NIH budget could look different. Here are four takeaways from the hearing: National Institutes of Health grant awards have plummeted since Trump returned to the White House in late January. One analysis found that the NIH has issued $2.3 billion less in new grant funds between January and April of this year than it did during that same time in 2024. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) questioned Bhattacharya about the drop in grant funding and asked who was behind the decision to terminate or withhold funding. Bhattacharya, at first, tried to sidestep the question but eventually took responsibility for the agency's grant cancellations. 'There [have been] changes in priorities for the NIH, to move away from politicized science. I've made those decisions,' he said. 'Decisions regarding, for instance, Harvard and some other institutions, that's joint with the administration.' The NIH has canceled $9.5 billion worth of funding through 2,100 research grants since January and another $2.6 billion in contracts supporting clinical trials, according to a recent letter signed by more than 2,000 NIH scientists condemning the Trump administration's research cuts. Democratic Senators hammered Bhattacharya over the administration's desire to greatly reduce the NIH's spending. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) noted that research in his home state has taken a hit and that Northwestern University has not 'received a penny in NIH grants in 11 weeks.' 'I'm very hopeful that a resolution can be made with the universities where those decisions have been made,' Bhattacharya said. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) questioned Bhattacharya over the NIH's decision to impose a 15 percent cap on indirect costs in grant research. Bhattacharya said that he could not speak directly to the cap since it is subject to litigation. Instead, he spoke to how changes in the NIH's grant funding process are an opportunity to ensure that funds are more broadly distributed across the country's research institutions. He argued that the agency's research funding 'very concentrated' with 20 universities receive 60 percent to 65 percent of NIH's funding. 'It's absolutely vital that the NIH's investments are geographically dispersed,' he said. 'I would love to work with Congress to think of ways to make NIH's investment in scientific research more geographically dispersed.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) pushed Bhattacharya to answer long-standing questions about the consequences of the Trump administration's changes to the NIH, including just how many staff members have been terminated or left the agency amid threats of future layoffs. Murray also asked the director just how many clinical trials have been impacted by the NIH's grant terminations or pauses and how many fewer clinical trials the agency would be able to fund next year if the proposed budget were approved. Bhattacharya said he could not answer either question but pledged to send a response to Murray's office by the end of the day. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

RFK Jr. made some promises on vaccines to get confirmed. Is he breaking them?
RFK Jr. made some promises on vaccines to get confirmed. Is he breaking them?

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

RFK Jr. made some promises on vaccines to get confirmed. Is he breaking them?

The Trump era is rife with Republicans who abandon their principles in the name of toeing Donald Trump's line. But few have gambled with those principles recently like Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy. The chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in February played the pivotal role in confirming a longtime purveyor of vaccine misinformation, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as Health and Human Services secretary. Cassidy did so despite often citing how 30 years of practicing medicine taught him how crucial vaccines are – and despite his very public reservations about Kennedy's views and motivations on the subject. He also did so at a time when vaccine skepticism has risen sharply on the right, meaning Cassidy's strongly held beliefs were already losing ground. At Kennedy's confirmation hearing, Cassidy recalled loading an 18-year-old woman who had hepatitis B onto an ambulance so she could get an emergency liver transplant. 'And as she took off, it was the worst day of my medical career, because I thought $50 of vaccines could have prevented this all,' Cassidy said. 'That was an inflection point in my career.' Cassidy, who faces reelection and likely a primary challenge in 2026, ultimately gave Kennedy a decisive vote, after obtaining what the senator cast as a series of vaccine-related concessions. But pretty much ever since then, Kennedy has tested the spirit of that agreement, if he hasn't violated it outright. Most recently, that took the form of Kennedy on Monday removing all 17 members of an expert panel of advisers that guides the federal government's vaccine recommendations. Many immediately cast this as contrary to what Kennedy promised Cassidy. It's not quite so simple, for reasons we'll get to. But plenty of other actions could fit into that category. For his part, Cassidy on Monday would not tell CNN whether he regrets his vote for Kennedy. Last month, the senator said Kennedy had 'lived up to' the agreement. But at other times, he has taken issue with Kennedy's actions. It's worth a review of what Cassidy said back then – and since. Cassidy laid out the conditions during a speech on the Senate floor. In those February remarks, Cassidy cited the same vaccine advisory panel Kennedy just cleared out. 'If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' recommendations without changes,' Cassidy said, according to video of his remarks. An old transcript of Cassidy's speech on his own website omitted the word 'recommendations,' leading Kennedy's critics on Monday to accuse him of breaking his word by changing the makeup of the committee itself. But Cassidy's comments pertained to the committee's recommendations. (CNN has reached out to Cassidy's office about the transcript.) Cassidy in an X post Monday expressed concern about what comes next. He cited a 'fear' that 'ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion.' 'I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case,' he added. He declined to go further when pressed by CNN's Manu Raju. Cassidy also said in his February speech that Kennedy had 'committed that he would work within current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems and not establish parallel systems.' But just in the past two weeks, Kennedy announced changes to the CDC's recommended vaccine schedules without ACIP's input. 'CDC will not remove statements on their website pointing out that vaccines do not cause autism,' Cassidy said in his speech. There is no evidence that the CDC has done this. But Kennedy has taken actions that seem geared toward his longstanding and debunked linking of vaccines to autism, which Cassidy took exception to at Kennedy's confirmation hearing. Most recently, this took the form of launching a 'massive testing and research effort' to find the causes of autism, which critics worry will be geared toward vaccines. And indeed, CNN previously reported HHS had asked the CDC to study vaccines and autism, despite strong evidence there's no link between the two. This is one area where Cassidy has expressed reservations. 'I'll point out that has been clearly laid to rest,' the senator said in April of the supposed link between vaccines and autism, according to The Advocate. 'The more resources we put towards that, we are not putting towards actually finding out what is the cause of autism.' Finally, Cassidy's floor speech suggested Kennedy had provided assurances that he wouldn't use his position to 'wrongfully' create suspicion about vaccines. 'I will watch carefully for any effort to wrongfully sow public fear about vaccines [through] confusing references of coincidence and anecdote,' Cassidy said. 'But my support is built on assurances that this will not have to be a concern …' There is no question Kennedy as HHS secretary has said many things that could undermine confidence in vaccines – often using misinformation. Amid a measles outbreak in Texas, Kennedy wasn't quick to explicitly recommend the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, while floating unconventional treatments like vitamin A in ways that experts worried would discourage vaccinations. He also made a series of claims about the MMR vaccine that experts reject. These have included that it contains 'fetal debris' and that it 'was never safety tested.' He has also claimed that no childhood vaccine except the Covid-19 vaccine has been fully tested against placebos. But that's not true — something Cassidy pointed out in perhaps the most significant example of him calling out Kennedy. After Kennedy made the claim at a hearing last month, Cassidy returned to the hearing to correct him. 'The secretary made the statement that no vaccines except for Covid have been evaluated against placebo,' Cassidy said. 'For the record, that's not true. The rotavirus, measles and HPV vaccines have been, and some vaccines are tested against previous versions. So, just for the record to set that straight,' Cassidy said. It was the kind of claim that might lead one to wonder whether the guy you elevated to such a powerful position was actually living up to the agreement that got him there. Cassidy doesn't seem willing to go there yet. But all signs are Kennedy is going to continue making him second-guess his choices.

Louisiana lawmakers pass bill targeting out-of-state doctors who prescribe and mail abortion pills
Louisiana lawmakers pass bill targeting out-of-state doctors who prescribe and mail abortion pills

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Louisiana lawmakers pass bill targeting out-of-state doctors who prescribe and mail abortion pills

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Louisiana lawmakers on Tuesday approved a measure that targets out-of-state doctors and activists who prescribe, sell, or provide pregnancy-ending drugs to residents in the reliably red state where abortions are banned with few exceptions. Louisiana law already allows women to sue doctors who perform abortions on them in the state. The bill expands who can be sued. It includes those out of the state, who may be responsible for an illegal abortion whether that be mailing, prescribing or "coordinating the sale of' pregnancy-ending pills to someone in Louisiana. The legislation, which further restricts access to abortion pills, now heads to the desk of conservative Republican Gov. Jeff Landry. The bill was crafted in response to a criminal case against a New York doctor who allegedly prescribed online and sent abortion pills to a pregnant Louisiana minor, Attorney General Liz Murrill said last month. Murrill argues the measure is 'another tool in the toolbox' to dissuade and hold accountable out-of-state doctors who are 'intent on violating our laws.' The case is at the center of an unfolding battle between liberal and conservative states over abortion medications and prescribing such drugs across state lines. Idaho, Oklahoma and Texas already have adopted similar provisions. State Sen. Rick Edmonds, who presented the bill, told lawmakers the measure is 'a statement' that 'these pills are not welcome' in Louisiana. Under the legislation, the mother of the fetus could sue 'any person or entity" who knowingly 'performs, causes, or substantially facilitates an abortion." The bill defines 'substantially facilitates' as 'administering, prescribing, dispensing, distributing, selling, or coordinating the sale for an abortion-inducing drug to a person in this state." The measure specifies that it does not apply if such drugs are obtained for legal uses. Abortions are legal in Louisiana only when there's substantial risk of death or impairment to the mother if she continues the pregnancy or when the fetus has a fatal abnormality. Women would have up to 10 years after an abortion to sue. Health care providers licensed to practice in Louisiana and pharmacists in compliance with state pharmacy board rules are exempt. Opponents argue the bill is unnecessary because Louisian has some of the strictest abortion laws in the U.S. They also argue that the legislation further hinders women's health care and that heightened legal repercussions could drive doctors from the state. Democratic state Sen. Royce Duplessis described the bill — which was significantly watered down from its original version — as the latest way conservatives are attempting to 'exercise control over women's decision making as it relates to their health care.' 'It baffles me how year after year, after these (anti-abortion) organizations have gotten everything that they wanted — they got Roe overturned, trigger laws took effect and don't even think about getting an abortion in the state of Louisiana, but here we go again,' Duplessis said. 'We have to send another message.' Louisiana already has punishments in place for illegal abortions. Physicians convicted of the crime face up to 15 years in prison. Additionally, last year lawmakers added two abortion pills — mifepristone and misoprostol — to the state's list of dangerous controlled substances. As a result, if someone possesses either drug without a prescription they could be sent to jail for one to five years. But anti-abortion advocates say 'loopholes' remain in Louisiana law. Murrill pointed to the case of Margaret Carpenter, the New York doctor who was charged in Louisiana with criminal abortion by means of abortion-inducing drugs, a felony. Authorities allege that last year, the mother of a pregnant minor requested abortion medication online for her daughter. Carpenter allegedly sent the pills to Louisiana and the woman directed her pregnant daughter to take them. 'These are not doctors providing health care. They are drug dealers. They are violating our laws,' Murrill told lawmakers last month. Despite demands from Louisiana officials, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, said she will not extradite Carpenter. The case appears to be the first of its kind since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. It will likely test other states' shield laws that protect doctors from prosecution in places that ban abortions. Carpenter faces a $100,000 fine in Texas for allegedly violating state law by prescribing abortion medication to a woman via telemedicine. However, a county clerk refused to file the civil judgment, citing New York's shield law.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store